Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #557422 > unrolled thread

Will Janoshka: Get a Grip

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Will Janoshka: Get a Grip James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 16:38 -0800
    Re: Will Janoshka: Get a Grip Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 18:42 -0600
    Re: Will Janoshka: Get a Grip jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-28 01:08 +0000

#557422 — Will Janoshka: Get a Grip

http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39170

WJ: Sorry Mike, got bored again! 

JM: I can't imagine how you got bored with all the excitement at RTB as they discuss, for the twentieth time, all the fine details of the emperor's new clothes.

WJ: 4 molecule irregular tetragonal shape of a H2O colloid

JM: Surreal. You aren't even beginning to make sense here.   

WJ:  that reduces H2O polarity somewhat after 25 years.

JM: Actually, I made the discovery about 3 years ago.  At the time I assumed I had discovered something that was already known--it seemed so obvious (see upthread).  Now I realize it is novel.  

JM: This discovery is the key to resolving all of the anomalies of H2O--a big deal in the obscure subject of water science.  It also provides an explanation for why the evidence underlying the group delusion that moist air contains gaseous H2O is, well, just that, a group delusion.  Water is very deceptive.  Everybody gets extremely emotional.  Everybody thinks water is or should be simple and obvious.  And it's just not.  So, go ahead, keep throwing your little hissy fit.  I'm used to it by now.  

JM: This is a big discovery, bigger than you can begin to imagine.

WJ: How long do you think it will take only he to discover the tri-level hexagonal form of 6 middle H2O molecules and another seven molecules on either side of the 6; all creating 12 irregular tetragonal shape, 20 interconnected H2O molecules, that are the very beginning of a snowflake,

JM: Don't be putting words in my mouth.  I've made no specific claims on structure of snowflakes.  However, according to my model the notion that ice involves a lattice structure (Bernal and Fowler, 1933) is mistaken.  Or, I should say, my theory and their notion that ice forms a lattice are mutually incompatible.  If one is right the other must be wrong.  The reasons for this are hard to explain, I suggest reading my paper very carefully.

WJ: and the gas, liquid airborne colloid the he claims is the only form of airborne H2O, (see the steam tables).

JM: Right.  Gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures in our atmosphere is kind of like the notion that CO2 causes global warming.  It's a popular belief for which there is no empirical support.  It's pseudoscience.

WJ: Of course Jimmy claims that no one was smart enough to study this 98 years ago. 

JM: Obviously I'm suggesting they missed something--something big.  But, in retrospect, that hardly seems surprising in that it is well know that there are upwards of 60 "anomalies" associated with H2O.  (Do some research.)  An anomaly is an anomaly when theory fails to predict it.  So the fact that the theory had shortcomings is hardly an extravagant claim.  (Do some research.)

JM: The mistake they made is, in retrospect, is fairly obvious.  They assumed that H2O polarity is a constant.  That was the mistake.  It turns out H2O polarity is a variable, and here is where it really gets tricky, the mechanism that effectuates the variability is hydrogen bonding!!! And polarity determines the strength of hydrogen bonds!!!  (And this last mentioned fact sets the stage for the plasma phase of water in the atmosphere.)

JM: All of this is way, way, way over your head, Will.

WJ: Are you now so happy that Jimmy was finally shit on the top of a post and left in the Sun to hatch!!! So only he can enlighten us. :-)
All the best! -will-

JM: So, Will, are you angry with Mike that he is not censoring my message?  Don't blame him.  He's not condoning any of this.  Do you lack confidence in the scientific method to weed out bad thinking?  If my theory is as bad as you suggest it would hardly seem necessary to censor it?  So, what's the problem?  I'm open to testing it.  In fact I even have a simple experiment that could refute the notion that ambient air contains gaseous H2O:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Rxuy9dTlldQ/D4bhj4mNemQJ

Get a grip.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#557426

On 2/27/16 6:38 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures in our atmosphere is kind of like the notion that CO2 causes global warming.


   Both are true.

   An Infrared (IR) photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule
     CO2 + hv <==> CO2*
     CO2* + N2 ==> N2* + CO2
     N2* + H2O ==> H2O* + N2
     H2O* ==> H2O + hv

   Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
     http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
     http://scienceofdoom.com/about/


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557443

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

It should be off to the funny farm any day now.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web