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

Groups > sci.physics > #719011 > unrolled thread

Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 10:52 -0800
    Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 12:13 -0800
      Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage % <%> - 2018-12-17 13:18 -0700
        Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 12:19 -0800
          Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 13:00 -0800
            Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 20:32 -0800
              Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 20:55 -0800
                Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 21:26 -0800
                  Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 21:31 -0800
                    Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 22:28 -0800
                      Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 22:46 -0800
                      Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 09:01 -0800
                        Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-18 19:53 -0800
                          Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 12:42 -0800
                            Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 19:21 -0800
                              Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 19:57 -0800
                                Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 20:25 -0800
                                  Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 21:19 -0800
                                    Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 21:48 -0800
                                      Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-19 23:54 -0600
                                      Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 22:13 -0800
                                        Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 22:35 -0800
                                          Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-20 11:39 -0600
                      Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-18 17:05 -0600
              Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-18 17:02 -0600
          Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-17 15:22 -0600
            Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage % <%> - 2018-12-17 14:38 -0700
        Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 12:46 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#719011 — Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Exactly two weeks ago I promised this link:
> > Incidental Symmetry: Solution to H2O Anomalies
> > https://youtu.be/ZyYsDGQ76J4
> 
> Why do molecules slip???

This is the issue.  This is the contradiction, the dichotomy. We are told that H2O molecules are polar and they form hydrogen bonds. Accordingly it is predictable that they would either be a solid or a liquid possessing considerable and measurable viscosity.  

Mitch, it seems, is the only one who saw this.  The rest of your dull witted and convoluted pretenders missed it.  Your brains are so caught up with trying to pretend to understand what actually doesn't make sense that you lack the ability to notice fundamental contradictions.  

If it is true that the force associated with each other's polarity is the force that prevents the collective of H2O molecules from flying away from each other to become a gas then why does it appear to not conform with Coulomb's Law.  In other words, in accordance with Coulomb's Law a force that is strong enough to keep them in close proximity to each other should also be more than strong enough to cause them to stick against each other.  This is because, according to Coulomb, the force that brings two molecules together gets stronger the closer they get to each other. Not only does this not happen but it has been observed that H2O molecules in liquid water generally maintain an average distance from each other that widens (slightly) with increase in temperature.

This is the main insight.  This is what separates me from all of you pretenders. I have a comprehensive understanding of what is happening on the nano scale and this understanding allows me to notice contradictions and dichotomies that the rest of your convoluted pretenders (church ladies) are incapable of recognizing.

I am not the first to recognize this contradiction.  H2O's low viscosity and the associated, unexplained space that exists between H2O molecules in liquid water has long been recognized as one of the anomalies of H2O. But you won't here many others drawing your attention to these contradictions.

For political reasons nobody wants to be closely associated with any of the anomalies of H2O.  The subject is not taught to undergraduates, even in chemistry.  It has evolved into kind of a taboo subject.  Why?  

There are two reasons.  1) General confusion.  2) Because much of science is comprised of dumbed down models that appeal to the general populace and then the collective Dunning-Kruger effect takes over.  As has been demonstrated vividly here in this forum, the general public is dumb and vociferous. Science has become the religion of the masses and many have formed emotional attachments to the various dumbed down models in many disciplines. Any scientist that goes against what the populace believes is putting their reputation on the line. And no notion has stronger mass appeal than erroneous notion that H2O is simple and well understood. In fact, H2O is neither simple or well understood. 

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 scientific disciplines 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 scientific 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 sciences but also physics and chemistry. The misconceptions associated with these anomalies are central to all of the various disciplines in the natural sciences. 

This results in a consensus of obnoxious dunces in the natural sciences. These nitwits 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. 

The reason none of you idiots can find reproducible experimental evidence of your magical 'cold steam' is the same reason nobody has been able to find reproducible experimental evidence of ghosts: it doesn't exist. Billions of people believe in ghosts.  Billions will claim to have seen evidence of ghosts. Undoubtedly many meteorologists--possibly all of them--genuinely believe in 'cold steam.' 

You believe in the infallibility of scientists.  I don't. You believe science progresses based on truth.  I believe science progresses based on models that are simple enough to be accepted by the lowest common denominator of the voting public.

It is you brain-dead church ladies that are holding scientific progress hostage.

I let the evidence lead me to the truth.  Most people look for evidence that confirms what they already believe.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#719017

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:52:41 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> I let the evidence lead me to the truth.  Most people look for evidence that confirms what they already believe.

Professor Dave Explains... 
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.

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

#719018

On 2018-12-17 1:13 p.m., pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:52:41 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> I let the evidence lead me to the truth.  Most people look for evidence that confirms what they already believe.
> 
> Professor Dave Explains...
> 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.
> 
the above is all wrong

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

#719019

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:18:09 PM UTC-8, % wrote:
> On 2018-12-17 1:13 p.m., pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:52:41 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > 
> >> I let the evidence lead me to the truth.  Most people look for evidence that confirms what they already believe.
> > 
> > Professor Dave Explains...
> > 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.
 
> the above is all wrong

Complain to Professor Dave, he's a chemist...

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

#719031

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:19:35 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:18:09 PM UTC-8, % wrote:
> > On 2018-12-17 1:13 p.m., pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:52:41 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > 
> > >> I let the evidence lead me to the truth.  Most people look for evidence that confirms what they already believe.
> > > 
> > > Professor Dave Explains...
> > > 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.
>  
> > the above is all wrong
> 
> Complain to Professor Dave, he's a chemist...

LOL.  He just stated something that is perfect nonsense, you moron.

What he stated here is almost as dumb as saying there is a triple point for air.

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

#719106

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 1:00:26 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:19:35 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On 2018-12-17 1:13 p.m., pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:52:41 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >> I let the evidence lead me to the truth.  Most people look for evidence that confirms what they already believe.
> > > > 
> > > > Professor Dave Explains...
> > > > 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.
> LOL.  He just stated something that is perfect nonsense, you moron.
> 
> What he stated here is almost as dumb as saying there is a triple point for air.

But Jim, you bonehead, there *is* a triple point of plain old air. I gave you the link supporting this contention, but I noticed that *you* have not been able to provide any empirical evidence to the contrary. Why is that, Jim? If you think it so obvious that there is no such thing as the triple point of air, why, it should be child's play for a brilliant physicist like you, who knows more than virtually every other scientist who ever lived, to lay the entire facade open for the world to laugh at, isn't this correct? However, since you are obviously unable to do what you want to do, since that would be impossible, well, is it obvious that you are NOT a brilliant physicist at all, but just another pretender who knows zilch about physics, or any other facet of science for that matter.

Professor Dave has yet again put you in your place and you have nowhere to hide. You should just run, Jim run... I think that about covers it, don't you?

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

#719108

Did you know that air is comprised of different molecules?

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

#719110

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:15:35 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> Did you know that air is comprised of different molecules?

Of course, I've known this since high-school chemistry...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dalton%27s_law_of_partial_pressures.png

... are you just now discovering this fact? Why do you think that several folks here keep bringing up Dalton's Law? Could it be because you are stump-stupid about the entire subject? Of course it is...

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

#719113

Do you kniw what triple point means?

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

#719119

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:31:25 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> Do you kniw what triple point means?

Of course I do. Do you need it explained to you yet again? Most people would just look it up, maybe go to several sources to make sure they all say the same thing, or because perhaps some sources are clearer than others in their explanations.

You, on the other hand, almost certainly don't really know what it means. You either refuse to read any provided links, or you read the links and are too embarrassed to admit that you were wrong... which is a vast majority of the time. You never learn. 

In a nutshell, the triple point is the temperature and pressure where the solid, liquid, and vapor phases of a pure substance can coexist in equilibrium. Wiki says it a little differently... "In thermodynamics, the triple point of a substance is the temperature and pressure at which the three phases (gas, liquid, and solid) of that substance coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium."... note that one definition says 'vapor phase' and the other definition says 'gas' phase, but that is only because they are using those words interchangeably, almost certainly because they mean the same thing in this context. Here is a list of triple points for some common substances...

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/triple-point-d_1926.html

... and notice that 'air' is on the list, along with substances that are usually thought of as solids.

You might claim that 'vapor' and 'gas' can have different meanings, and this would be correct, but not in this context, they mean EXACTLY the same thing. And yes, like it or not, plain air has a triple point. Go read the link.

Somehow, I expect you to deny some or all of what I have just said because you just think that you know it all, and this does not correspond to your own fantasy world. 

After all, you say that you are smarter than any scientist alive or dead, right?

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

#719123

So, given that information how many triple points do you think there might be in air?

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

#719177

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:28:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/triple-point-d_1926.html
> 
> ... and notice that 'air' is on the list, along with substances that are usually thought of as solids.

So, according to this website, there is a triple point for air.  Now explain how/why you think this confirms the existence of "cold steam" or what you call gaseous vapor.  

Go ahead, assbite.  Show us.

Put up or shut up.

Checkmate.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

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

#719343

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 9:01:27 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:28:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/triple-point-d_1926.html
> > 
> > ... and notice that 'air' is on the list, along with substances that are usually thought of as solids.
> 
> So, according to this website, there is a triple point for air.  Now explain how/why you think this confirms the existence of "cold steam" or what you call gaseous vapor. 

Can't you read the phase diagram of air for yourself? After all, you claim to be the greatest physicist ever. Surely you can interpret a phase diagram?
> 
> Go ahead, assbite.  Show us.

Being an assbite is infinitely better than being a dumbfuck, don't you think, dumbfuck?

> Put up or shut up.

I gave you the link to the phase diagram, don't you understand it? THAT'S what I've put up! Empiricsl evidence.

> Checkmate.

Yes, I've almost certainly captured your King...

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

#719470

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:53:36 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 9:01:27 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:28:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/triple-point-d_1926.html
> > > 
> > > ... and notice that 'air' is on the list, along with substances that are usually thought of as solids.
> > 
> > So, according to this website, there is a triple point for air.  Now explain how/why you think this confirms the existence of "cold steam" or what you call gaseous vapor. 
> 
> Can't you read the phase diagram of air for yourself? After all, you claim to be the greatest physicist ever. Surely you can interpret a phase diagram?
> > 
> > Go ahead, assbite.  Show us.
> 
> Being an assbite is infinitely better than being a dumbfuck, don't you think, dumbfuck?
> 
> > Put up or shut up.
> 
> I gave you the link to the phase diagram, don't you understand it? THAT'S what I've put up! Empiricsl evidence.
> 
> > Checkmate.
> 
> Yes, I've almost certainly captured your King...

Uh . . . er.

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

#719572

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:42:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:53:36 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 9:01:27 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:28:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/triple-point-d_1926.html
> > > > 
> > > > ... and notice that 'air' is on the list, along with substances that are usually thought of as solids.
> > > 
> > > So, according to this website, there is a triple point for air.  Now explain how/why you think this confirms the existence of "cold steam" or what you call gaseous vapor. 
> > 
> > Can't you read the phase diagram of air for yourself? After all, you claim to be the greatest physicist ever. Surely you can interpret a phase diagram?
> > > 
> > > Go ahead, assbite.  Show us.
> > 
> > Being an assbite is infinitely better than being a dumbfuck, don't you think, dumbfuck?
> > 
> > > Put up or shut up.
> > 
> > I gave you the link to the phase diagram, don't you understand it? THAT'S what I've put up! Empiricsl evidence.
> > 
> > > Checkmate.
> > 
> > Yes, I've almost certainly captured your King...
> 
> Uh . . . er.

Ok, so you admit that you CAN'T read a phase diagram, that is what I thought.

No wonder you don't understand the empirical evidence... so much for being the greatest physicist ever... more like the greatest physicist never...

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

#719584

Im not blessed with your amazing creative reading skills. 

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

#719586

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:17:58 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> Im not blessed with your amazing creative reading skills.

Well, how else was I supposed to interpret your incredible response of "Uh . . . er"? I can only assume that you are unable to answer the questions... which, of course, you can't!

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

#719592

You really have no dispute . . .
 . . . Or even a point. 

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

#719597

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:19:30 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> You really have no dispute . . .
>  . . . Or even a point.

This is a pathetic attempt of yours to deflect the fact that you cannot interpret the phase diagram for air. Got it. THAT'S my point.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

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

#719598

On 12/19/2018 11:48 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:19:30 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> You really have no dispute . . .
>>  . . . Or even a point.
> 
> This is a pathetic attempt of yours to deflect the fact that you cannot interpret the phase diagram for air. Got it. THAT'S my point.
> 
> Go ahead, prove me wrong.
> 

McGinn already stated,   "Im not blessed with .... reading skills."

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web