/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10602455
>the partial pressure of H2O is a function of the partial pressure of H2O
like >>10602470 said, it is indeed a function of the total pressure. that's why water boils if you expose it to vacuum at constant temperature.

>>8994009
>25 valid arguments against evolution
I just want to point out that the middle (free) space is literally "Therefore, God did it." and you are calling that a valid argument.
okay dawg.

>several no true scotsman fallacies
...you don't actually know what No True Scotsman is, do you?
>evolution and abiogenesis , when the former cannot exist without the latter and vice vera
it's perfectly possible to have one without the other. life COULD have been specially created and then evolved. and life COULD have arisen from inorganic material but then never actually changed. it's just that neither of those is true of our particular reality.
>evolution is nonsensical over human lifespans and has never been recorded or observed
the timespans necessary can be circumvented by using fast-breeding model organisms such as microbes or insects. the Lenski E. coli experiment is one example of evolution being observed, and the curious case of Biston betularia is another.

>>8994034
>science still collects billions a year in revenue for "cancer research" so either they cured cancer or they didn't, Im gonna say they didn't
science HAS cured some types of cancer. there's now a vaccine that provides 100% protection against cervical cancer, a major threat to women.

>>8693329
>But considering that the vast majority of carbon (plant matter) in trees come from carbon dioxide. I think that guy's theory has more credence than you give it.
Just because plants get their carbon from the air (because they are photolithoautotrophs) doesn't mean that more CO2 means more primary production. Plants need more than one thing to grow (just like all organisms), and their growth is limited by whichever nutrient is in shortest supply. In deserts, water usually limits (though the poor soil can mean that nitrate is the limiting factor). In temperate or tropical areas, it's typically nitrate or phosphate. In the oceans, it might be nitrate or phosphate, but it might also be iron (since oxidized iron is very insoluble and therefore is quite rare in the water column).
The very fact that fertilizing soil with nitrate and phosphate causes plants to grow bigger proves that CO2 isn't the limiting factor. If it were, adding more soil nutrients wouldn't help, because the plants would still be starved of inorganic carbon. If buying more flour means you have the ingredients to bake more cakes, you may be sure that eggs are not the limiting reagent.

>But I'm not at all knowledgable on that
And you're apparently determined to stay that way.
I just don't get this trend of professing ignorance on a technical topic but feeling the need to weigh in anyway. If you understand that you don't know much, you should be asking questions rather than making uninformed conjectures.

>Also, mainstream models are often indisputably the case. And that according to Google, is the definition of a fact.
Even if a model has been 100% correct thus far, that doesn't make it a fact; past performance is only a good predictor of future performance IN THE ABSENCE of some major change (e.g. black swan event). And even the best models have their limitations.
You're thinking like a layman rather than a scientist.

>iamverysmart&urapleb
this just makes people think you're overcompensating

>>8515494
>Also, you specifically say "osmium tetroxide does not stain water," but gelatin gel is stained by it, and gelatin gel is mostly water.
holy shit, you are retarded.
vinegar is also mostly water, and it will cause carbonate to decompose. that does not mean that water causes the decomposition of carbonate; rather, a minor constituent (ethanoic acid) is responsible for this effect.
you're clinging to an insinuation that can be disproved by the example of a baking soda volcano. hot damn. I'm not even that other guy, but...