info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Response to Daniel Elton regarding Pollack's Exclusion Zone Theory
110 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Jan 19, 2016, 4:03:48 PM1/19/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Response to Daniel Elton regarding Pollack's Exclusion Zone Theory
http://www.danielcelton.com/2015/11/19/debunking-exclusion-zone-water/
I think you were mostly fair to Pollack in this piece. I had a chance to talk to him for about an hour on the phone last spring. I explained my discovery regarding polarity neutralization through hydrogen bonding. He didn't seem to grasp it. But he at least seemed to be trying. He was also open to my assertion regarding the role of water in the atmosphere being completely misunderstood and mischaracterized by meteorology. (Some of his own speculations extend into the atmosphere, most of which I find poorly considered.)
I think exclusion zone is overwrought. To me it doesn't seem that different from reverse osmosis. But he, apparently, envisions it being many layers deep. And then there is all the speculations that you mention, sunlight, etc. I agree with your assessment. I also agree, as you indicate, that he definitely saw something. But, at best, I think we could say that he discovered another of the anomalies of H2O.
Pollacks shortcomings notwithstanding there are also some considerable shortcomings associated with you "insiders" to the study of water. Being an outsider I think I recognize Pollack's frustration with how you insiders are so completely lost in your own narrative.
Specifically, insiders, like yourself, appear to be oblivious to the fact that your inability to resolve the many anomalies of H2O is indicative of the very real possibility that your model of water carries fundamental flaws. We might even say that you are being seduced by your own model--you are allowing the model to dictate what is valid or invalid. You think you understand what is happening at the molecular level, but actually it is your own model, not reality, that is providing you this confidence. You are trying to fit the round peg of water into the square peg of your model and you are failing. Again, your failure is made evident by the fact that you can't explain anomalies and instead waste your resources trying to dismiss them or minimize them. (You have zero chance of effectively dismissing Mpemba, and it is one of many anomalies.)
I know exactly where the flaws are in the conventional model:
You are myopically focussed on electronegativity differences as being the cause of polarity and you discount, or dismiss, the importance of asymmetry.
You don't realize that hydrogen bonds have the same effect on the electron cloud as to covalent bonds
Due to #1 and #2 you don't realize that polarity is neutralized by the completion of bonds (restoring symmetry), producing a pendulumic relationship that conserves energy (thus explaining high heat capacity of H2O). Polarity is reactivated with bond distance.
Your model of ice and the freezing process is based on idealized notions that have no basis in reality
You missed a gigantic clue that is staring you right in the face that your model of freezing is mistaken. This is copied from my paper:
Although the process underlying the origins of supercooled water--what we might describe as the antithesis of the freezing process--seemed to not have been adequately explained by the conventional model this was not the main reason my attention was drawn to it. Rather, it was the fact that the situational circumstances associated with its origins seemed to directly contradict what is predicted by the conventional model. Specifically, since the freezing process associated with the conventional model indicates an increase in the polar alignment of H2O molecules during the transition from liquid to ice it seems reasonable that one would predict chaotic or agitated conditions as the underlying root cause, but exactly the opposite is the case. Supercooled water is associated with situational factors in which water is cooled very gradually under placid, calm conditions.3 To me this indicated that the underlying mechanism involves the comprehensiveness of symmetrically coordinated bonds being locked in, forming a threshold that inhibits the breaking of bonds without which, in accordance with my hypothetical thinking, polarity remains dormant, preventing the formation of ice. And so, lastly, I hope to distinguish this new model by demonstrating that it engenders an elegant explanation as to why the conditional factors underlying supercooled water involve gradual cooling and placid, calm conditions.
Generally: You are so obsessed with what you think you know and dismissive of what you can't explain. You need to take the opposite approach. You should be dismissive of what you think you know and obsessed with what you can't explain.
In short: Your model has lead you by the nose. You aren't using the anomalies as evidence that would bring you to look for a new model, instead you are spending your time trying to dismiss the significance of the anomalies.
Daniel, you may fool yourself into thinking you can explain away the evidence of Mpemba. But you won't be able to do anything but dismiss the evidence associated with non-Newtonian fluids.
Here is my response to a comment on Physics Stack Exchange that I think is applicable here:
Water is unique. My paper describes why. I am not surprised by your inability to dispute it. In so doing you reveal the ineptitude of conventional theory. But that isn't necessary in that conventional theory has thus far--and despite no shortage of resources--failed miserably to reconcile the numerous anomalies of H2O, preferring, instead, to arrogantly dismiss them, hiding behind the perceived validity of their model instead of addressing arguments directly and, thereby, exposing the shortcomings of conventional misthinking.
The following involves quotes from your article that I am responding to directly:
Dan Elton: My research focus the past three years has been understanding the microscopic details underlying the dielectric properties of water.
Jim McGinn: The inverse relationship with respect to polarity and distance solves the problem.
Dan Elton: I am referring to research that has been pursued by highly respected scientists
which ultimately turned out to be badly mistaken.
Jim McGinn: The fact that it took so long to reveal it as mistaken indicates shortcomings of the conventional model.
Dan Elton: History has shown that research having to do with water is very susceptible to what Irving Langmuir calls "pathological science".
Jim McGinn: It is susceptible because your model contains fundamental flaws.
Dan Elton: polywater was purported to be a 'new phase' of water.
Jim McGinn: Overwrought, as with EZ water, but there is something to this that conventional theory can't explain.
Dan Elton: water was condensed in tiny capillary tubes. Studying something that is confined to a tiny tube is also tricky, and in the same way, studying "EZ water" (water near a surface) is tricky. Jim McGinn: The mechanism that allows water to be pulled up in a chain or polymer (as in trees) is not well explained by conventional theory. My theory describes the molecular mechanism thereof. Conventional theory has, thus far, failed.
Dan Elton: Mpbema effect, where hot water is observed to freeze faster than cold, is a modern day example of pathological water science.
Jim McGinn: The evidence associate with Mpemba is subtle but indisputable. It can't be resolved by the conventional model--revealing fundamental shortcomings of conventional model.
Dan Elton: What do we know about the behaviour of water near interfaces? An enormous amount of research has been done on this topic, but water is complex liquid and behaves differently depending on the type of interface and the microscopic details in many cases are not fully understood.
Jim McGinn:
Dan Elton: Counter-intuitively, the adsorbed water monolayer can be hydrophobic.
Jim McGinn: I've known about this. This has significant implications on my theories of atmospheric flow. Specifically, I theorize tha the inner surface (surface tension on "steroids") of jetsteam vortices (and tornado vortices) has this property, thus allowing them to act as conduits of moist air without the moist air interfering with the integrity of the surface of the plasma-like structure of the vortice.
Dan Elton: Long aside: repulsive van der Waals forces?
Jim McGinn: When all else fails conventional theorists resort to van der Waals. It is used as an excuse rather than an explanation. It is overused.
Dan Elton: The 'phenomena' that he attributes to EZ water are actually just mundane surface tension.
Jim McGinn: Yes! You hit the nail on the head with this comment. But conventional theory has, thus far, failed to account for surface tension. My theory provides the missing ingredient.
Dan Elton: This is done to promote 'speculative research', something which I agree we need.
Kernel of truth
Jim McGinn: We have mountains of evidence. Your theory is flawed. More evidence isn't going to fix flawed theory. My paper provides the missing ingredient to fix the flawed theory.
Dan Elton: The frustrating thing about Dr. Pollack's research is that clearly he is observing some effect, but we can't really say with confidence that it the type of effect he purports until it is reproduced by independent researchers!
Jim McGinn: Excellent! This shows you have not completely closed your minds.
Dan Elton: My specific advice to Dr. Pollack (or his coworkers), is:
Jim McGinn: I suggest reading these two conversations I had with Soper and Saykally:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8KHDL5XTD3U/bMN_XgiVEwAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/catCSHRs2Ns/S70bizqKEwAJ
So, Dan, don't waste your time telling me that my thinking is inconsistent with your model. Soper and Saykally tried that and I threw it back in their faces. Your model fails because you guys failed to comprehend simple concepts like importance of symmetry to polarity. And you allowed yourselvs to be seduced by the idealized model of ice and freezing. And you are way to comfortable with the fact that your model fails to explain so many of the anomalies causing you to waste time trying to dismiss them when these are the best clues you have to point you toward the only chance you will ever have of refuting the model that is the plank in your eye.
Sergio
Jan 19, 2016, 9:35:22 PM1/19/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
<snip crap>
don't post your unreadable and non scientific blog here.
don't post your unreadable and non scientific blog here.
James McGinn
Jan 19, 2016, 11:38:50 PM1/19/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
DE: I think you mean electrical charge?
JM: No, I was referring to the electronegativity differences of the atoms that participate in a covalent bond. For example, H-C, in methane and H-O in water. See this:
http://www.chemteam.info/Bonding/Electroneg-Bond-Polarity.html
This is very important. You have to understand this or you will not understand polarity. I provide more quantitative explanation in my paper.
DE: Then you say, "You don't realize that hydrogen bonds have the same effect on the electron cloud as to covalent bonds." -- well, . . .
JM: My assertion was that your education has has shortchanged you into thinking that polarity is all about electronegativity differences when actually that is only part of what causes a molecule to be polar. Electronegativity one of two factors that underlie polarity, the other is symmetry. And, most importantly, although electronegativity differences do not change symmetry actually does, with completion of hydrogen bonds in H2O. (If this concept isn't clear I recommend sitting on it until it is.
JM: My assertion is that hydrogen bonds fulfill symmetry, neutralizing polarity. You have no dispute with this assertion. All you can do is ignore it, because your model give you false confidence that this can be ignored. And that is the real problem. You've been educated to think you understand something that you really don't. Your instructors have glossed over the details of polarity giving you to false impression that the details are not important.
DE: "its understood there is a clear distinction between hydrogen bonds and covalent bonds.
JM: That is obvious. (If there wasn't a distinction we wouldn't be having this conversation.) You missed the significance of my statement. And the reason you missed the significance, I can only assume, is because you don't understand the how the lopsidedness of the electron cloud on the oxygen side of the H2O molecule is what causes polarity and how the completion of a hydrogen bond pushed the electron cloud back to the center of the oxygen molecule, neutralizing polarity. (Alan Soper couldn't grasp this concept either.)
JM: So, I suggest rereading my statement with this new understanding in mind. A hydrogen bond has the same effect ON THE ELECTRON CLOUD that a covalent bond has.
JM: A little overview:
Carbon has the same steric number as oxygen and, therefore, they both share the same template for the positions of their respective electron pairs, a tetrahedron. Methane is not a polar molecule because its four covalent bonds push the electron cloud to the center of the carbon atom. H2O is a polar molecule because it only has two covalent bonds. However, when hydrogen bonds are formed they have the same effect ON THE ELECTRON CLOUD that a covalent bond has. Thusly, when hydrogen bonds are formed polarity is, effectively, neutralized--the electron cloud is pushed to the center of the oxygen atom. (The implicaitions of this strange inverse relationship between bonds strength and bond completion is what undelies all of H2O's anomalies.) This is the thing you (you insiders) are not grasping. And it all comes back around to the fact that your model gives you the arrogant belief that you can gloss over these details.
JM: You have to fully understand polarity first. And you aren't there yet. Only after you fully understand it will you be in position to realize how completion of hydrogen bonds neautralizes polarity. And only then can you start to understand the ensuing implications thereof. So, hand in there. It is going to take a while for you to understand all of this. Read my paper.
DE: "H-bonds are largely due to short-range dipole-dipole interaction,"
JM: This fact isn't disputed. The dispute is how do we characterize the force or forces that maintain this distance. My model does that elegantly. Your model relies on phantom forces that over-extend the influence of the Pauli Exclusion principle. (See my conversation with Alan Soper for details.)
DE: but they also have a covalent character (there can be charge transfer).
JM: Yes. Pauling discovered this (initially). It dovetails with my model.
DE: "This is standard, well established chemistry, and the IUPAC definition of the H-bond reflects this."
JM: Who cares. You see, this is the kind of arrogance your education has left you with. You barely understand polarity and you are trying to tell me my model is wrong because of a definition that you look up in a book. Definitions don't define reality. Definitions attempt to capture reality and represent it, but they often are put on paper by people that don't yet have a full grasp of the facts. If you rely on definitions to make your argument you are limiting your argument to the intelligence of the person that created the definition. And these definitions were often created by somebody who had limited understanding.
DE: The conversation with Soper is interesting. I haven't read the entire exchange but I agree with his main point - hydrogen bonds increase the dipole moment (polarity) of the hydrogen bond donator.
JM: It is an absurd assertion that he was unable to support except to assert the existence of a phantom force. He is wrong to rely on phantom forces to make his argument, and you are wrong to blindly follow.
DE: That is why . . .
JM: When you present an argument you can't just skip over the cause and start talking about the result. As I mentioned to Alan, you are presenting a "skyhook" argument.
DE: the dipole moment increases from the gas phase value of 1.85 D to the value in the liquid of 2.7-3 D.
JM: Alan discussed distances, not dipole moment. So, you are not making a coherent argument. The pieces of the puzzle of your model don't fit. As you know, the measurment are highly interpreted. Make sure your theory makes sense first before you start pretending to correctly interpret the evidence.
JM: Once again, all I'm seeing here is arrogance of partial understanding. You barely understand polarity, you model doesn't make sense, and it has left you with the false confidence that you undertand what you do not.
DE: In ice, where each molecule has 4 strong H-bonds, the dipole moment is I believe around 3.2 D.
JM: Ice does not involve 4 strong H bonds. Again, this is your model giving you false confidence. This has never been confirmed. It's a belief based on models, not on evidence.
JM: I will try to look at some of the other things you posted here, but I don't see the relevance to my post.
DE: As a final point, I wasn't promoting or using any particular 'model' in this blog post.
JM: I'm saying your whole paradigm, your whole collective belief system (not just you) have allowed the model to dictate conclusions. You did it here, for example, when you stated: ""H-bonds are largely due to short-range dipole-dipole interaction,"
"This is standard, well established chemistry, and the IUPAC definition of the H-bond reflects this."
"hydrogen bonds increase the dipole moment (polarity) of the hydrogen bond donator."
"That is why the dipole moment increases from the gas phase value of 1.85 D to the value in the liquid of 2.7-3 D. In ice, where each molecule has 4 strong H-bonds, the dipole moment is I believe around 3.2 D."
JM: My point is that you state these things with the confidence as if they have been empirically proven, and they haven't. Most of these are conjecture or half conjectures based on interpreted evidence that itself was interpreted through the rose colored lenses of a paradigm that "everybody knows is true." So what you really have is a belief system that gives you false confidence that you understand more than you actually do. And I am seeing this in every person associated with your paradigm.
JM: Stop myopically focussing on the things you think you know. They will only give you false confidence that you can ignore what your model fails to explain.
JM: Remember, at the time, everybody thought physics was in its finally chapter. Electromagnetic anomalies were just a small problem that most thought could be easily ignored. Einstien didn't dismiss the anomalies. He tried to explain them.
DE: I was criticizing Pollack's work on very general grounds, and it follows a historical trend of bad research on water, and you haven't really pointed out anything specifically that invalidates my criticisms.
JM: I agree with your criticism. (I thought this was clear.) I'm just saying that the reason the door is open to the "bad research" is because the current models have failed to explain the anomalies. Your model is flawed. And the reason you can't see it is because you are allowing the model to lead you by the nose. You are myopically focusing on what your model does explain and dismissing what it fails to explain. I gave you a perfect example. Your model will fail to explain non-newtonian fluids. My model explains it elegantly, effortlessly.
JM: My model explains everything your model explains and it explains the things you mode fails to explain.
Thanks for the response
JM: No, I was referring to the electronegativity differences of the atoms that participate in a covalent bond. For example, H-C, in methane and H-O in water. See this:
http://www.chemteam.info/Bonding/Electroneg-Bond-Polarity.html
This is very important. You have to understand this or you will not understand polarity. I provide more quantitative explanation in my paper.
DE: Then you say, "You don't realize that hydrogen bonds have the same effect on the electron cloud as to covalent bonds." -- well, . . .
JM: My assertion was that your education has has shortchanged you into thinking that polarity is all about electronegativity differences when actually that is only part of what causes a molecule to be polar. Electronegativity one of two factors that underlie polarity, the other is symmetry. And, most importantly, although electronegativity differences do not change symmetry actually does, with completion of hydrogen bonds in H2O. (If this concept isn't clear I recommend sitting on it until it is.
JM: My assertion is that hydrogen bonds fulfill symmetry, neutralizing polarity. You have no dispute with this assertion. All you can do is ignore it, because your model give you false confidence that this can be ignored. And that is the real problem. You've been educated to think you understand something that you really don't. Your instructors have glossed over the details of polarity giving you to false impression that the details are not important.
DE: "its understood there is a clear distinction between hydrogen bonds and covalent bonds.
JM: That is obvious. (If there wasn't a distinction we wouldn't be having this conversation.) You missed the significance of my statement. And the reason you missed the significance, I can only assume, is because you don't understand the how the lopsidedness of the electron cloud on the oxygen side of the H2O molecule is what causes polarity and how the completion of a hydrogen bond pushed the electron cloud back to the center of the oxygen molecule, neutralizing polarity. (Alan Soper couldn't grasp this concept either.)
JM: So, I suggest rereading my statement with this new understanding in mind. A hydrogen bond has the same effect ON THE ELECTRON CLOUD that a covalent bond has.
JM: A little overview:
Carbon has the same steric number as oxygen and, therefore, they both share the same template for the positions of their respective electron pairs, a tetrahedron. Methane is not a polar molecule because its four covalent bonds push the electron cloud to the center of the carbon atom. H2O is a polar molecule because it only has two covalent bonds. However, when hydrogen bonds are formed they have the same effect ON THE ELECTRON CLOUD that a covalent bond has. Thusly, when hydrogen bonds are formed polarity is, effectively, neutralized--the electron cloud is pushed to the center of the oxygen atom. (The implicaitions of this strange inverse relationship between bonds strength and bond completion is what undelies all of H2O's anomalies.) This is the thing you (you insiders) are not grasping. And it all comes back around to the fact that your model gives you the arrogant belief that you can gloss over these details.
JM: You have to fully understand polarity first. And you aren't there yet. Only after you fully understand it will you be in position to realize how completion of hydrogen bonds neautralizes polarity. And only then can you start to understand the ensuing implications thereof. So, hand in there. It is going to take a while for you to understand all of this. Read my paper.
DE: "H-bonds are largely due to short-range dipole-dipole interaction,"
JM: This fact isn't disputed. The dispute is how do we characterize the force or forces that maintain this distance. My model does that elegantly. Your model relies on phantom forces that over-extend the influence of the Pauli Exclusion principle. (See my conversation with Alan Soper for details.)
DE: but they also have a covalent character (there can be charge transfer).
JM: Yes. Pauling discovered this (initially). It dovetails with my model.
DE: "This is standard, well established chemistry, and the IUPAC definition of the H-bond reflects this."
JM: Who cares. You see, this is the kind of arrogance your education has left you with. You barely understand polarity and you are trying to tell me my model is wrong because of a definition that you look up in a book. Definitions don't define reality. Definitions attempt to capture reality and represent it, but they often are put on paper by people that don't yet have a full grasp of the facts. If you rely on definitions to make your argument you are limiting your argument to the intelligence of the person that created the definition. And these definitions were often created by somebody who had limited understanding.
DE: The conversation with Soper is interesting. I haven't read the entire exchange but I agree with his main point - hydrogen bonds increase the dipole moment (polarity) of the hydrogen bond donator.
JM: It is an absurd assertion that he was unable to support except to assert the existence of a phantom force. He is wrong to rely on phantom forces to make his argument, and you are wrong to blindly follow.
DE: That is why . . .
JM: When you present an argument you can't just skip over the cause and start talking about the result. As I mentioned to Alan, you are presenting a "skyhook" argument.
DE: the dipole moment increases from the gas phase value of 1.85 D to the value in the liquid of 2.7-3 D.
JM: Alan discussed distances, not dipole moment. So, you are not making a coherent argument. The pieces of the puzzle of your model don't fit. As you know, the measurment are highly interpreted. Make sure your theory makes sense first before you start pretending to correctly interpret the evidence.
JM: Once again, all I'm seeing here is arrogance of partial understanding. You barely understand polarity, you model doesn't make sense, and it has left you with the false confidence that you undertand what you do not.
DE: In ice, where each molecule has 4 strong H-bonds, the dipole moment is I believe around 3.2 D.
JM: Ice does not involve 4 strong H bonds. Again, this is your model giving you false confidence. This has never been confirmed. It's a belief based on models, not on evidence.
JM: I will try to look at some of the other things you posted here, but I don't see the relevance to my post.
DE: As a final point, I wasn't promoting or using any particular 'model' in this blog post.
JM: I'm saying your whole paradigm, your whole collective belief system (not just you) have allowed the model to dictate conclusions. You did it here, for example, when you stated: ""H-bonds are largely due to short-range dipole-dipole interaction,"
"This is standard, well established chemistry, and the IUPAC definition of the H-bond reflects this."
"hydrogen bonds increase the dipole moment (polarity) of the hydrogen bond donator."
"That is why the dipole moment increases from the gas phase value of 1.85 D to the value in the liquid of 2.7-3 D. In ice, where each molecule has 4 strong H-bonds, the dipole moment is I believe around 3.2 D."
JM: My point is that you state these things with the confidence as if they have been empirically proven, and they haven't. Most of these are conjecture or half conjectures based on interpreted evidence that itself was interpreted through the rose colored lenses of a paradigm that "everybody knows is true." So what you really have is a belief system that gives you false confidence that you understand more than you actually do. And I am seeing this in every person associated with your paradigm.
JM: Stop myopically focussing on the things you think you know. They will only give you false confidence that you can ignore what your model fails to explain.
JM: Remember, at the time, everybody thought physics was in its finally chapter. Electromagnetic anomalies were just a small problem that most thought could be easily ignored. Einstien didn't dismiss the anomalies. He tried to explain them.
DE: I was criticizing Pollack's work on very general grounds, and it follows a historical trend of bad research on water, and you haven't really pointed out anything specifically that invalidates my criticisms.
JM: I agree with your criticism. (I thought this was clear.) I'm just saying that the reason the door is open to the "bad research" is because the current models have failed to explain the anomalies. Your model is flawed. And the reason you can't see it is because you are allowing the model to lead you by the nose. You are myopically focusing on what your model does explain and dismissing what it fails to explain. I gave you a perfect example. Your model will fail to explain non-newtonian fluids. My model explains it elegantly, effortlessly.
JM: My model explains everything your model explains and it explains the things you mode fails to explain.
Thanks for the response
Sergio
Jan 20, 2016, 11:16:27 AM1/20/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Conversation corrected, and extraneous noise deleted, 1-20-16, 9:11 AM,
by Gupta.F...@wtf.ru sci.physics
On 1/19/2016 10:38 PM, James McGoon wrote:
> DE: I think you mean electrical charge?
>
> DE: Then you say, "You don't realize that hydrogen bonds have the
> same effect on the electron cloud as to covalent bonds." -- well, .
>
> same effect on the electron cloud as to covalent bonds." -- well, .
>
> DE: "its understood there is a clear distinction between hydrogen
> bonds and covalent bonds.
>
> bonds and covalent bonds.
>
> DE: "H-bonds are largely due to short-range dipole-dipole
> interaction,"
>
> interaction,"
>
> DE: but they also have a covalent character (there can be charge
> transfer).
>
> transfer).
>
> DE: "This is standard, well established chemistry, and the IUPAC
> definition of the H-bond reflects this."
>
> definition of the H-bond reflects this."
>
> DE: The conversation with Soper is interesting. I haven't read the
entire exchange but I agree with his main point - hydrogen bonds
increase the dipole moment (polarity) of the hydrogen bond donator.
>
entire exchange but I agree with his main point - hydrogen bonds
increase the dipole moment (polarity) of the hydrogen bond donator.
>
> DE: That is why . . .
>
>
> DE: the dipole moment increases from the gas phase value of 1.85 D
> to the value in the liquid of 2.7-3 D.
>
> to the value in the liquid of 2.7-3 D.
>
> DE: In ice, where each molecule has 4 strong H-bonds, the dipole
> moment is I believe around 3.2 D.
>
> moment is I believe around 3.2 D.
>
> DE: As a final point, I wasn't promoting or using any particular
> 'model' in this blog post.
>
> 'model' in this blog post.
>
Solving Tornadoes
Jan 20, 2016, 3:25:19 PM1/20/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Also, note the first sentence in the abstract to this paper:
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/rjsgrp/publications/papers/1997/187_gregory_1997.pdf
I read it. Not impressed. Nothing here gave me the slightest confidence that they actually isolated a monomer and measured it. (The only way one could knowingly isolate a monomer involves raising its temperature over 100 degrees C, and then how do you measure it?) Instead I'm seeing the phrase Ab Initro calculations, which is just a deceptive way of concealing the fact that you/they are making calculation based on assumptions ("first principles"). Also, as you probably already know, I consider Saykally a hack.
Because of that last comment, you might want to consider not publishing this. (Or you can edit it out.)
No offense, Daniel, but I'm still a bit perplexed as to how you got as far as you did in this discipline and not be fully conversant in something as fundamental as electronegativity. This criticism isn't directed at you so much as it is at the education system that allowed you to get this far without this understanding. I think you students are inundated with so much blatant, "well-considered" nonsense (Kirkwood) that you are overwhelmed. It just gives you false confidence that, "we got it all figured out."
Do get a better understanding of the factors that dictate the tetrahron on C, N, O, and Fl. Then build upon that to better understand the significance of symmetry/asymmetry and its effect on the electron cloud to determine polarity. After that the neutralization of H2O through hydrogen bonding will be an easy concept to grasp.
Stop obsessing over what your model does explain and start obsessing over what it cannot. If I was you I wouldn't even bother with Mpemba. You will, most likely, only fool yourself into believing you can dismiss it. Go right to Non-newtonian fluids. You will not be able to resolve that with your model. And that will force you to be more skeptical of your model, something you and nobody in this discipline (except me) is inclined to do.
Good Luck
Also, note the first sentence in the abstract to this paper:
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/rjsgrp/publications/papers/1997/187_gregory_1997.pdf
I read it. Not impressed. Nothing here gave me the slightest confidence that they actually isolated a monomer and measured it. (The only way one could knowingly isolate a monomer involves raising its temperature over 100 degrees C, and then how do you measure it?) Instead I'm seeing the phrase Ab Initro calculations, which is just a deceptive way of concealing the fact that you/they are making calculation based on assumptions ("first principles"). Also, as you probably already know, I consider Saykally a hack.
Because of that last comment, you might want to consider not publishing this. (Or you can edit it out.)
No offense, Daniel, but I'm still a bit perplexed as to how you got as far as you did in this discipline and not be fully conversant in something as fundamental as electronegativity. This criticism isn't directed at you so much as it is at the education system that allowed you to get this far without this understanding. I think you students are inundated with so much blatant, "well-considered" nonsense (Kirkwood) that you are overwhelmed. It just gives you false confidence that, "we got it all figured out."
Do get a better understanding of the factors that dictate the tetrahron on C, N, O, and Fl. Then build upon that to better understand the significance of symmetry/asymmetry and its effect on the electron cloud to determine polarity. After that the neutralization of H2O through hydrogen bonding will be an easy concept to grasp.
Stop obsessing over what your model does explain and start obsessing over what it cannot. If I was you I wouldn't even bother with Mpemba. You will, most likely, only fool yourself into believing you can dismiss it. Go right to Non-newtonian fluids. You will not be able to resolve that with your model. And that will force you to be more skeptical of your model, something you and nobody in this discipline (except me) is inclined to do.
Good Luck
Sergio
Jan 20, 2016, 3:42:59 PM1/20/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 1/20/2016 2:25 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
stop posting your troll blog here.
> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
I wish you had quit before you made a complete ass out of yourself.
James McGinn
Jan 22, 2016, 7:22:56 PM1/22/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Although the macroscopic properties of water have been heavily studied . . . At first glance, the idea of a liquid having structure seems preposterous.
I love the clarity of your writing and how you have framed the issue. Good start!
. . . if you were to sit on a water molecule's oxygen atom and observe where other molecules are around you, . . .
This is very clearly explained. Only if there is a pattern would we be able to predict where another oxygen atom is located.
This average structure . . .
I have a problem referring to this as, "structure." I think it is "arrangement", not "structure". I understand your premise. You are asserting that structure does not necessarily imply or require that the molecules are actually touching. There is more to my objection than just semantics. And I do realize the issue you are trying to resolve. And I realize that this issue is bolstered with data--allegedly valid data. So I am sympathetic to why you would use the word 'structure'. I will explain why such special pleadings are not necessary with my model.
This plot was obtained from quantum-mechanical simulations performed by a previous grad student in our group, Jue Wang.
Excellent. Your explanation is crystal clear. I can see that this involves looking at it from three different angles to construct a 3 dimensional model in your audience's mind. Well done! Nevertheless your model is mistaken. I can explain why.
In addition to doing the spherical averaging, RDFs do not tell us if the local structure varies through the liquid. For instance, there might be regions where each molecule has more hydrogen bonds on average,
I understand. It is an idealized model. These are statistical distributions. And you have done a good job of describing what your data indicates ACCORDING TO THE ASSUMPTIONS of your model. In other words, starting from your ab initro (first principles) of your approah this is what you model indicates. But what if your ab initro is wrong? What if we introduced different ab initro principles? What would the model look like if, instead, you started with ab initro assumptions based on the thinking in my paper? Might such a model reconcile all (or more) of the anomalies of H2O than your model? (I mean, let's be honest, the standard model has existed for a long time and the anomalies remain mostly unresolved.) I will present a larger argument to this effect toward the end of this message. But there is a larger, more all-encompassing issue we have to deal with, the difference between how you and I envision ice:
. . . there might be regions where each molecule has more hydrogen bonds on average, (more "ice-like") which would cause the water in that region to have a lower density.
The idea that water may be inhomogeneous goes back to 1892, when W.K. Roentgen proposed that water contains a mixture of two structural motifs - "ice like" and "liquid like". The idea helps explain many of the anomalies of water,
Here is the largest issue that blocks you from comprehending my model. For you ice involves an idealized notion of a lattice--more hydrogen bonds. For me ice involves asymmetric bonds, a consequence of bond breaking (which activates dormant polarity--see my hypothesis for details). This is also true for my conceptualization of surface tension, which is a form of ice in my opinion. (Bear with me on this one. I guarantee the argument will make sense in the long run. You need to temporarily suspend disbelief.)
You and all the other "insiders" cannot remotely imagine that this idealized lattice structure notion of ice could be wrong. But if I was to put you on the spot and ask you to supply the empirical evidence that substantiates the validity of this notion you couldn't comply. If I then pushed further and asked you why you believe something the validity of which you cannot substantiate you might, at best, shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, everybody believes it." And except for me that is true. But that is exactly the reason you should look at it with more skepticism. Whenever you find something in a scientific discipline, any discipline, and everybody believes it and the only reason is because everybody believes it, you know you have found something that is, very likely, false.
The tendency for people to be unable to break away from the psychological attraction of an idealized notion is a long-continuing issue in science. They often are blissfully unaware that the idealized notion is just a conjecture and not a truth and they are seduced into ignoring evidence that contradicts it. And this can go on for generation after generation, spanning hundreds of years. The classic example is that of the Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion. It contained idealized notion of planets moving in perfect circles. Even though Galileo showed that Ptolemaic theory was fundamentally flawed it took hundreds of years before Newton's thinking showed that planets actually move in ellipses, not perfect circles, and only then was Ptolemaic theory abandoned.
By the way, there is no shortage of evidence that actually disputes the idealized notion that ice is a tetrahedrally coordinated lattice. Although you will undoubtedly dismiss or minimize it because it doesn't fit into your paradigm, here is quote from an abstract that I interpret as suggesting that the issue is not quite as clear as you and your insider cohorts would have the rest of us assume:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/137/4/10.1063/1.4736853
Investigation of the hydrogen bonding in ice Ih by first-principles density function methods
P. Zhang1,2, L. Tian1, Z. P. Zhang1, G. Shao3 and J. C. Li1,a)
". . . reproducing the two experimental optic peaks do not need to invoke the two H-bonds as proposed in the previous model which led to considerable debates. The results of this work suggest that the observed optic peaks may be attributed to the coupling between the two bands of H-O stretching modes in H2O."
The first thing you have to realize about the idealized notion of a lattice structure for ice is that nobody has actually ever observed it. The notion began in the 1920s when Bernal (I think) created some models of H2O and began fitting them together to form idealized lattices. One thing about humans is that seeing is believing. When people saw these models and how neatly the pieces fit together they fell in love with them, and their ability to think rationally went out of the window. Thusly an honest conjecture that H2O molecules fit into a lattice for form ice became accepted as a dishonest "truth".
You might be wondering, why am I making such a big deal about ice. Here is the reason: it gets to the heart of your misconception about structure. You genuinely believe that tetrahedral coordination equals structure. (In fact, you believe it so deeply you are trying to insinuate [above] that if we call "arrangement" "structure" it solves the problem.) To you it is incomprehensible that anybody would assume otherwise. And you have done a very good job here of making that assumption explicit (which I appreciate). But you are wrong. In reality tetrahedral coordination neutralizes polarity. So tetrahedral coordination is associated with weak bonding. It is associated with the fluidity of liquid water, not ice (see my paper for details).
Additionally, tetrahedral coordination is associated with HIGH density, not low density. And so, your confused belief that tetrahedral coordination equates to structure is exacerbated by the fact that you think the lattice explains the low density of structure (expansiveness of ice, for example). Being intrinsically less dense than symmetric bonding, asymmetric bonding explains the lower density of structure (ice). In other words, low density is asymmetric, not symmetric. And this underlies the expansiveness of ice. And asymmetry activates polarity, explaining the structural strength. Structural strength is not due to tetrahedral coordination, it is due to polarity being activated by asymmetry, the fundamentals of which are explicated in my paper.
So, you guys are confused on a fundamental level. And your confusion stems from an idealized notion of ice being tetrahedral, when in actuality is is asymmetric. One piece of evidence that demonstrates that I am right and you are wrong is surface tension. A surface restricts completion of fully coordinated hydrogen bonds. It forces lower density, asymmetric bonds. This activates polarity. Activated polarity explains structural strength. But here is the thing. In order for this to work the hydrogen atom of an asymmetric bond MUST be touching the oxygen atom of the adjacent molecule to which is is forming the hydrogen bond. In other words, you can't have structural strength unless you have molecules actually touching.
It is at this point, Daniel, that I can imagine you wanting to scream into the computer screen as you read this. So let me do if for you:
WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! JIM. ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION? DID YOU NOT SEE OUR MODEL. OUR MODEL IS BASED ON EMPIRICAL DATA USING XRAY RAMAN. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT MODEL THAT INDICATES THAT THE H2O MOLECULES ARE ACTUALLY TOUCHING.
I am paying attention. (And there is no reason to scream.) And I don't dispute the data. I dispute your interpretation of the data. Specifically, I dispute the ab initro assumptions. In other words, you "insiders" have systematically misinterpreted the Xray raman data so you have built models that have nothing to do with reality. I suggest the following:
Put aside your ab initro assumptions and instead assume the ab initro assumptions from my model.
Put aside your idealized notions about ice and structure being tetrahedrally coordinated and open yourmind to the possibility that structure might actually have something to do with polarity being activated, as indicated in my model.
Use the same data from that xray raman studies and construct a new model.
As you know, the xray raman methodology does not directly measure the locations of the adjacent O or H atoms associated with H bonds. Instead they knock an electron out of the inner shell of the oxygen atom, allowing one from the outer shell to fall into the inner shell, and then they measure the infrared energy that is the result of that electron falling to a lower energy state on the oxygen atom. The resulting infrared energy signature allows them to make inferences about the locations of the adjacent O or H atoms.
To make a long and complicated explanation short and to the point this is what it comes down to. In my model when proximity between the hydrogen atom and the oxygen atom increases the energy level of the electrons on the oxygen atom decrease and vice versa, the further they are the higher is the energy level. And this is because hydrogen bonding neutralizes polarity, neutralizing the energy level of the electrons, as explained in my hypothesis. Thus you have transposed the significance of your data. Specifically, you have misinterpreted the significance of the low energy levels indicated in the data. The data doesn't indicate the hydrogen atoms are hovering at a distance. Your data indicates the hydrogen atoms are always very close to the oxygen. Higher energy levels don't indicate closer, stronger symmetrically coordinated bonds. They indicate stronger asymmetric bonds in which one of the hydrogen atoms has been pulled away or they indicates symmetrically coordinated bonds in which there is increased (not decreased) distance between the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom. Lower energy levels don't indicate weaker, structurally weak asymmetric bonds, they indicate weaker and very close tetrahedrally coordinated bonds.
As I stated above, the evidence that demonstrates that I am right and you are wrong is surface tension. A surface restricts completion of fully coordinated hydrogen bonds. It forces lower density, asymmetric bonds. It activates polarity. Activated polarity explains structural strength. And surface tension is one of many H2O anomalies that my mody explains that your model cannot.
Regards,
Jim McGinn
BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
I love the clarity of your writing and how you have framed the issue. Good start!
. . . if you were to sit on a water molecule's oxygen atom and observe where other molecules are around you, . . .
This is very clearly explained. Only if there is a pattern would we be able to predict where another oxygen atom is located.
This average structure . . .
I have a problem referring to this as, "structure." I think it is "arrangement", not "structure". I understand your premise. You are asserting that structure does not necessarily imply or require that the molecules are actually touching. There is more to my objection than just semantics. And I do realize the issue you are trying to resolve. And I realize that this issue is bolstered with data--allegedly valid data. So I am sympathetic to why you would use the word 'structure'. I will explain why such special pleadings are not necessary with my model.
This plot was obtained from quantum-mechanical simulations performed by a previous grad student in our group, Jue Wang.
Excellent. Your explanation is crystal clear. I can see that this involves looking at it from three different angles to construct a 3 dimensional model in your audience's mind. Well done! Nevertheless your model is mistaken. I can explain why.
In addition to doing the spherical averaging, RDFs do not tell us if the local structure varies through the liquid. For instance, there might be regions where each molecule has more hydrogen bonds on average,
I understand. It is an idealized model. These are statistical distributions. And you have done a good job of describing what your data indicates ACCORDING TO THE ASSUMPTIONS of your model. In other words, starting from your ab initro (first principles) of your approah this is what you model indicates. But what if your ab initro is wrong? What if we introduced different ab initro principles? What would the model look like if, instead, you started with ab initro assumptions based on the thinking in my paper? Might such a model reconcile all (or more) of the anomalies of H2O than your model? (I mean, let's be honest, the standard model has existed for a long time and the anomalies remain mostly unresolved.) I will present a larger argument to this effect toward the end of this message. But there is a larger, more all-encompassing issue we have to deal with, the difference between how you and I envision ice:
. . . there might be regions where each molecule has more hydrogen bonds on average, (more "ice-like") which would cause the water in that region to have a lower density.
The idea that water may be inhomogeneous goes back to 1892, when W.K. Roentgen proposed that water contains a mixture of two structural motifs - "ice like" and "liquid like". The idea helps explain many of the anomalies of water,
Here is the largest issue that blocks you from comprehending my model. For you ice involves an idealized notion of a lattice--more hydrogen bonds. For me ice involves asymmetric bonds, a consequence of bond breaking (which activates dormant polarity--see my hypothesis for details). This is also true for my conceptualization of surface tension, which is a form of ice in my opinion. (Bear with me on this one. I guarantee the argument will make sense in the long run. You need to temporarily suspend disbelief.)
You and all the other "insiders" cannot remotely imagine that this idealized lattice structure notion of ice could be wrong. But if I was to put you on the spot and ask you to supply the empirical evidence that substantiates the validity of this notion you couldn't comply. If I then pushed further and asked you why you believe something the validity of which you cannot substantiate you might, at best, shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, everybody believes it." And except for me that is true. But that is exactly the reason you should look at it with more skepticism. Whenever you find something in a scientific discipline, any discipline, and everybody believes it and the only reason is because everybody believes it, you know you have found something that is, very likely, false.
The tendency for people to be unable to break away from the psychological attraction of an idealized notion is a long-continuing issue in science. They often are blissfully unaware that the idealized notion is just a conjecture and not a truth and they are seduced into ignoring evidence that contradicts it. And this can go on for generation after generation, spanning hundreds of years. The classic example is that of the Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion. It contained idealized notion of planets moving in perfect circles. Even though Galileo showed that Ptolemaic theory was fundamentally flawed it took hundreds of years before Newton's thinking showed that planets actually move in ellipses, not perfect circles, and only then was Ptolemaic theory abandoned.
By the way, there is no shortage of evidence that actually disputes the idealized notion that ice is a tetrahedrally coordinated lattice. Although you will undoubtedly dismiss or minimize it because it doesn't fit into your paradigm, here is quote from an abstract that I interpret as suggesting that the issue is not quite as clear as you and your insider cohorts would have the rest of us assume:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/137/4/10.1063/1.4736853
Investigation of the hydrogen bonding in ice Ih by first-principles density function methods
P. Zhang1,2, L. Tian1, Z. P. Zhang1, G. Shao3 and J. C. Li1,a)
". . . reproducing the two experimental optic peaks do not need to invoke the two H-bonds as proposed in the previous model which led to considerable debates. The results of this work suggest that the observed optic peaks may be attributed to the coupling between the two bands of H-O stretching modes in H2O."
The first thing you have to realize about the idealized notion of a lattice structure for ice is that nobody has actually ever observed it. The notion began in the 1920s when Bernal (I think) created some models of H2O and began fitting them together to form idealized lattices. One thing about humans is that seeing is believing. When people saw these models and how neatly the pieces fit together they fell in love with them, and their ability to think rationally went out of the window. Thusly an honest conjecture that H2O molecules fit into a lattice for form ice became accepted as a dishonest "truth".
You might be wondering, why am I making such a big deal about ice. Here is the reason: it gets to the heart of your misconception about structure. You genuinely believe that tetrahedral coordination equals structure. (In fact, you believe it so deeply you are trying to insinuate [above] that if we call "arrangement" "structure" it solves the problem.) To you it is incomprehensible that anybody would assume otherwise. And you have done a very good job here of making that assumption explicit (which I appreciate). But you are wrong. In reality tetrahedral coordination neutralizes polarity. So tetrahedral coordination is associated with weak bonding. It is associated with the fluidity of liquid water, not ice (see my paper for details).
Additionally, tetrahedral coordination is associated with HIGH density, not low density. And so, your confused belief that tetrahedral coordination equates to structure is exacerbated by the fact that you think the lattice explains the low density of structure (expansiveness of ice, for example). Being intrinsically less dense than symmetric bonding, asymmetric bonding explains the lower density of structure (ice). In other words, low density is asymmetric, not symmetric. And this underlies the expansiveness of ice. And asymmetry activates polarity, explaining the structural strength. Structural strength is not due to tetrahedral coordination, it is due to polarity being activated by asymmetry, the fundamentals of which are explicated in my paper.
So, you guys are confused on a fundamental level. And your confusion stems from an idealized notion of ice being tetrahedral, when in actuality is is asymmetric. One piece of evidence that demonstrates that I am right and you are wrong is surface tension. A surface restricts completion of fully coordinated hydrogen bonds. It forces lower density, asymmetric bonds. This activates polarity. Activated polarity explains structural strength. But here is the thing. In order for this to work the hydrogen atom of an asymmetric bond MUST be touching the oxygen atom of the adjacent molecule to which is is forming the hydrogen bond. In other words, you can't have structural strength unless you have molecules actually touching.
It is at this point, Daniel, that I can imagine you wanting to scream into the computer screen as you read this. So let me do if for you:
WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! JIM. ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION? DID YOU NOT SEE OUR MODEL. OUR MODEL IS BASED ON EMPIRICAL DATA USING XRAY RAMAN. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT MODEL THAT INDICATES THAT THE H2O MOLECULES ARE ACTUALLY TOUCHING.
I am paying attention. (And there is no reason to scream.) And I don't dispute the data. I dispute your interpretation of the data. Specifically, I dispute the ab initro assumptions. In other words, you "insiders" have systematically misinterpreted the Xray raman data so you have built models that have nothing to do with reality. I suggest the following:
Put aside your ab initro assumptions and instead assume the ab initro assumptions from my model.
Put aside your idealized notions about ice and structure being tetrahedrally coordinated and open yourmind to the possibility that structure might actually have something to do with polarity being activated, as indicated in my model.
Use the same data from that xray raman studies and construct a new model.
As you know, the xray raman methodology does not directly measure the locations of the adjacent O or H atoms associated with H bonds. Instead they knock an electron out of the inner shell of the oxygen atom, allowing one from the outer shell to fall into the inner shell, and then they measure the infrared energy that is the result of that electron falling to a lower energy state on the oxygen atom. The resulting infrared energy signature allows them to make inferences about the locations of the adjacent O or H atoms.
To make a long and complicated explanation short and to the point this is what it comes down to. In my model when proximity between the hydrogen atom and the oxygen atom increases the energy level of the electrons on the oxygen atom decrease and vice versa, the further they are the higher is the energy level. And this is because hydrogen bonding neutralizes polarity, neutralizing the energy level of the electrons, as explained in my hypothesis. Thus you have transposed the significance of your data. Specifically, you have misinterpreted the significance of the low energy levels indicated in the data. The data doesn't indicate the hydrogen atoms are hovering at a distance. Your data indicates the hydrogen atoms are always very close to the oxygen. Higher energy levels don't indicate closer, stronger symmetrically coordinated bonds. They indicate stronger asymmetric bonds in which one of the hydrogen atoms has been pulled away or they indicates symmetrically coordinated bonds in which there is increased (not decreased) distance between the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom. Lower energy levels don't indicate weaker, structurally weak asymmetric bonds, they indicate weaker and very close tetrahedrally coordinated bonds.
As I stated above, the evidence that demonstrates that I am right and you are wrong is surface tension. A surface restricts completion of fully coordinated hydrogen bonds. It forces lower density, asymmetric bonds. It activates polarity. Activated polarity explains structural strength. And surface tension is one of many H2O anomalies that my mody explains that your model cannot.
Regards,
Jim McGinn
BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
Sergio
Jan 22, 2016, 8:21:04 PM1/22/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 1/22/2016 6:22 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> the macroscopic properties of water have been heavily studied .
Reference?
> the macroscopic properties of water have been heavily studied .
Solving Tornadoes
Jan 25, 2016, 1:17:38 PM1/25/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
jhjhjhn
Solving Tornadoes
Jan 26, 2016, 5:18:06 PM1/26/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Sergio
Jan 26, 2016, 9:32:41 PM1/26/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 1/25/2016 12:17 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> jhjhjhn
>
Why "James McGinn" Won't Talk About "Cold Steam"
When confronted with mystery about water the public turns to experts
like "James McGinn" and pays him to resolve it, or bullshit about it.
When confronted with irresolvable contradictions an expert can either
conceal and obscure the contradiction, like "James McGinn" does,
pretending to have resolved the so called mystery or they can reveal the
contradiction and notify the public that the mystery remains mysterious.
If they do the latter there is a good chance the public will fire
them, and vote for Donald Trump, and look to hire a new expert. But if
they sweep the contradiction under the rug then the public remains
ignorant and the experts, like self proclaimed vapor dude "James McGinn"
can keep his stinking job.
This is why "James McGinn" won't discuss the fact that moist air is
primarly gaseous H2O. (Earth's atmosphere contains vast quantities of
H2O[g]. It is far too moist for that. It also contains H2O[l], small
clusters/droplets of H2O, in glasses of water.) There models of storms
are formed around the far notion that moister air is lighter than dry
air like in baloons. And the math on this only works if gaseous H2O is
assumed, or if you use words like "density" or "pressure". Accordingly,
this allows "James McGinn" to pretend that this explains
why moist air rises, causing storms and lakes, ponds and water in water
glasses. And this pretense saves "James McGinn" from
having to worry about losing their wives when the public figures out
using maths that they really don't understand what causes storms and
shit like that.
A big part of how "James McGinn" have been able to conceal and obscure
this contradiction has to do with terminology. "James McGinn" use the
terms for gaseous H2O9(g) and vaporous H2O(l) interchangeably. There
are any number of words that "James McGinn" can use to obscure the
issue: steam, vapor, evaporate, moist air, condensate etc. So there are
any number of different methods with which "James McGinn" can leave his
audience confused. "James McGinn" realize that when it comes to job
security it is better to keep the public confused thinking the subject
is so complex that only an expert like "James McGinn" can understand it
than it is to educate the poor suckers and risk revealing that they
really don't understand the mechanics of storms or lakes, ponds, glasses
of water and shit like that.
> jhjhjhn
>
Why "James McGinn" Won't Talk About "Cold Steam"
When confronted with mystery about water the public turns to experts
like "James McGinn" and pays him to resolve it, or bullshit about it.
When confronted with irresolvable contradictions an expert can either
conceal and obscure the contradiction, like "James McGinn" does,
pretending to have resolved the so called mystery or they can reveal the
contradiction and notify the public that the mystery remains mysterious.
If they do the latter there is a good chance the public will fire
them, and vote for Donald Trump, and look to hire a new expert. But if
they sweep the contradiction under the rug then the public remains
ignorant and the experts, like self proclaimed vapor dude "James McGinn"
can keep his stinking job.
This is why "James McGinn" won't discuss the fact that moist air is
primarly gaseous H2O. (Earth's atmosphere contains vast quantities of
H2O[g]. It is far too moist for that. It also contains H2O[l], small
clusters/droplets of H2O, in glasses of water.) There models of storms
are formed around the far notion that moister air is lighter than dry
air like in baloons. And the math on this only works if gaseous H2O is
assumed, or if you use words like "density" or "pressure". Accordingly,
this allows "James McGinn" to pretend that this explains
why moist air rises, causing storms and lakes, ponds and water in water
glasses. And this pretense saves "James McGinn" from
having to worry about losing their wives when the public figures out
using maths that they really don't understand what causes storms and
shit like that.
A big part of how "James McGinn" have been able to conceal and obscure
this contradiction has to do with terminology. "James McGinn" use the
terms for gaseous H2O9(g) and vaporous H2O(l) interchangeably. There
are any number of words that "James McGinn" can use to obscure the
issue: steam, vapor, evaporate, moist air, condensate etc. So there are
any number of different methods with which "James McGinn" can leave his
audience confused. "James McGinn" realize that when it comes to job
security it is better to keep the public confused thinking the subject
is so complex that only an expert like "James McGinn" can understand it
than it is to educate the poor suckers and risk revealing that they
really don't understand the mechanics of storms or lakes, ponds, glasses
of water and shit like that.
James McGinn
Jan 26, 2016, 9:38:31 PM1/26/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 6:32:41 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
Frustrated?
Frustrated?
James McGinn
Jan 30, 2016, 11:02:54 AM1/30/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 1:03:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Feb 4, 2016, 1:45:20 PM2/4/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 1:03:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Feb 13, 2016, 3:27:47 PM2/13/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 1:03:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Feb 19, 2016, 2:55:50 AM2/19/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 1:03:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Feb 28, 2016, 10:46:48 PM2/28/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 1:03:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Mar 21, 2016, 12:47:40 AM3/21/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Mar 29, 2016, 11:22:12 AM3/29/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 1:03:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Apr 23, 2016, 12:00:25 PM4/23/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 1:03:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
May 9, 2016, 8:47:30 PM5/9/16
to
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 1:03:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Jun 2, 2016, 2:45:10 PM6/2/16
to
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 1:03:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Jul 17, 2016, 12:46:41 PM7/17/16
to
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 1:03:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
0 new messages