Professor Dave (Mostly)

[James McGinn]

My Podcast: Solving Tornadoes / Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
The Central Confusion of Water Science
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-Central-Confusion-of-Water-Science-edrnr2




James McGinn
James McGinn
2 years ago (edited)
So much of what is taken as true or false in the natural sciences has to do with what is easy to understand and convey. Climatology and its most perverse theory of catastrophic global warming is only the most obvious variant on this theme. Misinformation and blatant pseudoscience is thick in all of the natural sciences. At the root of it all is a brain-dead, artificially simplistic understanding of H2O. And the silence of fools.
Much of the foolishness in the natural sciences started with Linus Pauling, about 60 or 70 years ago, when he made a conceptual error and the rest of the scientific community blindly followed. I refer to this error as Pauling's Omission.
Here is a link to a video that obviates this error and its wider ramification:
Pauling's Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=iIQSubWJeNg

1



Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
Water is liquid within a certain range of temperatures. Below that, it's solid. Above that, it's gas. Other substances have their own distinct ranges of temperatures within which they exist as the three states of matter.

Removing two hydrogens from methane would not produce a polar molecule, even if that were physically plausible. C-H bonds are not polar. OH bonds are polar because of the large discrepancy in electronegativity. Polarity is not dependent on the mass of an atom.

There is no "paradigm", and there is no "taboo", there's just you not understanding even the most basic high school chemistry. Instead of spamming my channel with this stuff, watch my content. You can learn about molecular geometry, the chemical bond, intermolecular forces, and lots of other things that will eliminate your confusion.

11



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
Hi Dave, Thanks for the response. I really like your presentation style. I don't agree with everything you are saying about water, however. Some of what you say is reflective of urban myth and not empirical science. (I'm an expert on H2O.)
Dave: Water is liquid within a certain range of temperatures.
JMcG: I agree. The problem is that there are major factions of science that surreptitiously assume that H2O magically turns to gas at temperatures/pressures far below the known boiling temperature pressure of H2O. Check this out:
We all grow up believing moisture in clear moist air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
Dave: Below that, it's solid. Above that, it's gas. Other substances have their own distinct ranges of temperatures within which they exist as the three states of matter.
JMcG: This is what they teach in schools. Schools teach simple models. For most substances that is fine. But not for water. Collectively water is very complex and has a lot of unsolved anomalies, over 70. (For more information do a search on the anomalies of H2O.)
In actuality our understanding of H2O is partial.
Dave:
Removing two hydrogens from methane would not produce a polar molecule,
JMcG: Wrong. There is an electronegativity difference between the carbon and the hydrogen.
Dave:
even if that were physically plausible.
JMcG: I agree it is not physically plausible. This is a thought experiment. Within the spirit of the thought experiment what I am saying is perfectly reasonable.
Dave: C-H bonds are not polar.
JMcG: Surely you realize the electronegativity difference of carbon to H is 1/3 that of oxygen to H. Right? So, at best, your argument is semantic and not empirical. Right?
Dave: OH bonds are polar because of the large discrepancy in electronegativity. Polarity is not dependent on the mass of an atom.
JMcG: I agree that they EN difference would only be 1/3 of that of OH. But it is dogmatic to suggest that, therefore, my point is invalid.
Dave: There is no "paradigm",
JMcG: There is always a paradigm.
Dave: and there is no "taboo", there's just you not understanding even the most basic high school chemistry.
JMcG: You believe simple models. Simple models are great for teaching. But the cutting edge of science involves addressing details and contradictions. (Obviously this is outside your capability.) For example, your model completely fails to explain the five anomalies that I demonstrate that my model explains with ease:
Pauling's Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg
Dave: Instead of spamming my channel with this stuff, watch my content. You can learn about molecular geometry, the chemical bond, intermolecular forces, and lots of other things that will eliminate your confusion.
JMcG: Uh, . . . you are a teacher. That means you rely on dumbed down models that appeal to the lowest common denominator of the public. I am a scientist. So, I can't ignore the details and contradictions that you dismiss with a wave of your hand.
The rules of scientific inquiry are very different than the rules of teaching.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

1



Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
You are definitely not an expert on water, bud. If you want to become an expert on molecules, get at least a bachelor's degree in chemistry. You are contradicting the definitions of words. CH bonds are not polar because we have categorized them as such. We decide what electronegativity difference qualifies as polar because it's a model of our own construction. It's like you're saying Washington DC is not the capital of America. It is, because we said it is. There are no anomalies regarding water. It is an incredibly simple molecule. Only someone who doesn't understand chemistry in the slightest can look at the whole field and say it's all wrong. It's a very foolish thing to do.

8



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
Dave:
You are definitely not an expert on water, bud. If you want to become an expert on molecules, get at least a bachelor's degree in chemistry.
JMcG: LOL. Obviously my expertise is way beyond a simple BS in chemistry. But that is irrelevant. The difference between me and you is that I am a scientist and you are a teacher. I don't have the luxury of ignoring details and contradictions.
Dave: You are contradicting the definitions of words. CH bonds are not polar because we have categorized them as such.
JMcG: Right. It's just a definition. It's just semantics. My point has to do with empirical reality, not semantics. Make an effort to not be dogmatic.
Dave: We decide what electronegativity difference qualifies as polar because it's a model of our own construction. It's like you're saying Washington DC is not the capital of America. It is, because we said it is.
JMcG: Irrelevant.
Dave: There are no anomalies regarding water.
JMcG: Good luck with that theory:
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_anomalies.html
Dave: It is an incredibly simple molecule.
JMcG: Individually, yes. Collectively no, no, no . . . . ad infinitum.
Dave: Only someone who doesn't understand chemistry in the slightest can look at the whole field and say it's all wrong. It's a very foolish thing to do.
JMcG: Hmm. In my opinion a fools is somebody that deliberately ignores details and contradictions that dispute their beliefs. Guess where that puts you?
Real scientists can't gloss over details and ignore contradictions (anomalies). You are a teacher. Teachers teach simple models that generally conform to dumbed down consensus beliefs that are mostly base on anecdote not empirical reality. In fact--as you have demonstrated vividly--it's just about impossible to get a science believer to address empirical facts that contradict their science based beliefs. Keep teaching. Leave the real science to those of us that have the training and intellect to explore what believers can't even begin to confront or imagine.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16613

1



Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
Buddy, you couldn't even pass a high school chemistry test. You are not beyond a bachelor's degree in chemistry. You are deluding yourself. You are not being empirical. You are making things up out of thin air with no regard whatsoever for the terminology or concepts you are using. You are not a scientist. You draw ridiculous misrepresentations of molecules on pieces of paper and talk to camera in front of a lake. You are not doing experiments. I have done waaaay more chemistry than you have, so don't pretend you know more than me about empiricism, that condescension is completely misplaced. I have done actual chemistry in a laboratory. I know what chemistry is and I know how molecules work. I know you think your little "thought experiments" are so controversial and ground-breaking, but there's a reason no one will watch them. Because they are utterly irrelevant and nonsensical. Learn real science.

7



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
I'm not being condescending. The point is that there is a big difference between a teacher and an intellectual. Nothing better exemplifies that but the fact that thus far your only point involves a semantic discrepancy. Understandably you failed to address any of the specific points I bring up in my videos. That is because you are a teacher and, therefore, only know the vague, standard model that is taught to undergraduates.
I mean, it's great that you've done experiments and all, but if you lack emotional disposition to directly address discrepancies and contradictions you are not genuinely doing science.
Good luck with your teaching career.
Keep making YouTube videos.
Here is something for you to show your students:
Explaining The Behavior of Non-Newtonian Fluids
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16885
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

1



Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
It's not a semantic discrepancy. I can barely comment on what you are saying because you don't even put forth a cohesive thought to comment upon. What I learned as an undergraduate and graduate student is not "vague and standard". It is chemistry. It's how molecules work. Have you done chemistry? Have you performed experiments in a lab? Do you not see the absurdity of implying that you know more than me about molecules when you have never worked with molecules? Do you not see that linking to random websites is not the same as chemistry knowledge? You don't know what polarity means. You don't understand the details of the chemical bond. You don't understand the basis for molecular geometry. You don't understand the types of electrostatic interactions that occur in solution. You don't know about colligative properties. You don't know about molecular orbitals. You don't know any of these things because you didn't study them. You watched some YouTube videos and decided in your hubris that you now understand science. Then, as a defense mechanism, you claim that all the science taught in every university in the world is somehow false, so that you can safely dismiss the fact that you never attempted to earn a real education. Reflect on that.

7



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
Dave: It's not a semantic discrepancy.
JMcG: You admitted it is a definition. Right?
Dave: I can barely comment on what you are saying because you don't even put forth a cohesive thought to comment upon.
JMcG: If you don't ask for clarification on specific points I won't be able to help you.
Science requires a different set of intellectual tools than just teaching.
Dave: What I learned as an undergraduate and graduate student is not "vague and standard". It is chemistry.
JMcG: It's a model. And, by necessity, it must appeal to a wider audience. So a lot of details (Like the fucking anomalies of H2O!) are glossed over.
Dave: It's how molecules work.
JMcG: More or less, yes. But I am talking about details on the cutting edge of science. You are talking about generalities.
Dave: Have you done chemistry?
JMcG: Yes. Both as a graduate and an undergraduate student. But primarily I am a theorist. As such, I can't just gloss over the details. You have that luxury. I don't.
Dave: Have you performed experiments in a lab? Do you not see the absurdity of implying that you know more than me about molecules when you have never worked with molecules? Do you not see that linking to random websites is not the same as chemistry knowledge? You don't know what polarity means. You don't understand the details of the chemical bond. You don't understand the basis for molecular geometry. You don't understand the types of electrostatic interactions that occur in solution. You don't know about colligative properties. You don't know about molecular orbitals. You don't know any of these things because you didn't study them. You watched some YouTube videos and decided in your hubris that you now understand science. Then, as a defense mechanism, you claim that all the science taught in every university in the world is somehow false, so that you can safely dismiss the fact that you never attempted to earn a real education. Reflect on that.
JMcG: I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to explain how and why.
Face it, Dave, you really don't have any dispute with anything I'm saying.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Hydrogen Bonds Neutralize H2O Polarity
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16798

1



Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
Okay man, what are these anomalies you speak of? I want to see you try to formulate them in a coherent sentence. If I know so little and you know so much, you should be able to explain them to me, right?

4



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
Dave: Okay man, what are these anomalies you speak of?
JMcG: Public Lecture—Water: The Strangest Liquid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hGqlEpvODw
Dave: I want to see you try to formulate them in a coherent sentence.
JMcG: I think you should always take responsibility for your own education. Never just assume that what you were taught is comprehensive or 100% accurate.
Dave: If I know so little and you know so much, you should be able to explain them to me, right?
JMcG: Right.
Pauling's Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg
I don't think any of this is beyond your capabilities, but you have a long way to go. Be patient with yourself.
Regards,
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

1



Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
No. Don't link me to a video. Explain it to me. With words. You're an expert, so it should be easy, right? What is it about water that you understand that the entire scientific community does not?

7



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago
Hmm. Okay. Try to follow. It started with a missing explanation for the vortices in the atmosphere and a hunch that the correct explanation involves a water-based plasma that spins up on wind shear boundaries:
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

1



Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
What did I just say? No links. Use your words, bud. Also, right off the bat, "water-based plasma" doesn't mean anything. Plasma is a phase of matter whereby atoms have been stripped of their electrons to yield a soup of nuclei and electrons. Water is made of neutral atoms, so plasma can't be made of water. Are you sure you want to keep going here?

4



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago
Feynman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxmmcwvkZeM

1



Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
Yeah, I can link to videos too, dude. Namely, the 200+ chemistry tutorials I have on my channel that you desperately need to watch. Have fun watching your Feynman videos and pretending that you understand any of his work.

5



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago
What did I just say? No links. Use your words, bud. Also, right off the bat, "water-based plasma" doesn't mean anything. Plasma is a phase of matter whereby atoms have been stripped of their electrons to yield a soup of nuclei and electrons. Water is made of neutral atoms, so plasma can't be made of water. Are you sure you want to keep going here?b

JMcG:
You tend to formulate principles based on what is known to be true. You can't make discoveries with that attitude. For a teacher that is fine. But if you want to become a real scientists you have to shift your thinking to base your thinking on what has not yet been shown to be false. You also have to aggressively explicate contradictions and eliminate vagueness in your understanding.

Nobody can do this for you. Nobody can teach you how to be a real scientists. You either have that attitude or you figure it out. There are no shortcuts.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

1



Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
All I'm asking you to do is explain your ideas to me. If you can't do that, you're not a scientist, you're not an intellectual, you're not anyone of consequence.

5



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago
Dave:
Plasma is a phase of matter whereby atoms have been stripped of their electrons to yield a soup of nuclei and electrons.

JMcG:
That's an ionic plasma.

Dave:
Water is made of neutral atoms, so plasma can't be made of water.

JMcG:
The sheath of a tornado is made of a water based plasma. Water is polar. Usually the polarity is very weak. But under shear conditions the strong form of polarity emerges. (You have a lot to learn.)

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
What You Never Suspected About Water in the Atmosphere
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16615




Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
There is no "ionic plasma". It's just plasma. Google ionic plasma. Does anything come up? No. Because that's not a term. Also, google water-based plasma. Does anything come up? No. Because that's not a thing. Saying the polarity of water is "usually very weak" doesn't mean anything. The polarity of water is fixed. The structure of the molecule doesn't change, the bonds don't change, it has a dipole moment that is fixed, like its other physical properties. How, pray tell, can the polarity of water molecules differ from situation to situation? Explain that.

You are saying things that are not things. You are literally making up terms and concepts. Saying "you have a lot to learn" is another defense mechanism. If you knew what you were talking about, you could just have a rational conversation with me without attempting to elevate yourself above me.

Also, stop pasting what I said into your response. It's very irritating. I know what I said. We're not in court.

5



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
Dave:
There is no "ionic plasma". It's just plasma. Google ionic plasma. Does anything come up? No. Because that's not a term.
JMcG:
Semantics.
Dave:
Also, google water-based plasma. Does anything come up? No. Because that's not a thing.
JMcG:
Really. So if it's not on the internet it doesn't exist?
Did you know that doing a google search is not an experiment?
Dave:
Saying the polarity of water is "usually very weak" doesn't mean anything. The polarity of water is fixed.
JMcG:
Evidence?
Can you explain the high heat capacity of liquid H2O (and why it doesn't exist in either ice or steam)?
Do you understand tetrahedral symmetry? No?
Study this very carefully before you respond:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg
Dave:
The structure of the molecule doesn't change,
JMcG:
I agree. But this is irrelevant since my model involves incidental symmetry as mechanism that reverse the stretching of the electron cloud that is associated with polarity.
Dave:
the bonds don't change, it has a dipole moment that is fixed, like its other physical properties.
JMcG:
Wrong. It is highly variable.
Dave:
How, pray tell, can the polarity of water molecules differ from situation to situation? Explain that.
JMcG:
(You are asking the right question.) Due to incidental symmetry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg
Dave:
You are saying things that are not things. You are literally making up terms and concepts. Saying "you have a lot to learn" is another defense mechanism. If you knew what you were talking about, you could just have a rational conversation with me without attempting to elevate yourself above me.
JMcG:
Well. I don't know about your educational background. For example, if you don't understand the concept of electron cloud stretching it is going to be about impossible to explain any of this to you. You say you want a rational discussion. But so far are talking in generalities. You are not being specific and you are not directly confronting contradictions (anomalies). So, from my perspective you really do have a lot to learn.
Dave:
Also, stop pasting what I said into your response. It's very irritating. I know what I said. We're not in court.
JMcG:
I have my own reasons for doing it this way.
BTW, if H2O's polarity really is non-variable, as you believe, it could not have the very low viscosity that is actually observed. Being a real scientist begins with being honest about any discrepancies between what your model predicts and what is actually observed. Obviously if H2O's polarity was static (as you believe) its viscosity would be much higher than the very low viscosity that is actually observed.
Can you explain why you never noticed this discrepancy? (I think we both know the answer to this question.)
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
It's Not What You Know That Will Hurt You . . .
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16318

1



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago
Stick with teaching.

1



Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
Yes. If it's not on the internet it doesn't exist. Definitely. That's pretty indisputable.

I don't need evidence. You are the one that is proposing something that flies in the face of the entirety of the field of chemistry. You are the one that needs to provide evidence. Stop linking me to videos. Explain with words.

Water has a high specific heat because of hydrogen bonding. It has a low viscosity because it's such a tiny molecule. You are inventing discrepancies where there are none. You are saying it should have a higher viscosity. Why? Based on what? How can the dipole change? The molecule must change for the dipole to change. You agreed that the structure doesn't change. The only contradictions are in your own words.

Again. Stop linking to videos. Use words. How can water's dipole change? Why do you think water should have a higher viscosity? These notions are completely absurd.

5



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
Yes. If it's not on the internet it doesn't exist. Definitely. That's pretty indisputable.
I don't need evidence. You are the one that is proposing something that flies in the face of the entirety of the field of chemistry. You are the one that needs to provide evidence. Stop linking me to videos. Explain with words.
Water has a high specific heat because of hydrogen bonding. It has a low viscosity because it's such a tiny molecule. You are inventing discrepancies where there are none. You are saying it should have a higher viscosity. Why? Based on what? How can the dipole change? The molecule must change for the dipole to change. You agreed that the structure doesn't change. The only contradictions are in your own words.
Again. Stop linking to videos. Use words. How can water's dipole change? Why do you think water should have a higher viscosity? These notions are completely absurd.

1



Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
Yeah... you ok over there, bud? Sounds like you could use a friend.

4



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
Dave:
Water has a high specific heat because of hydrogen bonding.
JMcG:
Meaningless
Dave:
has a low viscosity because it's such a tiny molecule.
JMcG:
So, in ice do the molecules get bigger?
Dave:
You are inventing discrepancies where there are none.
JMcG:
Did I also invent all the people that discuss H2O anomalies?
Dave:
You are saying it should have a higher viscosity. Why?
JMcG:
Because of polarity and H bonding. (How in fuck is this not obvious?).
Dave:
Based on what? How can the dipole change?
JMcG:
First you have to understand that polarity is a consequence of electron cloud stretching. Then you have to understand the situational factors (incidental symmetry) that reverse electron cloud stretching.
See this for more details:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg
Dave:
The molecule must change for the dipole to change. You agreed that the structure doesn't change.
JMcG:
Right the structure doesn't change.
Its the stretching of the electron cloud that changes. It is reversed. And, due to incidental symmetry, hydrogen bonds alleviate (reverse) the stretching of the electron clouds that underlie polarity. So, through hydrogen bonding, H2O molecules turn off each other's polarity by way of reversing each other's stretching of electron clouds.
(This also explains why H2O has a high heat capacity. But that is a little bit harder to conceptualize.)
This is why these highly polar molecules have such low viscosity--because they literally turn off each other's polarity when they are in close proximity to each other.
I have meetings with investors for the rest of the week. And I will be traveling over the weekend. You have a lot to chew on. I won't be able to respond again until next Monday or Tuesday.
Regards,
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

1



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago
Get a dog.




Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
Dude, I'm not watching your 40 minute video of rambling. If you can't explain it succinctly here, it's not real. However, I can say with considerable confidence that "electron cloud stretching" is not a thing. Nor is "incidental symmetry". These are terms you have made up out of thin air. Go ahead and explain these concepts, if you please.

As to your other comments, water molecules do not change size. Water freezes below a certain temperature because there is not sufficient kinetic energy for them to remain in motion with respect to one another. Do you not know what freezing is?

Then, I answered your question about specific heat with hydrogen bonding, and you reply "meaningless". Then, I ask why you think water should be more viscous, and you said "hydrogen bonding". So... what are you talking about?

More absurdities: "H2O molecules turn off each other's polarity". Yeah, what? No, they don't. Explain the mechanism by which you propose that occurs. How can an electron cloud stretch? How could it "reverse", and what could that even mean? I'm pretty sure you have no idea what atomic orbitals are.

I'm also super sure you have lots of important meetings, what with the view counts and subscribers your are racking up on this channel of yours. Soon everyone will know the incredible wisdom that you possess! And I'm not a dog person, but thanks for that totally random tidbit.

4



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
Dave:
Dude, I'm not watching your 40 minute video of rambling.
JMcG:
LOL. Too technical for you?
Are you a college graduate, or just a stoner who likes to read Wikipedia?
You can't figure anything out, can you? Fucking moron. All you do is parrot back what you look up on the internet.
Dave:
If you can't explain it succinctly here, it's not real.
JMcG:
So, let me get this straight. Your deliberate ignorance is, uh, . . . my fault? Uh . . . er, uh . . . uh?
Dave:
However, I can say with considerable confidence that "electron cloud stretching" is not a thing.
JMcG:
Electron cloud stretching in one of your videos, dumbass. I think it was one in which you discuss Van Der Waals force. So, with each response here you more and more reveal yourself as a fool and a liar.
BTW, without electron cloud stretching there is no polarity, dumbass. Let me put it this way, the reason the H2O molecule is a polar molecule is not simply because of the electronegativity difference between the oxygen atom and the hydrogen atoms. It is because this electronegativity difference creates an electrical gradient. And the electrical gradient causes the electron clouds on ALL THREE OF THE ATOMS to stretch off center from their nuclei. An atom having its electron cloud stretched off center of its nucleus IS polarity, you imbecile.
You have no understanding of QM. So, you fucking don't even understand the basis of molecular polarity. (What junior college did you get your degree from?)
Dave:
Nor is "incidental symmetry". These are terms you have made up out of thin air.
JMcG:
Yes! This is my discovery. You can't dispute it!
Dave:
Go ahead and explain these concepts, if you please.
JMcG:
LOL. You can't dispute it, can you. Admit it. You got nothing!!!
To you H bonding is just a distraction. You barely understand any of this.
Dave:
As to your other comments, water molecules do not change size. Water freezes below a certain temperature because there is not sufficient kinetic energy for them to remain in motion with respect to one another. Do you not know what freezing is?
JMcG:
LOL. You are the one that claimed that viscosity was determined by the size of the molecule, you fucking moron. It's not my job to explain your stupidity. Obviously that is a retarded thing to say. Now you are trying to pretend you didn't say it.
Would you like to make a retraction?
Dave:
Then, I answered your question about specific heat with hydrogen bonding, and you reply "meaningless".
JMcG:
Yes, your response is retarded. H bonding is involved. But you obviously don't have the slightest understanding how it is involved. You are just a vague nitwit that has memorized a few concepts. But you don't really understand what is happening on the nano scale.
Dave:
Then, I ask why you think water should be more viscous, and you said "hydrogen bonding". So... what are you talking about?
JMcG:
I described it explicitly in this video. You are a low bandwidth nitwit. Your own thinking is so obscure and vague in your own mind that I have to describe the weaknesses of your model to you. You couldn't figure any of this out in a million years because the model in your mind isn't really a model. It just a collective of memorized assumptions that don't really add up to any kind of physical model.
There is a huge difference between believing something and actually understanding it. You will never understand this because your own thinking is so disjointed and nonphysical that you don't have a starting point.
Dave:
More absurdities: "H2O molecules turn off each other's polarity". Yeah, what? No, they don't.
JMcG:
LOL. You got nothing!!! You can't explain why/how a highly polar molecule can have the low viscosity THAT IS ACTUALLY OBSERVED!!!
You can't see contradictions because your own thinking is so disjointed and obscure that you can't formulate a point of reference. All of this time you've just been pretending to understand. So when it comes to actually figuring any of this out you got nothing.
When pretenders get trapped into revealing the obscurity of their own thinking they/you become belligerent as a tactic to draw attention away from further revealing their/your insipient stupidity and ignorance.
You never actually understood any of this. Admit it.
Dave:
Explain the mechanism by which you propose that occurs. How can an electron cloud stretch? How could it "reverse", and what could that even mean? I'm pretty sure you have no idea what atomic orbitals are.
JMcG:
I'm not running a hand holding service. If you can't figure this stuff out that is not my problem. The only tactic you got left is to keep asking questions to try to deflect attention away from the fact that you really don't get any of this.
Explain how polarity is possible without electron cloud stretching, you moron.
You can't. You got nothing!!!
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Why people who believe storms are caused by convection smell funny
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16841

1



Professor Dave Explains
Professor Dave Explains
3 years ago
What's with the hostility? Did your big meetings with the important investors not go as planned?

I already told you about my undergraduate and graduate work, so no, I'm sorry, I'm not a stoner that just surfs the internet. I'm starting to think that's what you are, though. I did actually learn and do real science. However, I did surf the internet a little bit to find out about your book, the plagiarism, the hostility towards those who pointed it out, and more ridiculousness. Now I just feel bad for even having initiated this interaction. Enjoy your obscurity, and make the most of your self-aggrandizing illusions in your twilight years, I hope it brings you some peace of mind.

3



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
LOL. So, I mention Galileo's daughter and because some imbecile saw a documentary in which his daughter is mentioned that makes me a plagiarist. The desperation of science trolls has no limit. It's literally like dealing with religious whackos.
Real science requires real talent, real intelligence, and real effort. It's easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes. It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend you understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to appeal to what people already want to believe.
Dave, you have zero understanding of molecular polarity. Your thinking is so obscure you can't even formulate a coherent argument. Nor can you identify obvious contradictions to your vaguely understood model. The fact that you graduated from college with zero understanding of the anomalies of H2O is completely unsurprising to me. The same is true for myself and everybody else I have met. The topic is simply not broached at the undergraduate level. This is not by accident.
Here is what you don't get about science. Humans have a deep-seated emotional need to believe they understand their world and there is a lot of money to be made fulfilling that need. And since most science consumers don't have the time or the education to put much effort into it, the most money can be made giving these science consumers excuses for why they don't actually have to literally understand it. And so--for reasons of fiscal necessity--many sciences have dumbed down their models to go with the flow of what people want to believe.
It is for this reason that there are certain concepts in every discipline that are sacred. Their validity is beyond dispute and cannot be contradicted without the person being shunned by the larger discipline. Or, more simply put, certain subjects are taboo.
The anomalies of H2O are a severe embarrassment to all of the scientific disciplines in which water plays a central role. And, obviously, this includes all of the natural science but also physics and chemistry.
This results in dufuses that dismiss and evade contradictions that conflict with these artificially simplistic models.
Like martyrs to a religious cause they are willing to sacrifice their own reputation in order to preserve the perceived sanctity of their science-based beliefs.
To anybody else reading this, here is a link to the video that Professor Dave refuses to watch:
Pauling's Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
A Very Long Confessional Statement Attached To My Application for V-Phasian Membership
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060




James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
Here is an even more concise synopsis:
Here is a link to Dave's YouTube channel:
Professor Dave Explains
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0cd_- ... LH3UIwoWRA
____________________________________
Dave:
" . . . The polarity of water is fixed. The structure of the molecule doesn't change, the bonds don't change, it has a dipole moment that is fixed, like its other physical properties.
JMcG:
Evidence?
Dave:
The structure of the molecule doesn't change,
JMcG:
I agree. But that is irrelevant. With my model incidental symmetry is the mechanism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg
Dave:
How, pray tell, can the polarity of water molecules differ from situation to situation? Explain that.
JMcG:
If you don't understand the concept of electron cloud stretching it is going to be about impossible to explain any of this to you.
If H2O's polarity was static (as you believe) the viscosity of liquid water would be much higher than the very low viscosity that is actually observed in liquid water.
Dave:
Based on what? How can the dipole change?
JMcG:
First you have to understand that polarity is a consequence of electron cloud stretching. (The notion that electronegativity differences determine molecular polarity is only partially true.) Then you have to understand the situational factors (incidental symmetry) that reverse electron cloud stretching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg
Dave:
The molecule must change for the dipole to change. You agreed that the structure doesn't change.
JMcG:
Right, the structure doesn't change. I agree. Its the stretching of the electron cloud that changes. It is reversed. Hydrogen bonds alleviate (reverse) the stretching of the electron clouds that underlie polarity. So H2O molecules turn off each other's polarity by way of reversing each other's stretching of electron clouds. (This explanation is also instrumental with respect to explaining why H2O has a high heat capacity. But that is a little bit harder to conceptualize.) So, this is why these highly polar molecules have such low viscosity--because they literally turn off each other's polarity when they are in close proximity to each other.
Dave:
Dude, I'm not watching your 40 minute video.
JMcG:
LOL. Too technical for you? Are you a college graduate, or just a stoner who likes to read Wikipedia? You can't figure anything out, can you? All you do is parrot back what you look up on the internet.
Without electron cloud stretching there is no polarity. Let me put it this way, the reason the H2O molecule is a polar molecule is not simply because of the electronegativity difference between the oxygen atom and the hydrogen atoms. It is because this electronegativity difference creates an electrical gradient. And the electrical gradient causes the electron clouds on ALL THREE OF THE ATOMS to stretch off center from their nuclei. An atom having its electron cloud stretched off center of its nucleus IS polarity. And anything that counteracts the electron cloud stretching--H bonds--neutralizes polarity.
Dave:
As to your other comments, water molecules do not change size. Water freezes below a certain temperature because there is not sufficient kinetic energy for them to remain in motion with respect to one another. Do you not know what freezing is?
JMcG:
LOL. You are the one that made the dumbass claim that viscosity was determined by the size of the molecule, you moron. Obviously that is a retarded thing to say. But it's not my job to explain your stupidity. Now it seems you are trying to pretend you didn't say it?
Dave:
Then, I answered your question about specific heat with hydrogen bonding, and you reply "meaningless".
JMcG:
Yes, I was being nice, actually your response is stupid. Bonding means bonding, dumbass. It means there are electrostatic forces that brings molecules into close proximity to each other. H2O heat capacity involves these molecules being in constant movement relative to each other. H bonding (and polarity) can be involved with them coming closer to each other. But it certainly doesn't explain the other half of that movement where they get farther from each other. As I explicate in my videos, my model, involves H bonds functioning to neutralize polarity--due to incidental symmetry. Therefore, in conjunction with energy, my model does explains both of these movements.
Dave:
Then, I ask why you think water should be more viscous, and you said "hydrogen bonding". So... what are you talking about?
JMcG:
I don't think water should be more viscous. The variable polarity of my model perfectly explains why liquid H2O has such low viscosity. Your brain-dead model assumes that polarity is static (fixed). I am just pointing out the obvious. If this brain-dead assumption was true then H2O could not possibly possess the very low viscosity that is actually observed. (Shouldn't science be about what is actually observed rather than being about what brain-dead believers choose to assume?)
BTW, I describe all of this explicitly in the video. (You know, the one you refuse to watch.) You couldn't figure any of this out in a million years because the model in your mind isn't really a model. It just a collective of memorized assumptions that don't really add up to any kind of physical model. There is a huge difference between believing something and actually understanding it. You believe. I understand. This allows me to see contradictions that are just noise to you.
Dave:
More absurdities: "H2O molecules turn off each other's polarity". Yeah, what? No, they don't.
JMcG:
LOL. You got nothing!!! You can't explain why/how a highly polar molecule can have the low viscosity THAT IS ACTUALLY OBSERVED!!!
You can't see contradictions because your own thinking is so disjointed and obscure that you can't formulate a point of reference. All of this time you've just been pretending to understand (just like everybody else). So when it comes to actually figuring any of this out you got nothing!!!
When pretenders get trapped into revealing the obscurity of their own thinking they/you become belligerent as a tactic to draw attention away from further revealing their/your insipient stupidity and ignorance.
You never actually understood any of this. Admit it. (Don't feel bad. All members of your brain-dead paradigm are also just pretending to understand your nonsense model.)
Dave:
Explain the mechanism by which you propose that occurs. How can an electron cloud stretch? How could it "reverse", and what could that even mean?
JMcG:
I'm not running a hand holding service. If you don't understand quantum mechanics that is not my problem. The only tactic you got left is to keep asking questions to try to deflect attention away from the fact that you really don't get any of this.
Real science requires real talent, real intelligence, real effort and real understanding. It's easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes. It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend you understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to appeal to what people already want to believe.
Dave, you have zero understanding of molecular polarity. Your thinking is so obscure you can't even formulate a coherent argument. Nor can you identify obvious contradictions to your vaguely understood model. The fact that you graduated from college with zero understanding of the anomalies of H2O is completely unsurprising to me. The same is true for myself and everybody else I have met. The topic is simply not broached at the undergraduate level. This is not by accident.
Here is what you don't get about science. Humans have a deep-seated emotional need to believe they understand their world and there is a lot of money to be made fulfilling that need. And since most science consumers don't have the time or the education to put much effort into it, the most money can be made giving these science consumers excuses for why they don't actually have to literally understand it. And so--for reasons of fiscal necessity--many sciences have dumbed down their models to go with the flow of what people want to believe.
It is for this reason that there are certain concepts in every discipline that are sacred. Their validity is beyond dispute and cannot be contradicted without the person being shunned by the larger discipline. Or, more simply put, certain subjects are taboo.
The anomalies of H2O are a severe embarrassment to all of the scientific disciplines in which water plays a central role. And, obviously, this includes all of the natural science but also physics and chemistry.
This results in dufuses that dismiss and evade contradictions that conflict with these artificially simplistic models. Like martyrs to a religious cause they are willing to sacrifice their own reputation in order to preserve the perceived sanctity of their science-based beliefs.

1



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
Dave:
I already told you about my undergraduate and graduate work,
JMcG:
I have no interest in your background.
Paradigms are the result of human intellectual sheepishness.
When fools lose arguments they always use political tactics to save face. You have no evidence that H2O polarity is constant. It's a brain-dead, consensus belief. I have exposed you as a fool who doesn't actually understand. You just believe.
Address the issue you dishonest son of a bitch.

1



James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago
Address the issue you evasive twit.




James McGinn
James McGinn
3 years ago (edited)
Dumb Dave:
I already told you about my undergraduate and graduate work.
James McGinn: You shouldn't have done that. It makes you look dumb in that only dumb people think their education gives them an excuse to not address an issue. You are a teacher. You are not a real scientist. Accept who you are and don't expect others to give you credit for what you haven't achieved.




James McGinn
James McGinn
2 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XycF0uCuByQ




Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk
2 years ago (edited)
PD:
Water is liquid within a certain range of temperatures. Below that, it's solid. Above that, it's gas. Other substances have their own distinct ranges of temperatures within which they exist as the three states of matter.
CD: Wow. Such an inane comment. Did you watch the video?
PD: Removing two hydrogens from methane would not produce a polar molecule, even if that were physically plausible. C-H bonds are not polar. OH bonds are polar because of the large discrepancy in electronegativity. Polarity is not dependent on the mass of an atom.C
CD: Right. You aren't paying attention. C-H bonds have 1/3 the electronegativity as do O-H bonds. So, you are wrong to say C-H bonds are not polar bonds. Moreover, McGinn clearly indicated that this was a thought experiment that he is using as an explanatory device. Your dispute is petty, small-minded.
PD: There is no "paradigm", and there is no "taboo", there's just you not understanding even the most basic high school chemistry. Instead of spamming my channel with this stuff, watch my content. You can learn about molecular geometry, the chemical bond, intermolecular forces, and lots of other things that will eliminate your confusion.
CD: Obviously, if you actually understood this particular subject you wouldn't be so intent on finding excuses to not consider the message being conveyed here.
PD: You are a teacher. You are not a scientist. There is a big difference.
It is obvious that you do not understand this subject well enought to address new thinking that attempts to resolve the unresolved anomalies of H2O.
CD

1



Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk
2 years ago (edited)
@Professor Dave Explains
PD: You are definitely not an expert on water, bud.
CD: LOL. You are definitely not a scientist with a coherent point. You are an academic with a point that is, well, academics.
PD: If you want to become an expert on molecules, get at least a bachelor's degree in chemistry.
CD: If you were really an expert you would not need to tell us, you would show us. But you can't. Because all you understand is what you were told to believe. You are not a critical thinker. You are just a teacher.
PD: You are contradicting the definitions of words. CH bonds are not polar because we have categorized them as such. We decide what electronegativity difference qualifies as polar because it's a model of our own construction.
CD: Totally irrelevant and outside the spirit of common discourse. As you just explained, the designation of C-H bonds as nonpolar is ARBITRARY (look up this word if you don't know what it means). That means some person arbitrarily choose a threshold below which they are categorized as polar or nonpolar. McGinn even acknowledged that this was just a thought experiment for explanatory purposes, you goon.
PD: It's like you're saying Washington DC is not the capital of America.
CD: No, it's like he's saying that Washington DC is a city with similarities to many other cities.
PD: It is, because we said it is.
CD: You argue like a 10 year old boy.
PD: There are no anomalies regarding water.
CD: The anomalies of water are well documented, you fucking moron.
PD: It is an incredibly simple molecule. Only someone who doesn't understand chemistry in the slightest can look at the whole field and say it's all wrong. It's a very foolish thing to do.
CD: You are a convoluted nitwit. It is the collective implications of H2O that are so complex and poorly understood. And this stems from nitwits like yourself who insist that we gloss over the 70 different unexplained anomalies of H2O. You are a convoluted fool.
CD

1



Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk
2 years ago
@Professor Dave Explains
So, why are you so defensive and evasive?

1



Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk
2 years ago (edited)
@Professor Dave Explains
PD: All I'm asking you to do is explain your ideas to me.
CD: Did you watch the video?

1



Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk
2 years ago (edited)
CD: This is way over the head of a simple teacher like Professor Dave.

1



Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk
2 years ago (edited)
​ @Professor Dave Explains
PD: The structure of the molecule doesn't change, the bonds don't change, it has a dipole moment that is fixed, like its other physical properties.
CD: This is the crux of conventional stupidity. Yes, it is true that the structure of the molecule doesn't change. But the structure of the molecule IS NOT WHAT IS CAUSING THE POLARITY!!! Rather it is the electric field created by the lopsidedness of the structure of the molecule that creates the electric field associated with H2O polarity. And here is the thing you simple academic pretenders failed to consider. Electric fields from adjacent H2O molecules that are hydrogen bonded can/do actually reverse and neutralize the electric field that causes the polarity. Proximity to other H2O molecules is, therefore the mechanism of the variability of H2O polarity (and proximity is highly variable, you moron).
You missed this important point because you mistakenly assumed that it was the structure that causes polarity when it is actually the electric field associated with the structure. And electric fields can be counteracted. You failed to consider this, you simple nitwit. McGinn noticed this and made a video explicating this. And you are so convoluted you failed to grasp his point.
PD: How, pray tell, can the polarity of water molecules differ from situation to situation? Explain that.
CD: McGinn fucking explained this in the video, you moron. Watch the fucking video.
PD: You are saying things that are not things. You are literally making up terms and concepts. Saying "you have a lot to learn" is another defense mechanism. If you knew what you were talking about, you could just have a rational conversation with me without attempting to elevate yourself above me.
PD: LOL. McGinn made a video and you came here telling us about your credentials. Nobody asked you about your credentials. Beyond that, your whole argument is that the anomalies don't exist. You are a desperate, vague nitwit who really doesn't understand what is actually happening on the molecular level.
CD

1



bipola telly
bipola telly
2 years ago
I looked at your channel.
It's drivel disguised as science.
I call it "psyence"... Catchy, hey?




bipola telly
bipola telly
2 years ago
@James McGinn
lol
He's not interested in the Thunderbolts Project...
He has tenure. (apparently)




bipola telly
bipola telly
2 years ago
@Professor Dave Explains
Wow!
You are an idiot!




bipola telly
bipola telly
2 years ago
@Professor Dave Explains
LOL
And YOU are a teacher?
Wow!
No wonder the kids are getting dumber!




bipola telly
bipola telly
2 years ago
@Professor Dave Explains
I understand exactly what he's saying.
I understand your reactions to what he's saying...
You have nothing but rhetoric.




bipola telly
bipola telly
2 years ago
@Professor Dave Explains
you don't seem to know much that's actually real but nice you calmed down and stopped stamping your feet like a little sjw.
kudos to you!




bipola telly
bipola telly
2 years ago
@Professor Dave Explains
well... google "climate science" and you get a whole lot of garbage like "97% of scientists" think "gas and not the Sun is warming the planet" and other such crap.
So...... pffft.
LOL




bipola telly
bipola telly
2 years ago
@Professor Dave Explains
irony again.
(google "irony", dave)




bipola telly
bipola telly
2 years ago
@Professor Dave Explains
So.... You're a professor?
Quite common that the least qualified get certain jobs these daze.

1



bipola telly
bipola telly
2 years ago
@Professor Dave Explains
irony again!




bipola telly
bipola telly
2 years ago
@Professor Dave Explains
and again! (irony)
Projecting again too!




bipola telly
bipola telly
2 years ago
@Robin Bedford
You are a know nothing of consequence, imbecile.




Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk
2 years ago
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/hlb8csWSbpI




James McGinn
James McGinn
1 year ago
@Professor Dave Explains The polarity of water is not fixed, it is variable. And the anomalies of H2O (which remain unexplained by science) is the result of this variable polarity.




James McGinn
James McGinn
1 year ago
Dave:
Yes. If it's not on the internet it doesn't exist. Definitely. That's pretty indisputable.
I don't need evidence. You are the one that is proposing something that flies in the face of the entirety of the field of chemistry.
JMcG:
My model explains the anomalies. All you can do is dismiss them.
Dave:
You are the one that needs to provide evidence.
JMcG:
The anomalies of H2O (which you cannot resolve and instead must find reasons to ignore) are the evidence that my model will explain.
Dave:
Stop linking me to videos. Explain with words.
JMcG:
Your education is your own responsibility. Not mine.
Dave:
Water has a high specific heat because of hydrogen bonding.
JMcG:
Only a moron would take such a statement seriously. You got nothing, moron.
Dave:
It has a low viscosity because it's such a tiny molecule.
JMcG:
No, dumbass. It has a low viscosity because the forces that exist between the molecules is very slight--something my model explains and your model fails to explain.
Dave:
You are inventing discrepancies where there are none.
JMcG:
What?
Dave:
You are saying it should have a higher viscosity. Why?
JMcG:
I can explain why it doesn't have a higher viscosity. Lying is not an option for me.
Dave:
Based on what?
JMcG:
Based on reason.
Dave:
How can the dipole change?
JMcG:
The dipole doesn't change. What does change is the net electrical gradients relative to nuclei.
Dave:
The molecule must change for the dipole to change. You agreed that the structure doesn't change. The only contradictions are in your own words.
JMcG:
The structure of the molecules does not change. But the structure does not determine the polarity. Rather the polarity is determined by the net electrical gradients relative to nuclei. Before hydrogen bonding the net electrical gradient is non-zero. After hydrogen bonding it is zero. (So, it is because of the high degree of H bonding in liquid water that the viscosity of liquid water is so low.)
Dave:
Again. Stop linking to videos. Use words. How can water's dipole change? Why do you think water should have a higher viscosity? These notions are completely absurd.
JMcG:
H2O Polarity is not caused by the shape of the molecule. This is the mistake. H2O polarity is caused by a net electrical gradient relative to nuclei. When H2O molecules are fully bonded the net electrical gradients relative to nuclei is zero.




James McGinn
James McGinn
17 hours ago
Pull your head out of your ass. Meteorology claims that H2O is gaseous upon evaporation. That's ambient temps, you clown.




James McGinn
James McGinn
2 years ago (edited)
RB: The word anomalous means: deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected.
JMcG: In science it mean that you have an observation that you theory failed to predict/anticipate/explain.
RB: That doesn’t not mean the same as not understood. But that is how you have erroneously decided to use it.
JMcG I use the scientific definition.
RB: What you are saying you have decided is true but it simply isn’t.
JMcG: Hmm. Well. I'm an expert on this particular subject. Feel free to address my thoughts directly and in a non-dismissive manner.
RB: I am an chemistry academic with a professional interest in molecular structure and what you say about academics undertaking a “collective effort on the part of factions of academia to keep the topic obscure” is, in my opinion, absolute, unmitigated and farcical bollocks.
JMcG As an academic (I'm not an academic. I am a theoretical scientist.) you are politically committed to the standard model (whether you realize it or not). When an academic encounters contradictions to standard models their (mistaken) instinct is to minimize and dismiss these contradictions. All academics sweep contradictions under the rug so that their students don't have any ammunition to interrupt the flow of the explanation.
As a teacher you have different considerations than I have. Unlike yourself, I have the luxury of confronting contradictions and exploring the fuller implications thereof. You can't do that. You don't have the time. And you don't have the clout to deal with the political implications that would emerge if you did come to comprehend the unresolved contradictions associated with the contrast between what current theory predicts and what is actually observed. So you do what everybody in your situation does, you pretend to understand and if anybody challenges you you hide behind your credentials--as you are doing here.
RB: It not only shows a complete lack of understanding of how science in general works, but how application for funding in particular works. Such a juicy “lack of understanding” would not be hidden but would be the subject of multiple grant applications! Hell, I’d want a slice of that pie too!
JMcG LOL. Yeah. Juicy. But then you'd have to convince all of the vague nitwits who are pretending to understand that they actually don't understand but are, like yourself, just pretending not to notice the blatant contradictions associated with the standard model. You would get nowhere. You would he labelled as a malcontent and your career would suffer. You might even cause an uproar among your students. You can't do anything but pretend not to notice the blatant contradiction. I don't have that limitation. I am free to consider alternative explanations that are strictly off limits to you or anybody who is ensconced in the politics of academia.
RB: Yes the study of the structure and properties water, as well as countless other materials, is ongoing, but that does not mean our current models are incorrect,
JMcG Jesus Christ! It also doesn't mean they are correct.
RB: merely that they can always be improved and investigated in ever greater depth. That is how science works.
JMcG Wrong. As Kuhn described, the way science works is that academia forms an emotional attachment to a particular model and they maintain that belief until the bitter end, when they eventually die and then some real scientific improvement can be achieved because the pretenders are no longer there to pretend to understand what actually has never made sense.
Face it. If the current model of hydrogen bonding was any good you would simply refer to it and this discussion would be over. You can't do that because you are so confused you wouldn't even know where to start.
RB: Rather than using YouTube as your font of all knowledge, why not hit the scientific literature? A quick search of the Web of Science using the topic search term “structure of water” ( very much a non-exhaustive search) returns 2059 research articles, 90 of which were published in the last 12 months. Of course you could just bang on that scientists are too afraid to talk about it, but 2 articles published a week in the scientific literature for anyone to read and scrutinize versus a couple of nonsense videos on YouTube (note, by a ‘climatologist’, not a chemist)? Really? Maybe if you want to understand the properties of molecules you should talk with chemists and chemical physicist, the people who study molecules, their structure and interactions, rather than listen to a bemused climatologist.
JMcG LOL. You got nothing!!! As I stated above, if the current model of hydrogen bonding was any good you would simply refer to it and this discussion would be over. You can't do that because you are so confused you wouldn't even know where to start.
You are a teacher. You are not a real scientist. Real science involves directly confronting contradictions. You aren't doing that. Instead you are making an argument as to why the rules of science don't apply to you. This is the case with all of the pretentious nitwits in academia.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding in Water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw&t=10s

1



Denis Ables
Denis Ables
2 years ago
How does "John Ellis" water fit into this? It has apparently been verified that the molecular structure of H2O can be changed. Ellis water, after numerous warmings and coolings exhibits a different energy issue. Whereas "regular" water requires 31 amps to separate H and O, "Ellis" water only requires 1 amp. Furthermore, this characteristic is apparently "contagious". Adding a few drops of Ellis water to regular water introduces this easier separation to all of that water. This has evidently been confirmed.

Ellis water has a hydrogen bonding angle of 114 degrees as opposed to regular water having a lower bonding angle.




James McGinn
James McGinn
2 years ago
"John Ellis" water seems like obvious superstition.
The current paradigm on water is atrocious. But that does not mean we should open the door to pseudoscience.




henkema22
henkema22
1 year ago
i like the basic concept that there is more to water than one might expect... good thinking james, go on... we might disagree on the details though




James McGinn
James McGinn
1 year ago
Thanks for the response. This is a link to my podcast that I think you might find interesting:
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/How-We-Know-Water-Has-Been-Systematically-Misunderstood-By-Science-e9c1e9




James McGinn
James McGinn
2 years ago (edited)
Robin: Ermm, before spouting off about your frankly crackpot theory, you should check your basic assumptions.
James: Yes, excellent suggestion. Just think, if Pauling had done that you and the rest of the chemists in your paradigm might not be in the position you are now of pretending to understand what actually doesn't make sense about the hydrogen bond between water molecules. Then you might no longer feel the need to use rhetorical tactics to dismiss the anomalies that, I purport, will be explained (or, at least, become explicable) with the emplacement of the correct assumptions.
Robin: You start off by saying that Coulomb's law means that polar molecules should get ever closer.
James: Well, yes, in a sense. Specifically, Coulomb's law states that with electrostatic forces between molecules the magnitude of the force increases as they get closer to each other up until they
encounter each others electron cloud. The fact that the electrostatic polar forces that exist
between H2O molecules are, firstly, strong enough to bring them close to each other but then, inexplicably, either disappears or is greatly reduced as they become even closer suggests that Coulombs law is either not a genuine law or the electrostatic force that is associated with this form of hydrogen bonding has turned off. If we dismiss the former (after all, it is a "law") and assume that the latter is the case then we can hypothesize that, possibly, the force associated with hydrogen bonding must be variable. And if that is the case then we can hypothesize that the underlying cause of this force--the polarity of the H2O molecule--must (or, at least, might) itself be variable. Of course, this brings us to the question as to what is the mechanism of this variable polarity.
Robin: You have, in the process entirely ignored the Lennard-Jones potential (you may want to look that up). This shows that your justification of dismissing current thinking is fundamentally incorrect.
James: I ignore it because you introduced it as a tactic to pretend you understand what you don't. In other words, I ignore it because it is irrelevant. You know it is irrelevant but you will never admit it. Pretenders never stop pretending.
The Lennard-Jones potential is, after all, not a hypothesis or a theory. It is just a procedure or method for accounting for the forces that exist between two molecules and describing the relationship thereof. It doesn't tell us anything specific about the (cause and effect) origins of the forces that exist between two H2O molecules.
You mention Lennar-Jones potential as a tactic to create obfuscation so that your dishonest is not obvious to anybody else reading this.
Robin: The made up stuff on the nature of the chemical bond (way to go on your new theory, but I think you are not going to be replacing the last 100 years of thought any time soon) is therefore unnecessary.
James: (I suppose enumerating the longevity of a belief is one way of measuring its value. )
But, yes, I realize that this would cause the current paradigm to admit that it is mistaken. And we know that never happens. The silver lining is that someday these convoluted, pretentious nitwits will die. Then I new generation will come along (some of whom may be reading this) who are familiar with it and scientific progress will be achieved. (Whether or not I will be alive when this all transpires is hard to say--this generally being the fate of revolutionary scientists. [You know the story: Blah blah blah, Galileo . . . blah blah.])
Robin: As an aside, the hydrogen bonds in liquid water are about 2.8 Å and marginally shorter in ice.
James: This is the average distance. And it was not directly observed. It was calculated. More importantly, what we actually have in liquid water is constant movement. There is constant interplay of H2O molecules being pulled toward each other, achieving tetrahedral symmetry and, thereby, neutralizing each others polarity, and then bouncing off each others electron clouds, reactivating polarity with distance, and the process repeats, continually. The movement (energy) is essentially trapped. This is the mechanism of H2O's huge heat capacity.
Robin: The O-H covalent distance is about 0.96 Å. If you are suggesting, as you seem to be by analogy with methane, . . .
James: Right!
Robin: . . . that water molecules pack so tightly that the hydrogens get sufficiently close to remove polarity ( a similar distance to the covalent O-H bonds perhaps?) . . .
James: Yes. I refer to this as "incidental symmetry." This is Pauling's flub. This is what he omitted when he described hydrogen bonding back in the 1940s. (I am genuinely impressed that you comprehend this. You are not the first person other than me to comprehend it, but you are the first person who I did not explain it to in person to get it.) If Pauling didn't make this error the anomalies of H2O would be unknown.
Robin: . . . then the resultant hydrogen bonds would be less than half the distance of the actual hydrogen bonds in ice. Hard to reconcile this with water ever being a fluid!
James: Well, it may be hard for you. But, remember, I am not part of your paradigm. So I am free to consider things that you can't. Here is your opportunity to see what a scientist who isn't bound to group based myths can conceptualize/theorize:
There is no lattice ice. In other words, not only are the bonds in ice not tetrahedrally coordinated but if they were the result would be that freezing would not take place. In fact that is exactly what takes place with super-chilled water. (I actually have a more comprehensive description of the mechanics associated with super-chilled water and its relation to the density reversal that happens at 4C [I'll give you a hint. At 4C the H2O molecules are literally flipping their orientation. After which they begin grinding against each other. The grinding causes some bonds to be held closed and some to be held open. The breaking of bonds (held open) reverses the neutralization of polarity. And the now more highly polar H2O molecules begin locking in place and causing more grinding, etc. freezing ensues.] The trick to creating super-chilled water involves techniques to minimize or prevent the flipping that occurs at 4c.)
Robin: Of course, your model would also need to work with other polar molecules that are liquid at room temperature. How about dichloromethane? How does your model work for that? Good luck!
James: I don't know about dichloromethane. But it works with ammonia and hydrogen fluoride.
It is important to realize, however, that it is not just polarity that underlies the anomalies. It is also the ability of the molecule to neutralize each others polarity through incidental contact/proximity (what I refer to as incidental symmetry). For example, hydrogen fluoride is actually even more polar than H2O (ammonia is less polar than H2O). However, due to the relative imbalance of its negative and positive charges (3 to 1) hydrogen fluoride molecules are less able to comprehensively neutralize each others polarity. With H2O there is a perfect balance (2 to 2) between its positive and negative charges. This allows/enables its polarity neutralization to be infinitely extensible (something that certainly isn't the case for ammonia (1 to 3) or hydrogen fluoride (3 to 1).
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

1



Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk
2 years ago
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/hlb8csWSbpI




Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago
You have no model.

1



James McGinn
James McGinn
1 year ago
@Jonathan You got nothing!!!




Breslin Hurley
Breslin Hurley
2 years ago
The argument b/w James McGinn and Professor Dave is a near miss. You guys are talking past one another. Modern Physics or Ancient Spirituality? Pick your side, but they point at the same thing.
1. Phase diagrams do come to mind when qualitatively describing the sensation of water. Without something to compare to, the assertion that hydrogen bonds being strong should give us a more viscous liquid at normal Temp and Pressure can be disgarded.
2. It goes against a Chemist's common sense to remove 2H from methane (CH4) to form a polar version of methane. However, this video's foundation is that of a thought experiment, and is not meant to be rigorous measurable science.


--> I think the thought experiment is worth investigating. Conventional nomenclature and rules should be malleable in this arena




James McGinn
James McGinn
2 years ago (edited)
Hi Breslin, thanks for the response.
BH: " . . . when qualitatively describing the sensation of water. Without something to compare to, . . . "
JMcG: This is the crux of the problem. Chemists have been trained to use a comparative approach instead of a literal approach. In most instances this is just fine.
BH: "It goes against a Chemist's common sense . . . "
JMcG: The reason I made the video was to demonstrate that for this phenomena (hydrogen bonding between water molecules) common sense fails.
Linus Pauling mistakenly assumed that the asymmetry of the atomic structure of the H2O molecule is what causes the polar force that underlies hydrogen bonding between water molecules. Actually its the asymmetry of the elecromagnetic gradients (themselves a consequence of the asymmetry of the atomic structure of the H2O molecule) that causes the polar force that underlies hydrogen bonding between water molecules.
At this juncture you might wonder, what's the difference? The difference has to do with what happens in our minds when we consider the implications of hydrogen bonding between adjacent H2O molecules. As most people know, each H2O molecule can form a hydrogen bond with up to four adjacent H2O molecules. From the perspective of structural asymmetry we envision each of these bonds forming with the same magnitude. However, when we correctly consider it from the perspective of asymmetry of electromagnetic gradients something very different ensues in our minds. Now our minds are open to the realization that opposing electromagnetic gradients cancel out each other's effect. Specifically, each additional hydrogen bond neutralizes 25% of the polarity in both of the molecules that participate in the hydrogen bond; hydrogen bonds neutralize H2O polarity by way of restoring electromagnetic symmetry.
In short, Linus Pauling's error set the stage for the nonsensicality that emerges with the application of 'common sense' to hydrogen bonding between water molecules.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Pauling's Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg




James McGinn
James McGinn
1 year ago
@Robin Bedford Although your "highly reactive carbene" may be interesting in and of itself it is not on-topic in this thread. Try to follow.




James McGinn
James McGinn
2 months ago
@Robin Bedford "Removal of two hydrogens from methane gives the highly reactive carbene, . . . "
James McGinn: This is true. But it is irrelevant to the discussion. Address my thinking in context (watch video again) you deceptive POS.
James McGinn / Genius




Prof Dr Ing Jürgen Michele
Prof Dr Ing Jürgen Michele
9 months ago
You may use the humidity calculator of Vaisala – a Finland located company known for the humidity measurement with soundings:
http://go.vaisala.com/humiditycalculator/5.0/




James McGinn
James McGinn
5 days ago
So the fuck what? Explain how your fucking humidity calculator tells us the droplet size? Moron.




Lou T
Lou T
2 years ago
How shall you test these theories?




James McGinn
James McGinn
1 year ago
Sorry, but this is a dumb question. There is nothing to test. We already have all the data--this being the anomalies of H2O. And these "tests" show that the current model fails. My revision (correction) of the current model makes the anomalies disappear!




Damani Jones
Damani Jones
1 year ago
​ @James McGinn I think you would enjoy learning from Nassim Taleb - he handles these BS vendors very well and debunks a LOT of theories across fields. A lot of these people are just followers of scientism and suckers to the propoganda arm of the state (media), but empirical reality > evidence-based science. Current models can't explain the anomalies/fat tails because the current models are what's wrong. Model Error across academia is egregious.




James McGinn
James McGinn
1 year ago
@Damani Jones
This is the best response I've received on any online forum for as long as I've been posting to the internet. Thank you.
Per your suggestion, I've been watching Taleb on Utube. Big thumbs up!




James McGinn
James McGinn
1 year ago
@Robin Bedford LOL So, let me get this straight, you want to lecture me about the scientific method? Really? LOL. You got nothing you vague nitwit.




Prof Dr Ing Jürgen Michele
Prof Dr Ing Jürgen Michele
1 year ago
Nonsense from the self proclamed
genius


Density of moist air


This difference can be detected by a sensitive
scale,


which can weigh the tare container!!!


This had been done!


Humid air has a lower density
compared to dry air ...


Do your own calculations with
thbest calculatot from Vaisala a very competent company:


This difference can be detected by a sensitive
scale,


which can weigh the tare container!!!


This had been done!


Humid air has a lower density
compared to dry air ...





Collection of his “scientific comments” to his friends:


LOL,


sheep like
you,


consensus
morons,


brain dead,


put up or
shut up,


you lying
POS,


parroting,


justify your
stupidity,


What the
fuck are you talking about?


Bull shit.


Absurd
speculation.


determined
believers


is still
dumb.


Are U
retarded?


you don’t
really understand it. You just believe it.


You got
nothing, you lazy ass.


consensus-based
morons mindlessly repeating a vague narrative


This video
may be too technical for most.


I do my best
to sidestep your confused religion.


Herd
stupidity.


Phoney
scientists are skilled at creating phony scientific emergencies.


This happens
every year, moron.


You got
nothing!!!


brain-dead
science believers


whackos . I'm not the wacko here, Jim...
go check out the nearest mirror...


What is your
fucking point, moron?


Can you not
read?


Believers
are too busy pretending they understand to bother with doubt.


This is why
you groupies should leave science to people that understand it.


Worthless
troll.


Lies, lies,
and more lies.


I'm
anti-science propaganda. And you are
just a lying science propagandist.


Believers
always have self-righteous excuses for why its okay for them to lie.


Lying piece
of shit.


you evasive
prick.


Poor dumb


Explain how,
you convoluted moron.


probably the
dumbest sob that ever commented on Physorg


LOL. You got
nothing!!! Morons never, ever have arguments


consensus
striving morons


Science
involves reproducible experimental evidence, not the collective opinion of
morons.


It's
scientifically worthless--propaganda.


You
represent millions upon millions of morons


You morons
have made science your religion.


group think
stupidity. Moist air is heavier (and more dense) than drier air.


This is
widely believed--but stupid.


There is no
such thing as latent heat.


millions of
brain dead believers


Leave
science to scientists, moron.


Don't get
mad at me. It's not my fault you are stupid.


The
difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.


Still being
a time wasting jackass, mate?


Dear Dr
Dumbass, Did you know that science involves reproducible experimental evidence,
not hearsay?


I don't even
know what you are talking about.





I had a lot
of fun, searching for comments of James McGinn





Greetings
from Germany


Juergen





PS:


You may
Google any of his “scientific statements” above by asking for: “James Mc Ginn”
.. and one of his comments.


He is very
active in the internet.

2



Prof Dr Ing Jürgen Michele
Prof Dr Ing Jürgen Michele
1 year ago
Nonsense from the self proclamed genius
This difference can be detected by a sensitive scale,
which can weigh the tare container!!!
This had been done!
Humid air has a lower density compared to dry air ...
Do your own calculations with thbest calculatot from Vaisala a very competent company:
This difference can be detected by a sensitive scale,
which can weigh the tare container!!!
This had been done!
Humid air has a lower density compared to dry air ...

2



James McGinn
James McGinn
1 year ago (edited)
Juergen: Nonsense from the self-proclaimed genius
JMcG: Well, when it comes to humility, I’m at a major disadvantage in comparison to people like yourself.
Juergen: This difference can be detected by a sensitive scale, which can weigh the tare container!!!
JMcG: LOL. Like you have a clue. In reality if you ever did attempt such a measurement/test you would find that it is just about impossible to eliminate the influence of earth’s electric field which is—according to some theories, including mine—causing the H2O microdroplets to levitate.
Beyond that, I really have no interest in what sheep like you THINK you can do. The collective imaginations of consensus morons is not evidence. And the fact that you morons are constantly imploring me to accept it is evidence is itself evidence that none of your morons understand the scientific method.
The simple observation that visible clouds (which contain very large microdroplets) don’t fall out of the sky like bricks—as predicted by the convection model, to which you subscribe—is all you need to realize that the convection model is bogus. And the fact that morons like you so easily sidestep the implications of this contradictory observation is evidence that you don’t really understand/believe your own model. You pretend to understand/believe it.
JMcG:
In real sciences people do experiments and often find that what they were sure was true simply isn’t. That will never happen amongst brain-dead meteorologists because meteorology refuses to do experiments.
Juergen:
This had been done!
JMcG:
Put up or shut up, you lying POS. All you phony’s got is propaganda. The only scientific method you understand is parroting back what somebody else stated.
Millions of Tons of Water Suspended Kilometers Above
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16597
Concerning the drying of wet shoes.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647
James McGinn / Genius
The Plumbing of the Atmosphere
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-Plumbing-of-the-Atmosphere-ef3f7n




James McGinn
James McGinn
1 year ago
I really have no interest in what sheep like you THINK you can do. The collective imaginations of consensus morons is not evidence. And the fact that you morons are constantly imploring me to accept it is evidence is itself evidence that none of your morons understand the scientific method.
The simple observation that visible clouds (which contain very large microdroplets) don’t fall out of the sky like bricks—as predicted by the convection model, to which you subscribe—is all you need to realize that the convection model is bogus. And the fact that morons like you so easily sidestep the implications of this contradictory observation is evidence that you don’t really understand/believe your own model. You pretend to understand/believe it.

1



MindlessMarbles
MindlessMarbles
2 years ago (edited)
How interesting. When someone tells draftscience that certain experiments are a google search away, he keeps telling them to post a link.


But when someone else challenges him on anything, he tells the other person that experiments have been done and you can find them online. He's an extreme hypocrite.

4



James McGinn
James McGinn
2 years ago (edited)
As someone who has developed a new theory and tried to sell it to the brain-dead public and the deluded academics I understand his frustration. The most frustrating thing is that people think they understand when actually they just believe. So I understand his frustration. The most frustrating thing of all is a tendency for us humans to pretend to understand what we don't. Draftscience is pretending to understand the greenhouse effect, for example.




James McGinn
James McGinn
2 years ago
@Robin Bedford
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/zUnmhCRa95o




maulCS
maulCS
1 year ago
He's one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever witnessed no doubt, with a total lack of self-awareness.

1



James McGinn
James McGinn
1 year ago
@Robin Bedford You got nothing you vague nitwit.




James McGinn
James McGinn
1 year ago
@Robin Bedford Put up or shut up

[Paul Alsing]

It is amazing to me that you voluntarily post threads where *you* get a new asshole ripped over and over again and are apparently quite proud of it. It is were possible to be tarred and feathered online, it would take you a very long time to clean yourself up!

"In an anti-intellectual society, people who know nothing about a complex subject are emboldened to ridicule experts who have spent a lifetime studying it."
- George Kiser

[Jim Pennino]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My Podcast: Solving Tornadoes / Woke Meteorology

Yet more ravings of a delusional fuck wit.

And yet again delusional McGinn get his ass handed to him and thinks he
won the debate.

[Serg io]

On 11/20/2021 2:25 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip crap>

>> James McGinn
>> James McGinn
>> 1 year ago
>> @Robin Bedford Put up or shut up
>
> It is amazing to me that you voluntarily post threads where *you* get a new asshole ripped over and over again and are apparently quite proud of it. It is were possible to be tarred and feathered online, it would take you a very long time to clean yourself up!
>
> "In an anti-intellectual society, people who know nothing about a complex subject are emboldened to ridicule experts who have spent a lifetime studying it."
> - George Kiser
>

McFly (James McGinn) is just like an old church lady that talks endlessly about the cheese falling off her cracker.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

McGinn can Gene D. Block, Thomas F. Rosenbaum, Marc Tessier-Lavigne ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or are they wasting too much time on your McGinn Monty Python Physics. Or is Gene D. Block too much of a modern day failed fool of science to ever ask a question on true real electron?

Why cannot Stanford ask simple questions, how stupid are they? Stanford physics dept. Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian.


HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-4, 105th published book

Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)



#1-5, 112th published book

New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.

Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B0875SVDC7
• Publication date : April 15, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 1134 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#1-6, 135th published book

QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.

Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.


Product details
• ASIN : B08K47K5BB
• Publication date : September 25, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 587 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 25 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #291,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #334 in General Chemistry



#1-7, 138th published book
The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry. We know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms.
Length: 41 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : October 9, 2020
• File Size : 828 KB
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print Length : 41 pages
• ASIN : B08KZT5TCD
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-8, 1st published book

Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Last revision 7Apr2021. This was AP's first published science book.

Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.

Foreward:
I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.
Length: 632 pages


Product details
File Size: 1132 KB
Print Length: 632 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#8526 in Physics (Books)
#18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)



#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book


TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)


#2-4, 151st published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.

Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.

Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1033 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#3-1, 2nd published book

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.

Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.

Length: 1150 pages


Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)


y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Stanford's_Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Persis Drell,Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff,, is McGinn correct that Stanford is failed & incompetent to confirm real proton is 840MeV, real electron=105MeV and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole

Re: James McGinn, the blubbery cesspool mind of a moron packed inside a single cell atop a foghorn mouth// why California schools have not yet confirmed real proton = 840MeV, electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac's monopole
157k views
Oct 14, 2019, 10:08:30 AM
by Pete Smith
> I fart you.

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 10:55:04 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > And you too proved yourself incompetent and desperate in that you failed to discuss any of the substance of the argument (the subject of which is way, way over your head).

AP writes: Is the reason Stanford Univ has not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists like McGinn says is blithering nattering nutter fools-- drinking coffee and eating Danish rolls rather than uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.

o-:^>___?
`~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: yes, I enjoy my Danish rolls with blended coffee, steaks and eggs in the California sun instead of real physics of the atom

Stanford University, math dept.

Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu


President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)

Stanford physics dept.

Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian

CalTech math dept

Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari
Matthias Flach, Anton N. Kapustin, Alexander Kechris
Alexei Kitaev, Matilde Marcolli, Nikolai Makarov, Vladimir Markovic, Hiroshi Oguri, Eric Rains, Dinakar Ramakrishnan
Barry Simon, Richard Wilson, Tom Graber, Sergei Gukov,
Elena Mantovan, Yi NI,

Caltech Physics Dept

Barry Barish, Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin


UCLA chancellor: Gene D. Block (biology)

UCLA Physics dept
Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, Katsushi Arisaka, Michalis Bachtis
Eric Becklin, Zvi Bern, Rubin Braunstein, Stuart Brown, Robijn Bruinsma
Charles Buchanan, Wesley Campbell, Troy Carter, Sudip Chakravarty
W. Gilbert Clark, John Cornwall, Robert Cousins, Eric D'Hoker
Robert Finkelstein, Christian Fronsdal, Walter Gekelman, Graciela Gelmini
George Gruner, Michael Gutperle, Brad Hansen, Jay Hauser, Karoly Holczer
Huan Huang, Eric Hudson, George Igo, Per Kraus, Alexander Kusenko
Thomas Mason, George Morales, Warren Mori, Steven Moszkowski
Christoph Niemann, Kumar Patel, Roberto Peccei, Claudio Pellegrini
Seth Putterman, B. Regan, James Rosenzweig, Joseph Rudnick
David Saltzberg, William Slater, Reiner Stenzel, Terry Tomboulis, Jean Turner

Univ Calif San Diego, physics dept

Henry D. I. Abarbanel, Kam S. Arnold, Daniel P. Arovas, Richard D. Averitt, Julio T. Barreiro, Dimitri N. Basov, Steven Boggs, James G. Branson, Adam J. Burgasser, Leonid V. Butov, Alison Coil, Eva-Maria S. Collins, Max Di Ventra, Patrick H. Diamond, Fred C. Driscoll,
DANIEL H. DUBIN, OLGA K. DUDKO, RAPHAEL M. FLAUGER,MICHAEL M. FOGLER, ALEX FRAÑÓ, GEORGE M. FULLER,DANIEL R GREEN, KIM GRIEST, BENJAMIN GRINSTEIN,ALEXANDER GROISMAN, TARUN GROVER, JORGE E. HIRSCH, MICHAEL HOLST, TERENCE T. HWA, KENNETH A. INTRILIGATOR, ELIZABETH JENKINS, SUCKJOON JUN, BRIAN KEATING, DUSAN KERES, DAVID KLEINFELD
, QUINN M. KONOPACKY, ELENA F. KOSLOVER, JULIUS KUTI, TONGYAN LIN, ANEESH V. MANOHAR, M. BRIAN MAPLE, JOHN A. MCGREEVY, THOMAS W. MURPHY, KAIXUAN NI, MICHAEL L. NORMAN, THOMAS M. O'NEIL, HANS P. PAAR, MARK PADDOCK, JEREMIE PALACCI, TENIO POPMINTCHEV, WOUTER-JAN RAPPEL,KARIN M. SANDSTROM, IVAN K. SCHULLER, LU J. SHAM,VIVEK SHARMA, TATYANA O. SHARPEE, BRIAN SHOTWELL, OLEG SHPYRKO, ELIZABETH H SIMMONS,SUNIL K. SINHA, DOUGLAS E. SMITH, HARRY SUHL


Math dept Univ Calif, San Diego

Edward Bender, James Bunch, Thomas Enright, Ronald Evans, Jay Fillmore, Carl FitzGerald,
Michael Freedman, Adriano Garsia, Fan Graham, Leonard Haff, Hubert Halkin, Richard Hamilton, Bill Helton, Jim Lin, Alfred Manaster, John O'Quigley, Yose Rinott, Burt Rodin, Murray Rosenblatt, Linda Rothschild, Michael Sharpe, Lance Small, Don Smith, Harold Stark, Audrey Terras, Adrian Wadsworth, Nolan Wallach, John Wavrik, Daniel Wulbert



On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 5:29:50 PM UTC-6, James McGinn wrote:
> Weather prediction is not the topic,,,,

John Schwarz,Barry Simon,Kip Thorne,Petr Vogel,Rochus Vogt, of Caltech are you as stupid as McGinn to never understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry

Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips, of Caltech are you as stupid as McGinn to never understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry


Stanford's Drs Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson is McGinn the example of how physicists react when told the proton is 840MeV, electron 105MeV to have chemistry bonding


About McGinn, we all know he is an idiot when it comes to science or even thinking straight, and although he deserves 1 or 2 posts per day (some would say that is too much) but he does not deserve 75 posts per day under various names like Denke or Solvingtornado. So either he post 1 or 2, or I recommend he be kicked out permanently as a front page hog spamming jackarse. I hate his practice of just churning his posts, where the creep adds two words, sometimes not even a new word, to his prior post just to get it on the front page again. To think that sci.physics by year 2019 is mostly a airhead spammer on the front page is enough to make any cry and sob into the new year.

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 10:19:09 PM UTC-6, James McGinn wrote:
> Aw shucks.


..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi I am McGinn under various fake names Denk, Pnal etc. My game is to fill sci.physics with nothing but my airhead posts because I love to annoy everybody, and on fast days, I just churn all my old posts by adding a word or sentence, and often pretend I am Pnal, to make believe someone is actually talking with me. You see, my foot is where my head is and my head where my foot is.
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'



CalTech's Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,Konstantin Batygin are you like McGinn/pnal too stupid to understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry

Too stupid to understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry. The .5MeV particle that Thomson discovered was actually Dirac's magnetic monopole

Why does McGinn simply not ask professors of physics at UCLA why they think the real proton is not 840MeV and real electron = 105MeV with .5 MeV the Dirac Magnetic Monopole

Why does any physicist not believe proton is 840MeV, electron is 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding, because a ratio of 840 to 105 allows for Angular Momentum
-----------------------------------

UCLA Physics dept
Ernest Abers
Elihu Abrahams
Katsushi Arisaka
Michalis Bachtis
Eric Becklin
Zvi Bern
Rubin Braunstein
Stuart Brown
Robijn Bruinsma
Charles Buchanan
Wesley Campbell
Troy Carter
Sudip Chakravarty
W. Gilbert Clark
John Cornwall
Robert Cousins
Eric D'Hoker
Robert Finkelstein
Christian Fronsdal
Walter Gekelman
Graciela Gelmini
George Gruner
Michael Gutperle
Brad Hansen
Jay Hauser
Karoly Holczer
Huan Huang
Eric Hudson
George Igo
Per Kraus
Alexander Kusenko
Thomas Mason
George Morales
Warren Mori
Steven Moszkowski
Christoph Niemann
Kumar Patel
Roberto Peccei
Claudio Pellegrini
Seth Putterman
B. Regan
James Rosenzweig
Joseph Rudnick
David Saltzberg
William Slater
Reiner Stenzel
Terry Tomboulis
Jean Turner


Stanford University, math dept.

Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu


President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)

Stanford physics dept.

Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian


CalTech math dept

Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari
Matthias Flach, Anton N. Kapustin, Alexander Kechris
Alexei Kitaev, Matilde Marcolli, Nikolai Makarov, Vladimir Markovic, Hiroshi Oguri, Eric Rains, Dinakar Ramakrishnan
Barry Simon, Richard Wilson, Tom Graber, Sergei Gukov,
Elena Mantovan, Yi NI,

Caltech Physics Dept

Barry Barish, Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin


/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in sunny California?


And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better.

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.

Yes, there, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

What answer did they give?

[Solving Tornadoes]

LOL. You twits couldn't make a scientific argument to save your lives.

James McGinn / Genius

[Jim Pennino]

Here's a scientific arguement for you:

Here are links to 192 books and papers that according to you do not
exist and no one can find on the subject of the properties of water.

Since all of these exist and all of them are contrary to your delusional
ravings, there is no need to restate any of them or post their contents,
which would likely be a copyright violation.

In all of these references there will be a list of OTHER references
which the author used to support his/her point.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#References

footnote references: 102
Bibliography: 15 books and papers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page)#References

footnote references: 25
Bibliography: 4 books and papers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam#References

references: 12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation#References

references: 6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)#References

references: 17

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point#References

references: 11


>
> James McGinn / Delusional Fuck Wit

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:54:12 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[Jim Pennino]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:54:12 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

Not sure why you are reposting this unless you really enjoy how you got
handed your ass on a platter.

[Paul Alsing]

This guy ate your lunch and left you for dead, Jimbo... why do you like to rain shit upon your own head?

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:54:12 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[Jim Pennino]

Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:54:12 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

>> Professor Dave Explains
>> 3 years ago
>> Water is liquid within a certain range of temperatures. Below that, it's solid. Above that, it's gas. Other substances have their own distinct ranges of temperatures within which they exist as the three states of matter.
>>
>> Removing two hydrogens from methane would not produce a polar molecule, even if that were physically plausible. C-H bonds are not polar. OH bonds are polar because of the large discrepancy in electronegativity. Polarity is not dependent on the mass of an atom.
>>
>> There is no "paradigm", and there is no "taboo", there's just you not understanding even the most basic high school chemistry. Instead of spamming my channel with this stuff, watch my content. You can learn about molecular geometry, the chemical bond, intermolecular forces, and lots of other things that will eliminate your confusion.
>>

McGinn gets handed his ass on a platter and is so delusional he thinks
he has "won".

[Claudius Denk]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:54:12 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:54:12 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[Paul Alsing]

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:54:12 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:54:12 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: