Discussion:
possible easy evidence-proof that CO2 has two or more isomers and animal CO2 far different from fossil fuel CO2//marine plants not flourishing
Add Reply
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-05-12 11:37:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 03:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-atom-***@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <a0bc77cb-b977-4123-93c4-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: possible easy evidence-proof that CO2 has two or more isomers and
animal CO2 far different from fossil fuel CO2//marine plants not
flourishing

possible easy evidence-proof that CO2 has two or more isomers and animal CO2 far different from fossil fuel CO2//marine plants not flourishing

In my published textbook on Chemistry, I wax long on the idea that CO2 comes in two or more isomers-- molecules with same atoms but different geometry. And what I came up with is the idea that fossil fuel CO2 is not useable by plants to breathe, but that plants need the CO2 derived from animals.

A supporting evidence of that was the recently reported research stations where they provide fossil fuel CO2 to plants in a monitored plot and found no large scale increase in growth, but rather a meagre or no extra growth. They were expecting fantastic growth from extra CO2 but got none.

I am guessing that a better research on the effects of CO2 from fossil fuel burning is the oceans. I am guessing the plants in the oceans also use CO2, and the fact that the oceans are becoming rather sparse or depleted of animals due to overfishing. So, that we can check to see if the plants of the ocean are doing spectacularly well, considering the animals that eat plants are dwindling. So if the ocean animals are sharply decreasing, we should expect the plants of the ocean to be sharply increasing, stands to reason.

But, I think the situation is, that the plants of the ocean are not increasing, but rather, they are declining also, just as the animals of the ocean are declining. If true, then this is further supporting evidence that the plants and animals on Earth use only animal CO2 and the fossil fuel CO2 is almost a toxic poison to plants just as CO is a toxic poison to animals.

Anyone report on the dwindling numbers of ocean plants, lately??

AP


True Chemistry Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle 
• $0.00
• 

Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy




Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.

Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2

Read less


Length: 1097 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $2.99 What's this?


File Size: 1948 KB
Print Length: 1097 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLVMMSZ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,150,073 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#960 in General Chemistry & Reference
#7113 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#7705 in General Chemistry
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-05-13 16:22:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
AP writes: looks like just in time with this hypothesis, only it is not Global Warming that is the culprit-- but rather instead, the constant destruction of animal CO2 taken from the oceans by depleting the animals of the ocean. You see, CO2 comes in various isomers, and plants are dependent on the animal CO2, not the fossil fuel CO2 and when you remove too many plants, whether in ocean or on land, you suffocate to death the plants (in oceans the phytoplankton.

--- quote from sci.physics ---
"Now, scientists at MIT, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), and elsewhere have found evidence that phytoplankton's productivity is declining steadily in the North Atlantic, one of the world's most productive marine basins.

"In a paper appearing today in Nature, the researchers report that phytoplankton's productivity in this important region has gone down around 10 percent since the mid-19th century and the start of the Industrial era. This decline coincides with steadily rising surface temperatures over the same period of time."
--- end quote ---
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 03:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: possible easy evidence-proof that CO2 has two or more isomers and
animal CO2 far different from fossil fuel CO2//marine plants not
flourishing
possible easy evidence-proof that CO2 has two or more isomers and animal CO2 far different from fossil fuel CO2//marine plants not flourishing
In my published textbook on Chemistry, I wax long on the idea that CO2 comes in two or more isomers-- molecules with same atoms but different geometry. And what I came up with is the idea that fossil fuel CO2 is not useable by plants to breathe, but that plants need the CO2 derived from animals.
A supporting evidence of that was the recently reported research stations where they provide fossil fuel CO2 to plants in a monitored plot and found no large scale increase in growth, but rather a meagre or no extra growth. They were expecting fantastic growth from extra CO2 but got none.
I am guessing that a better research on the effects of CO2 from fossil fuel burning is the oceans. I am guessing the plants in the oceans also use CO2, and the fact that the oceans are becoming rather sparse or depleted of animals due to overfishing. So, that we can check to see if the plants of the ocean are doing spectacularly well, considering the animals that eat plants are dwindling. So if the ocean animals are sharply decreasing, we should expect the plants of the ocean to be sharply increasing, stands to reason.
But, I think the situation is, that the plants of the ocean are not increasing, but rather, they are declining also, just as the animals of the ocean are declining. If true, then this is further supporting evidence that the plants and animals on Earth use only animal CO2 and the fossil fuel CO2 is almost a toxic poison to plants just as CO is a toxic poison to animals.
Anyone report on the dwindling numbers of ocean plants, lately??
AP
True Chemistry Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item
See all formats and editions
• Kindle 
• $0.00
• 

Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.
Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2
Read less
Length: 1097 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $2.99 What's this?
File Size: 1948 KB
Print Length: 1097 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLVMMSZ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,150,073 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#960 in General Chemistry & Reference
#7113 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#7705 in General Chemistry
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-05-14 17:36:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Apparently phytoplankton are the same as plants on land requiring animal-CO2, not fossil fuel CO2 which would be a toxic poison. So that most scientists seeing a 10% decline in all ocean phytoplankton would assume it is caused by Global Warming and never ever realizing that it is due to the animals of the ocean that are being depleted through fisheries, is causing the phytoplankton to decline.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
AP writes: looks like just in time with this hypothesis, only it is not Global Warming that is the culprit-- but rather instead, the constant destruction of animal CO2 taken from the oceans by depleting the animals of the ocean. You see, CO2 comes in various isomers, and plants are dependent on the animal CO2, not the fossil fuel CO2 and when you remove too many plants, whether in ocean or on land, you suffocate to death the plants (in oceans the phytoplankton.
--- quote from sci.physics ---
"Now, scientists at MIT, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), and elsewhere have found evidence that phytoplankton's productivity is declining steadily in the North Atlantic, one of the world's most productive marine basins.
"In a paper appearing today in Nature, the researchers report that phytoplankton's productivity in this important region has gone down around 10 percent since the mid-19th century and the start of the Industrial era. This decline coincides with steadily rising surface temperatures over the same period of time."
--- end quote ---
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 03:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: possible easy evidence-proof that CO2 has two or more isomers and
animal CO2 far different from fossil fuel CO2//marine plants not
flourishing
possible easy evidence-proof that CO2 has two or more isomers and animal CO2 far different from fossil fuel CO2//marine plants not flourishing
In my published textbook on Chemistry, I wax long on the idea that CO2 comes in two or more isomers-- molecules with same atoms but different geometry. And what I came up with is the idea that fossil fuel CO2 is not useable by plants to breathe, but that plants need the CO2 derived from animals.
A supporting evidence of that was the recently reported research stations where they provide fossil fuel CO2 to plants in a monitored plot and found no large scale increase in growth, but rather a meagre or no extra growth. They were expecting fantastic growth from extra CO2 but got none.
I am guessing that a better research on the effects of CO2 from fossil fuel burning is the oceans. I am guessing the plants in the oceans also use CO2, and the fact that the oceans are becoming rather sparse or depleted of animals due to overfishing. So, that we can check to see if the plants of the ocean are doing spectacularly well, considering the animals that eat plants are dwindling. So if the ocean animals are sharply decreasing, we should expect the plants of the ocean to be sharply increasing, stands to reason.
But, I think the situation is, that the plants of the ocean are not increasing, but rather, they are declining also, just as the animals of the ocean are declining. If true, then this is further supporting evidence that the plants and animals on Earth use only animal CO2 and the fossil fuel CO2 is almost a toxic poison to plants just as CO is a toxic poison to animals.
Anyone report on the dwindling numbers of ocean plants, lately??
AP
True Chemistry Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item
See all formats and editions
• Kindle 
• $0.00
• 

Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.
Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2
Read less
Length: 1097 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $2.99 What's this?
File Size: 1948 KB
Print Length: 1097 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLVMMSZ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,150,073 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#960 in General Chemistry & Reference
#7113 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#7705 in General Chemistry
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-05-14 17:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Quoting Wikipedia on phytoplankton— for i was not sure they had to breathe in animal-CO2

Most phytoplankton are too small to be individually seen with the unaided eye. However, when present in high enough numbers, some varieties may be noticeable as colored patches on the water surface due to the presence of chlorophyll within their cells and accessory pigments (such as phycobiliproteins or xanthophylls) in some species.

End quote

AP writes: unless i am mistaken all chlorophyll requires animal CO2.

AP

Michael Moroney
2019-05-14 17:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Poor Archie. The autism meltdown continues. Hope you get better soon!
AP writes: Rensselaer, is the reason you not yet confirmed true proton is 840MeV
not 938, is because you invest your minds in Moroney not science??
Oh no! Pluto is failing again big time! Trying to involve RPI in his nonsense!
Can anyone help Archie with his autism meltdown?



x-no-archive: yes
peteolcott
2019-05-14 17:35:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Poor Archie. The autism meltdown continues. Hope you get better soon!
AP writes: Rensselaer, is the reason you not yet confirmed true proton is 840MeV
not 938, is because you invest your minds in Moroney not science??
Oh no! Pluto is failing again big time! Trying to involve RPI in his nonsense!
Can anyone help Archie with his autism meltdown?
x-no-archive: yes
Clueless wonders use ad hominem because that's all that they have to work with.
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott
All rights reserved
Loading...