Re: [APD] CO2 Experiment #2

[Jerry Baker <jerry at bakerweb_biz>]

David Aiken wrote:
> On 09/11/2005, at 11:59 AM, Jerry Baker wrote:
> 
>> David Aiken wrote:
>>> In a sterile bucket such as that used in your experiment we  don't  
>>> have supersaturation with O2, and nitrogen is much more  insoluble  
>>> in water than either O2 or CO2 so what basis do you have  for  
>>> assuming that there's any nitrogen exchanging out? It seems to me   
>>> that there's a lot of assumption going on here.
>>
>> There is some assumption, but assumption does not mean incorrect.  
>> If someone tells us that they dropped something, we assume it fell  
>> to the ground (or whatever horizontal surface interrupted the  
>> fall). We do not need to verify that the object indeed did fall. We  
>> know from prior experience and knowledge of how gravity works that  
>> an object dropped will fall.
> 
> Assumption may not mean incorrect, but it also doesn't  mean correct.  
> And your examples are getting tiresome.

I think it's becoming clear what is tiresome.

> You've spent a lot  
> of time criticising everyone else's assumptions but you seem to be  
> happy to accept your own assumptions quite unquestioned.

My assumptions do not contradict previously established principles of 
physics.

> Sorry but you're wrong. There may be good scientific theory available  
> which can help us to predict what the gas will contain, but there's  
> absolutely no evidence for what is actually in the test tube until  
> you get it tested. 

You are behaving irrationally. You demand evidence for things which have 
already been established. If you are uncomfortable with the principles 
of diffusion, I am not the person to take it up with. I would suggest 
you start with Adolf Fick.

-- 
Jerry Baker
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants