Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity
208 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Jan 11, 2016, 3:45:33 PM1/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
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.
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
Jan 12, 2016, 1:16:03 PM1/12/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
And that is where you find the discovery. It always involves something that they would not even consider,
Sergio
Jan 12, 2016, 3:18:55 PM1/12/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
<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
Jan 12, 2016, 3:32:37 PM1/12/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Sergio
Jan 12, 2016, 8:18:26 PM1/12/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
are you in a home ?
Sergio
Jan 12, 2016, 10:13:06 PM1/12/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
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,
>
> And that is where you find the discovery. It always involves
>
> Always.
>
Why do you post your frog fights here ?
James McGinn
Jan 13, 2016, 10:05:29 PM1/13/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Jan 15, 2016, 4:57:13 PM1/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Sergio
Jan 15, 2016, 7:03:31 PM1/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
pnal...@gmail.com
Jan 15, 2016, 10:24:51 PM1/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Jan 15, 2016, 10:37:51 PM1/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
R Kym Horsell
Jan 15, 2016, 10:44:33 PM1/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
...
"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>
>> 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
>>
>>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
>
>>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. :)
>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?
"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
Jan 15, 2016, 10:52:58 PM1/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Sergio
Jan 17, 2016, 3:50:04 PM1/17/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
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...
>>
>> 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.
James McGinn
Jan 19, 2016, 12:30:28 AM1/19/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Solving Tornadoes
Jan 21, 2016, 10:25:26 PM1/21/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Sergio
Jan 21, 2016, 10:54:43 PM1/21/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
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
Jan 23, 2016, 12:01:07 PM1/23/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Sergio
Jan 23, 2016, 3:44:20 PM1/23/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Jan 26, 2016, 3:31:35 AM1/26/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Jan 27, 2016, 2:37:22 PM1/27/16
to
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Jan 30, 2016, 11:03:29 AM1/30/16
to
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Solving Tornadoes
Feb 9, 2016, 2:21:04 PM2/9/16
to
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Feb 10, 2016, 9:20:36 PM2/10/16
to
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Sergio
Feb 11, 2016, 12:30:38 AM2/11/16
to
<snip troll blog crap>
Sergio
Feb 11, 2016, 12:31:10 AM2/11/16
to
<snip troll blog crap>
James McGinn
Feb 12, 2016, 8:51:17 PM2/12/16
to
James McGinn
Feb 14, 2016, 8:33:05 PM2/14/16
to
James McGinn
Feb 28, 2016, 10:45:03 PM2/28/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Feb 28, 2016, 11:01:44 PM2/28/16
to
"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
Feb 28, 2016, 11:06:26 PM2/28/16
to
James McGinn
Feb 28, 2016, 11:24:36 PM2/28/16
to
> So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, rips you a new a$$hole,
Actually, his dispute was completely superficial. And so is yours.
Failure to address content--especially by a professional--shows that he doesn't really know his subject.
> "The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
Let me ask you this, given that you, obviously, have no understanding of the subject of the paper, did Saykally's dispute give you any kind of better understanding of the phenomena under discussion?
James McGinn
Feb 28, 2016, 11:27:00 PM2/28/16
to
On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 8:06:26 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> I forgot to add... no offense intended, but you need a new hobby...
You forgot to tell us the nature of your expertise on the subject discussed in the paper.
> I forgot to add... no offense intended, but you need a new hobby...
Go ahead, nose-picker, tell us your credentials.
pnal...@gmail.com
Feb 29, 2016, 12:18:30 AM2/29/16
to
On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 8:24:36 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 8:01:44 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, rips you a new a$$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.
> 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?
"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."
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
Feb 29, 2016, 12:52:34 AM2/29/16