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

Groups > sci.physics > #561361 > unrolled thread

H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 18:26 -0800
    Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:26 +0100
      Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:39 -0800
        Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-12 10:22 -0600
          Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 08:42 -0800
            Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-12 14:26 -0600
              Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 12:41 -0800
                Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-12 15:32 -0600
                  Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 13:56 -0800
                    Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-12 19:12 -0600
                      Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 19:48 -0800
                        Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-13 04:12 +0000
                          Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 20:46 -0800
                            Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-13 06:02 +0000
    Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 08:38 -0600

#561361 — H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time

James McGinn: 
You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.   
  
You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim.   

James McGinn: 
Actually I do.  In fact I'm the first person to correctly recognize the significance of the variability of symmetry to determine the variability of polarity. Accordingly, I understand polarity better than anybody.  See my paper for details: 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ 
  
No, you don't. 

James McGinn: 
Actually I do. No joke. 

In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose. 
  
James McGinn: 
You are just as clueless as Martin Chaplin and the other people you quote.  Surface tension proves you wrong and me right. As described in my paper, H bonds get stronger when asymmetry is restored with the breaking of one of the two hydrogen bonds.  As I describe explicitly, polarity depends on the existence of asymmetry: 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ 
  
You've already been proven wrong below, Jim. 

James McGinn: 
How so?  Explain surface tension using your model.  Go ahead.  If what you are saying is true H2O would have no surface tension in that a surface forces the breaking of some but not all bonds. Accordingly the surface would be weaker, not stronger. 
  
The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you 
don't know about it. 

James McGinn: 
Nothing in physics is a "special case."  That is just a copout.  If your model can't explain what is observed then it is useless as an explanation. 

So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the 
interfacial water: 
 http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html 
 Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable 
 structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just 
 under 4C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less 
 with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the 
 water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22C and 
 more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a 
 lower temperature). 

James McGinn: 
That is just a descriptive model based on observation.  You are presenting it as an explanation! In other words, your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.  You just tacked it on. It's worthless. Moreover, its just a model.  IOW, its an attempt to explain what is observed. Only an amateur would employ a descriptive model as proof. 
  
That model happens to be the model that is accepted 

James McGinn: 
It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's are not evidence.  That you use a descriptive model as evidence reveals your cluelessness. Descriptive models can't be used to dispute reality. For your model to be valid it has to be proven through rigorous attempt to refute it.  You don't have that.  You just have a descriptive model that doesn't even conform with what is observed.  In sharp contrast, what I presented is a genuine explanation supported by theory. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#561446

Dne 11/03/2016 v 03:26 James McGinn napsal(a):

> 
> James McGinn: 
> It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's are not evidence.  

..and that is why the simple evidence
of vapour pressure/vapour density ratio
kicks your heavy vapour hypothesis on its ass.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#561450

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:26:18 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/03/2016 v 03:26 James McGinn napsal(a):
> 
> > 
> > James McGinn: 
> > It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's are not evidence.  
> 
> ..and that is why the simple evidence
> of vapour pressure/vapour density ratio
> kicks your heavy vapour hypothesis on its ass.

It's not even relevant.

> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> 
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#561879

On 3/11/2016 1:39 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:26:18 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 11/03/2016 v 03:26 James McGinn napsal(a):
>>
>>>
>>> James McGinn:
>>> It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's are not evidence.
>>
>> ..and that is why the simple evidence
>> of vapour pressure/vapour density ratio
>> kicks your heavy vapour hypothesis on its ass.
>
> It's not even relevant.

he was repeating your comments.

The Heavy Air Theory has already been discovered.




>> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
>>
>> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
>

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

#561882

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:23:03 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/11/2016 1:39 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:26:18 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> >> Dne 11/03/2016 v 03:26 James McGinn napsal(a):
> >>
> >>>
> >>> James McGinn:
> >>> It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's are not evidence.
> >>
> >> ..and that is why the simple evidence
> >> of vapour pressure/vapour density ratio
> >> kicks your heavy vapour hypothesis on its ass.
> >
> > It's not even relevant.
> 
> he was repeating your comments.
> 
> The Heavy Air Theory has already been discovered.

Relevance?

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

#561928

On 3/12/2016 10:42 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:23:03 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 3/11/2016 1:39 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:26:18 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>>>> Dne 11/03/2016 v 03:26 James McGinn napsal(a):
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> James McGinn:
>>>>> It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's are not evidence.
>>>>
>>>> ..and that is why the simple evidence
>>>> of vapour pressure/vapour density ratio
>>>> kicks your heavy vapour hypothesis on its ass.
>>>
>>> It's not even relevant.
>>
>> he was repeating your comments.
>>
>> The Heavy Air Theory has already been discovered.
>
> Relevance?
>

to you, everything.  But you do not realize it.

Because you do not understand Science, with your "Magical Plasma" your 
imagination is in full control.

You have nothing to back up anything you say, except your imagination, 
right airhead ?

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

#561933

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:27:10 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/12/2016 10:42 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:23:03 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 3/11/2016 1:39 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:26:18 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> >>>> Dne 11/03/2016 v 03:26 James McGinn napsal(a):
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> James McGinn:
> >>>>> It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's are not evidence.
> >>>>
> >>>> ..and that is why the simple evidence
> >>>> of vapour pressure/vapour density ratio
> >>>> kicks your heavy vapour hypothesis on its ass.
> >>>
> >>> It's not even relevant.
> >>
> >> he was repeating your comments.
> >>
> >> The Heavy Air Theory has already been discovered.
> >
> > Relevance?
> >
> 
> to you, everything.  But you do not realize it.
> 
> Because you do not understand Science, with your "Magical Plasma" your 
> imagination is in full control.
> 
> You have nothing to back up anything you say, except your imagination, 
> right airhead ?

LOL.  Somebody creates a model as a conjecture to explain surface tension.  I present an alternate model/conjecture and this whackjob uses the original model/conjecture as if it was fact to dispute mine.  And you three birdbrains have such marginal intellectual skills you think its my fault for not just blindly accepting this rather obviously invalid tactic.  

Duhr.

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

#561942

On 3/12/2016 2:41 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:27:10 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 3/12/2016 10:42 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:23:03 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2016 1:39 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:26:18 PM UTC-8, Poutnik
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Dne 11/03/2016 v 03:26 James McGinn napsal(a):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James McGinn: It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's
>>>>>>> are not evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..and that is why the simple evidence of vapour
>>>>>> pressure/vapour density ratio kicks your heavy vapour
>>>>>> hypothesis on its ass.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not even relevant.
>>>>
>>>> he was repeating your comments.
>>>>
>>>> The Heavy Air Theory has already been discovered.
>>>
>>> Relevance?
>>>
>>
>> to you, everything.  But you do not realize it.
>>
>> Because you do not understand Science, with your "Magical Plasma"
>> your imagination is in full control.
>>
>> You have nothing to back up anything you say, except your
>> imagination, right airhead ?
>
> LOL.  Somebody creates a model as a conjecture to explain surface
> tension.  I present an alternate model/conjecture

from your "paper"

"Surface Tension Explained -The two dimensions of a surface restricts 
the completion of hydrogen bonds that would normally occur in the less 
restricted three dimensions below the surface of liquid water."

That is it. One sentance no math, no diagrams And it of course is wrong, 
it dosent explain how a insects can land on water surface and not get 
wet. You one sentance "theory" states the opposite.


> and this whackjob
> uses the original model/conjecture as if it was fact to dispute mine.
> And you three birdbrains have such marginal intellectual skills you
> think its my fault for not just blindly accepting this rather
> obviously invalid tactic.

       you have no idea what you are blabbling about at all

It is your fault for stating stupid imaginary ideas in a science forum 
without any justification at all, and getting arrows in your butt, 
"magical plasma".........., you get what you deserve, disrespect.

You show disrespect for the truth.


>
> Duhr.
>

  Duhr   1. Something uttered by a complete retarted idiot.

"Duhr."
-person who got the 3% in art class

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=duhr

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

#561954

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 1:33:19 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/12/2016 2:41 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:27:10 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 3/12/2016 10:42 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:23:03 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >>>> On 3/11/2016 1:39 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:26:18 PM UTC-8, Poutnik
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Dne 11/03/2016 v 03:26 James McGinn napsal(a):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> James McGinn: It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's
> >>>>>>> are not evidence.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ..and that is why the simple evidence of vapour
> >>>>>> pressure/vapour density ratio kicks your heavy vapour
> >>>>>> hypothesis on its ass.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not even relevant.
> >>>>
> >>>> he was repeating your comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Heavy Air Theory has already been discovered.
> >>>
> >>> Relevance?
> >>>
> >>
> >> to you, everything.  But you do not realize it.
> >>
> >> Because you do not understand Science, with your "Magical Plasma"
> >> your imagination is in full control.
> >>
> >> You have nothing to back up anything you say, except your
> >> imagination, right airhead ?
> >
> > LOL.  Somebody creates a model as a conjecture to explain surface
> > tension.  I present an alternate model/conjecture
> 
> from your "paper"
> 
> "Surface Tension Explained -The two dimensions of a surface restricts 
> the completion of hydrogen bonds that would normally occur in the less 
> restricted three dimensions below the surface of liquid water."
> 
> That is it. One sentance no math, no diagrams

The detais are in my paper, which is way over your little head.  



 And it of course is wrong, 
> it dosent explain how a insects can land on water surface and not get 
> wet. You one sentance "theory" states the opposite.

Yeah, so?  My theory works.  It's not contrived.


> 
> 
> > and this whackjob
> > uses the original model/conjecture as if it was fact to dispute mine.
> > And you three birdbrains have such marginal intellectual skills you
> > think its my fault for not just blindly accepting this rather
> > obviously invalid tactic.
> 
>        you have no idea what you are blabbling about at all
> 
> It is your fault for stating stupid imaginary ideas in a science forum 
> without any justification at all, and getting arrows in your butt, 
> "magical plasma".........., you get what you deserve, disrespect.
> 
> You show disrespect for the truth.

There is truth and there is what everybody believes.  If you don't understand scientific methods you will not be able to tell the difference.


> 
> 
> >
> > Duhr.
> >
> 
>   Duhr   1. Something uttered by a complete retarted idiot.
> 
> "Duhr."
> -person who got the 3% in art class
> 
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=duhr

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

#561996

On 3/12/2016 3:56 PM, James McGinn wrote:


>>>> to you, everything.  But you do not realize it.
>>>>
>>>> Because you do not understand Science, with your "Magical
>>>> Plasma" your imagination is in full control.
>>>>
>>>> You have nothing to back up anything you say, except your
>>>> imagination, right airhead ?
>>>
>>> LOL.  Somebody creates a model as a conjecture to explain
>>> surface tension.  I present an alternate model/conjecture
>>
>> from your "paper"
>>
>> "Surface Tension Explained -The two dimensions of a surface
>> restricts the completion of hydrogen bonds that would normally
>> occur in the less restricted three dimensions below the surface of
>> liquid water."
>>
>> That is it. One sentance no math, no diagrams
>
> The detais are in my paper, which is way over your little head.


again, your details is one sentence, simpleton -  from your "paper" 
(which is poop)

"Surface Tension Explained -The two dimensions of a surface restricts
the completion of hydrogen bonds that would normally occur in the less
restricted three dimensions below the surface of liquid water."

That is it. One sentence no math, no diagrams And it of course is wrong,
it dosent explain how a insects can land on water surface and not get
wet. You one sentence "theory" states the opposite.



>
>
>
> And it of course is wrong,
>> it dosent explain how a insects can land on water surface and not
>> get wet. You one sentance "theory" states the opposite.
>
> Yeah, so?  My theory works.  It's not contrived.

only you think it works, and you have no experiments to back it up. It 
is contrived, it is fiction, imagination.

>
>
>>
>>
>>> and this whackjob uses the original model/conjecture as if it was
>>> fact to dispute mine. And you three birdbrains have such marginal
>>> intellectual skills you think its my fault for not just blindly
>>> accepting this rather obviously invalid tactic.
>>
>> you have no idea what you are blabbling about at all
>>
>> It is your fault for stating stupid imaginary ideas in a science
>> forum without any justification at all, and getting arrows in your
>> butt, "magical plasma".........., you get what you deserve,
>> disrespect.
>>
>> You show disrespect for the truth.
>
> There is truth and there is what everybody believes.  If you don't
> understand scientific methods you will not be able to tell the
> difference.

BS, you don't know scientific method,
and you hate the truth,
you "think outside the box"

so you are a babbling wackjob, driving off your viewers, especially with 
those INSANE you tube videos, Mr. Wackjob.



>>> Duhr.
>>>
>>
>> Duhr   1. Something uttered by a complete retarted idiot.
>>
>> "Duhr." -person who got the 3% in art class
>>
>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=duhr
>

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

#562007

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:12:59 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> BS, you don't know scientific method,
> and you hate the truth,
> you "think outside the box"

I don't think I'm different because I think 
outside of the box.

You believe moist air contains cold steam, making 
it 1% lighter than dry air.  And, as it convects 
up it condenses, releasing latent heat.  And even 
though this latent heat has never actually been 
detected, this is what you believe powers all 
storms and all atmospheric flow, including the jet 
streams.

Do you actually believe this?  I'm going to give 
you the benefit of the doubt and just asssume that, 
like most everybody else, you never actually gave 
it any thought.

I'm not different because I think outside the box.  
I'm different because I think.

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

#562014

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm different because I think.

Nope, because you have fucked up brain chemistry.

There are drugs that could help you.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#562015

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:31:52 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'm different because I think.
> 
> Nope, because you have fucked up brain chemistry.
> 
> There are drugs that could help you.
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

LOL.  To get me to believe 1% lighter, cold steam is driving the atmospheric flow it's gonna take something more than just drugs.

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

#562052

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:31:52 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > I'm different because I think.
>> 
>> Nope, because you have fucked up brain chemistry.
>> 
>> There are drugs that could help you.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jim Pennino
> 
> LOL.  To get me to believe 1% lighter, cold steam is driving the
> atmospheric flow it's gonna take something more than just drugs.

Correct, it will take drugs to fix your delusions then education to
fix your ignorance.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#561862

On 3/10/16 8:26 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim.

   You are right, James, you don't have a good grasp of symmetry in
   physics.

   Review | Molecular symmetry
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_symmetry

> Molecular symmetry in chemistry describes the symmetry present in
> molecules and the classification of molecules according to their
> symmetry. Molecular symmetry is a fundamental concept in chemistry,
> as it can predict or explain many of a molecule's chemical
> properties, such as its dipole moment and its allowed spectroscopic
> transitions (based on selection rules such as the Laporte rule). Many
> university level textbooks on physical chemistry, quantum chemistry,
> and inorganic chemistry devote a chapter to symmetry.[1][2][3][4][5]
>
> While various frameworks for the study of molecular symmetry exist,
> group theory is the predominant one. This framework is also useful in
> studying the symmetry of molecular orbitals, with applications such
> as the Hückel method, ligand field theory, and the Woodward-Hoffmann
> rules. Another framework on a larger scale is the use of crystal
> systems to describe crystallographic symmetry in bulk materials.
>
> Many techniques for the practical assessment of molecular symmetry
> exist, including X-ray crystallography and various forms of
> spectroscopy, for example infrared spectroscopy of metal carbonyls.
> Spectroscopic notation is based on symmetry considerations.



-- 

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web