[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] CO2 Experiment #2
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
> 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.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com