⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀H e l l o⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

[V]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Can_Dr.Mitesh Patel,Pallab Ghosh,Jeffrey Rubard,Dr.Brendan Casey,Prof Graziano Venanzoni--Please, please--step into Fermilab or CERN physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.


> Jeffrey Rubard (pronounced rhubarb) wonders how on Earth chemistry got away with never weighing hydrogen versus oxygen atomic mass units in Electrolysis of water.-- Why, the fools stopped at looking when the test tubes were full of hydrogen but not actually weighing them. They stopped the experiment with "volume" look, my hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen-- duh, duh....
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:42:39 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > *Can_Dr.John Goodenough (chem),J.Rubard,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, --please--step into the Oxford Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.

> > > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> >
> > > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > > > >
> > > > > 3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > >
> > > > > In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
> > > > >
> > > > > In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
> > > > >
> > > > > A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
> > > > >
> > > > > The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
> > > > >
> > > > > You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > >
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > 12:24 AM (13 hours ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > >
> > > > > --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > > Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality constant Z can be used:
> > > > >
> > > > > m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
> > > > >
> > > > > m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
> > > > >
> > > > > This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
> > > > >
> > > > > m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > > A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
> > > > > x/v atoms are discharged.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the mass m discharged is
> > > > >
> > > > > m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
> > > > > where
> > > > > N_A is the Avogadro constant;
> > > > > Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
> > > > > F is the Faraday constant.
> > > > > --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > 1:14 AM (12 hours ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
> > > > >
> > > > > But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > 1:48 AM (11 hours ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > Cosmic Rays from Sun
> > > > >
> > > > > 90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.
> > > > >
> > > > > When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
> > > > >
> > > > > I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
> > > > >
> > > > > So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
> > > > >
> > > > > How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > 3:11 AM (10 hours ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
> > > > >
> > > > > So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.
> > > > >
> > > > > But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
> > > > >
> > > > > So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
> > > > >
> > > > > A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
> > > > >
> > > > > So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> > > > > to
> > > > > So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
> > > > >
> > > > > In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
> > > > >
> > > > > For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
> > > > >
> > > > > The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
> > > > >
> > > > > When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP, King of Science
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > 9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > 10:01 AM (5 hours ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to
> > > > > So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
> > > > >
> > > > > To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
> > > > >
> > > > > The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
> > > > >
> > > > > No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > 12:38 PM (4 hours ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to
> > > > > So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...
> > > > >
> > > > > AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chemistry Europe--
> > > > > "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...
> > > > >
> > > > > P Vermeeren, 2023
> > > > > "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
> > > > > "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
> > > > >
> > > > > AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> >
> >
> > My 250th published book.
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> > Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
> >
> > Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > y z
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ x

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:27:07 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Can_Dr.Mitesh Patel,Pallab Ghosh,Jeffrey Rubard,Dr.Brendan Casey,Prof Graziano Venanzoni--Please, please--step into Fermilab or CERN physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
> 
>
> > Jeffrey Rubard (pronounced rhubarb) wonders how on Earth chemistry got away with never weighing hydrogen versus oxygen atomic mass units in Electrolysis of water.-- Why, the fools stopped at looking when the test tubes were full of hydrogen but not actually weighing them. They stopped the experiment with "volume" look, my hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen-- duh, duh....

Egregious libel: The words are merely 'stipulated' to have the sought-after defamatory force. "Demolished you!" Like that.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

This guy 'isn't as bright as he thinks' like that.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"I don't know that?"
You *don't personally* know a thing? Do you understand how 'knowledge' works as a concept?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"But I don't know that."
Why is your ignorance or skepticism about a topic of knowledge or a purported fact "the interesting thing"?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Because I matter."
In which context or *Zusammenhang* do you matter, though?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"In the context in which I do, duh. And I'm a thing."
Is that a universal context, like global society or something?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

It's not one universally relevant context in which individuals operate? Maybe pretty totally?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"I'm... oh, this is supposed to be deep."
Perhaps you are not really omniscient, "all-knowing", really?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"It is not known to be a characteristic occurring in human beings."
"I'm not so sure."
"We are so sure, sorry."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Really. I know all."
"Um... perhaps this form of language is more 'cherished' than rationally recognized as a normal approach to the questions of information and research in the 21st century?"

[Jeffrey Rubard]

I don't know everything, myself. That's more the 'usual' case.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

...so maybe your 'practical omniscience' starts to bleed over into highly exceptionable behavior, perhaps?

[edpr...@gmail.com]

Hi V
Sorry but you just stumbled into a blackhole of spam. Unfortunately
there is not much in the way of reasoned, inciteful comments here
in sci.physics anymore.

You might want to visit sci.physics.research. It is moderated so
there are fewer insane posts.

Enjoy,
Ed⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"I think I've seen this kind of 'advice' before, actually."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Copypasta" disinfo in a rote format... maybe not?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"No, I think it is."
I meant you should 'discount' its importance or veracity, really.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"No, I think it's a real 'sell'."
You may be deluding yourself about that.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

It's a cookie-cutter method for supposedly 'misdirecting' someone, really.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Like "you left your terminal on" stuff.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Is this a thought you could think?"
"Yes."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Well, then, keep going on thinking those thoughts you *could* think.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"How am I to know whether it is a thought I could think, then?"
Ask yourself? I don't know.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"What if I found this supposed thought unthinkable?"
What could that mean at all? Gettin' complicated, here.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Why don't you just think your own thoughts?"

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Perhaps you should as well."
I'll do that!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Well, then, how do your own thoughts suit you?"
(Well enough. I should not 'say them out loud', even!)

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"But those internal mental states are 'coming along nicely', so to speak."
I guess.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Can you think them 'silently to yourself' by now?"
Yes.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"That's amazing."
Not really. Human beings can generally do it. Perhaps you should reckon that as 'common knowledge', even.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Not everything is common knowledge."
...and not everything follows the 'delineations' of your personal wishes, crazy f-ers.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"What's that?"
You know when you've got a sort of 'personal dictator', right?
"All too often."
The world *just can't* come out to their specifications, is that how it turns out?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Wider World: "No, it really just turned out to be the case that they had Safeway's in other countries, yeah." Huh, how about that!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"No, you're wrong. They don't have Safeway there anymore..."
In that one other country, yes, that's right.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"What you're saying is pretty vague."
Yeah, that's a problem sometimes.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"I can't even make it out."
Then don't, maybe?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"What do you mean?"
Don't just 'construe' things as you would.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"But of course I do that."
Then that's stupid. One should modify one's views as 'evidence' suggests.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"How would you know how to do that?"
By being scientifically rational? Maybe that's 'too much to ask', though.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"And your purported standard is..."
Being 'rationally responsive' to evidence that presents itself.
None of that '...and I prefer it that way' stuff.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Is there a more 'grown-up' expression for that?"
"Invidious distinction?"

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"What's that mean?"
"What is being said is really, really, not what the topic of discussion is about."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

It's "misdirection" of purported kibitzers, not the "butt of the joke". No, that's really "where that lives".

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"I see what he's saying. You think they're 'tricking' him... but they're really tricking you."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"That seems wishful, really."
"How so, compared to assuming they're the naive ones?"

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Well..."
Don't you think that you just generally don't know exactly which individuals or groups have more "savvy", really?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

That'd be more "sociologically rational".

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Doesn't everybody over-estimate their own competence?"
No. However, some do, and it's hard to see who that is...