An important clarification has now been made in the third paragraph of this, using what I am trying to call visual density, which is not an actual increase in the materials density, obviously. The fourth paragraph was heavily edited as well so that what it is attempting to explain is much clearer now. I hurried this too much yesterday as I was needing to rush off to a dinner in the evening. I should have waited until today to post this, but was wanting to include that sentence about Thanksgiving, which ended up having a grammar error/typo. Science Channel Mistakes Wednesday Night Almost Too Numerous to Count Science Channels How The Earth Works attempted to explain glaciers Wednesday night, which included an explanation of water molecules as ice. While doing so the TV show featured what some must be seeing right now as the correct lattice or arrangement for water ice molecules, which resembled several arrangements that have been drawn for carbon compounds. And in the case of glacial ice, the newly fallen snow on top would be increasingly compressed into much denser ice as added layers become overburden on previously fallen snow/ice as time moves forward. The narrator said the reason the uncompressed snow is white concerns the presence of gas bubbles, as if the white glare from gas bubbles in liquid water would somehow also cause the whiteness seen in those upper layers of glacial ice; while he added that the deeper blue ice was simply a lack of those gas bubbles having been squeezed out by all of that compression. But the glare that is seen in any bubbles that are immersed in liquid water comes from the interface (or curved surface in this case) between the water and those enclosed gas molecules which the pressure from the water from all sides turns the bubble into a sphere. For trapped gas molecules floating up in a glass of liquid water will remain transparent while the curved interface of the water thats enclosing those spherical bubbles—once again making spheres due to water pressure pushing in from all sides—creates the glare in much the same way that glare bounces from most any smooth solid object at certain angles, no matter whether the material is black, blue, yellow, green, red, or transparent. When water molecules encircle a gas bubble, greater visual density is created (not a real density change)—or rather the alignment of the parts of atoms or molecules that bounce light is changed for the viewer by that particular angle with respect to incoming light—in certain spots by the tipping of polar atoms and molecules. Now if all atoms were perfect spheres, with no distinguishable north or south poles, then they wouldnt be polar, would they? And it wouldnt matter which end of this or that atom might join with another atom to form a given molecule thats composed of those two forming such a union. Would it? So it would be the tipping of water molecules that forms spots with higher visual density to bounce photons more profusely which causes that glare or whiteness seen in bubbles, not the air or gas bubbles suddenly becoming visible under that very low pressure as if a spot on the side of the bubble deflecting glare were somehow caused by the visible attributes of the gas molecules inside the bubble. No, the gas molecules in the bubble remain completely invisible. Therefore, that white light isnt the color of a bubble, while the glare bouncing from the much more visible water molecules tilting around a spherical gas bubble creates certain angles that reflect more light via there being more visual density to deflect more photons at those given angles. In a glass of liquid water equalization of spacing is imposed throughout by the attraction coming from all of the molecules to all of the rest of the water molecules, which mutual attraction imposes order and even spacing. In a water droplet those molecules would wish to fall away to the surroundings due to gravity, or due to some material next to the droplet that is more attractive to those molecules than the the mutual attraction exerted between water molecules, even as that mutual attraction between them typically or quite often causes those to stay together and heap up to form a small hill—a droplet—which creates certain locations on the side of a water droplet that will also deflect white glare. The same physics mistake has been made with regard to the surfaces of glass or clear plastic. For in those cases glare bounces from their surfaces at specific angles due to the same reason as the juxtaposed water molecules on the top of a water droplet and/or those that are equally tilted that encircle a gas bubble, which is greater visual density at given angles so as to bounce photons more prolifically in certain directions. For when atoms or molecules take up specific regimented positions in a given lattice or molecular arrangement, those parts of them that can bounce photons—whether nuclei (as I have though for a number of years) or those much greater outwardly extending spherical radio shells enveloping nuclei (as I think now)—will change for the viewer as he or she moves while those parts that bounce photons stay in the same places in those formations, which then causes certain angles to be much more deflective so that photons bounce in certain patterns profusely, which is glare. The Science Channel also depicted water molecules bouncing back and forth in the glacial snow in one of their graphics or illustrations that was used in the program, which its producers attempting to be true to what Einstein taught on Brownian Motion is why it is presently believed that water molecules in liquid water must also bounce, as well as the atoms in every kind of solid, since bouncing is seen as atom temperature instead of electron velocity. Therefore, by that, ice molecules would still need to bounce a bit, even if theyre cold, that is if atoms in solids bounce and that comprises the temperatures of all materials—i.e., more rapid bouncing more heat and less rapid or less frequent bouncing less heat. Meanwhile, atmospheric gas atoms and molecules would bounce since those arent anchored to anything to keep them in formation as how those atoms or molecules in a liquid or solid are imposed on in that way. To test that anyone can do the following test to find out for sure whether atoms in liquids or solids bounce. But I only recommend that this test be done couple of times by an individual since there could some amount of risk to your eyes, while I personally performed this experiment about twelve times during the summer of 2011. Find a cotton T-shirt; it can be white or any other color. Lie down outside with your face up on a clear day while the Sun high in the sky. Drape the T-shirt across your face so that its two layers, its front and back, cover your eyes. When looking through the fabric directly at the Sun some of the atoms in the cotton will lens, meaning those atoms will bend photons from the Sun enough so that after passing through some of them, by the time they reach your eye the pattern of the atom will be amazingly magnified many, many times! Apparently, some of the atoms making up the cotton fibers protrude on the edge of the fibers a bit as well as some of them orienting properly so they can be viewed. You will see a nucleus area that is dark, then three to four dark circles out from those, which would be electron shells. The nuclei, by the way, were too large; therefore that seems to indicate that each nucleus is surrounded by, or enveloped within, a spherical shell of radio particles that must contain strong enough composites to stay together when a photon collides into one, including them being large enough to not be knocked away when struck by many of them. Although that staying ability of the radio particles must also be enhanced by their attraction to the nucleus while simultaneously their surface repel works to keep those a certain distance away, which would contribute to their ability to defect photons without suffering recoil over and above the inertia of their greater mass than individual photons. Meanwhile, you will also notice that some of the atoms in the cotton are larger than others. Next, do that same kind of observing one more time, except this time wet the T-shirt with liquid water; but not too much since overly wetting it will block too much light. This time when looking through the fabric watch for water molecules. They will be quite a bit smaller than the other atoms in the fabric, and they wont have any distinct electron shells. They will simply be circles that hill up on one another and then move apart so that you can see a few individuals from time to time, which individuals will disappear when they lift off from the fabric to evaporate. Notice that neither the water molecules bounce nor do the atoms in the cotton fabric. They do not gyrate back and forth whatsoever. And while the water molecules are free to move, they actually move very little. This means Einsteins interpretation of Brownian Motion was wrong. -DL
Posted on: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:23:23 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015