Link to Researcher that evaded the challenge of my claimed breakthrough

[James McGinn]

Saykally Uses Tactics to Evade Challenge to Standard Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/_1I4_wmV7-4/JntZELczDQAJ

Alan Soper is Confronted With a New Model of Water Structure
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/BP9azWxgKp4/5iRJ1TdlDAAJ

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:09:05 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> Saykally Uses Tactics to Evade Challenge to Standard Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/_1I4_wmV7-4/JntZELczDQAJ

Saykally did no such thing. He let you down gently, and gave more of his time than you deserved.

Saykally said "There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems." A simple statement of fact and not an evasion at all.

Anyone who reads the encounter can see for themselves that you have no business claiming what you claim. You are a fraud and a very poor loser, nothing more, but a loser nonethgeless.

Get a new hobby, science is WAY beyond your capabilities. The more you post here the more you reveal yourself to be just another breather, a waste of oxygen.

[James McGinn]

Saykally had no SUBSTANTIVE dispute with anything in my paper. And neither do you.

End of story.

You have an excuse. You are a nitwit. Saykally doesn't have that excuse.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

No, so far, this is a never-ending story.

Saykally said to you...

"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."

This, of course, you have miserably FAILED to do, over and over again. Hence, you are a fraud. You haven't produced a single SUBSTANTIVE scrap of evidence to support your position, not a single experiment, and have not a single proponent in your corner. You are all alone and twisting in the wind. You are a loser now and will remain a loser in the future. The burden is on YOU to prove your position and not on others to prove theirs. You know, the scientific method and all that!

> You have an excuse. You are a nitwit. Saykally doesn't have that excuse.

You, on the other hand, have no excuse whatsoever, you are just a wannabe physicist... but you have no bona fides at all, and are, in fact, flat-out lying about your education. Tell us, what was the subject matter of your dissertation, and from what institution did you matriculate?

I think we all know who the real nitwit might be here...

[James McGinn]

Aha! You didn't post my response!

Obviously Saykally has his own agenda. And I told him as much. Go ahead, look at my response. What are you hiding from?

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

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:33:42 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:09:05 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>>
>> > Saykally Uses Tactics to Evade Challenge to Standard Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
>>
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/_1I4_wmV7-4/JntZELczDQAJ
>>
>> Saykally did no such thing. He let you down gently, and gave more of his time than you deserved.
>>
>> Saykally said "There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems." A simple statement of fact and not an evasion at all.
>>
>> Anyone who reads the encounter can see for themselves that you have no
>> business claiming what you claim. You are a fraud and a very poor loser,
>> nothing more, but a loser nonethgeless.
>>
>> Get a new hobby, science is WAY beyond your capabilities. The more you
>> post here the more you reveal yourself to be just another breather, a
>> waste of oxygen.
>
> Saykally had no SUBSTANTIVE dispute with anything in my paper.

Your paper is such a steaming pile of babbling nonsense that no one is
willing to waste the time to dispute it point by insane point.


--
Jim Pennino

[pnal...@gmail.com]

You dumbfuck, I never snipped a single word of your response! It is all there for everyone to see. What a moron!

Salkally's only 'agenda' is science! You really think he is running away from you? You have yo be dumber than a bag of hammers!

You are attempting to deflect my criticism of you, but unsuccessfully. You are forever exposed as a charlatan, totally unable to support your position with either experiments or observations. Saying that you are full of hot air is giving you too much credit!

I can pretty much guarantee that Dr. Salkally has not given you a second thought since your last exchange, you aren't even a pimple on his ass! To him, you are just another nutcase with a wild-ass theory that can't hold water, and you are pissed-off that he isn't taking his valuable time responding to a total idiot! I'll bet that knowing this is the worst feeling for you... an actual working physicist is totally ignoring you... but then, why should he? You got NOTHING to offer!

It must suck to be you...

[James McGinn]

Sour grapes. I bet you never authored a post that got more than 10 views.

Look how many views on this. Google contacted me to congratulate me for setting a new record. Look for yourself:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

[James McGinn]

LOL. What criticism? You called attention to somebody (Saykally) who failed
to present a substantive argument. Your "criticism was not critical, it was
complimentary. Literally.

Let me explain the rules of science to you. If you are asked a question and you respond negatively but with no substance you just lost the argument.

That's the way it works, pal. Go find another hobby.

of you, but unsuccessfully. You are forever exposed as a charlatan, totally unable to support your position with either experiments or observations. Saying that you are full of hot air is giving you too much credit!

I won the argument. End of story.

>
> I can pretty much guarantee that Dr. Salkally has not given you a second thought since your last exchange, you aren't even a pimple on his ass! To him, you are just another nutcase with a wild-ass theory that can't hold water, and you are pissed-off that he isn't taking his valuable time responding to a total idiot! I'll bet that knowing this is the worst feeling for you... an actual working physicist is totally ignoring you... but then, why should he? You got NOTHING to offer!
>
> It must suck to be you...

You seem bitter? Hmm. I wonder why?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

So, this is all about how many responses you get? And for proof you reference a link to a thread that has 177 posts (8 pages)? And then claim that Google contacted you for setting a new record? Once again you are lying through your teeth. A record? 177 posts? What about this thread, which has 500 post and 20 pages? Wouldn't that easily beat your 'record'? Look for yourself...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics/oMmV-iRTCIg%5B476-500%5D

Still a loser...

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:13:31 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> Let me explain the rules of science to you...

You couldn't explain how to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel, let alone explain the rules of science.

You don't have a clue about that.

http://citydadsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/loser-hand-sign.jpg

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/21/2016 11:12 AM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Sour grapes. I bet you never authored a post that got more than 10 views.
>> >
>> >Look how many views on this. Google contacted me to congratulate me for setting a new record.
>> > Look for yourself:
>> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> So, this is all about how many responses you get? And for proof you reference a link to a thread
> that has 177 posts (8 pages)?

Are you kidding me? Of COURSE this is all about attention for McGinn?
Do you know how demoralizing it is to McGinn to be ignored?
Do you know how intoxicating it is to McGinn to be paid attention to? To
the point where he will respond to himself to satisfy that need in a
masturbatory way?


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

[James McGinn]

Sour grapes

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 9:12:16 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:05:52 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 9:01:06 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> > > Your paper is such a steaming pile of babbling nonsense that no one is
> > > willing to waste the time to dispute it point by insane point.
> >
> > Sour grapes. I bet you never authored a post that got more than 10 views.
> >
> > Look how many views on this. Google contacted me to congratulate me for setting a new record. Look for yourself:
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
>
> So, this is all about how many responses you get? And for proof you reference a link to a thread that has 177 posts (8 pages)? And then claim that Google contacted you for setting a new record? Once again you are lying through your teeth. A record? 177 posts?

178! It's out of control. It's a juggernaut. I'ts like, you know, something big that, that, you know, that keeps coming because it's so big.

This is going to be bigger than global warming!!!

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

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 9:01:06 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:33:42 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:09:05 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Saykally Uses Tactics to Evade Challenge to Standard Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
>> >>
>> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/_1I4_wmV7-4/JntZELczDQAJ
>> >>
>> >> Saykally did no such thing. He let you down gently, and gave more of his time than you deserved.
>> >>
>> >> Saykally said "There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems." A simple statement of fact and not an evasion at all.
>> >>
>> >> Anyone who reads the encounter can see for themselves that you have no
>> >> business claiming what you claim. You are a fraud and a very poor loser,
>> >> nothing more, but a loser nonethgeless.
>> >>
>> >> Get a new hobby, science is WAY beyond your capabilities. The more you
>> >> post here the more you reveal yourself to be just another breather, a
>> >> waste of oxygen.
>> >
>> > Saykally had no SUBSTANTIVE dispute with anything in my paper.
>>
>> Your paper is such a steaming pile of babbling nonsense that no one is
>> willing to waste the time to dispute it point by insane point.
>

> Look how many views on this. Google contacted me to congratulate me
> for setting a new record.

No, they did not, delusional halfwit.


--
Jim Pennino

[James McGinn]

LOL. Jealous? Have you ever gotten more than 5 views, three of them being from Sergio?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:dac1d5c0-8207-4057...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Lying sack of shit.

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/authormsg$3Asci.physics$2CfV_XIjPUCgAJ$20after$3A2015$2F12$2F24$20before$3A2015$2F12$2F27>
689 views

Since 02 Apr 2016, there have been 48 views. That equates to an
average of only 2.526 views per day... and those mostly came from you,
James.

You're a fucking liar, a scientific fraud, a dishonest scumbag and a
psychotic uneducated halfwit, Tardnado.

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

--

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.

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?

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, Tardnado Jim?

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:09:05 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:09:05 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

as;ldfjsdi

[James McGinn]

Uh, . . . er.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

> > > > Saykally said to you [McGinn]...

> > > >
> > > > "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"

Too bad you still don't understand how science actually works...

[James McGinn]

Saykally can't support his position so he hides behind phoney procedures that have nothing to do with science. The philosophy of scientific methods is not an obscure subject, you imbecile.

Prove me wrong, dumbass.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Still dumber than a sack of hammers, you are. The entire burden of proof is on you, and no one else...

[Serg Io]

we are waiting for McGinn to do the test he proposed, and to post the
results here.

waiting for years, and years.

soon McGinn, you will be too feeble to do much of anything, or has that
already happened ?

[James McGinn]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 12:55:22 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> Still dumber than a sack of hammers, you are. The entire burden of proof is
on you, and no one else...

So, let me get this straight, your position requires no verification?

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[James McGinn]

We're going to have grade school kids, all over the country (USA) do the experiment simultaneously. It will be on YouTube. And the results will be read live!

It would also be good to have cameras on your faces when you realize what a bunch of complete loons you all are to believe that H2O could adopt new, magical, properties as a result of being suspended between air molecules in the atmosphere.

[Claudius Denk]

These idiots have no idea what you are talking about. These simpletons think scientific truth is something you look up.

[Claudius Denk]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 12:55:22 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> Still dumber than a sack of hammers, you are. The entire burden of proof is on you, and no one else...

LOL. So, you are so desperate your only dispute is to fall back on a cliche.

You failed to dispute McGinn's assertion that there is no verification of moist air being lighter than dry air.

Your cliche is irrelevant, dumbass.

[Claudius Denk]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 2:07:53 PM UTC-8, Serg Io wrote:

So, if you are waiting on a test then you concede that it is an open issue right?

Answer the question you evasive jackass.

[Claudius Denk]

That's what he's saying. He's saying our unverified position requires no verification and yours does.

This is the kind of dimwittedness that is prevalent in usenet.

[James McGinn]

Church ladies.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:43:14 AM UTC-8, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 3:06:14 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 12:55:22 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > Still dumber than a sack of hammers, you are. The entire burden of proof is on you, and no one else...

> > So, let me get this straight, your position requires no verification?

The verification for my position is all over the internet, available to anyone with even half a brain. YOUR verification, however, is nowhere to be found. If you have any, let's see it.

[James McGinn]

So, your position, which has never been verified, needs no verification because the evidence is everywhere but nobody can find it? Is that what you are saying?

Too bad your evidence isn't real because then you could just post a link, huh?

Maybe someday, somebody will find one of these thousands of pieces of evidence. And, of course, maybe someday Uber will hire ducks as drivers.

Don't lose faith. Quack quack.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 4:02:47 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:43:14 AM UTC-8, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 3:06:14 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 12:55:22 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > Still dumber than a sack of hammers, you are. The entire burden of proof is on you, and no one else...
> >
> > > > So, let me get this straight, your position requires no verification?
> >
> > The verification for my position is all over the internet, available to anyone with even half a brain. YOUR verification, however, is nowhere to be found. If you have any, let's see it.
>
> So, your position, which has never been verified, needs no verification because the evidence is everywhere but nobody can find it? Is that what you are saying?
>
> Too bad your evidence isn't real because then you could just post a link, huh?

Here's a link, go crazy

http://tinyurl.com/gpba84d

This is what mainstream science has to offer. Remember what Dr. Saykally, an actual well-respected atmospheric scientist, a professor at Cal Berkeley, had to say to you...

"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".

Even though this is a cut-and-dried statement, you are too stupid to understand what he is telling you. Somehow, you seem to think that everyone else needs to disprove your imbecilic theories, rather then the other way around. You have NO experimental test whatsoever to offer.

If you had a brain you would take it out and play with it.

[James McGinn]

Saykally is evading my challenge. He is dodging the question/issue.

Can you provide more details as to how/why your position does not need verification? Or is that a special secret?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Don't be dense. Dr. Saykally simply doesn't have time for idiots. He hasn't given you a thought since your last correspondence, he doesn't even remember you exist. You were discarded as though you were yesterday's newspaper. Besides, there is no question/issue, that is just your very own foolishness.

> Can you provide more details as to how/why your position does not need verification? Or is that a special secret?

My position needs no propping up since it is taught in every university in the world. Your's, however, is only correct for a single citizen of the world, and that would be your own multi-personalized self.

[Serg Io]

On 2/20/2017 8:17 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 5:24:37 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
> wrote:
>> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 5:01:10 PM UTC-8,
>> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 4:02:47 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-8,
>>>> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:43:14 AM UTC-8, Claudius
>>>>> Denk wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 3:06:14 PM UTC-8, James
>>>>>> McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 12:55:22 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still dumber than a sack of hammers, you are. The
>>>>>>>> entire burden of proof is on you, and no one else...

this is old thread, over a year old...

> 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
> oversimplified level of your argument(sorry) that causes you 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, not by you. Best,,,Rich

> 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. You have failed to provide anything at all.

[James McGinn]

Consensus isn't science. It's religion. It's culture. But its not science.

> "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".

LOL. You just admitted that your own understanding has never been verified, dumbass.

You really should leave science to people that understand it.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:09:05 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Saykally Uses Tactics to Evade Challenge to Standard Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/_1I4_wmV7-4/JntZELczDQAJ
>

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 7:27:23 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

It's commical that you are quoting somebody who sidestepped a direct challenge.

Think about what this means, you dope.

[Odd Bodkin]

Jim, contrary to what you may desire, your challenge or confrontation does
not automatically warrant a measured response.

Perhaps you’ve never seen an overpuffed, drunken ignoramus challenge a much
better-skilled and clear-headed person to a fight. Usually, the
better-skilled guy will look at the challenger and simply say, “not worth
the time.”

Hint: you are not the better-skilled and clear-headed party in this
scenario.

I think you’d do better to get used to being ignored. Or, if it suits you
better, adopt one of your alternate personas to give yourself stokes. Like
someone who masturbates with a glove on.

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

[James McGinn]

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 11:24:08 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 7:27:23 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >>>>>> Saykally said to you [McGinn]...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "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"
> >>
> >> Too bad you still don't understand how science actually works...
> >

> > It's comical that you are quoting somebody who sidestepped a direct

> > challenge.
> >
> > Think about what this means, you dope.
> >
>
> Jim, contrary to what you may desire, your challenge or confrontation
> does not automatically warrant a measured response.

Well, whether I deserved a response or not is politics. And I would agree
that Saykally's evasion was political, as you indicate. More relevantly,
I think it is commendable that you are recognizing that I did not receive
a measured response, which I think lends support to my claim that
Saykally's evasiveness was little more than a cliched bastardization of scientific methods. (In Saykally's defense, he is a teacher and not a
dedicated science theorist.) I was mostly referring to the Pnal's
dimwitted assertion that Saykally's evasiveness was a valid response to
my detailed claims.

Thank you for helping me clarify the situation.

Here is a link to a thread where I more concisely delineate the vapidity
of the current paradigm on the water structure problem. Enjoy:
Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16601

[James McGinn]

Saykally presented no argument. And you idiots are defending him.

[Odd Bodkin]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 11:24:08 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 7:27:23 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Saykally said to you [McGinn]...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "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"
>>>>
>>>> Too bad you still don't understand how science actually works...
>>>
>>> It's comical that you are quoting somebody who sidestepped a direct
>>> challenge.
>>>
>>> Think about what this means, you dope.
>>>
>>
>> Jim, contrary to what you may desire, your challenge or confrontation
>> does not automatically warrant a measured response.
>
> Well, whether I deserved a response or not is politics.

Nah, it’s simpler than that. Don’t make it more sinister or arcane than it
is. You don’t deserve a response because what you say has no substantive
value.

> And I would agree
> that Saykally's evasion was political, as you indicate. More relevantly,
> I think it is commendable that you are recognizing that I did not receive
> a measured response,

And the lack of measured response is entirely appropriate here.

> which I think lends support to my claim that
> Saykally's evasiveness was little more than a cliched bastardization of
> scientific methods. (In Saykally's defense, he is a teacher and not a
> dedicated science theorist.) I was mostly referring to the Pnal's
> dimwitted assertion that Saykally's evasiveness was a valid response to
> my detailed claims.
>
> Thank you for helping me clarify the situation.

You’re welcome, though I think you’re still struggling with the basic
message.

>
> Here is a link to a thread where I more concisely delineate the vapidity
> of the current paradigm on the water structure problem. Enjoy:
> Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16601
>
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
>
>

[James McGinn]

Nah, it’s simpler than that. Don’t make it more sinister or arcane than it
is. You don’t deserve a response because what you say has no substantive
value.

How would you know?

[Odd Bodkin]

It’s patently obvious, Jim. Don’t imagine that you’re fooling anybody. Not
even yourself.

You’re invisible. Get used to it.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 6:10:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nah, it’s simpler than that. Don’t make it more sinister or arcane than it
> > is. You don’t deserve a response because what you say has no substantive
> > value.
> >
> > How would you know?
> >
>
> It’s patently obvious, Jim. Don’t imagine that you’re fooling anybody. Not
> even yourself.
>
> You’re invisible. Get used to it.
>

LOL. Ultimately "It's obvious." is the only argument you self-righteous twits have.

[Odd Bodkin]

Yup. The bliss of those lacking self awareness of their illness is eternal.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:47:21 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Yup. The bliss of those lacking self awareness of their illness is eternal.

So, if you trolls were to stop posting I don't think anybody would miss you. I mean, think about it, it's not like any of you have anything to say that can't be found with a search engine.

[Odd Bodkin]

So you can talk to yourself in this forum and do those things necessary to
assuage your damaged ego without interference, right?

[James McGinn]

Maybe if you didn't represent yourself as something you are not (a scientist) you wouldn't feel so bitter.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Jim, if you were to stop posting I *know* that no one would miss you. I mean, think about it, it's not like you have anything to say that *can* be found with a search engine because it is all just bullshit generated in your very fertile imagination, with absolutely no basis in science whatsoever...

Why not just give it a try, just go away for a while, and see if anyone misses you enough to ask you to return... but don't hold your breath!

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 5:11:54 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > Yup. The bliss of those lacking self awareness of their
> > > illness is eternal.
> >
> > So, if you trolls were to stop posting I don't think anybody
> > would miss you. I mean, think about it, it's not like any
> > of you have anything to say that can't be found with a
> > search engine.
>
> Jim, if you were to stop posting I *know* that no one would
> miss you. I mean, think about it, it's not like you have

> anything to say that *can* be found with a search engine...

I don't think I am anywhere near as perfect as you suggest.
But the supposition that I avoid saying anything that can be
found using a search engine is a badge I wear proudly in that
if you understand the subject you would have no need for the
crutch of a search engine.

> ...because it is all just bullshit generated in your very

> fertile imagination, with absolutely no basis in science
> whatsoever...

Telling us what you are sure about (which you do often) and showing us how you are sure (which you do never) are two different things. The first is politics. Political arguments are only influential on people (and there are many) who already agree with you. The second is science. Scientific arguments (which you do never) are only influential on those (and there are incredibly few) who are committed to the scientific method. The choice is yours.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 5:52:55 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> Telling us what you are sure about (which you do often) and showing us how you are sure (which you do never) are two different things.

Boy, is *that* the pot calling the kettle black! Jim, you total dumbfuck, you have never presented a single experiment or observation to support your claims, and there is just no doubt about this! You are a troll through and through, that's all there is to it!

> Scientific arguments (which you do never) are only influential on those (and there are incredibly few) who are committed to the scientific method. The choice is yours.

Jim, you have shown over and over again that you do not subscribe to the scientific method, and I doubt if you actually understand just what it is in the first place. Otherwise, you would be embarrassed to make such a statement!

Once a dumbfuck always a dumbfuck, and you will never change.

[Odd Bodkin]

I’ve never represented myself as a scientist.
And you are no telepath. Talk about your own inner states.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 6:03:33 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 5:52:55 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> Jim, you have shown over and over again that you do not
> subscribe to the scientific method,

I don't subscibe to your consensus methods. Nor do I have any need to
misrepresent my opponents words, as you do so often and so gratuitously.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 6:38:48 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:47:21 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Yup. The bliss of those lacking self awareness of their illness is eternal.
> >>>
> >>> So, if you trolls were to stop posting I don't think anybody would miss
> >>> you. I mean, think about it, it's not like any of you have anything to
> >>> say that can't be found with a search engine.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> So you can talk to yourself in this forum and do those things necessary to
> >> assuage your damaged ego without interference, right?
> >
> > Maybe if you didn't represent yourself as something you are not (a
> > scientist) you wouldn't feel so bitter.
> >
>
> I’ve never represented myself as a scientist.
> And you are no telepath. Talk about your own inner states.

I think it commendable that you do not deny your bitterness.

[Odd Bodkin]

I don’t have to deny what you’re guessing blindly at, do I?
How old are you, Jim? 7?

[Serg io]

On 10/24/2017 8:51 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 6:38:48 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:47:21 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup. The bliss of those lacking self awareness of their illness is eternal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if you trolls were to stop posting I don't think anybody would miss
>>>>>> you. I mean, think about it, it's not like any of you have anything to
>>>>>> say that can't be found with a search engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you can talk to yourself in this forum and do those things necessary to
>>>>> assuage your damaged ego without interference, right?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe if you didn't represent yourself as something you are not (a
>>>> scientist) you wouldn't feel so bitter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve never represented myself as a scientist.
>>> And you are no telepath. Talk about your own inner states.
>>
>> I think it commendable that you do not deny your bitterness.
>>
>
> I don’t have to deny what you’re guessing blindly at, do I?
> How old are you, Jim? 7?
>

....poor McGinn, can't find his cold steam...

now he is bitter, can't find anything with a search engine that supports
his missing water vapor imagination, nothing nowhere.

[Serg io]

Jim's smoking what DaftScience is smoking.

[Claudius Denk]

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:43:14 AM UTC-8, Claudius Denk wrote:

> > > So, let me get this straight, your position requires no verification?
>
> The verification for my position is all over the internet,

Really? Why not provide some search terms?

available to anyone with even half a brain. YOUR verification, however, is nowhere to be found.

Do a search on H2O phase diagram. It came right up for me.

[Claudius Denk]

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 5:01:10 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 4:02:47 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:43:14 AM UTC-8, Claudius Denk wrote:

> > > > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 3:06:14 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 12:55:22 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Still dumber than a sack of hammers, you are. The entire burden of proof is on you, and no one else...

> > >
> > > > > So, let me get this straight, your position requires no verification?
> > >

> > > The verification for my position is all over the internet, available to anyone with even half a brain. YOUR verification, however, is nowhere to be found. If you have any, let's see it.
> >
> > So, your position, which has never been verified, needs no verification because the evidence is everywhere but nobody can find it? Is that what you are saying?
> >
> > Too bad your evidence isn't real because then you could just post a link, huh?
>
> Here's a link, go crazy
>
> http://tinyurl.com/gpba84d
>
> This is what mainstream science has to offer. Remember what Dr. Saykally, an actual well-respected atmospheric scientist, a professor at Cal Berkeley, had to say to you...
>
> "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".
>
> Even though this is a cut-and-dried statement, you are too stupid to understand what he is telling you. Somehow, you seem to think that everyone else needs to disprove your imbecilic theories, rather then the other way around. You have NO experimental test whatsoever to offer.
>
> If you had a brain you would take it out and play with it.

So, it's as if you are out of touch with reality. McGinn's evidence is easily found with a search engine using the phrase: H2O Phase Diagram. Your evidence, that you say is all over the internet, is can't be found because you refuse to provide us any details. And then you assert that McGinn is ignoring Saykally, but all you present is a dismissive statement by Saykally in which he indicates that he refuses to consider McGinn's argument until McGinn proves his model wrong.

How do you expect anybody to take this seriously?

CD

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 10:31:32 AM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:

> So, it's as if you are out of touch with reality.

Jim, you are the guy with the pretend friend, Claudius Denk, and you tell me that I am out of touch with reality.

You are delusional. Besides that, you don't actually know what the phase diagram of water is telling you, you don't have a freaking clue...

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 10:31:32 AM UTC-7, Jim McGinn, posing here as Claudius Denk, wrote:

> ... you assert that McGinn is ignoring Saykally, but all you present is a dismissive statement by Saykally in which he indicates that he refuses to consider McGinn's argument until McGinn proves his model wrong.

>
> How do you expect anybody to take this seriously?

I never asserted that McGinn is ignoring Saykally, I'm asserting that Satkally is ignoring McGinn. I expect logical folks to take me seriously because that is the way science and the scientific method works. You want to claim that a well-accepted theory is wrong, you need to provide the evidence to support your position. The fact that you do not agree with this concept only goes to show just how out-of-touch you are with the scientific community, and that you clearly are not any kind of scientist, that is just bullshit.

[James McGinn]

So, let me get this straight. Your dispute of my evidence is based on me not seeing something that you can see but refuse to explain?

Can you explain why you refuse to explain it?

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 1:08:50 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 10:31:32 AM UTC-7, Jim McGinn, posing here as Claudius Denk, wrote:
>
> > ... you assert that McGinn is ignoring Saykally, but all you present is a dismissive statement by Saykally in which he indicates that he refuses to consider McGinn's argument until McGinn proves his model wrong.
> >
> > How do you expect anybody to take this seriously?
>
> I never asserted that McGinn is ignoring Saykally, I'm asserting
> that Satkally is ignoring McGinn. I expect logical folks to take
> me seriously because that is the way science and the scientific
> method works.

So, sidestepping issue with dismissive comments in part of the
scientific method? (Popper is rolling over in his grave on that one.)

> You want to claim that a well-accepted theory is wrong, you need
> to provide the evidence to support your position.

LOL. So, consensus bases assumptions are right until proven wrong?
Did you give this any thought at all before you put it out for
the world to see?
Also, isn't this exactly what the pope told Galileo?
(BTW, if it was true you would have no reason to employ the
political tactic of labelling it as, "well accepted.")

> The fact that you do not agree with this concept only goes to
> show just how out-of-touch you are with the scientific community,
> and that you clearly are not any kind of scientist, that is just
> bullshit.

The fact that you agree with it based on evidence that you refuse
to provide tells anybody anything they have to know to make an
intelligent decision on this issue. (Also,

[James McGinn]