Monday, October 5, 2009

Carbon Is Magnetic



The electron density of states on a grain boundary of defects. The arrows (pointing in the reader's direction) indicate the direction of the magnetic moments. (Credit: Kees Flipse, Eindhoven University of Technology)
No wonder we stick to the Earth.

Science Daily: Graphite Mimics Iron's Magnetism: New Nanotech Applications.

ScienceDaily (Oct. 5, 2009) — Researchers of Eindhoven University of Technology and the Radboud University Nijmegen in The Netherlands show for the first time why ordinary graphite is a permanent magnet at room temperature. The results are promising for new applications in nanotechnology, such as sensors and detectors. In particular graphite could be a promising candidate for a biosensor material. The results will appear online on 4 October in Nature Physics.
As usual, WikiAnswers is on the case.

52 comments:

KV said...

OIM,

Carbon as disorganized, or random,atomic structure (lump of coal) is nonmagnetic. Graphite's magnetic properties are of great interest, especially of graphine, a graphite sheet. Same happens in iron or loadstones, except you have to increase temperature to bring sufficient disorder or randomness losing magnetism.

Remember a spinning electron is a magnet. Any electron spin aligned material is a magnet.

OilIsMastery said...

KV,

What's the difference between carbon and graphite?

KV said...

OIM,

Read the first sentence carefully, and you will understand, otherwise, go to Wiki and look it up.

imode said...

@oim, miss you over at Universe Today. I suppose you and Anaconda (I'm assuming you're the same person) getting banned made it a lot less "fun". I digress... your lack of knowledge of the physical sciences is astounding...

As you do, I will answer your question with another question: "What's the difference between water and ice?"

Also, please produce the math that describes the electromagnetic force as an attractive force with a net downward acceleration

OilIsMastery said...

KV,

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

However, since you treat it as infallible scripture I will humor you.

"The mineral graphite is one of the allotropes of carbon."

So now, what did you say the difference between graphite and carbon is?

OilIsMastery said...

imode,

"miss you over at Universe Today."

Censorship Today is a pseudoscience website that hates diversity and freedom of speech.

"I'm assuming you're the same person"

No wonder you don't understand the scientific method. The scientific method requires observation and experiment, not assumption.

There is no chemical difference between water and ice. Ice is water.

"Also, please produce the math that describes the electromagnetic force as an attractive force with a net downward acceleration"

I'll do that right after you produce the math that says why gravitation causes the moon and Deimos to fall away from the masses closest to them.

KV said...

OIM,

You are braindead? Your blog is full of Wiki citation, the unreliable source.

On a second thought, you are a mushroom: kept in dark and feed the sh_t.

Which carbon? C12, C14?

imode said...

By combination of Kepler's 3rd law and Newton's law of gravitation. Something you learn in basic high school physics. Orbital decay is caused by tidal effects. I could give you the exact equations as to why the moon doesn't fall into the Earth... But of course you believe none of this...

Also, from a science text I have:

"Unlike liquid water, hydrogen bonding plays a stronger role in the density and shape of ice than the covalent bonds as the water molecules are pressed against each other very closely. This causes the repelling nature of like-like charges to overcome the forces of attraction in the structure, causing ice to exhibit the unusual characteristic of becoming less dense as it cools..."

In other words, yes they are the same just as carbon and graphite are the "same" but yet they can exhibit quite different observed behaviors....

So I have given you my answer. So now you owe me one. How does the earth impart a net downward force of 9.8 m/s^2 on any given mass?

imode said...

@oils

"Censorship Today is a pseudoscience website that hates diversity and freedom of speech."

Not at all... When ever an article would appear with the word "black hole" or "plasma" you would bombard the comments with handfuls of quotes taken out of context. Then when asked to substantiate your claims you simply insult the person and then run off.

You twist words, take things out of context, salt quotes, supply straw man arguments an answer questions with questions. In other words you contribute nothing. I know you won't answer the questions asked of you because you cannot.

I will assume again (forget about you saying I don't understand the scientific method, which made me laugh btw) that you are most likely a bright, precocious 13 year old who has a lot of interesting ideas but not the experience to back them up.

Jeffery Keown said...

@oils

You are saying that what we feel as gravity is a type of chemical bond? Or perhaps magnetic in nature? It's true, a very high strength magnetic field can cancel out gravity in a localized space.

It took 16 Teslas (T)to levitate a frog a few years ago. Earth's magnetic field is around 31 µT.

In other words: Earth doesn't produce enough magnetism to hold us down. Something else is doing it.

In even more other words: Are you high?

This doesn't even start to address that "so what carbon is magnetic..." not everything that is held to the earth's surface contains carbon or is magnetic at 31 µT and temperatures normally felt at that surface.

You lose this one. (Nothing new)

OilIsMastery said...

imode,

"By combination of Kepler's 3rd law and Newton's law of gravitation. Something you learn in basic high school physics."

Kepler didn't believe in gravitation. Kepler's laws say that orbits are magnetic.

"The example of the magnet I have hit upon is a very pretty one, and entirely suited to the subject; indeed, it is little short of being the very truth." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

"It is therefore plausible, since the Earth moves the moon through its species and magnetic body, while the sun moves the planets similarly through an emitted species, that the sun is likewise a magnetic body." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

"But come: let us follow more closely the tracks of this similarity of the planetary reciprocation [libration] to the motion of a magnet, and that by a most beautiful geometric demonstration, so that it might appear that a magnet has such a motion as that which we perceive in the planet." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

"Newton himself thought that he proved his laws from facts. He claimed that he deduced his laws from the 'phenomena' provided by Kepler. But his boast was nonsense, since according to Kepler, planets move in ellipses, but according to Newton's theory, planets would move in ellipses only if the planets did not disturb each other in their motion. But they do. This is why Newton had to devise a perturbation theory from which it follows that no planet moves in an ellipse." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973

"Orbital decay is caused by tidal effects."

Tidal effects are a myth.

"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness." — Galileo Galilei, physicist, 1632

"…it does not seem likely that it will ever be possible to evaluate the effective rigidity of the earth's mass by means of tidal observations." — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1907

"Newton’s gravitational theory is regarded as proved by the action of the tides. But studying the tides, Newton came to the conclusion that the moon has a mass equal to one fortieth of the earth. Modern calculations, based on the theory of gravitation (but not on the action of the tides), ascribe to the moon a mass equal to 1/81 of the earth’s mass." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

"The implications of employing the present rate of tidal energy dissipation on a geological timescale are catastrophic. Around 1500 Ma the Moon would have been close to the Earth, with the consequence that the much larger tidal forces would have disrupted the Moon or caused the total melting of Earth's mantle and of the moon." -- George E. Williams, geologist/geophysicist, 2000

"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time — the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963)." — Dennis J. McCarthy, geoscientist, 2003

If tidal forces are acting as antigravity to Deimos why aren't they acting as antigravity to Phobos?

"I could give you the exact equations as to why the moon doesn't fall into the Earth... But of course you believe none of this..."

You have no idea what you're talking about.

"How does the earth impart a net downward force of 9.8 m/s^2 on any given mass?"

It doesn't. The moon falls away from the Earth at the rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.

OilIsMastery said...

"How does the earth impart a net downward force of 9.8 m/s^2 on any given mass?"

I have never in my life seen massive clouds fall to the Earth at 9.8 meters/s^2.

Clouds defy gravitation just as all the chemical compounds in the atmosphere defy gravitation by their atomic weights.

Jeffery Keown said...

Tidal effects are a myth.

You do not live near water, do you?

If you do, and you have observed the motion of the tides, please elucidate where this effect comes from, and why.

Jeffery Keown said...

"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time — the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963)." — Dennis J. McCarthy, geoscientist, 2003

McCarthy is wrong.


"The first critical observation is How fast is the moon moving away from Earth now? This linear motion away from Earth had to be estimated from the observed angular acceleration, or it had to be calculated from theory, the former being preferred, since it is an observed quantity. Stacey uses an astronomical estimate of 5.6 cm/year (Stacey, 1977, page 99). Lambeck gives 4.5 cm/year (Lambeck, 1980, page 298). It's an important number, because it reveals the true strength of tidal dissipation. But today the number can be observed directly, as a result of three-corner mirrors left behind by Apollo astronauts. Lunar laser ranging establishes the current rate of retreat of the moon from Earth at 3.82±0.07 cm/year (Dickey et al., 1994).

But what about the past rate of retreat? Paleontological data directly reveals the periodicity of the tides, from which one can derive what the rate of retreat would be to match the frequency. It is also a non-trivial point that it proves the moon was physically there. After all, if your theory implies that the moon was not there at some time in the past, but your observed tidal evidence says that it was there in the past, then it's pretty clear that the theory, and not the observation, needs to be adjusted.

This paleontological evidence comes in the form of tidal rhythmites, also known as tidally laminated sediments. Rhythmites have been subjected to intense scrutiny over the last decade or so, and have returned strong results. Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year. Williams reanalyzed the same data set later (Williams, 1997), showing a mean recession rate of 2.16 cm/year in the period between now and 650 million years ago. That these kinds of data are reliable is demonstrated by Archer (1996). There is also a very good review of the earlier paleontological evidence by Lambeck (1980, chapter 11, paleorotation)

As you can see, the paleontological evidence indicates that moon today is retreating from Earth anomalously rapidly. This is exactly as expected from the theoretical models that I have already referenced. The combination of consistent results from both theoretical models and paleontological evidence presents a pretty strong picture of the tidal evolution of the Earth-moon system. Bills & Ray (1999) give a good review of the current status of this harmony."
Tim Thompson, TalkOrigins Archive

Jeffery Keown said...

"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time — the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963)." — Dennis J. McCarthy, geoscientist, 2003

"Tidal effects are a myth." -OilisMastery, 2009

Make up your mind, dumbass.

Jeffery Keown said...

Clouds defy gravitation just as all the chemical compounds in the atmosphere defy gravitation by their atomic weights.

Energy, convection and buoyancy (that is, Science) not your strong suites, are they, Brian?

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"You do not live near water, do you?

If you do, and you have observed the motion of the tides, please elucidate where this effect comes from, and why."

Do you honestly think that when you can see the moon you weigh less than when you can't?

If the moon has a gravitational effect on water on the Earth then it has a gravitational effect on the water in you as well. I don't feel this bulge when I can see the moon.

Tides come twice a day regardless of where the moon is. Therefore tides are caused by the rotation of the Earth and not the moon.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"This paleontological evidence comes in the form of tidal rhythmites, also known as tidally laminated sediments. Rhythmites have been subjected to intense scrutiny over the last decade or so, and have returned strong results."

"Determination of absolute 'Earth-Moon' distances and Earth's palaeorotational parameters in the distant geological past from tidal rhythmite, however, is ambiguous because of the difficulties in determining the absolute length of the ancient lunar sidereal month." — Rajat Mazumder and Makoto Arima, geologists, July 2004

See here.

Doesn't sound like strong results to me.

Furthermore they state: "It is important to note that all the periods [Earth's orbit and year] were likely of different duration in the geological past." -- Rajat Mazumder (geologist) and Makoto Arima (geologist) 2005

"This implies that slow Earth expansion might have occured if G varies (Runcorn 1964, pg. 825)." -- Rajat Mazumder (geologist) and Makoto Arima (geologist), 2005

Of course all of this peer reviewed science suggests the reversal of retrograde rotation, the myth of gravitation, and the expanding Earth.

TS said...

Ha ha ha, you kill me OIM.

OIM:If the moon has a gravitational effect on water on the Earth then it has a gravitational effect on the water in you as well. I don't feel this bulge when I can see the moon.

Could it be because people are not the size of oceans?

OilIsMastery said...

TS,

"Could it be because people are not the size of oceans?"

Are you saying that the moon has no gravitational effect on your mass?

Jeffery Keown said...

Tides come twice a day regardless of where the moon is. Therefore tides are caused by the rotation of the Earth and not the moon.

I was about to type that any idiot can check a tide chart to disprove this, but you aren't just any idiot.

You're special.

Check a tide chart. It varies according to the position of both the sun and the moon.

Are you done yet?

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

Do you weigh more or less when you can see the sun and moon?

Jeffery Keown said...

Not really. There is a gravitational attraction toward the moon, but one's mass does not change.

You ignored your tide chart problem. How do you explain it?

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

You didn't answer the question.

You seem to think mass is weight but they are not the same thing.

I didn't ask you if your mass changes, I asked you if your weight changes.

If the Sun and the Moon, and all the planets at perigee and apogee, have a gravitational effect on us, how come we can't measure it?

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"Tides are created because the Earth and the moon are attracted to each other, just like magnets are attracted to each other."

LOL.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

Why do the highest tides occur in the Bay of Fundy? Does the moon exert extra special gravitational influence on the Bay of Fundy?

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

You say that tides cause the secular acceleration of the Moon, but as QF points out, there are no tides on Mars. What causes the secular acceleration of Deimos away from Mars? And why does it not have the same effect on Phobos?

Jeffery Keown said...

Isn't that what Electric Universe states?

Weight changes, but not a whole lot... but I assume you have no answer for the tide chart question.

Why do the highest tides occur in the Bay of Fundy? Does the moon exert extra special gravitational influence on the Bay of Fundy?

The near-shore ocean profile is very likely to blame there.

Jeffery Keown said...

Bay of Fundy:

Oceanographers attribute it to tidal resonance resulting from a coincidence of timing: the time it takes a large wave to go from the mouth of the bay to the inner shore and back is practically the same as the time from one high tide to the next. During the 12.4 hour tidal period, 115 billion tonnes of water flow in and out of the bay

TS said...

I could tell you to check this link: here

Unfortunately it's full of names of evil scientists, not mention that it's a satanic sceptical site.

I can't remember if you regard Newton as a heretic or not, but you could check the numbers: here

The result?
When the moon is overhead, your weight (not your mass) will be 0.000035% less than when it is on the horizon.
Somehow I don't think you would be able to feel that, even with your ego.

OilIsMastery said...

TS,

I would hardly call Newton a heretic since it's impossible to believe in gravitation without being a creationist.

As your beloved hypothesis explictly states:

"... lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God ..., Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God* usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved ...."

OilIsMastery said...

As you can see, the hypothesis of gravitation specifically relies upon divine intervention and miracleworks.

"Meanwhile remote operation has just been revived in England by the admirable Mr. Newton, who maintains that it is the nature of bodies to be attracted and gravitate one towards another, in proportion to the mass of each one, and the rays of attraction it receives. Accordingly the famous Mr. Locke, in his answer to Bishop Stillingfleet, declares that having seen Mr. Newton's book he retracts what he himself said, following the opinion of the moderns, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, to wit, that a body cannot operate immediately upon another except by touching it upon its surface and driving it by its motion. He acknowledges that God can put properties into matter which cause it to operate from a distance. Thus the theologians of the Augsburg Confession claim that God may ordain not only that a body operate immediately on divers bodies remote from one another, but that it even exist in their neighbourhood and be received by them in a way with which distances of place and dimensions of space have nothing to do. Although this effect transcends the forces of Nature, they do not think it possible to show that it surpasses the power of the Author of Nature. For him it is easy to annul the laws that he has given or to dispense with them as seems good to him, in the same way as he was able to make iron float upon water and to stay the operation of fire upon the human body." -- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

TS said...

OIM, You brought god into science! again!... You lose...

OilIsMastery said...

TS,

I had no idea my name is Isaac Newton.

Jeffery Keown said...

I think we can all agree that Oils cannot account for Tide Charts. He cannot but fall back on his Newton thought God did it so it's a creationist theory bullshit he uses to end all discussions.

What a moron.

imode said...

Yep, I concur... a moron. I laughed out loud when @OIM (or Brian is it...) asked to explain why clouds didn't fall to the Earth. Did you even go to school?

1. Why does a mass accelerate toward the earth at approximately 9.8 m/s^2? Why is this independent of the amount of mass?

2. Explain the tide charts Oils... You can't right??

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

I'll grant you that the magnetic effects of the moon can cause tidal disturbances, but I do not grant that the secular acceleration of the moon or Deimos away from the closest massive objects to them has anything to do with gravitation.

OilIsMastery said...

imode,

Yes I went to school.

You believe that massive objects like clouds and the moon fall to the Earth at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2 and you are quite wrong.

F = G (m1m2)/r^2 does not describe the motion of any known objects in the visible universe.

Jeffery Keown said...

I'll grant you that the magnetic effects of the moon can cause tidal disturbances, but I do not grant that the secular acceleration of the moon or Deimos away from the closest massive objects to them has anything to do with gravitation.

Because you think of gravity incorrectly. You think of it as attraction, not as curvature of space. Gravity holds an object in orbit, but secular acceleration is caused by angular momentum. Mars' satellites are most likely captured asteroids. As such, they have a "fossil trajectory" of their old orbital components. One is heading toward Mars, the other is pulling away.

Our moon is pulling away because of the extra angular momentum from (Most Likely) the impact that birthed it.

And the moon's magnetic field hovers around 1nT, it cannot affect water on the earth sufficiently to cause the tidal forces we see. So start over. What is it? What causes tidal friction? Why do tide charts precess daily as a product of the the earth's rotation and the moon's orbit?

Quantum_Flux said...

Objects near sea level fall at a rate of 9.81 m/s^2. I never said the moon falls at that rate OIM, you are lying if you say that's what schools teach.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"Because you think of gravity incorrectly. You think of it as attraction..."

I think you are confusing me with Isaac Newton. He's the one who said it's an attractive force. And you're the one defending him not me. I'm agnostic as to whether it is attractive, pushing, or anything else.

"not as curvature of space."

So-called "space" doesn't even exist. So how can it be curved? If space is curved, how come architects can construct buildings using Euclidean geometry? If space has a shape then what color is it?

"Gravity holds an object in orbit, but secular acceleration is caused by angular momentum."

Can you please explain why angular momentum has an effect on Deimos and not Phobos?

"Mars' satellites are most likely captured asteroids."

Shock and awe. So much for the nebular hypothesis. The moon was captured too btw.

"As such, they have a "fossil trajectory" of their old orbital components."

What is the old orbital component and how do you know it?

"One is heading toward Mars, the other is pulling away."

So one is obeying gravitation and the other one is violating it? If Deimos was captured by gravitational force, why isn't it being captured now in accordance with the inverse square law?

OilIsMastery said...

QF,

"Objects near sea level fall at a rate of 9.81 m/s^2."

Except that they don't. Air molecules are objects and they do not fall at that rate. Same is true of water vapor.

"I never said the moon falls at that rate OIM, you are lying if you say that's what schools teach."

Schools teach that the Moon and Earth are attracted to one another in accordance with the inverse square of distance between them. But it's not true.

Quantum_Flux said...

The inverse square law for gravitation is indeed true OIM. The air particles are subject to the forces of intermolecular brownian motion, that is why they remain suspended in the air, and they are also constrained by gravitation which is why the atmosphere does not escape the Earth. Only the rare charged particles are affected by the Earth's elecrical and magnetic fields, but the great majority of air molecules are neutrally charged and thus subject to gravitational forces.

OilIsMastery said...

QF,

So gravity is constantly acting on the chemical compounds in the atmosphere but for some miraculous reason can't cause argon and ozone to fall to the Earth?

imode said...

OIM

Earlier you agreed that water and ice are the same. Fine, so why does ice float in water and not sink to the bottom of the container (or ocean floor)??? They are after all both water. It's because water in it's crystalline form is less dense so it is "buoyant". Now... why do clouds not sink to the Earth due to gravity... hmmm... because they are less dense and are floating on a surface of air?

Now if I drop a feather and a bowling ball from a the same height which one hit's the ground first?? Well in a vacuum they both fall at exactly the same rate. In an atmosphere the bowling ball is more dense and will fall at a greater rate due to having less buoyancy than the feather. This is known as "terminal velocity" and it is related to the density of the fluid through which the object is falling, the drag coefficient and the cross sectional area of the object...

But I suspect right now you are plugging your ears and shutting your eyes trying to block this out

OilIsMastery said...

QF,

How come gravity can't seem to hold the atmospheres of Venus and Mars? Hmmm. Let me guess: they don't have a strong magnetic field.

OilIsMastery said...

imode,

No such thing as a vacuum.

"There is no vacuum." -- Gottfried W. Leibniz, polymath, 1689

"That gravity should be innate inherent and essential to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, February 1693

imode said...

OIM,

You are an idiot... Argon makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere. It also is produced from radioactive decay of potassium-40 which is why it is found in trace amounts. What little of it there is has less "average density" than the rest of the air around it.

Ozone does not get pulled to the ground because it is formed in the stratosphere by a reaction between UV radiation and oxygen. This can only occur in the upper atmosphere because this form of UV is filtered at lower altitudes.

In principle it should "sink. However atmospheric turbulence keeps it "stirred up" where it is converted back into o2 in a reverse process.

imode said...

OIM,

OK.. I'll bite... in quantum mechanics there is no such thing as a vacuum. OK... So replace "vacuum" with "lack of atmosphere". You are evading again.

imode said...

What evidence do you have that Venus is not holding it's atmosphere? And don't just throw out another of your quotes taken out of context. I want to know YOUR reason.

No one will ever take you seriously if you simply respond with questions or meaningless quotes.

OilIsMastery said...

imode,

"What evidence do you have that Venus is not holding it's atmosphere?"

"The team at MSSL-UCL helped build ASPERA-4, an instrument to explore one of the differences between Venus and Earth – Venus lacks a magnetic field. Its atmosphere escapes as the solar wind, a gale of charged particles from the Sun, erodes its unprotected atmosphere."

See here.

vabna islam said...

This blog site is pretty good! How was it made . I view something genuinely interesting about your site so I saved to my bookmarks . You can visit my site.
Triathlon basics books