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

Groups > sci.physics > #565334 > unrolled thread

Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 20:11 -0700
    Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 07:30 +0100
      Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 05:10 -0700
        Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 10:25 +0100
          Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Bojana Kudryavtseva <bojkud@rtyn56h67i.org> - 2016-03-26 10:33 +0000
            Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 10:36 -0400
              Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-27 05:04 +0200
                Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-28 05:12 +0200
                  Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-28 21:37 +0200
                    Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Ewan <iq49j@noemail.edu> - 2016-03-28 19:52 +0000
                      Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-30 06:38 +0200
                    Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-29 20:02 +0200
          Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 09:04 -0700
            Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 17:13 +0100
              Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 09:36 -0700
              Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 23:54 -0700
        Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 11:39 +0100
          Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 09:10 -0700
            Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 14:02 -0700
              Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-29 18:49 -0500
    Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-25 18:20 +0000
      Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 13:04 -0700
        Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-26 18:05 +0000
          Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 11:19 -0700
            Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-27 05:09 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#565334 — Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 1:54:25 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
Science is confused about water because they are confused about polarity.   They see polarity as a function of "polar' bonds (a "polar" bond is a covalent bond that has an electronegativity difference).  It's not that simple.  Many molecules have "polar" bonds but are not polar (they are not dipoles).  A polar molecule is asymmetrical in addition to having electronegativity differences.  And where it really gets confusing is when you consider that with water (and only with water) symmetry is variable--AND ACTUALLY VARIES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HYDROGEN BONDING! 
> 
> 
In water polarity drops to zero when symmetry is achieved through coordinated tetrahedral bonds.  The failure to comprehend this and its implications is the reason they are so perplexed by water and its many anomalies.  For example, once you understand this it becomes immediately apparent why H2O has its high heat capacity. Strangely, the professionals have no ability to grasp the importance of symmetry to polarity.  They write paper after paper and do video after video that demonstrates their ignorance of the intricacies of polarity and then they make lists of water's anomalies, pretending they have explained something that they have not explained. The following paper tries to get beyond that same ground hog day, over and over again, glossing over, inability to grasp what is really happening at the molecular level that is so typical of the study of water: 
> 
> https://zenodo.org/record/37224

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#565373

Dne 25/03/2016 v 04:11 James McGinn napsal(a):
> On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 1:54:25 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>>
> Science is confused about water because they are confused about
> polarity.   They see polarity as a function of "polar' bonds
> (a "polar" bond is a covalent bond that has an electronegativity
> difference).  It's not that simple.  Many molecules have "polar"
> bonds but are not polar (they are not dipoles).  A polar molecule
> is asymmetrical in addition to having electronegativity differences.
> And where it really gets confusing is when you consider that
> with water (and only with water) symmetry is variable--AND ACTUALLY
> VARIES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HYDROGEN BONDING! 

Hydrogen bonds are not able to make H2O molecule linear.

A molecule need not to have a dipole moment to be polar.

CO2 molecule, even if linear and without dipole moment,
is still polar because of local polarities
and local dipole moments.

Liquid or supercritical CO2 is used as a polar solvent,
e.g. for extraction of polar caffeine from coffee.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#565398

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:30:10 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 25/03/2016 v 04:11 James McGinn napsal(a):
> > On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 1:54:25 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >>
> > Science is confused about water because they are confused about
> > polarity.   They see polarity as a function of "polar' bonds
> > (a "polar" bond is a covalent bond that has an electronegativity
> > difference).  It's not that simple.  Many molecules have "polar"
> > bonds but are not polar (they are not dipoles).  A polar molecule
> > is asymmetrical in addition to having electronegativity differences.
> > And where it really gets confusing is when you consider that
> > with water (and only with water) symmetry is variable--AND ACTUALLY
> > VARIES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HYDROGEN BONDING! 
> 
> Hydrogen bonds are not able to make H2O molecule linear.

True.  But do you know why?  It's because in a tetrahedron all four corner are eqi-distant from each other.  So it make no difference which two have covalen bonds, it will always produce the Mickey Mouse ears shape.

> A molecule need not to have a dipole moment to be polar.

It depends on which conventions you ascribe to.  Some refer to electronegativity differences between two covalently bonded atoms as "polar bonds."  I think this is confusing and stupid. Many students are left permanently confused by this terminology.

Stupidity is hard to control because there are so many other stupid people that are happy to believe a stupid notion.  Referring to covalent bonds as polar is meaningless since the polarity (as in the methane molecule) does not become expressed unless the molecule is asymmetric.  

But you have the right to believe whatever stupid thing you want. And the fact that I think it stupid doesn't mean it is wrong.  Unfortunately this stupid convention leaves many students perplexed.

> CO2 molecule, even if linear and without dipole moment,
> is still polar because of local polarities
> and local dipole moments.

Yes, but it is meaningless, as I describe above.

> Liquid or supercritical CO2 is used as a polar solvent,
> e.g. for extraction of polar caffeine from coffee.

Interesting.

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

#565713

Dne 25/03/2016 v 13:10 James McGinn napsal(a):
> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:30:10 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:

>>
>> Hydrogen bonds are not able to make H2O molecule linear.
> 
> True.  But do you know why?

It would be sad if I did not.

>> Liquid or supercritical CO2 is used as a polar solvent,
>> e.g. for extraction of polar caffeine from coffee.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
And illustrating your statement about meaningless is not relevant.

Being polar means either to have atoms with partial charges,
either to be donor or acceptor of electron pair.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#565717

Poutnik wrote:

>>> Liquid or supercritical CO2 is used as a polar solvent, e.g. for
>>> extraction of polar caffeine from coffee.
>> 
>> Interesting.
>> 
> And illustrating your statement about meaningless is not relevant.
> Being polar means either to have atoms with partial charges, either to
> be donor or acceptor of electron pair.

Men never went to the moon and probably never will.
 - Big Willy

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

#565739

On 03/26/2016 06:33 AM, Bojana Kudryavtseva wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>>>> Liquid or supercritical CO2 is used as a polar solvent, e.g. for
>>>> extraction of polar caffeine from coffee.
>>>
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>> And illustrating your statement about meaningless is not relevant.
>> Being polar means either to have atoms with partial charges, either to
>> be donor or acceptor of electron pair.
>
> Men never went to the moon and probably never will.
>   - Big Willy
>
Of course they did! Faked TV moon landing doesn't mean nobody ever went 
there!  Trust me.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#565833

Am 26.03.2016 15:36, schrieb benj:

>>>>> Liquid or supercritical CO2 is used as a polar solvent, e.g. for
>>>>> extraction of polar caffeine from coffee.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting.
>>>>
>>> And illustrating your statement about meaningless is not relevant.
>>> Being polar means either to have atoms with partial charges, either to
>>> be donor or acceptor of electron pair.
>>
>> Men never went to the moon and probably never will.
>> - Big Willy
>>
> Of course they did! Faked TV moon landing doesn't mean nobody ever went
> there! Trust me.

The purpose of media-fakery is to create a state of uneasiness called 
'cognitive dissonance' in the general public.

People know subconciously, they are lied at, but are not able to accept 
this. This creates the desired stress in the mind, which is utilised for 
mass-manipulation.

So people are told stuff, what their subconcious mind regards as fake, 
but their concious mind as truth. This state demands 'relief', and let 
make people follow any idiot, who promises to 'free' them.

(It also promotes the use of drugs, btw.)

So the pictures are more blurry than necessary, since people SHALL see 
the fraud. That is an essential part of the plan and a necessity for 
mass-manipulation.


TH

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

#566054

Am 27.03.2016 05:04, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 26.03.2016 15:36, schrieb benj:
>
>>>>>> Liquid or supercritical CO2 is used as a polar solvent, e.g. for
>>>>>> extraction of polar caffeine from coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting.
>>>>>
>>>> And illustrating your statement about meaningless is not relevant.
>>>> Being polar means either to have atoms with partial charges, either to
>>>> be donor or acceptor of electron pair.
>>>
>>> Men never went to the moon and probably never will.
>>> - Big Willy
>>>
>> Of course they did! Faked TV moon landing doesn't mean nobody ever went
>> there! Trust me.
>
> The purpose of media-fakery is to create a state of uneasiness called
> 'cognitive dissonance' in the general public.
>
> People know subconciously, they are lied at, but are not able to accept
> this. This creates the desired stress in the mind, which is utilised for
> mass-manipulation.
>
> So people are told stuff, what their subconcious mind regards as fake,
> but their concious mind as truth. This state demands 'relief', and let
> make people follow any idiot, who promises to 'free' them.
>
> (It also promotes the use of drugs, btw.)
>
> So the pictures are more blurry than necessary, since people SHALL see
> the fraud. That is an essential part of the plan and a necessity for
> mass-manipulation.

Example:
this is an iconic photo.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg

What you actually see is a large disproportion between head (helmet) and 
legs.

Human bodies have a certain canon of relations, which e.g. Leonardo da 
Vinci depicted here:

http://www.art-leonardo-da-vinci.de/images/leonardo-da-vinci-vitruvianische-mensch.jpg

Now too large head and to short legs give the impression of 'cuteness':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness

Which is something, the subconscious mind recognises, but what does not 
fit to scientific experiments on the Moon.

So we have a carefully designed image, that clearly attempts to bring 
the viewer into the confused state called 'cognitive dissonance'.


TH

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

#566260

Am 28.03.2016 05:12, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>>>> Men never went to the moon and probably never will.
>>>> - Big Willy
>>>>
>>> Of course they did! Faked TV moon landing doesn't mean nobody ever went
>>> there! Trust me.
>>
>> The purpose of media-fakery is to create a state of uneasiness called
>> 'cognitive dissonance' in the general public.
>>
>> People know subconciously, they are lied at, but are not able to accept
>> this. This creates the desired stress in the mind, which is utilised for
>> mass-manipulation.
>>
>> So people are told stuff, what their subconcious mind regards as fake,
>> but their concious mind as truth. This state demands 'relief', and let
>> make people follow any idiot, who promises to 'free' them.
>>
>> (It also promotes the use of drugs, btw.)
>>
>> So the pictures are more blurry than necessary, since people SHALL see
>> the fraud. That is an essential part of the plan and a necessity for
>> mass-manipulation.
>
> Example:
> this is an iconic photo.
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg
>
> What you actually see is a large disproportion between head (helmet) and
> legs.
>
> Human bodies have a certain canon of relations, which e.g. Leonardo da
> Vinci depicted here:
>
> http://www.art-leonardo-da-vinci.de/images/leonardo-da-vinci-vitruvianische-mensch.jpg
>
>
> Now too large head and to short legs give the impression of 'cuteness':
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness
>
> Which is something, the subconscious mind recognises, but what does not
> fit to scientific experiments on the Moon.
>
> So we have a carefully designed image, that clearly attempts to bring
> the viewer into the confused state called 'cognitive dissonance'.
>

This picture is REALLY strange:

https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dn17488-1_500.jpg

To understand the situation one should notice, that these dolls in the 
background are actually representations of the guys standing in front of 
the lander.

Now the problem:
the lander is 'real', as are the astronauts. But the dolls are smaller 
than the real astronauts.



Here is a picture from a training for Apollo 11 on Earth:

http://c7.alamy.com/comp/F4T3D3/training-astronaut-neil-armstrong-in-the-apollo-11-houston-tx-usa-F4T3D3.jpg

Here a picture of Buzz Aldrin:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg/600px-Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg

Now the head is larger and the legs are shorter in the second picture. 
This means, the picture was made from slightly above - but only the 
picture of the astronaut, not the ground.

The ground was photographed from a very low position, since the pads of 
the lander are relatively large (hence the camera was close to them).



TH

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

#566268

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 28.03.2016 05:12, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> 
>>>>> Men never went to the moon and probably never will.
>>>>> - Big Willy
>>>>>
>>>> Of course they did! Faked TV moon landing doesn't mean nobody ever
>>>> went there! Trust me.
>>>
>>> The purpose of media-fakery is to create a state of uneasiness called
>>> 'cognitive dissonance' in the general public.
>>>
>>> People know subconciously, they are lied at, but are not able to
>>> accept this. This creates the desired stress in the mind, which is
>>> utilised for mass-manipulation.
>>>
>>> So people are told stuff, what their subconcious mind regards as fake,
>>> but their concious mind as truth. This state demands 'relief', and let
>>> make people follow any idiot, who promises to 'free' them.
>>>
>>> (It also promotes the use of drugs, btw.)
>>>
>>> So the pictures are more blurry than necessary, since people SHALL see
>>> the fraud. That is an essential part of the plan and a necessity for
>>> mass-manipulation.
>>
>> Example:
>> this is an iconic photo.
>>
>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg
>>
>> What you actually see is a large disproportion between head (helmet)
>> and legs.
>>
>> Human bodies have a certain canon of relations, which e.g. Leonardo da
>> Vinci depicted here:
>>
>> http://www.art-leonardo-da-vinci.de/images/leonardo-da-vinci-
vitruvianische-mensch.jpg
>>
>>
>> Now too large head and to short legs give the impression of 'cuteness':
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness
>>
>> Which is something, the subconscious mind recognises, but what does not
>> fit to scientific experiments on the Moon.
>>
>> So we have a carefully designed image, that clearly attempts to bring
>> the viewer into the confused state called 'cognitive dissonance'.
>>
>>
> This picture is REALLY strange:
> 
> https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/
dn17488-1_500.jpg
> 
> To understand the situation one should notice, that these dolls in the
> background are actually representations of the guys standing in front of
> the lander.
> 
> Now the problem:
> the lander is 'real', as are the astronauts. But the dolls are smaller
> than the real astronauts.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture from a training for Apollo 11 on Earth:
> 
> http://c7.alamy.com/comp/F4T3D3/training-astronaut-neil-armstrong-in-the-
apollo-11-houston-tx-usa-F4T3D3.jpg
> 
> Here a picture of Buzz Aldrin:
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/
Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg/600px-Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg
> 
> Now the head is larger and the legs are shorter in the second picture.
> This means, the picture was made from slightly above - but only the
> picture of the astronaut, not the ground.
> 
> The ground was photographed from a very low position, since the pads of
> the lander are relatively large (hence the camera was close to them).
> TH

Interesting reading. To me is not so much about that, but about things 
which should be there, they aren't. And things that are there and it 
shouldn't. I'm not talking about shadows, which could be explained 
variously, but physics and material objects discrepancies. Strange that 
nobody explain anything. Maybe they did land on the Moon, delayed or 
somehow differently, but they are saying the opposite. That it is not 
possible. What should people think then. Good post, Thomas.

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

#566593

Am 28.03.2016 21:52, schrieb Ewan:

>>>>>> Men never went to the moon and probably never will.
>>>>>> - Big Willy
>>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they did! Faked TV moon landing doesn't mean nobody ever
>>>>> went there! Trust me.
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of media-fakery is to create a state of uneasiness called
>>>> 'cognitive dissonance' in the general public.
>>>>
>>>> People know subconciously, they are lied at, but are not able to
>>>> accept this. This creates the desired stress in the mind, which is
>>>> utilised for mass-manipulation.
>>>>
>>>> So people are told stuff, what their subconcious mind regards as fake,
>>>> but their concious mind as truth. This state demands 'relief', and let
>>>> make people follow any idiot, who promises to 'free' them.
>>>>
>>>> (It also promotes the use of drugs, btw.)
>>>>
>>>> So the pictures are more blurry than necessary, since people SHALL see
>>>> the fraud. That is an essential part of the plan and a necessity for
>>>> mass-manipulation.
>>>
>>> Example:
>>> this is an iconic photo.
>>>
>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg
>>>
>>> What you actually see is a large disproportion between head (helmet)
>>> and legs.
>>>
>>> Human bodies have a certain canon of relations, which e.g. Leonardo da
>>> Vinci depicted here:
>>>
>>> http://www.art-leonardo-da-vinci.de/images/leonardo-da-vinci-
> vitruvianische-mensch.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> Now too large head and to short legs give the impression of 'cuteness':
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness
>>>
>>> Which is something, the subconscious mind recognises, but what does not
>>> fit to scientific experiments on the Moon.
>>>
>>> So we have a carefully designed image, that clearly attempts to bring
>>> the viewer into the confused state called 'cognitive dissonance'.
>>>
>>>
>> This picture is REALLY strange:
>>
>> https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/
> dn17488-1_500.jpg
>>
>> To understand the situation one should notice, that these dolls in the
>> background are actually representations of the guys standing in front of
>> the lander.
>>
>> Now the problem:
>> the lander is 'real', as are the astronauts. But the dolls are smaller
>> than the real astronauts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is a picture from a training for Apollo 11 on Earth:
>>
>> http://c7.alamy.com/comp/F4T3D3/training-astronaut-neil-armstrong-in-the-
> apollo-11-houston-tx-usa-F4T3D3.jpg
>>
>> Here a picture of Buzz Aldrin:
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/
> Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg/600px-Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg
>>
>> Now the head is larger and the legs are shorter in the second picture.
>> This means, the picture was made from slightly above - but only the
>> picture of the astronaut, not the ground.
>>
>> The ground was photographed from a very low position, since the pads of
>> the lander are relatively large (hence the camera was close to them).
>> TH
>
> Interesting reading. To me is not so much about that, but about things
> which should be there, they aren't. And things that are there and it
> shouldn't. I'm not talking about shadows, which could be explained
> variously, but physics and material objects discrepancies. Strange that
> nobody explain anything. Maybe they did land on the Moon, delayed or
> somehow differently, but they are saying the opposite. That it is not
> possible. What should people think then. Good post, Thomas.

A common human produces about 50 to 100 Watt of heat.

Since the moon has no atmosphere, the excess heat needs to be 
distributed to the environment by other means.

But I cannot identify any system sufficient to distribute heat to the 
vacuum in the suits or backpacks of the astronauts.


Another problem is, that these suits should look more bulgy, since 
humans need a certain pressure to survive.


Aldrin and Armstrong were medium sized men, a little more than 1,80 m 
(my guess).

If we add something for VERY well insulating soles and the huge helmet, 
the entire astronaut would have a hight of about 2 m.

The puppets on the lander in the Washington flight museum are only about 
1,70 m high, hence too small.

But larger astronauts would not fit through the lander's door.


The lander is actually a two staged rocket.

One stage is designed to decelerate the craft from orbit speed, to allow 
safe landing (with v_sideways=0 and v_vertical=0).

The other stage has to do the opposite, to return the astronauts to the 
orbiter.

I have figured out, the craft had only sufficient fuel for landing (with 
the rocket equation).


The return maneuver was actually a rendezvous in Moon orbit, which 
requires tremendous precision for navigation in space and time. The 
lander had not enough means to measure its own position and that of the 
orbiter.

...


TH

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

#566511

On 28.03.2016 21:37, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.03.2016 05:12, schrieb Thomas Heger:
>
>
> This picture is REALLY strange:
>
> https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dn17488-1_500.jpg
>
>
> To understand the situation one should notice, that these dolls in the
> background are actually representations of the guys standing in front of
> the lander.
>
> Now the problem:
> the lander is 'real', as are the astronauts. But the dolls are smaller
> than the real astronauts.
>
>
>
> Here is a picture from a training for Apollo 11 on Earth:
>
> http://c7.alamy.com/comp/F4T3D3/training-astronaut-neil-armstrong-in-the-apollo-11-houston-tx-usa-F4T3D3.jpg
>
>
> Here a picture of Buzz Aldrin:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg/600px-Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg
>
>
> Now the head is larger and the legs are shorter in the second picture.
> This means, the picture was made from slightly above - but only the
> picture of the astronaut, not the ground.
>
> The ground was photographed from a very low position, since the pads of
> the lander are relatively large (hence the camera was close to them).
>
>
>
> TH
>
>

Quite funny!
Pretending to think that normal perspective phenomena
in photographs are sign of fraud!

I bet there are several cranks that will buy it! :-D

http://tinyurl.com/hhlab9o
The real people on the right are smaller than the dolls!
An obvious fraud! :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#565748

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 2:25:29 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 25/03/2016 v 13:10 James McGinn napsal(a):
> > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:30:10 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Hydrogen bonds are not able to make H2O molecule linear.
> > 
> > True.  But do you know why?
> 
> It would be sad if I did not.
> 
> >> Liquid or supercritical CO2 is used as a polar solvent,
> >> e.g. for extraction of polar caffeine from coffee.
> > 
> > Interesting.
> > 
> And illustrating your statement about meaningless is not relevant.
> 
> Being polar means either to have atoms with partial charges,
> either to be donor or acceptor of electron pair.

Much ado about nothing.  I discuss the distinction in my paper.  Methane has polar bonds but is not a dipole.  H2O is a dipole because of its asymmetry.  

So, your point is semantic and not substantive.  

I discuss the distinction in my paper:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

The intereting thing--and the reason I wrote the paper--is that H2O symmetry is  variable and H bonds are themselves the mechanisms thereof.  This underlies the quirkiness of H2O that has resulted in it possessing 70 anomalies.

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

#565750

Dne 26/03/2016 v 17:04 James McGinn napsal(a):
> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 2:25:29 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 25/03/2016 v 13:10 James McGinn napsal(a):
>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:30:10 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Hydrogen bonds are not able to make H2O molecule linear.
>>>
>>> True.  But do you know why?
>>
>> It would be sad if I did not.
>>
>>>> Liquid or supercritical CO2 is used as a polar solvent,
>>>> e.g. for extraction of polar caffeine from coffee.
>>>
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>> And illustrating your statement about meaningless is not relevant.
>>
>> Being polar means either to have atoms with partial charges,
>> either to be donor or acceptor of electron pair.
> 
> Much ado about nothing.  I discuss the distinction in my paper.  Methane has polar bonds but is not a dipole.  H2O is a dipole because of its asymmetry.  

Polarity of methane bonds is very weak.

Being dipole as result of assymetry is self obvious.
If you knew more , you would know hydrogen bonds
cannot significantly change geometry of water bonds.

It is seen even in ice structure,

As you ignore most of physics in your posts,
potential of interest of your papers is very low.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#565758

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:13:30 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 26/03/2016 v 17:04 James McGinn napsal(a):

> Polarity of methane bonds is very weak.

Not really.  They are 1/3 that of H2O.  But they don't have 1/3 dipole strength.  They have zero dipole strength.

Look it up if you don't believe me.  The "strength" is determined by electronegativity differences. Look up electronegativity of H, O, and C.  Work it out.

> Being dipole as result of assymetry is self obvious.

Then why did I have to just explain it to you?

> If you knew more , you would know hydrogen bonds
> cannot significantly change geometry of water bonds.

LOL.  They do in methane, dumbass.  They do in all other molecules.  What magic would prevent that from being the case with H2O? Your imagination?  Your lack of imagination?  I'm not interested in what dimwits choose to believe.  If you have an argument present it.  Otherwise leave you dullwitted opinions out of the discussion.

> It is seen even in ice structure,

LOL. We can't see the molecular structurre of ice, dumbass.  You are looking at models.  These models are the result of the collective imaginations of researched working under the assumptions that polarity is a constant.  They adopted the lattice structure out of desperation, not because they had any evidence of it. 

You are a perfect example of how having internet access provides you a resource that gives you false confidence that you are an expert in what you barely understand.

> As you ignore most of physics in your posts,
> potential of interest of your papers is very low.

LOL.  You lost the argument.  As soon as it became apparent that your point was lost you resorted to consensus.

I understand the physics perfectly.  You understand only what you could find with a search engine.

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

#565879

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 7:13:30 PM UTC+3, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 26/03/2016 v 17:04 James McGinn napsal(a):
> > On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 2:25:29 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
> >> Dne 25/03/2016 v 13:10 James McGinn napsal(a):
> >>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:30:10 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hydrogen bonds are not able to make H2O molecule linear.
> >>>
> >>> True.  But do you know why?
> >>
> >> It would be sad if I did not.
> >>
> >>>> Liquid or supercritical CO2 is used as a polar solvent,
> >>>> e.g. for extraction of polar caffeine from coffee.
> >>>
> >>> Interesting.
> >>>
> >> And illustrating your statement about meaningless is not relevant.
> >>
> >> Being polar means either to have atoms with partial charges,
> >> either to be donor or acceptor of electron pair.
> > 
> > Much ado about nothing.  I discuss the distinction in my paper.  Methane has polar bonds but is not a dipole.  H2O is a dipole because of its asymmetry.  
> 
> Polarity of methane bonds is very weak.
> 
> Being dipole as result of assymetry is self obvious.
> If you knew more , you would know hydrogen bonds
> cannot significantly change geometry of water bonds.
> 
> It is seen even in ice structure,
> 
> As you ignore most of physics in your posts,
> potential of interest of your papers is very low.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> 
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
=====================
i told him a few times that
Hydrogen is not the main 'hero ' pf water 
the main 'hero is  OXYGEN 
--
ATB
Y.Porat
================================

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

#565720

Dne 25/03/2016 v 13:10 James McGinn napsal(a):

> 
> True.  But do you know why?  It's because in a tetrahedron all four corner are eqi-distant from each other.  So it make no difference which two have covalen bonds, it will always produce the Mickey Mouse ears shape.
> 
Tetrahedron bond geometry is consequence of
 geometry of 4 SP3 hybrid molecular orbitals of the central atom.

It is true tetrahedron only in symmetrical case.

Symmetrical methane CH4 with 4 bonds
has all bond angles 109.5 degree, as for tetrahedrone.

For ammonia NH3 with 3 bonds and 1 electron pair,
the bond angle is lower, about 107 degress.

For water H2O with 2 bonds and 2 electron pairs,
the bond angle is even lower, about 104.45 degrees.

The electron pairs act like repulsors,
pushing the bonds closer each other.



-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#565749

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:39:29 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 25/03/2016 v 13:10 James McGinn napsal(a):
> 
> > 
> > True.  But do you know why?  It's because in a tetrahedron all four corner are eqi-distant from each other.  So it make no difference which two have covalen bonds, it will always produce the Mickey Mouse ears shape.
> > 
> Tetrahedron bond geometry is consequence of
>  geometry of 4 SP3 hybrid molecular orbitals of the central atom.

Right.  They are all trying to get as far away from each other as possible.  Thus they are all equi-distant from each other.  So no matter which two conjoined with covalent bonds they will always maintain mickey mouse orientation.


> It is true tetrahedron only in symmetrical case.

This is true also.

> Symmetrical methane CH4 with 4 bonds
> has all bond angles 109.5 degree, as for tetrahedrone.
> 
> For ammonia NH3 with 3 bonds and 1 electron pair,
> the bond angle is lower, about 107 degress.
> 
> For water H2O with 2 bonds and 2 electron pairs,
> the bond angle is even lower, about 104.45 degrees.
> 
> The electron pairs act like repulsors,
> pushing the bonds closer each other.

Right.  

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

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

#565990

got it; so, now, what

> > Symmetrical methane CH4 with 4 bonds
> > has all bond angles 109.5 degree, as for tetrahedrone.
> > 
> > For ammonia NH3 with 3 bonds and 1 electron pair,
> > the bond angle is lower, about 107 degress.
> > 
> > For water H2O with 2 bonds and 2 electron pairs,
> > the bond angle is even lower, about 104.45 degrees.
> > 
> > The electron pairs act like repulsors,
> > pushing the bonds closer each other.
> 
> Right.  
> 
> > Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> > 
> > Knowledge makes small men arrogant.

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

#566555

On 3/27/2016 4:02 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:


109.50 degrees - 104.45 degrees =  + 5.05 degrees

a cause of global Worming


> got it; so, now, what
>
>>> Symmetrical methane CH4 with 4 bonds
>>> has all bond angles 109.5 degree, as for tetrahedrone.
>>>
>>> For ammonia NH3 with 3 bonds and 1 electron pair,
>>> the bond angle is lower, about 107 degress.
>>>
>>> For water H2O with 2 bonds and 2 electron pairs,
>>> the bond angle is even lower, about 104.45 degrees.
>>>
>>> The electron pairs act like repulsors,
>>> pushing the bonds closer each other.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
>>>
>>> Knowledge makes small men arrogant.
>

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web