Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity

[James McGinn]

Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity

I saw the following video and then initiated the email conversation, with Richard Saykally, that follows. What follow immediately is some choice quotes that I am, effectively, responding to from the video:

https://vimeo.com/11854837

Go to 37:00 to 38:05

Rich Saykally:
"So, what's the deal. It's so simple. This is water, H2O, everybody knows that. Right? It is fair to say that we understand everything about an isolated water molecule. We know it's structure to those kind of decimal places. We know the properties of an isolated water molecule to very high precision and in great detail."

"So what's the problem?"

"The problem is that we still can't properly describe, we could say is, how do water molecules touch? What exactly is the physics of the interaction when two water molecules come together to form a hydrogen bond? We still can't describe that in sufficient detail to be able to predict the properties of the liquid and the solid that are the ultimate manifestation of water. That's the issue. What's the nature of the hydrogen bond?"

Further along, 38:25 to 38:57 you state:

"My goal in this project is to develop the ultimate theoretical model of water where you ask me any question, about what makes water wet, and I can answer it by doing a calculation with my model. That's the goal. We are a long way from that yet." Then there wouldn't be all these arguments arguments. Somebody would make some outrageous claim like rings and chains and we'd just do the calculations and, (shrugging) tell them that can't be right."

The following conversation is in reference to this paper:

https://zenodo.org/record/37224

******************************************

Dear Dr. Saykally,

I am a scientist pursuing theoretical advancements . . .hydrogen bonding in water and implications thereof. ' . . . . Either I have made an error or I have happened upon a breakthrough. I have written a paper
https://zenodo.org/record/37224
Might you be able to give me some feedback?

*********************

Jim....To be frank and honest I think that you are wasting your time on these arguments. There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems. It is the old language and the oversimplifiedl level of your argument(sorry) that causes the confusion. Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically(ab initio quantum mechanics), and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision. There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid, and rare events that are very difficult to model. Have a look at my pub list for some recent papers on this. But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
Best,,,Rich

*********************
From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016

Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically (ab initio quantum mechanics),

It's regrettable that you, it seems, use this fact as an excuse rather than as a tool.

and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision.

Uh, yeah, so? If you can't point to any such "highly detailed predictions" to easily and concisely dispute (or confirm) the mechanism that I delineated then it is obvious that your models are worthless. All you have is one big, circular argument that has no practical purpose--other then to keep people employed pretending they understand something they don't.

There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid.

"Statistical fluctuations?' Are you serious? Is there any such thing as a fluctuation that isn't statistical? Do all your explanations involve circular reasoning?

There is wide disparity in opinion about the nature of low density anomalies. Additionally, the standard model of freezing is obvious nonsense, surface tension also. And there is little or no resolution of the numerous other anomalies. Yet, you'd have us believe you got it all figured out.

You can't address simple issues like the one I raised, yet you'd have me and the rest of the public just turn a blind eye because you gave us your assurance that you got it all figured out. Isn't that essentially what you are saying here?

Science doesn't work this way. If you can't answer questions and address issues you are just pretending to be a scientist.

and rare events that are very difficult to model. Have a look at my pub list for some recent papers on this.

So, you can't give me a direct, relevant reference. Instead, you want to send me on a wild goose chase to find something that exists only in your imagination.

But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.

LOL. Obviously if you can't address the issue I raised, then they aren't well understood by you, are they?

I don't want to speculate about your motivation, but the fact that you can't directly address the simple issue I indicated suggest there is something very wrong here. Putting the best spin on it I might suggest you have mistaken your model for reality. But if that was the case one would think you would at least attempt an argument that referenced your model, even if only in a peripheral manner. So there must be some reason you are evading it.

*********************
From Rich Saykally to James McGinn, Jan 3rd, 2016

Jim...I am surprised at your incivility! This is just science.....not a prize fight! The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims.

*********************
From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016

I was surprised by your arrogance and self-righteousness. Honestly,

If you can't address my thinking directly, honestly and/or you can't (or won't) help me find somebody (a graduate student, for example) that can, then just say so.

Moreover, you seem to have no idea how absurdly evasive you sound suggesting one "must' always propose an experiment to discuss theory. That is the talk of a bureaucrat, not a scientist. Real scientists have no need for that kind of dogmatic nonsense. Honestly, you seem out of touch. (Sorry to be so blunt.)

I've exchanged no less than eight emails with Alan Soper over the last week. Like you, he thought he originally assured me that the science is sound. But he, at least, attempted an argument. It turns out he didn't understand the full implications of what he believed. Now he is beginning to understand the limits of his beliefs.

If you can't explain why you believe what you believe then chances are you don't understand it, you just believe it.

As I explained to Alan:
"In general, my readings convinced me that there are a lot of assumptions associated with the standard model that are not empirical and that are otherwise unexplained. It seems that these assumptions originated as honest conjectures but then, over a number of years, they gradually became adopted as dishonest "truths". In other words, they were adopted for reasons that involve explanatory convenience and not for reasons that are scientifically credible."

*********************
From Rich Saykally to James McGinn, Jan 4th, 2016

Jim...I wish you luck.
Rich
*********************
From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 4th, 2016

Rich,
I went to your website, something I should have before I first contacted you. I now realize you weren't being arrogant, you are just confused. And I am beginning to realize that this is the case for much of academia.
In your video you are asked why water is wet. You responded, "because of strong, tetrahedrally coordinated bonds." (Which is not completely false.) With those words there is a blatant contradiction staring you in the face. A contradiction that you do not see: If tetrahedrally coordinated bonds are strong why is liquid water fluid? Why is it not hard?

You can't see the relevance of this question because your whole paradigm is designed to dismiss it. Consequently the whole standard model is convoluted. You and much of academia are in a state of continuing confusion. And, therefore, a big part of the story that you present to the public involves concealing your confusion. And this gets to the heart of why you can't (or won't) answer simple questions. You are pretending to understand and wish only to maintain the illusion.

As I indicated, you are very much not alone in this respect. All of academia is involved in maintaining the illusion.

The answer to the question is that tetrahedral coordination achieves symmetry, thereby neutralizing polarity, as explained in my manuscript. This is why liquid water is fluid. But the real difficulties come when you try to reconcile this notion with ice and the freezing process.

I hope there are no hard feeling. But if there are it is not my fault, it is your fault for not being honest about what you really don't understand.


Discussion:
I specialize in making scientific discoveries--breakthroughs. Making discoveries in science is something I find easy. Here is my technique which you may find interesting. First I find a controversial issue. Consider the different issues, study the topic explicitly. Then look for and expect to find the breakthrough discovery in the aspects of the argument that are NOT under dispute. In other words, don't look for the discovery in the conclusions or the model, look for it in the assumptions that everybody is taking for granted. And most importantly of all (and this is the part that trips up most people) ignore the models. People always fall in love with their own models and models make their assumptions invisible to them.

Most of academia is based on creating models--because that is what the public wants. So, all the attention and money goes to people that create SIMPLE models. But models are an obstacle if you want to achieve discoveries. This is why people in academia rarely make discoveries. (Or, at least, not as often as we would expect given their expertise.) This is why outsiders often make the big breakthrough. Outsiders are not in love with their model. Personally, I try to ignore models until I understand the subject starting from first principles (ab initio).

I am a perfect example of this. The discovery I made would have been impossible if I believed in the academic model of hydrogen bonding. Because the academia has fallen in love with their models (most notably in regard to the freezing process [see my paper for details]). Very often they don't understand the science. They only understand their model and how to that sell it. And, very often, they bicker with each other over irrelevancies. When I see this I know there is a discovery to be made. The trick is to let the idiots bicker then figure out what they think they know but only believe. (And finding that can be very easy because you just use the socratic method. Keep asking questions until you get to a question that they can't answer--socratic method.) That is where the discover is to be made. But there are no shortcuts. You really have to understand the subject starting from valid physics/chemistry. And you can't be easily swayed by nonsense, because there is a lot of it. And many in academia make their living creating nonsense. (Most people in the public are like sheep who blindly follow the nonsense that academia creates.)

And that is where you find the discovery. It always involves something that they would not even consider, something on a deeper level of understanding, something that seems crazy to them. Making the discovery is never very hard. You consider what they aren't thinking about and the answer is obvious--often. But communicating it can be very hard because to get them to consider it they must achieve the same depth of understanding, and that is not normal to people that rely on models.

[James McGinn]

And that is where you find the discovery. It always involves something that they would not even consider,

Always.

[Sergio]

<snip crap>




dont put your stinking blog here,

no one reads your blog,

no one will read your crap here either


it is crap


your bong is calling you...

[James McGinn]

Fresh Fish!!!

[Sergio]

your blog is 10 day sun ripened dead fish, and stinkith thusly.


are you in a home ?

[Sergio]

On 1/12/2016 12:15 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> And that is where you find the discovery. It always involves

> something that I would not even consider,
>
> Always.
>

Why do you post your frog fights here ?

[James McGinn]

Kind of swimming upstream on that one, aren't you?

[James McGinn]

Or down stream.

[Sergio]

you are the sucker posting your troll blog here, what a dumbass.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

I don't understand why you are not incredibly embarrassed to create this post. This scientist has totally blown you out of the water and shown you to be the pretender that you are! Do you actually think you have prevailed in this exchange?

[James McGinn]

Absolutely.

[R Kym Horsell]

pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

...

>> I am a perfect example of this. The discovery I made would have been
>>impossible if I believed in the academic model of hydrogen bonding. Because
>>the academia has fallen in love with their models (most notably in regard to
>>

>> And that is where you find the discovery. It always involves something
>>that they would not even consider, something on a deeper level of
>>understanding, something that seems crazy to them. Making the discovery is
>

> I don't understand why you are not incredibly embarrassed to create this
>post. This scientist has totally blown you out of the water and shown you to
>be the pretender that you are! Do you actually think you have prevailed in
>this exchange?

It is often thus. Word for word. :)


"Section -1- Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of
Indiana: It has been found that a circular area is to the square on a
line equal to the quadrant of the circumference, as the area of an
equilateral rectangle is to the square on one side. The diameter
employed as the linear unit according to the present rule in computing
the circle's area is entirely wrong, as it represents the circle's
area one and one-fifth times the area of a square whose perimeter is
equal to the circumference of the circle.
...
Section -3- In further proof of the value of the author's proposed
contribution to education and offered as a gift to the State of
Indiana, is the fact of his solutions of the trisection of the angle,
duplication of the cube and quadrature of the circle having been
already accepted as contributions to science by the American
Mathematical Monthly, the leading exponent of mathematical thought in
this country. And be it remembered that these noted problems had been
long since given up by scientific bodies as insolvable mysteries and
above man's ability to comprehend."

-- Dr Edin Goodwin, 1896

--
And, at last, the Indiana Pi Bill, as it had come to be known, was
defeated. Twenty years later, a triumphant Professor Waldo claimed "it
was probably the Indiana Academy of Science alone which prevented
[this monstrosity]" - while writing in said academy's own journal, I
should point out - and that "if this deduction is correct then that
one act of prevention was worth more to Indiana, jealous of her fair
fame as she is, than all she ever contributed or can contribute to the
publication of the proceedings of her Academy of Science."

Perhaps. But based on what the senators themselves had to say, this
seems just as much a case of the forces of ignorance defeating the
forces of craziness. It's a victory, perhaps, but it's an ugly win all
the same.

As for Dr. Goodwin, he died just five years later in 1902 at the old
age of 77. The local newspaper for New Harmony, Indiana printed this
obituary, which was every bit as ridiculous and yet strangely
endearing as its subject:

He felt that he had a great invention and wished the world to have
the benefit of it. In years to come Dr. Goodwin's plan for measuring
the heavens may receive the approbation which was untiringly sought
by its originator.

As years went on and he saw the child of his genius still unreceived
by the scientific world, he became broken with disappointment,
although he never lost hope and trusted that before his end came he
would see the world awakened to the greatness of his plan and taste
for a moment the sweetness of success. He was doomed to
disappointment, and in the peaceful confines of village life the
tragedy of a fruitless ambition was enacted.

You know, I feel bad for the poor guy. But that doesn't change the
fact that pi is equal to 3.141592...

-- <http://io9.gizmodo.com/5880792/the-eccentric-crank-who-tried-to-legislate
-the-value-of-pi>

[James McGinn]

Who cares?

[Sergio]

On 1/15/2016 9:37 PM, James McGinn wrote:

>>
>> I don't understand why you are not incredibly embarrassed to create
>> this post. This scientist has totally blown you out of the water
>> and shown you to be the pretender that you are! Do you actually
>> think you have prevailed in this exchange?
>
> Absolutely.

jimmie-boy, you lose again, and again...

[James McGinn]

Here we go again.

[Solving Tornadoes]

more

[Sergio]

just keeping your posts at the top, i see.
that is why you respond to your own posts,
you must be scoring it by # of views.

JSH did that but he was a master at keeping threads going, up to 130
responces on a single thread, not looks either.

[James McGinn]

SFVSFCV

[Sergio]

....unable to type ? or are you speechless in my presence ?

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[Sergio]

<snip troll blog crap>

[Sergio]

<snip troll blog crap>

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[pnal...@gmail.com]

So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, rips you a new a$$hole, and not only are you too stupid to realize it, you are then stupid enough to broadcast that fact here! Now everyone here knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are crazier than an outhouse rat, and it was all accomplished by your very own hand. Here is my favorite quote from Dr. Saykally, and you should take this very, very seriously...

"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally

On this point you have failed miserably, and this is perfectly clear to all readers here. Like others before you, you simply don't know what you don't know, and that is just sad. This fellow clearly knows his stuff...

http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/rjsgrp/

http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/faculty/chem/saykally

... where by you are a pretender, at most, and clearly not a physicist in the least.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

I forgot to add... no offense intended, but you need a new hobby...

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 8:01:44 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, rips you a new a$$hole,

Actually, his dispute was completely superficial. And so is yours.

Failure to address content--especially by a professional--shows that he doesn't really know his subject.

> "The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally

That is an absurdly defensive posture for Saykally to take. Note that I had asked him to comment on the mechanism that I proposed. That was all I asked. And he completely dodged that issue. Why do you think that is?

Let me ask you this, given that you, obviously, have no understanding of the subject of the paper, did Saykally's dispute give you any kind of better understanding of the phenomena under discussion?

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 8:06:26 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> I forgot to add... no offense intended, but you need a new hobby...

You forgot to tell us the nature of your expertise on the subject discussed in the paper.

Go ahead, nose-picker, tell us your credentials.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 8:24:36 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 8:01:44 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, rips you a new a$$hole,
>
> Actually, his dispute was completely superficial. And so is yours.
>
> Failure to address content--especially by a professional--shows that he doesn't really know his subject.
>
> > "The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
>
> That is an absurdly defensive posture for Saykally to take. Note that I had asked him to comment on the mechanism that I proposed. That was all I asked. And he completely dodged that issue. Why do you think that is?

He didn't dodge the issue because he saw no issue, because there IS no issue. If you don't have any experimental proof, you've got nothing. If you were really a physicist, or any kind of scientist at all, you would already know that this is a primary requirement in the field. You are no physicist, indeed, you are not a scientist at all! Just a pretender, as Dr. Saykally has shown. You've been irrevocably exposed.

> Let me ask you this, given that you, obviously, have no understanding of the subject of the paper, did Saykally's dispute give you any kind of better understanding of the phenomena under discussion?

Dr. Saykally is not the issue here, he simply pointed out...

"So, what's the deal. It's so simple. This is water, H2O, everybody knows that. Right? It is fair to say that we understand everything about an isolated water molecule. We know it's structure to those kind of decimal places. We know the properties of an isolated water molecule to very high precision and in great detail."

Did you in any way comprehend his comments? He is telling you that in order to make an extraordinary claim, such as you have made, you must provide extraordinary proof, including repeatable experiments, experiments that anyone can reproduce over and over again, with the same result. Since you have not provided such experiments, you can safely be completely ignored by the scientific community, and if you were really a physicist (or just a generic scientist), you should already know this. In my view, you should consider yourself lucky that he responded at all!

I'm not your problem here, YOU are the problem. I readily admit that I am not a meteorologist or climate scientist, not a chemist, I'm just a guy with a few bachelor's degrees in physics, math, astronomy, basic stuff, about 50 years ago, but I have a lot of broad knowledge of science in general, but I am familiar with the way things work in the scientific community, and you are just pissed off because you are not being respected, even though you are breaking all the rules and trying to take shortcuts that are prohibited in this community. You haven't paid any dues and don't deserve the benefit of the doubt; anything you have to say needs to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and in this regard you have completely failed.

I don't know what else to say to you. You have not provided a lick of proof to support your own positions, and your feedback on this forum, from both actual scientists and knowledgeable amateurs alike, has been nothing but negative. Not one person that I can see champions your cause, and yet you persist in slogging forward, claiming that no one is smart enough or educated enough to "see the light". Jim P. is probably correct when he states that you are delusional. I have no idea why anyone would put himself in such a position, but then, I am no psychiatrist, either.

I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise (and neither do you, for that matter), but I have a GREAT bullshit detector... and you may have broken it!

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise

Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.

Here are some links to my undisputed paper:

https://zenodo.org/record/37224

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Just more of the same from you; not a single experiment, not a single calculation, no mathematical argument, no chemistry argument, nothing of substance whatsoever, just a large number of words, all of it raw speculation. SPECULATION!

And yet, you remain miffed that professionals don't take you seriously. Really?

Zinodo.org is where you published your paper... here is a review of this site, from https://sixstat.com/ratings-reviews/zenodo.org/ ...

"zenodo.org was registered 3 years 3 months ago. It has a alexa rank of #518,752 in the world. This domain uses the .org extension. It's Google PageRank is 6/10. It is estimated to be worth $ 1,680.00 with a daily income of $ 7.00."

In other words, perhaps they will publish just about anything, that $7 per day is very important...

If I had the time or inclination I would calculate your score on the Crackpot Index...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

... but right off the bat you score some low-hanging fruit...

* 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

* 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

* 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory

* 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

* 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

* 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

Earlier you advised me to quit while I was ahead... maybe you should quit before you fall so far behind that you can never recover... but maybe it is too late for that by now...

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise
> >
> > Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.
> >
> > Here are some links to my undisputed paper:
> >
> > https://zenodo.org/record/37224
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
>
> Just more of the same from you

Do you think you'd be so emotional if you had a substantive dispute with my hypothesis?

Think about it.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise
> >
> > Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.
> >
> > Here are some links to my undisputed paper:
> >
> > https://zenodo.org/record/37224
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
>
> Just more of the same from you; not a single experiment, not a single calculation, no mathematical argument, no chemistry argument, nothing of substance whatsoever, just a large number of words, all of it raw speculation. SPECULATION!

Why would you get so emotional about something for which you have no substantive dispute?

What do you think that indicates?

>
> And yet, you remain miffed that professionals don't take you seriously. Really?

So, Saykally is a professional, yet he was unable to find a substantive dispute, what do you think that indicates?

>
> Zinodo.org is where you published your paper... here is a review of this site, from https://sixstat.com/ratings-reviews/zenodo.org/ ...
>
> "zenodo.org was registered 3 years 3 months ago. It has a alexa rank of #518,752 in the world. This domain uses the .org extension. It's Google PageRank is 6/10. It is estimated to be worth $ 1,680.00 with a daily income of $ 7.00."
>
> In other words, perhaps they will publish just about anything, that $7 per day is very important...
>
> If I had the time or inclination I would calculate your score on the Crackpot Index...
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>
> ... but right off the bat you score some low-hanging fruit...
>
> * 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
>
> * 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
>
> * 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory
>
> * 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
>
> * 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
>
> * 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
>
> Earlier you advised me to quit while I was ahead... maybe you should quit before you fall so far behind that you can never recover... but maybe it is too late for that by now...

So, do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship between your inability to dispute my hypothesis and your anger?

What do you think that indicates? What conclusion would anybody in our audience draw from this?

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise (and neither do you, for that matter), but I have a GREAT bullshit detector... and you may have broken it!

Okay, but, where is the bullshit then?

Do you see the problem? If you claim to be good at finding problems and then you any, well, what conclusion would anybody draw from that?

Let's be honest. You don't have a substantive dispute, and neither did Saykally. Both of you had emotional reactions.

What do you think all of this indicates?

What greater conclusion can be drawn from all of this?

[HVAC]

McFly says

Jim....To be frank and honest I think that you are wasting your time on these arguments. There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems. It is the old language and the oversimplifiedl level of your argument(sorry) that causes the confusion.

-----------

I'm surprised he took the time to reply to you. Then again, like me, he wanted to take the opportunity to call you a retard. Or as he put it "A simple minded ball of confusion". No offense

[Sergio]

On 2/29/2016 12:49 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes
>> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8,
>>> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of
>>>> expertise
>>>

>>>

>>> Here are some links to my retard paper:

>>>
>>
>> Just more of the same from you
>
> Do you think you'd be so emotional if you had a substantive dispute
> with my hypothesis?
>

he's not emotional at all, just stating facts.

your hypothesis is doo-doo.

> Think about it.

no need.

[Sergio]

On 2/29/2016 10:40 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes
>> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8,
>>> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of
>>>> expertise
>>>

>>
>>
>>>

Just more of the same from you; not a single experiment, not a single
calculation, no mathematical argument, no chemistry argument, nothing of
substance whatsoever, just a large number of words, all of it raw
speculation. SPECULATION!
>
> Why would you get so emotional about something for which you have no
> substantive dispute?

he is stating fact, not emotional.

We agree with him, you have nothing.

>
> What do you think that indicates?
>

what do you think that indicates?




>>
>> And yet, you remain miffed that professionals don't take you
>> seriously. Really?
>
> So, Saykally is a professional, yet he was unable to find a
> substantive dispute, what do you think that indicates?

he's busy, and dosen't bother with your imagination

>>
>> In other words, perhaps they will publish just about anything, that
>> $7 per day is very important...
>>
>> If I had the time or inclination I would calculate your score on
>> the Crackpot Index...
>>
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

>>

>> Earlier you advised me to quit while I was ahead... maybe you
>> should quit before you fall so far behind that you can never
>> recover... but maybe it is too late for that by now...
>

> ... my hypothesis ?

what is your hypothesis ?

>
> What do you think that indicates? What conclusion would anybody in
> our audience draw from this?

that you are trying to play baseball,
but you dont have a bat, no glove, no field, and dont know how to play
the game, and no ball either.

[Sergio]

effectively expressed in just six words

[James McGinn]

Do you concede that Saykally failed to present a substantive dispute?
Answer the question you evasive jackass.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 9:07:18 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> he's not emotional at all, just stating facts.

Is it not a fact that his dispute is emotional, not subtantive?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise
>> (and neither do you, for that matter), but I have a GREAT bullshit
>> detector... and you may have broken it!
>
> Okay, but, where is the bullshit then?

In EVERYTHING you post.

> What do you think all of this indicates?

That you are delusional.

> What greater conclusion can be drawn from all of this?

That you need help from a mental health professional.

--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise
>> >
>> > Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.
>> >
>> > Here are some links to my undisputed paper:
>> >
>> > https://zenodo.org/record/37224
>> >
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
>>
>> Just more of the same from you; not a single experiment, not a single
>> calculation, no mathematical argument, no chemistry argument, nothing
>> of substance whatsoever, just a large number of words, all of it raw
>> speculation. SPECULATION!
>
> Why would you get so emotional about something for which you have no
> substantive dispute?

There was nothing emotional in that response; it was all factual.

The only person being emotional is you as your delusions are challenged,
which is typical of a delusional person.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Nope, what he said was your "theories" were so stupid and wrong they
weren't worth the effort of a reply.

--
Jim Pennino

[pnal...@gmail.com]

James, you're a laugh riot! Let's review a few facts, facts that you yourself have presented;

1. You post a video and several segments of your email correspondence with Dr. Saykally, a UC Berkeley physical chemist.

2. In this exchange you present to him a link to you paper and ask for his feedback.

3. Dr. Saykally replies to you, and in that process he states "To be frank and honest I think that you are wasting your time on these arguments. There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems. It is the old language and the oversimplifiedl level of your argument(sorry) that causes the confusion."

I would call that response 'feedback', even if you don't. You should consider yourself lucky that he even read your paper, even though his reply indicates that he thinks you might be confused.

4. You (being the actual emotional one here), respond to Dr. Saykally with phrases like these;

"It's regrettable that you, it seems, use this fact as an excuse...",

"You can't address simple issues like the one I raised, yet you'd have me and the rest of the public just turn a blind eye because you gave us your assurance that you got it all figured out. Isn't that essentially what you are saying here?"

"Science doesn't work this way. If you can't answer questions and address issues you are just pretending to be a scientist."

"Obviously if you can't address the issue I raised, then they aren't well understood by you, are they?"

"I might suggest you have mistaken your model for reality."

4. Dr. Saykally responds with much more restraint (and much less emotion than your own comments had) than most people would, saying ... "Jim...I am surprised at your incivility! This is just science.....not a prize fight! The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims."

5. This is exactly what most people on this forum have been telling you all along...

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan.

6. You keep DEMANDING that anyone who disagrees with you must prove their position to YOU, but the reality of the scientific community is just the reverse.

There is no way in the world that I, or anyone else, needs to provide, as you have stated, "a substantive dispute with my hypothesis". The burden of proof lies squarely on you own shoulders. If you do not agree with this perspective, well, it only goes to show that you have little knowledge of the Scientific Method, and is just another bullet in the gun that claims you are not a physicist at all, but just another crackpot seeking attention. Not that you are alone in this regard, you have plenty of company on these forums.

If you can't walk the walk and talk the talk, you shouldn't be making these extraordinary claims to begin with, at least not in public. It is pretty obvious that you don't have the math and chemistry chops to fool anybody.

What do you think this indicates?

Think about it.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise
> >> (and neither do you, for that matter), but I have a GREAT bullshit
> >> detector... and you may have broken it!
> >
> > Okay, but, where is the bullshit then?
>
> In EVERYTHING you post.

What does it indicate that you cannot address it directly?

[James McGinn]

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise
> >> >
> >> > Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.
> >> >
> >> > Here are some links to my undisputed paper:
> >> >
> >> > https://zenodo.org/record/37224
> >> >
> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> >>
> >> Just more of the same from you; not a single experiment, not a single
> >> calculation, no mathematical argument, no chemistry argument, nothing
> >> of substance whatsoever, just a large number of words, all of it raw
> >> speculation. SPECULATION!
> >
> > Why would you get so emotional about something for which you have no
> > substantive dispute?
>
> There was nothing emotional in that response; it was all factual.

Hmm. Really?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/29/2016 1:31 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 4. Dr. Saykally responds with much more restraint (and much less emotion than your own comments
> had) than most people would, saying ... "Jim...I am surprised at your incivility! This is just
> science.....not a prize fight! The way our business works is that one who argues that a given
> model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test
> that can clearly evidence the claims."
>
> 5. This is exactly what most people on this forum have been telling you all along...
>
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan.
>
> 6. You keep DEMANDING that anyone who disagrees with you must prove their position to YOU, but
> the reality of the scientific community is just the reverse.
>
> There is no way in the world that I, or anyone else, needs to provide, as you have stated, "a
> substantive dispute with my hypothesis". The burden of proof lies squarely on you own shoulders.
> If you do not agree with this perspective, well, it only goes to show that you have little
> knowledge of the Scientific Method, and is just another bullet in the gun that claims you are not
> a physicist at all, but just another crackpot seeking attention. Not that you are alone in this
> regard, you have plenty of company on these forums.
>
> If you can't walk the walk and talk the talk, you shouldn't be making these extraordinary claims
> to begin with, at least not in public. It is pretty obvious that you don't have the math and
> chemistry chops to fool anybody.
>
> What do you think this indicates?
>
> Think about it.

What you lay out for Jim, however, involves work. This is not in fact
what he wants to do. Instead, he is happy to banter and bluster, because
it's not really the scientific point he's interested in, but rather some
attention.

He's been highly successful with his banter/bluster tactics at
sustaining attention, even if it means resurrecting old conversations or
replying to himself.

It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.

"Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

-- Robert A. Heinlein

I know, I know... too much time on my hands, I need to do something more productive...

\Paul A

[Sergio]

So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor,

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> What you lay out for Jim, however, involves work. This is not in fact
> what he wants to do. Instead, he is happy to banter and bluster, because
> it's not really the scientific point he's interested in, but rather some
> attention.
>
> He's been highly successful with his banter/bluster tactics at
> sustaining attention, even if it means resurrecting old conversations or
> replying to himself.
>
> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.

Oddster,

I think you have the right idea. The only chance all of you have to be sure that my message does not spread is if you can convince others to ignore my message. So that would mean that you would want to get to them before they considered my hypothetical thinking.

Maybe you all should start an organization, you know, get a webpage and all of that. Then you can make lists and write papers explaining to people methods they can use to avoid considering my thinking.

Here is a link to get you started:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114202

[Sergio]

On 2/29/2016 12:15 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 8:56:05 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
>> McFly says Jim..

>> Then again, like
>> me, he wanted to take the opportunity to call you a retard. Or as
>> he put it "A simple minded ball of confusion". No offense
>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/29/2016 2:03 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
>> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
>> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.
>
> "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
>
> -- Robert A. Heinlein

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw

>
> I know, I know... too much time on my hands, I need to do something more productive...
>
> \Paul A
>

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:17:06 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 2:03 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
> >> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
> >> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.
> >
> > "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
> >
> > -- Robert A. Heinlein

> "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
> besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw

Touché!

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> What you lay out for Jim, however, involves work. This is not in fact
>> what he wants to do. Instead, he is happy to banter and bluster, because
>> it's not really the scientific point he's interested in, but rather some
>> attention.
>>
>> He's been highly successful with his banter/bluster tactics at
>> sustaining attention, even if it means resurrecting old conversations or
>> replying to himself.
>>
>> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
>> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
>> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.
>
> Oddster,
>
> I think you have the right idea. The only chance all of you have to be
> sure that my message does not spread

Just how many people do you want laughing at your delusional "message"?


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise
>> >> (and neither do you, for that matter), but I have a GREAT bullshit
>> >> detector... and you may have broken it!
>> >
>> > Okay, but, where is the bullshit then?
>>
>> In EVERYTHING you post.
>
> What does it indicate that you cannot address it directly?

I just did; EVERYTHING you post is bat shit crazy.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Yes, it is only your delusional state that causes you to think otherwise.

--
Jim Pennino

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:31:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> >> In EVERYTHING you post.
> >
> > What does it indicate that you cannot address it directly?
>
> I just did; EVERYTHING you post is bat shit crazy.

Hmm. I wonder why I can't find it. Hmm.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:17:06 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 2/29/2016 2:03 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
> >> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
> >> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.
> >
> > "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
> >
> > -- Robert A. Heinlein
>
> "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
> besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw

So that everybody can see what all the excitement is about:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

So where is your proof, i.e. an experiment, that shows your bat shit
crazy theory is true?


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

You can't find what, any of your bat shit crazy posts?


--
Jim Pennino

[James McGinn]

You are my proof.

Get it?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Yes, you are bat shit crazy; I got that a long time ago.


--
Jim Pennino

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity
>
> I saw the following video and then initiated the email conversation, with Richard Saykally, that follows. What follow immediately is some choice quotes that I am, effectively, responding to from the video:
>
> https://vimeo.com/11854837
>
> Go to 37:00 to 38:05
>
> Rich Saykally:
> "So, what's the deal. It's so simple. This is water, H2O, everybody knows that. Right? It is fair to say that we understand everything about an isolated water molecule. We know it's structure to those kind of decimal places. We know the properties of an isolated water molecule to very high precision and in great detail."
>
> "So what's the problem?"
>
> "The problem is that we still can't properly describe, we could say is, how do water molecules touch? What exactly is the physics of the interaction when two water molecules come together to form a hydrogen bond? We still can't describe that in sufficient detail to be able to predict the properties of the liquid and the solid that are the ultimate manifestation of water. That's the issue. What's the nature of the hydrogen bond?"
>
> Further along, 38:25 to 38:57 you state:
>
> "My goal in this project is to develop the ultimate theoretical model of water where you ask me any question, about what makes water wet, and I can answer it by doing a calculation with my model. That's the goal. We are a long way from that yet." Then there wouldn't be all these arguments arguments. Somebody would make some outrageous claim like rings and chains and we'd just do the calculations and, (shrugging) tell them that can't be right."
>
> The following conversation is in reference to this paper:
>
> https://zenodo.org/record/37224
>
> ******************************************
>
> Dear Dr. Saykally,
>
> I am a scientist pursuing theoretical advancements . . .hydrogen bonding in water and implications thereof. ' . . . . Either I have made an error or I have happened upon a breakthrough. I have written a paper
> https://zenodo.org/record/37224
> Might you be able to give me some feedback?
>
> *********************
>
> Jim....To be frank and honest I think that you are wasting your time on these arguments. There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems. It is the old language and the oversimplifiedl level of your argument(sorry) that causes the confusion. Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically(ab initio quantum mechanics), and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision. There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid, and rare events that are very difficult to model. Have a look at my pub list for some recent papers on this. But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
> Best,,,Rich
>
> *********************
> From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016
>
> Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically (ab initio quantum mechanics),
>
> It's regrettable that you, it seems, use this fact as an excuse rather than as a tool.
>
> and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision.
>
> Uh, yeah, so? If you can't point to any such "highly detailed predictions" to easily and concisely dispute (or confirm) the mechanism that I delineated then it is obvious that your models are worthless. All you have is one big, circular argument that has no practical purpose--other then to keep people employed pretending they understand something they don't.
>
> There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid.
>
> "Statistical fluctuations?' Are you serious? Is there any such thing as a fluctuation that isn't statistical? Do all your explanations involve circular reasoning?
>
> There is wide disparity in opinion about the nature of low density anomalies. Additionally, the standard model of freezing is obvious nonsense, surface tension also. And there is little or no resolution of the numerous other anomalies. Yet, you'd have us believe you got it all figured out.

>
> You can't address simple issues like the one I raised, yet you'd have me and the rest of the public just turn a blind eye because you gave us your assurance that you got it all figured out. Isn't that essentially what you are saying here?
>
> Science doesn't work this way. If you can't answer questions and address issues you are just pretending to be a scientist.
>

> and rare events that are very difficult to model. Have a look at my pub list for some recent papers on this.
>
> So, you can't give me a direct, relevant reference. Instead, you want to send me on a wild goose chase to find something that exists only in your imagination.
>
> But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
>
> LOL. Obviously if you can't address the issue I raised, then they aren't well understood by you, are they?
>
> I don't want to speculate about your motivation, but the fact that you can't directly address the simple issue I indicated suggest there is something very wrong here. Putting the best spin on it I might suggest you have mistaken your model for reality. But if that was the case one would think you would at least attempt an argument that referenced your model, even if only in a peripheral manner. So there must be some reason you are evading it.
>
> *********************
> From Rich Saykally to James McGinn, Jan 3rd, 2016

>
> Jim...I am surprised at your incivility! This is just science.....not a prize fight! The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims.
>

> *********************
> From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016
>
> I was surprised by your arrogance and self-righteousness. Honestly,
>
> If you can't address my thinking directly, honestly and/or you can't (or won't) help me find somebody (a graduate student, for example) that can, then just say so.
>
> Moreover, you seem to have no idea how absurdly evasive you sound suggesting one "must' always propose an experiment to discuss theory. That is the talk of a bureaucrat, not a scientist. Real scientists have no need for that kind of dogmatic nonsense. Honestly, you seem out of touch. (Sorry to be so blunt.)
>
> I've exchanged no less than eight emails with Alan Soper over the last week. Like you, he thought he originally assured me that the science is sound. But he, at least, attempted an argument. It turns out he didn't understand the full implications of what he believed. Now he is beginning to understand the limits of his beliefs.
>
> If you can't explain why you believe what you believe then chances are you don't understand it, you just believe it.
>
> As I explained to Alan:
> "In general, my readings convinced me that there are a lot of assumptions associated with the standard model that are not empirical and that are otherwise unexplained. It seems that these assumptions originated as honest conjectures but then, over a number of years, they gradually became adopted as dishonest "truths". In other words, they were adopted for reasons that involve explanatory convenience and not for reasons that are scientifically credible."
>
> *********************
> From Rich Saykally to James McGinn, Jan 4th, 2016
>
> Jim...I wish you luck.
> Rich
> *********************
> From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 4th, 2016
>
> Rich,
> I went to your website, something I should have before I first contacted you. I now realize you weren't being arrogant, you are just confused. And I am beginning to realize that this is the case for much of academia.
> In your video you are asked why water is wet. You responded, "because of strong, tetrahedrally coordinated bonds." (Which is not completely false.) With those words there is a blatant contradiction staring you in the face. A contradiction that you do not see: If tetrahedrally coordinated bonds are strong why is liquid water fluid? Why is it not hard?
>
> You can't see the relevance of this question because your whole paradigm is designed to dismiss it. Consequently the whole standard model is convoluted. You and much of academia are in a state of continuing confusion. And, therefore, a big part of the story that you present to the public involves concealing your confusion. And this gets to the heart of why you can't (or won't) answer simple questions. You are pretending to understand and wish only to maintain the illusion.
>
> As I indicated, you are very much not alone in this respect. All of academia is involved in maintaining the illusion.
>
> The answer to the question is that tetrahedral coordination achieves symmetry, thereby neutralizing polarity, as explained in my manuscript. This is why liquid water is fluid. But the real difficulties come when you try to reconcile this notion with ice and the freezing process.
>
> I hope there are no hard feeling. But if there are it is not my fault, it is your fault for not being honest about what you really don't understand.
>
>
> Discussion:
> I specialize in making scientific discoveries--breakthroughs. Making discoveries in science is something I find easy. Here is my technique which you may find interesting. First I find a controversial issue. Consider the different issues, study the topic explicitly. Then look for and expect to find the breakthrough discovery in the aspects of the argument that are NOT under dispute. In other words, don't look for the discovery in the conclusions or the model, look for it in the assumptions that everybody is taking for granted. And most importantly of all (and this is the part that trips up most people) ignore the models. People always fall in love with their own models and models make their assumptions invisible to them.
>
> Most of academia is based on creating models--because that is what the public wants. So, all the attention and money goes to people that create SIMPLE models. But models are an obstacle if you want to achieve discoveries. This is why people in academia rarely make discoveries. (Or, at least, not as often as we would expect given their expertise.) This is why outsiders often make the big breakthrough. Outsiders are not in love with their model. Personally, I try to ignore models until I understand the subject starting from first principles (ab initio).
>
> I am a perfect example of this. The discovery I made would have been impossible if I believed in the academic model of hydrogen bonding. Because the academia has fallen in love with their models (most notably in regard to the freezing process [see my paper for details]). Very often they don't understand the science. They only understand their model and how to that sell it. And, very often, they bicker with each other over irrelevancies. When I see this I know there is a discovery to be made. The trick is to let the idiots bicker then figure out what they think they know but only believe. (And finding that can be very easy because you just use the socratic method. Keep asking questions until you get to a question that they can't answer--socratic method.) That is where the discover is to be made. But there are no shortcuts. You really have to understand the subject starting from valid physics/chemistry. And you can't be easily swayed by nonsense, because there is a lot of it. And many in academia make their living creating nonsense. (Most people in the public are like sheep who blindly follow the nonsense that academia creates.)
>
>
And that is where you find the discovery. It always involves something that they would not even consider, something on a deeper level of understanding, something that seems crazy to them. Making the discovery is never very hard. You consider what they aren't thinking about and the answer is obvious--often. But communicating it can be very hard because to get them to consider it they must achieve the same depth of understanding, and that is not normal to people that rely on models.

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:2cdca20a-650c-478f...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> Richard Saykally wrote:

>> Jim....To be frank and honest I think that you are wasting your time on
>> these arguments. There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in
>> water, or in other systems. It is the old language and the oversimplified

>> level of your argument(sorry) that causes the confusion. Modern chemistry
>> treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically(ab initio quantum mechanics),
>> and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that
>> have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical
>> precision. There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not
>> yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical
>> fluctuations that occur in the liquid, and rare events that are very
>> difficult to model. Have a look at my pub list for some recent papers
>> on this. But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are
>> really quite well understood.
>> Best,,,Rich

> I MUST BE RIGHT BECAUSE I SAY I'M RIGHT! IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT
> HYDROGEN BONDING HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY RESEARCHED! IT DOESN'T MATTER
> THAT THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF STUDIES EMPIRICALLY BACKING UP THE
> QUANTUM MECHANICAL MODELING OF HYDROGEN BONDING! IT DOESN'T MATTER
> THAT WHAT I'M BABBLING MAKES NO SENSE! I AM THE DELUSIONAL KOOKTARD
> TARDNADO MCGINN, THE 'PHYSICIST' WHO FAILED OUT OF AN INTRODUCTORY
> METEOROLOGY CLASS, THE 'TORNADO EXPERT' WHO'S NEVER SEEN OR STUDIED
> ANY TORNADOES! I *MUST* BE RIGHT IN SPITE OF A MOUNTAIN OF PROOF
> THAT I'M A SCHIZO-BRAINED UNEDUCATED MORON!

Well, there ya go, folks. LOL

Why can't you answer those questions in my .sig, James?

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

[James McGinn]

The questions were presented to Saykally. Right?

We can see how he responded. It's right there in black and white. Right?

Any more questions?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:4ebb853f-d030-405e...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Saykally said you were wrong, and wasting your time with your utterly
inadequate and frankly grade-school "arguments", James. Other
researchers have told you that in reading just a few pages into your
manifesto, they found serious conceptual errors... their polite way of
saying you're a reality-denying kooktard.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:4ebb853f-d030-405e...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

He told you that you were wasting your time with your simplistic
knowledge and understanding of physical processes, James. You can't
even muster the brain power necessary to understand reality, let alone
try to argue against it.

Soper told you that in just the first few pages of perusing your
moronic "book not-a-book", he'd found several serious conceptual
errors.

You're wrong because you're insane, James. Just accept that and work
to correct it... your continuing on this course will only lead you
deeper into insanity. Trust me on this, the number of people I've
driven insane would boggle your mind. I'm very good at it, and more
persistent than the TholenBot, which I broke.

You cannot win.

> Any more questions?

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

[James McGinn]

I did argue against it. Follow this link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/_1I4_wmV7-4/JntZELczDQAJ

Therein I state the following:

You can't see the relevance of this question because your whole paradigm is
designed to dismiss it. Consequently the whole standard model is convoluted.
You and much of academia are in a state of continuing confusion. And,
therefore, a big part of the story that you present to the public involves
concealing your confusion. And this gets to the heart of why you can't (or
won't) answer simple questions. You are pretending to understand and wish only
to maintain the illusion. As I indicated, you are very much not alone in this
respect. All of academia is involved in maintaining the illusion.

Any more questions?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:e6594d50-06d2-4cd8...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> I did argue against it. Follow this li<SMACKAKOOK!>

Referring back to your own delusional blather isn't proof, James.

Where's your proof, James?

[James McGinn]

Can you disprove it?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:11012773-5f9b-48a5...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Can you prove it, James? The onus of proof is upon you. Where's your
proof, James?

It's a simple question, James. Answer it, you evasive shitbag.

[James McGinn]

I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of
meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an
aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of
meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because
here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's
futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their
understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of
the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.

I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical
thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will
see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and
for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.

Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:ae687a99-3024-4caa...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 9:26:59 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> I did argue against it. Follow this li<SMACKAKOOK!>

>>>> Referring back to your own delusional blather isn't proof, James.
>>>>
>>>> Where's your proof, James?

>>> Can you disprove it?

>> Can you prove it, James? The onus of proof is upon you. Where's your
>> proof, James?

> I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of
> meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an
> aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of
> meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because
> here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's
> futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their
> understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of
> the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.
>
> I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical
> thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will
> see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and
> for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.
>
> Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.

So all your blather above can be distilled down to "I, James Bernard
'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA have no proof to back up my
delusions."

Does that about sum it up, James? Answer the question, you evasive
shitbag.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity
>
> I saw the following video and then initiated the email conversation, with Richard Saykally, that follows. What follow immediately is some choice quotes that I am, effectively, responding to from the video:
>
> https://vimeo.com/11854837
>
> Go to 37:00 to 38:05
>
> Rich Saykally:
> "So, what's the deal. It's so simple. This is water, H2O, everybody knows that. Right? It is fair to say that we understand everything about an isolated water molecule. We know it's structure to those kind of decimal places. We know the properties of an isolated water molecule to very high precision and in great detail."
>
> "So what's the problem?"
>
> "The problem is that we still can't properly describe, we could say is, how do water molecules touch? What exactly is the physics of the interaction when two water molecules come together to form a hydrogen bond? We still can't describe that in sufficient detail to be able to predict the properties of the liquid and the solid that are the ultimate manifestation of water. That's the issue. What's the nature of the hydrogen bond?"
>
> Further along, 38:25 to 38:57 you state:
>
> "My goal in this project is to develop the ultimate theoretical model of water where you ask me any question, about what makes water wet, and I can answer it by doing a calculation with my model. That's the goal. We are a long way from that yet." Then there wouldn't be all these arguments arguments. Somebody would make some outrageous claim like rings and chains and we'd just do the calculations and, (shrugging) tell them that can't be right."
>
> The following conversation is in reference to this paper:
>
> https://zenodo.org/record/37224
>
> ******************************************
>
> Dear Dr. Saykally,
>
> I am a scientist pursuing theoretical advancements . . .hydrogen bonding in water and implications thereof. ' . . . . Either I have made an error or I have happened upon a breakthrough. I have written a paper
> https://zenodo.org/record/37224
> Might you be able to give me some feedback?
>
> *********************
>

> Jim....To be frank and honest I think that you are wasting your time on these arguments. There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems. It is the old language and the oversimplifiedl level of your argument(sorry) that causes the confusion. Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically(ab initio quantum mechanics), and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision. There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid, and rare events that are very difficult to model. Have a look at my pub list for some recent papers on this. But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
> Best,,,Rich
>

> *********************
> From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016
>
> Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically (ab initio quantum mechanics),
>
> It's regrettable that you, it seems, use this fact as an excuse rather than as a tool.
>

> and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision.
>

> Uh, yeah, so? If you can't point to any such "highly detailed predictions" to easily and concisely dispute (or confirm) the mechanism that I delineated then it is obvious that your models are worthless. All you have is one big, circular argument that has no practical purpose--other then to keep people employed pretending they understand something they don't.
>
> There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid.
>
> "Statistical fluctuations?' Are you serious? Is there any such thing as a fluctuation that isn't statistical? Do all your explanations involve circular reasoning?
>
> There is wide disparity in opinion about the nature of low density anomalies. Additionally, the standard model of freezing is obvious nonsense, surface tension also. And there is little or no resolution of the numerous other anomalies. Yet, you'd have us believe you got it all figured out.
>
> You can't address simple issues like the one I raised, yet you'd have me and the rest of the public just turn a blind eye because you gave us your assurance that you got it all figured out. Isn't that essentially what you are saying here?
>
> Science doesn't work this way. If you can't answer questions and address issues you are just pretending to be a scientist.
>

> and rare events that are very difficult to model. Have a look at my pub list for some recent papers on this.
>

> So, you can't give me a direct, relevant reference. Instead, you want to send me on a wild goose chase to find something that exists only in your imagination.
>

> But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
>

> LOL. Obviously if you can't address the issue I raised, then they aren't well understood by you, are they?
>
> I don't want to speculate about your motivation, but the fact that you can't directly address the simple issue I indicated suggest there is something very wrong here. Putting the best spin on it I might suggest you have mistaken your model for reality. But if that was the case one would think you would at least attempt an argument that referenced your model, even if only in a peripheral manner. So there must be some reason you are evading it.
>
> *********************
> From Rich Saykally to James McGinn, Jan 3rd, 2016
>
> Jim...I am surprised at your incivility! This is just science.....not a prize fight! The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims.
>
> *********************
> From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016
>
> I was surprised by your arrogance and self-righteousness. Honestly,
>
> If you can't address my thinking directly, honestly and/or you can't (or won't) help me find somebody (a graduate student, for example) that can, then just say so.
>
> Moreover, you seem to have no idea how absurdly evasive you sound suggesting one "must' always propose an experiment to discuss theory. That is the talk of a bureaucrat, not a scientist. Real scientists have no need for that kind of dogmatic nonsense. Honestly, you seem out of touch. (Sorry to be so blunt.)
>
> I've exchanged no less than eight emails with Alan Soper over the last week. Like you, he thought he originally assured me that the science is sound. But he, at least, attempted an argument. It turns out he didn't understand the full implications of what he believed. Now he is beginning to understand the limits of his beliefs.
>
> If you can't explain why you believe what you believe then chances are you don't understand it, you just believe it.
>
> As I explained to Alan:
> "In general, my readings convinced me that there are a lot of assumptions associated with the standard model that are not empirical and that are otherwise unexplained. It seems that these assumptions originated as honest conjectures but then, over a number of years, they gradually became adopted as dishonest "truths". In other words, they were adopted for reasons that involve explanatory convenience and not for reasons that are scientifically credible."
>
> *********************
> From Rich Saykally to James McGinn, Jan 4th, 2016
>
> Jim...I wish you luck.
> Rich
> *********************
> From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 4th, 2016
>
> Rich,
> I went to your website, something I should have before I first contacted you. I now realize you weren't being arrogant, you are just confused. And I am beginning to realize that this is the case for much of academia.
> In your video you are asked why water is wet. You responded, "because of strong, tetrahedrally coordinated bonds." (Which is not completely false.) With those words there is a blatant contradiction staring you in the face. A contradiction that you do not see: If tetrahedrally coordinated bonds are strong why is liquid water fluid? Why is it not hard?
>

> You can't see the relevance of this question because your whole paradigm is designed to dismiss it. Consequently the whole standard model is convoluted. You and much of academia are in a state of continuing confusion. And, therefore, a big part of the story that you present to the public involves concealing your confusion. And this gets to the heart of why you can't (or won't) answer simple questions. You are pretending to understand and wish only to maintain the illusion.
>
> As I indicated, you are very much not alone in this respect. All of academia is involved in maintaining the illusion.
>

[Solving Tornadoes]

[James McGinn]

Well, I was basically informing him that he had misunderstood H2O polarity (on
a fundamental level) for his whole career, so . . .

[James McGinn]

Yeah, right after I showed him a paper that demonstrated he'd wasted his whole

career, so . . .

with your simplistic
> knowledge and understanding of physical processes, James. You can't
> even muster the brain power necessary to understand reality, let alone
> try to argue against it.

The reality is he had no dispute. Neither do you. That doesn't mean I am right. That just means if I am wrong nobody has yet found out how or why.

I predict nobody ever will. It's right.

> Soper told you that in just the first few pages of perusing your
> moronic "book not-a-book", he'd found several serious conceptual
> errors.

Like Saykally, Soper's error was the assumption that polarity is a constant. The realization that H bonds neutralize H2O polarity is a discovery that they couldn't have even anticipated. My guess is they are both somewhat stunned, in denial. And they will never admit it.

>
> You're wrong because you're insane, James. Just accept that and work
> to correct it... your continuing on this course will only lead you
> deeper into insanity. Trust me on this, the number of people I've
> driven insane would boggle your mind. I'm very good at it, and more
> persistent than the TholenBot, which I broke.

I'm sure your family, friends, and fellow patients are very proud of you.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:b0ff3cb8-974b-4537...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>> He told you that you were wasting your time with your simplistic

>>>> knowledge and understanding of physical processes, James. You can't
>>>> even muster the brain power necessary to understand reality, let alone
>>>> try to argue against it.

>>> I did argue against it. Follow this li<SMACKAKOOK!>

>> Referring back to your own delusional blather isn't proof, James.
>>
>> Where's your proof, James?

> Can you disprove it?

Can you prove it, James? The onus of proof is upon you. Where's your
proof, James?

It's a simple question, James. Answer it, you evasive shitbag.

>>>> Soper told you that in just the first few pages of perusing your
>>>> moronic "book not-a-book", he'd found several serious conceptual
>>>> errors.
>>>>

>>>> You're wrong because you're insane, James. Just accept that and work
>>>> to correct it... your continuing on this course will only lead you
>>>> deeper into insanity. Trust me on this, the number of people I've
>>>> driven insane would boggle your mind. I'm very good at it, and more
>>>> persistent than the TholenBot, which I broke.
>>>>

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:a834416d-7fbb-456e...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>> He told you that you were wasting your time with your simplistic
>>>> knowledge and understanding of physical processes, James. You can't
>>>> even muster the brain power necessary to understand reality, let alone
>>>> try to argue against it.

>>> I did argue against it. Follow this li<SMACKAKOOK!>

>> Referring back to your own delusional blather isn't proof, James.
>>
>> Where's your proof, James?

> Can you disprove it?

Can you prove it, James? The onus of proof is upon you. Where's your
proof, James?

It's a simple question, James. Answer it, you evasive shitbag.

>>>> Soper told you that in just the first few pages of perusing your
>>>> moronic "book not-a-book", he'd found several serious conceptual
>>>> errors.
>>>>
>>>> You're wrong because you're insane, James. Just accept that and work
>>>> to correct it... your continuing on this course will only lead you
>>>> deeper into insanity. Trust me on this, the number of people I've
>>>> driven insane would boggle your mind. I'm very good at it, and more
>>>> persistent than the TholenBot, which I broke.
>>>>
>>>> You cannot win.

>>>>> Any more questions?

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity
>
> I saw the following video and then initiated the email conversation, with Richard Saykally, that follows. What follow immediately is some choice quotes that I am, effectively, responding to from the video:
>
> https://vimeo.com/11854837
>
> Go to 37:00 to 38:05
>
> Rich Saykally:
> "So, what's the deal. It's so simple. This is water, H2O, everybody knows that. Right? It is fair to say that we understand everything about an isolated water molecule. We know it's structure to those kind of decimal places. We know the properties of an isolated water molecule to very high precision and in great detail."
>
> "So what's the problem?"
>
> "The problem is that we still can't properly describe, we could say is, how do water molecules touch? What exactly is the physics of the interaction when two water molecules come together to form a hydrogen bond? We still can't describe that in sufficient detail to be able to predict the properties of the liquid and the solid that are the ultimate manifestation of water. That's the issue. What's the nature of the hydrogen bond?"
>
> Further along, 38:25 to 38:57 you state:
>
> "My goal in this project is to develop the ultimate theoretical model of water where you ask me any question, about what makes water wet, and I can answer it by doing a calculation with my model. That's the goal. We are a long way from that yet." Then there wouldn't be all these arguments arguments. Somebody would make some outrageous claim like rings and chains and we'd just do the calculations and, (shrugging) tell them that can't be right."
>
> The following conversation is in reference to this paper:
>
> https://zenodo.org/record/37224
>
> ******************************************
>
> Dear Dr. Saykally,
>
> I am a scientist pursuing theoretical advancements . . .hydrogen bonding in water and implications thereof. ' . . . . Either I have made an error or I have happened upon a breakthrough. I have written a paper
> https://zenodo.org/record/37224
> Might you be able to give me some feedback?
>
> *********************
>

> Jim....To be frank and honest I think that you are wasting your time on these arguments. There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems. It is the old language and the oversimplifiedl level of your argument(sorry) that causes the confusion. Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically(ab initio quantum mechanics), and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision. There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid, and rare events that are very difficult to model. Have a look at my pub list for some recent papers on this. But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
> Best,,,Rich
>

> *********************
> From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016
>
> Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically (ab initio quantum mechanics),
>
> It's regrettable that you, it seems, use this fact as an excuse rather than as a tool.
>

> and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision.
>

> Uh, yeah, so? If you can't point to any such "highly detailed predictions" to easily and concisely dispute (or confirm) the mechanism that I delineated then it is obvious that your models are worthless. All you have is one big, circular argument that has no practical purpose--other then to keep people employed pretending they understand something they don't.
>
> There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid.
>
> "Statistical fluctuations?' Are you serious? Is there any such thing as a fluctuation that isn't statistical? Do all your explanations involve circular reasoning?
>
> There is wide disparity in opinion about the nature of low density anomalies. Additionally, the standard model of freezing is obvious nonsense, surface tension also. And there is little or no resolution of the numerous other anomalies. Yet, you'd have us believe you got it all figured out.
>
> You can't address simple issues like the one I raised, yet you'd have me and the rest of the public just turn a blind eye because you gave us your assurance that you got it all figured out. Isn't that essentially what you are saying here?
>
> Science doesn't work this way. If you can't answer questions and address issues you are just pretending to be a scientist.
>

> and rare events that are very difficult to model. Have a look at my pub list for some recent papers on this.
>

> So, you can't give me a direct, relevant reference. Instead, you want to send me on a wild goose chase to find something that exists only in your imagination.
>

> But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
>

[James McGinn]