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

Groups > sci.physics > #563758 > unrolled thread

Nilsson Didn't Measure Gaseous H2O

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Nilsson Didn't Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 17:27 -0700
    HOH is lighter than most gasses, bu two of them is not noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 18:14 -0700
    Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 06:52 +0100
      Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 23:37 -0700
        Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 18:44 +0100
      Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:44 -0700
        Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0100
          Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:58 -0700
            Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 04:50 +0100
              Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 21:06 -0700
                Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:26 +0100
                  Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:52 -0700
                    Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 05:07 +0100
                      Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:18 -0700
                        Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 17:58 +0100
                          Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:30 -0700
                            Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 08:00 -0700
      Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 00:22 -0700
        Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:09 +0100
          Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:46 -0700
            Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:00 +0100
          Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:47 -0700
            Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:26 +0100
          Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:56 -0700
            Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 12:32 -0700
            Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:11 +0100
              Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 21:24 -0700
                Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:01 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#563758 — Nilsson Didn't Measure Gaseous H2O

NOY says: 19th March 2016 at 1:29 am
Jim, it was a link that *you* *provided* which provided the means by which your entire premise is destroyed.

James McGinn:
When I provide a link it's for informational purposes.  It doesn't mean that I agree with it verbatim.  

Also, keep in mind, as explicated in my paper, I don't buy into the standard model. Specifically, in my model there is an inverse relationship between proximity and bond strength, which Nilsson et al DO NOT assume.  

That is only the first discrepancy between my model and Nilsson's.  And it is a big one.  As I'll explain more explicitly below, it means that what he interprets as indicative of close proximity I interpret as distance and vice versa.* So, my interpretation of minimum and maximum bond strengths are transposed compared to this: https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=39m56s

(* It is extremely important that you get it clear in your head what exactly I mean when I say that for my model there is an inverse relationship between proximity and bond strength and how/why this is at odds with the standard model.  If this concept isn't making 100% sense to you I suggest rereading my paper again or watching this video: https://youtu.be/iDv2RoUrHTY?t=4m10s and/or https://youtu.be/WSGv08Rb_Lo )

So, that's the first major discrepancy to realize: Nilsson et al's first principles and my first principles are at odds with each other.  Hold this discrepancy in the back of your mind as you read the rest of this.

NOY:
They measured a spectral peak that was *not* from liquid water, James. 
 
James McGinn:
You don't know that.  And I can't prove otherwise, but I *think* this assumption is HIGHLY unlikely, as I'll explain below.  

NOY:
If the spectral peak measured was not solid-phase water, and it was not liquid-phase water, that leaves only one other phase, Jim.

Jim McGinn:
I understand your point.  And I am not dismissing it.  I'm just saying that there is more potential for misinterpretation here than you may be aware of, both on your part and on Nilsson's part.

Here is the first thing thing you are not taking into account.  What is being measured here is, ostensibly, the strength/distance of the H bonds.  Right?  Well, now think about that . . . if it was genuinely gas then . . . think about it . . . there would be no peak at all . . . BECAUSE IF IT WAS GENUINELY GASEOUS H2O THERE WOULD BE NO H BONDS!  (Specifically, the data would not indicate a peak it would indicate a flat line because there would be no variation in bond distance to cause a statistical distribution.)

That is the first clue (a clue that you missed) that they did not measure the genuine gaseous phase of H2O. The plot thickens when we consider other factors, especially when we include the above mentioned differences between my first principles and those of Nilsson et al. 

NOY:
You claim that water remains in the liquid phase when it evaporates, thus its spectral peak would be the same as liquid water, James.

James McGinn:
It's actually not that simple.  The reality of the situation is even more complicated than you suggest.  Remember, a miniature droplet is going to have a higher ratio of surface to non-surface.  IOW, a higher ratio of  "surface tension!"

 At this point you may be wondering why I put an exclamation point at the end of the the last sentence in the above paragraph.  It was not a mistake and it was not haphazard.  If you read my paper (and fully comprehended it) you would know why I put that exclamation point there.  And that reason is because in my model (and very much NOT in the standard model that Nilsson assumes) ice and surface tension are THE SAME THING--that being (polarity activated) asymmetric bonds. What this means is that for vaporous (not genuinely gaseous) H2O we would expect it to have a relatively higher percentage of ice mixed in with a lower percentage of liquid--and what does the data indicate?  Well . . . lets let this question float for a moment . . . 

So, why is Nillson so (unabashedly) perplexed in this video.  Where did he go wrong?  Well, the first thing he did wrong was to assume that ice is a lattice of fully coordinated symmetric bonds.  (As I just indicated, my model assumes ice comprises a high percentage of asymmetric [polarity activated] bonds.) From this point on confusion ensues for Nilsson.  Because from this point on he interprets fully coordinated symmetric bonds as strong bonds and asymmetric as weak bonds--exactly the opposite of how I interpret the same data.  Thus he, according to my model, transposes the significance of the data in liquid water.  Where he sees strength he assumes fully coordinated symmetric bonds and where he sees weakness he assumes asymmetric bonds.  It's also important to be cognizant of the fact that the reason Nilsson made this mistake is because if you start from the assumption that ice is a lattice of fully coordinated symmetric bonds you have no choice but to also assume that symmetric is strong and asymmetric is weak.  (Of course, keep in mind that Nilsson made this mistake is because he doesn't have the benefit of the understanding revealed in my paper.)

The second thing he did wrong was to make the classic mistake of assuming that vaporous H2O is gaseous.  (He would have had to have employed a vacuum chamber or a pressure cooker to have achieved this.)  And this mistake was further complicated by the fact that (as I explained above) there is a high ratio of surface to non-surface in droplets AND by the fact (again, as described above) ice and surface tension are the same thing (an assumption that Nilsson would find strange).  And so, the peaks Nilsson attributes to liquid I attribute to solid and the peaks he attributes to solid I attribute to liquid.  None of the peaks are attributable to gaseous H2O in my opinion. (Why a dual peak did not show up in the "gas" is not something I can explain.  My guess, however, is that it did show up and they dismissed it as noise--same for the "ice.") Whatever the case, at no time were they looking at genuine gaseous H2O. 

NOY:
That different spectral peak proves they were measuring gaseous-phase water, *not* liquid-phase water.

James McGinn:
It's more than a little bit comical that where you see proof I see data.  Nilsson was/is perplexed by all of this and yet you are so sure.  Can you see how that makes you look a bit ridiculous?  If you are so sure on this why don't you contact them and ask them if and how they took measures to insure that they were actually measuring gaseous H2O.

https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron orbital shell descent. 

James McGinn:
Right.  So the thing they are actually measuring is the amount of energy that is given off when the electron falls from the outer shell to the inner shell.  Thus they are not directly measuring the distance/strength of the H bonds.  They are inferring the distance/strength based on first principles.  And, as explained above, their first principles are different from mine because I have an advanced understanding of polarity neutralization that they haven't figured out yet.  And, consequently, they are habitually misattributing the solid and liquid forms of water.

NOY:
You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two phases.

James McGinn:
Except that it's not gaseous (as I explained above) and it's not lower it's higher.  Right?

https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304
You'll note the double peak of liquid water.
Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
"Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of water molecules then, in the liquid?  And if you look at it, one of the peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules."

Right.  That is two peaks, two different types of water--not three.  One that is solid (ice) and one that is liquid.  And he has mistakenly transposed these so he sees the solid (strong H bond--asymmetric [singular]) as liquid (weak H bonds--symmetric [dual]) and vice versa.  And the situation is even more confused by the fact that the "gas" actually is, in my opinion, solid (surface tension).  

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#563766 — HOH is lighter than most gasses, bu two of them is not

this reminds me that
I ne'e believed in the "currents in the mantle model
of rrth, til I learned of a possible mechanism
-- which I've ne'er seen mentioned, before or since --
at a lecture by an engineer with an oilco

> Right.  That is two peaks, two different types of water--not three.  One that is solid (ice) and one that is liquid.  And he has mistakenly transposed these so he sees the solid (strong H bond--asymmetric [singular]) as liquid (weak H bonds--symmetric [dual]) and vice versa.  And the situation is even more confused by the fact that the "gas" actually is, in my opinion, solid (surface tension).

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

#563812 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:958272e0-9c16-4027-8ca7-053368a4684b@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe drop-kicked a moronic halfwit. Again:

>> Jim, it was a link that *you* *provided* which provided the
>> means by which your entire premise is destroyed.

> When I provide a link it's for informational purposes.  It doesn't
> mean that I agree with it verbatim.  

You're backpedaling, James. You provided a link which you purported
supported your "theory", and with which I destroyed yet another huge
chunk of your retarded "theory", and now you're backpedaling.

> Also, keep in mind, as explicated in my paper, I don't buy into
> the standard model.

Of course you don't. You're a delusional moron who denies all of known
science so you can proclaim yourself smarter than every scientist in
the past 250+ years, as you blather out fairy tale hypotheticals with
no basis in reality.

So now you're denying the Standard Model, which means you deny all of
particle physics concerning the electromagnetic, weak and strong
nuclear forces. And that means they must be "in" on your kooky
"conspiracy", right, James?

Didn't you hear, James? The discovery of the top quark in 1995, the
tau neutrino in 2000 and the Higgs boson in 2012 cements the Standard
Model as reality. Deny it to the derisive laughter of sane people
everywhere.

Hey, you should file a class-action kooksoot against electrons and
photons... they're obviously covertly plotting to thwart your attempt
to remodel all of reality. Moron. LOL

> Specifically, in my model there is an inverse relationship
> between proximity and bond strength, which Nilsson et al
> DO NOT assume.  

Moron says bond strength becomes *stronger* with increasing distance!

Do you not understand the concept of bond enthalpy, James? Otherwise
known as bond energy. Do you not understand that a hydrogen bond is a
dipole-dipole attraction due to differential electronegativity?

According to you, the scenario would go something like this:
-------------------------------
A water molecule has closely-bonded intermolecular H bonds, thus the
bond link is low. Thus when energy hits it, the bond would stretch,
gain in strength and thus capture that energy, not allowing the bond
to ever break because the bond just keeps getting stronger and
stronger with distance.
-------------------------------

But you fail to understand that a H bond is an *electrostatic*
attraction between polar groups due to *electromagnetic* interaction.

Does electrostatic attraction increase with distance, James?

No, it does not. In fact, it decreases in strength by the inverse
square of distance, which is codified in Coulomb's Law.

In water, there is the additional consideration that if a H bond is
broken, the diametrically opposed covalent bond will strengthen
(shorten) until another H bond can be created.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
==================================================
There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond strengths;
the stronger is the H--O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H covalent
bond, and the shorter the O---O distance [1928] (see right).
Interestingly, this means that the O-H covalent part of the hydrogen
bonds gets shorter as the temperature of the water increases.

The dependency on bond length is very important and has been shown to
exponentially decay with distance.
==================================================

That the H bond is an electrostatic attraction is the reason why it's
directional. Didn't you know that, James?

Oh look, James... yet again Martin Chaplin kicks your stupid ass by
*empirically* *measuring* hydrogen bond strength versus bond length:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.1355.pdf
==================================================
If the hydrogen bond is close to straight (i.e. 180°), the hydrogen
bond strength depends almost linearly on its length with shorter
length giving rise to stronger hydrogen bonding. As the hydrogen bond
length of water increases with temperature increase but decreases with
pressure increase, hydrogen bond strength also depends almost
linearly, outside extreme values, on the temperature and pressure
(Dougherty, 1998).
==================================================

And that's not to mention that Anders Nilsson's experiment
(https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156), that you were touting as
supportive of your kooky "theory" and with which I utterly destroyed
your moronic "theory", directly observed a result of H bond strength,
James... the more strongly-bound the H bonds in each phase, the weaker
the photons emitted. And we know that ice has closely-bound H bonds,
James, which is why the photon energy was lower in ice.

This should be intuitive, James... why are you so fucking stupid that
you can't even figure out that electrostatic attraction *decreases*
with distance?

Holy fuck, James, seriously... are you retarded?

> That is only the first discrepancy between my model and Nilsson's.

Not just between your model and Nilsson's direct empirical
observations, James. Your kooky model not only stands in direct
diametric contrast to *every* water model, and *every* empirical
observation of water's properties, but in direct contradiction to the
fundamentals that make molecules behave the way they do! You're now
denying Coulomb's Law. Have you never wondered how and why a gold-leaf
electroscope works, James?

> And it is a big one.  As I'll explain more explicitly below, it means
> that what he interprets as indicative of close proximity I interpret
> as distance and vice versa.*

Because you're a reality-denying halfwit, James.

> So, my interpretation of minimum and maximum bond strengths are
> transposed compared to this: https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=39m56s

Because you're a reality-denying halfwit, James.

> (* It is extremely important that you get it clear in your head
> what exactly I mean when I say that for my model there is an
> inverse relationship between proximity and bond strength and
> how/why this is at odds with the standard model.

Oh, I'm perfectly clear as to why you deny the well-researched and
long-proven Standard Model... you're a crackpot who denies reality,
James. LOL

> If this concept isn't making 100% sense to you

No, James. I don't want to think like you... you're insane.

> I suggest rereading my paper again or watching this video:
> https://youtu.be/iDv2RoUrHTY?t=4m10s and/or

A delusional moron said:
> "When they are fully bonded, it's not really a bond anymore."

Fuck sake, Jim. Do you listen to your blather, or just blather without
thinking? A bond that isn't a bond.

A delusional halfwit said:
> "It's kinda like a gas, but that maintains close proximity to
> each other like a liquid."

And a gas that is a liquid. LOL!

A psychotic deluded moronic halfwit said:
> "That pendulimic relationship literally stores energy also."

And a molecule that stores energy as a pendulum, in direct
contradiction to all that is known about molecules... how is this
kooky "pendulimic stored energy" in your wholly fabricated "theory"
released, James?

According to your kooky "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases*
with distance, which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it
has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow
translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction.

Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit
would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy
level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's
*that* work, James? You've just violated the Law of Conservation of
Energy on an atomic level.

Jesus Christ hopping on a fucking pogo stick, James, the mental
gymnastics you're going through to try to get your moronic "theory" to
work must cost a lot of mental energy trying to keep straight in your
head all the contradictions. Why not put that energy to learning about
something constructive... say, *reality*. LOL

> https://youtu.be/WSGv08Rb_Lo )
> 
> So, that's the first major discrepancy to realize: Nilsson et al's
> first principles and my first principles are at odds with each other.

Your "first principles", which you pulled straight from your ass and
which has no basis in reality nor any evidence to back it up, it at
odds with reality, you insane halfwitted crackpot. LOL

> Hold this discrepancy in the back of your mind as you read the
> rest of this.

>> They measured a spectral peak that was *not* from liquid water, James. 

> You don't know that.

Yeah, we do know that, James. Do you not understand how those spectral
peaks are created, and why?

> And I can't prove otherwise,

Translation:
"And I'm just pulling more retarded blather straight from my ass,"

> but I *think* this assumption is HIGHLY unlikely, as I'll explain below.  

You only think that because you know that *direct* *observation* (not
"assumption") reflects reality, which you deny, James.

>> If the spectral peak measured was not solid-phase water, and it was not
>> liquid-phase water, that leaves only one other phase, Jim.

> I understand your point.  And I am not dismissing it.

Translation:
"You've caught me in a logic trap again. Now I'll try to writhe my way
out of it with more blather pulled straight from my ass."

> I'm just saying that there is more potential for misinterpretation

It was a *direct* *measurement* of photon energy, James. There is no
room for misinterpretation. Ice has one spectra, liquid water has one
spectra, they measured a third spectra that wasn't either of those,
and therefore is gaseous-phase water. Monomolecular, phase-changed,
higher photon energy. You cannot deny a direct observational
measurement, James.

> here than you may be aware of, both on your part and on Nilsson's part.
> 
> Here is the first thing thing you are not taking into account.  What
> is being measured here is, ostensibly, the strength/distance of the
> H bonds.

Wrong. What is being measured is photon energy, James. You're trying
to conflate as means of weaseling out of having been proven *wrong*
again, and it's not working.

> Right?  Well, now think about that . . . if it was genuinely gas
> then . . . think about it . . . there would be no peak at all . . .
> BECAUSE IF IT WAS GENUINELY GASEOUS H2O THERE WOULD BE NO H BONDS!
> (Specifically, the data would not indicate a peak it would indicate
> a flat line because there would be no variation in bond distance
> to cause a statistical distribution.)

You've tried this tactic before and failed, James, just as you're
failing now.

The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon
energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the lesser the
photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here:
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156

That Anders Nilsson et. al. were measuring a spectral peak that did
not coincide with solid-phase water nor with liquid-phase water, a
spectral peak with *higher* photon energy than liquid-phase water,
means they were measuring gaseous-phase water, Jim. No H bonding,
monomolecular.

You'll note the gaseous-phase water's photon energy was *higher*
because it was monomer water, and thus had no inter-molecular H bonds.
If it had had any H bonds, it would have been liquid water, and thus
would have had a spectral peak identical to that of liquid water.

It could *not* have been liquid water, no matter how small the
droplet, James, or the spectral peak would have been identical to that
of liquid water.

Do you not understand this, James? That fact proves the existence of
gaseous water, hence that evaporation is a per-molecule process, hence
that latent heat of evaporation exists, hence the central premise of
your retarded "theory" is yet again destroyed, Jim.

Stop embarrassing yourself, Jim. It's over. You've been exposed as a
scientific fraud and a moron far too stupid and delusional to ever
model the atmosphere.

> That is the first clue (a clue that you missed)

I didn't miss anything, James. You're attempting to weasel out of
having been proven wrong again, but again you find your lack of
education and your insanity thwarts you from doing so.

> that they did not measure the genuine gaseous phase of H2O.

Had it been liquid-phase water in the air, it would have had the same
spectra as liquid water, James. It didn't. It was gaseous-phase water,
with a higher photon energy, exactly as physics says it would be.

You're desperate to refute this because you know it absolutely kills
your entire "theory", but you cannot.

> The plot thickens when we consider other factors,

Translation:
"I'll try to throw out more chaff to confuse the issue even more."

You'll only succeed in confusing yourself, James. The sane people are
clear on the concept of photon emission having a higher energy because
the molecules have a higher thermal kinetic energy.

> especially when we include the above mentioned differences
> between my first principles and those of Nilsson et al. 

You mean your "first principles" which you pulled straight from your
ass, with no supporting evidence to back them up... because you're an
insane kooktard.

>> You claim that water remains in the liquid phase when it
>> evaporates, thus its spectral peak would be the same as
>> liquid water, James.

> It's actually not that simple.

Yes, it's actually that simple, James. That you cannot embrace the
simplicity of how an atom or molecule absorbs energy, then emits a
photon to return to a lower energy state is no one's problem but your
own... hence why your kooky theory continues growing more convoluted
and contradictory with each passing day.

> The reality of the situation is even more complicated than you suggest.

No, it isn't, James.

>  Remember, a miniature droplet is going to have a higher ratio of
> surface to non-surface.  IOW, a higher ratio of  "surface tension!"
> 
> At this point you may be wondering why I put an exclamation point
> at the end of the the last sentence in the above paragraph.  It was
> not a mistake and it was not haphazard.  If you read my paper (and
> fully comprehended it) you would know why I put that exclamation
> point there.  And that reason is because in my model (and very much
> NOT in the standard model that Nilsson assumes) ice and surface
> tension are THE SAME THING--

Bwahahaaaaa! You moronic halfwit, that'd cause a *lower* photon
energy, just as is seen in ice. You're 180 degrees out from reality
*again*, Jim.

And that's not even taking into account that surface tension and ice
are not "THE SAME THING", you moron. Surface tension is due to reduced
anticooperativity due to only having 180 degrees worth of molecules to
bond to, thus there are *more* H bonds in the interfacial water. Ice
has *stronger* H bonds because the covalent bonds lengthen by ~4
picometers.

> that being (polarity activated) asymmetric bonds. What this means
> is that for vaporous (not genuinely gaseous) H2O we would expect
> it to have a relatively higher percentage of ice mixed in with a
> lower percentage of liquid--and what does the data indicate?

You have no data, only conjecture, Jim... except you're too fucking
stupid to even suss that properly. It'd indicate a *lower* photon
energy, just as is seen in ice, the exact *opposite* of what you're
trying (and failing) to prove.

Gee... how did I foresee you trying this tactic, James? How did I
already have all the research done to prove you *wrong*, as is
evidenced by the references above? Because I've seen your kind before,
Jim. You'll blather and blather until you're cornered with no way
out... and I've just cornered you, you pathetic retard.

> Well . . . lets let this question float for a moment . . .
>
> So, why is Nillson so (unabashedly) perplexed in this video.  Where did
> he go wrong?  Well, the first thing he did wrong was to assume that ice
> is a lattice of fully coordinated symmetric bonds.  (As I just indicated,
> my model

You have no "model", James. You have only the mad rantings of your
broken brain. You're too insane to acknowledge reality, and you're far
too stupid to ever attempt modeling it.

> assumes ice comprises a high percentage of asymmetric [polarity
> activated] bonds.) From this point on confusion ensues for Nilsson.
> Because from this point on he interprets fully coordinated symmetric
> bonds as strong bonds and asymmetric as weak bonds--exactly the opposite
> of how I interpret the same data.

Which is why you're 180 degrees out from reality, Jim... Nilsson has
*empirical* *experimentation*... data, Jim. You only have blather.
Which do you think is more plausible?

> Thus he, according to my model, transposes the significance of the data
> in liquid water.  Where he sees strength he assumes fully coordinated
> symmetric bonds and where he sees weakness he assumes asymmetric bonds.

Because Coulomb's Law, a law built from empirical observation and
careful experimentation, dictates that a strong bond is a short bond,
which makes it symmetric, James, whereas a long, weak bond will be
asymmetric. That's *why* ice forms lattices, that's *why* water in its
liquid phase is _liquid_, you halfwit. The bond strength goes down as
the temperature goes up.

In your world, we'd get gaseous-phase water by *freezing* it, and we'd
get solid-phase water by boiling it. You idiot.

> It's also important to be cognizant of the fact that the reason Nilsson
> made this mistake

He made no mistake. The mistake lies in your inability to wrap your
badly damaged brain around reality.

> is because if you start from the assumption that ice is a lattice of
> fully coordinated symmetric bonds you have no choice but to also assume
> that symmetric is strong and asymmetric is weak.

Moron claims steam is more symmetric than ice! Bwahahaaaa!

> (Of course, keep in mind that Nilsson made this mistake

He made no mistake. The mistake lies in your inability to wrap your
badly damaged brain around reality.

> is because he doesn't have the benefit of the understanding revealed
> in my paper.)

You have no understanding, James, as you've just demonstrated. All you
have is conjecture, supposition and a raging case of paranoid
schizophrenia. Where's your data to support your contention that steam
is more symmetric than ice, Halfwit?

> The second thing he did wrong

He did nothing wrong. You're just an anti-science reality-denying
halfwitted insane moron, Jim.

> was to make the classic mistake of assuming that vaporous H2O is gaseous.

That's because it is. According to you, gaseous-phase water is more
symmetric and therefore more solid than ice! Because you're a moron.

> (He would have had to have employed a vacuum chamber or a pressure
> cooker to have achieved this.)  And this mistake

There was no mistake on his part, Jim. The mistake lies in your
inability to accept reality. You'd turn on its head every aspect of
science, to include the Standard Model and Coulomb's Law, in order
that you can continue to delude yourself into thinking you're smarter
than every single scientist in the past 250+ years.

But you're nor, Jim. You've demonstrated that you're a dishonest
scientific fraud, and an insane laughingstock.

> was further complicated by the fact that (as I explained above) there is
> a high ratio of surface to non-surface in droplets AND by the fact (again,
> as described above) ice and surface tension are the same thing (an
> assumption that Nilsson would find strange).

Because it is 180 degrees out from reality, you halfwit. And that'd
cause *lower* photon energy... unless you're now going to try to
stupidly argue that photon energy *increases* as temperature
*decreases*... but riddle me this, James... what happens at absolute
zero in your model?

Oh, that's right... that fucking water is throwing off photons so
bright they rival the sun.

You moron.

The rest of your backpedaling conflating anti-science nitwittery is
snipped, James. You've already been proven wrong *again*, there's
little need for me to continue to rub your nose in your stupidity.

And now for the References, which I note you never provide except for
your own retarded blather... you'll note a good portion of these are
direct empirical observations:
========================================
Anslyn, Eric (2004). Modern Physical Organic Chemistry. Sausalito, CA:
University Science. ISBN 978-1-891389-31-3.

IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 2nd ed. (the "Gold Book").
Compiled by A.D. McNaught and A. Wilkinson, Blackwell Scientific
Publications, Oxford, UK (1997). (b) XML on-line corrected version:
http://goldbook.iupac.org(2006- ) created by M. Nic, J. Jirat, and B.
Kosata; updates compiled by A.D. Jenkins.

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html

S.V. Goryainov, A model of phase transitions in double-well Morse
potential: Application to hydrogen bond, Physica B 407 (2012)
4233-4237.

S. J. Grabowski, A new measure of hydrogen bonding strength - ab
initio and atoms in molecules studies, Chem. Phys. Lett. 338 (2001)
361-366.

E. Espinosa, E. Molins, C. Lecomte, Hydrogen bond strengths revealed
by topological analyses of experimentally observed electron densities,
Chem. Phys. Lett. 285 (1998) 170-173.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.1355.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/4/1301.full.pdf

Ph. Wernet, D. Nordlund, U. Bergmann, M. Cavalleri, M. Odelius, H.
Ogasawara, L. Å. Näslund, T. K. Hirsch, L. Ojamäe, P. Glatzel, L. G.
M. Pettersson and A. Nilsson, The structure of the first coordination
shell in liquid water, Sciencexpress 1 April 2004;
10.1126/science.1096205 ; Science 304 (2004) 995-999.

F. Bartha, O. Kapuy, C. Kozmutza and C. Van Alsenoy, Analysis of
weakly bound structures: hydrogen bond and the electron density in a
water dimer, J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem) 666-667 (2003) 117-122. 

R.Ludwig, The effect of hydrogen bonding on the thermodynamic and
spectroscopic properties of molecular clusters and liquids, Phys.
Chem. Chem. Phys. 4 (2002) 5481-5487.
========================================

But before you go, do take another hilarious crack at proving yourself
*wrong*, James... the contradictions in your "theory" are in my .sig.

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#563822 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:02:46 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > When I provide a link it's for informational purposes.  It doesn't
> > mean that I agree with it verbatim.  
> 
> You're backpedaling, 

LOL.

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

#563875 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:cceb1380-9d74-460b-911d-b338a9ccc3b9@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:02:46 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> When I provide a link it's for informational purposes.  It doesn't
>>> mean that I agree with it verbatim.  

>> You're backpedaling, James. You provided a link which you purported
>> supported your "theory", and with which I destroyed yet another huge
>> chunk of your retarded "theory", and now you're backpedaling.

> LOL.

Your insane laughter as your smoke-and-mirrors world, in which you've
built yourself up as 'King of Science' and fabricated a technicolor
world with magical sky monsters and impossible physical processes,
shatters into a million pieces and falls to your feet, is noted,
James.

Welcome to reality, James... you've gone mad. Deal with that fact.

And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA
can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'.

You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James.
Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you
cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic
tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more
logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of
suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.

You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of
derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire
world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who
believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.

As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade
substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from
those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions
inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#564079 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:02:46 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:958272e0-9c16-4027-8ca7-053368a4684b@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > FNVWe drop-kicked a moronic halfwit. Again:
> 
> >> Jim, it was a link that *you* *provided* which provided the
> >> means by which your entire premise is destroyed.
> 
> > When I provide a link it's for informational purposes.  It doesn't
> > mean that I agree with it verbatim.  
> 
> You're backpedaling, James. You provided a link which you purported
> supported your "theory", and with which I destroyed yet another huge
> chunk of your retarded "theory", and now you're backpedaling.
> 
> > Also, keep in mind, as explicated in my paper, I don't buy into
> > the standard model.
> 
> Of course you don't. You're a delusional moron who denies all of known
> science so you can proclaim yourself smarter than every scientist in
> the past 250+ years, as you blather out fairy tale hypotheticals with
> no basis in reality.
> 
> So now you're denying the Standard Model,

What is it you think I'm denying, moron?

 which means you deny all of
> particle physics concerning the electromagnetic, weak and strong
> nuclear forces. And that means they must be "in" on your kooky
> "conspiracy", right, James?
> 
> Didn't you hear, James? The discovery of the top quark in 1995, the
> tau neutrino in 2000 and the Higgs boson in 2012 cements the Standard
> Model 

I was discussing water, you mental retard.



as reality. Deny it to the derisive laughter of sane people
> everywhere.
> 
> Hey, you should file a class-action kooksoot against electrons and
> photons... they're obviously covertly plotting to thwart your attempt
> to remodel all of reality. Moron. LOL
> 
> > Specifically, in my model there is an inverse relationship
> > between proximity and bond strength, which Nilsson et al
> > DO NOT assume.  
> 
> Moron says bond strength becomes *stronger* with increasing distance!
> 
> Do you not understand the concept of bond enthalpy, James? Otherwise
> known as bond energy.

You don't have a coherent argument.  

Why discuss science if you are ignorant about it?



 Do you not understand that a hydrogen bond is a
> dipole-dipole attraction due to differential electronegativity?

Yeah, duh.

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

#564168 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as Solving
Tornadoes, in
<news:14581191-c393-4e48-8be0-6cfac28591e3@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:02:46 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:958272e0-9c16-4027-8ca7-053368a4684b@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> FNVWe drop-kicked a moronic halfwit. Again:

>>>> Jim, it was a link that *you* *provided* which provided the
>>>> means by which your entire premise is destroyed.

>>> When I provide a link it's for informational purposes.  It doesn't
>>> mean that I agree with it verbatim.  

>> You're backpedaling, James. You provided a link which you purported
>> supported your "theory", and with which I destroyed yet another huge
>> chunk of your retarded "theory", and now you're backpedaling.

>>> Also, keep in mind, as explicated in my paper, I don't buy into
>>> the standard model.

>> Of course you don't. You're a delusional moron who denies all of known
>> science so you can proclaim yourself smarter than every scientist in
>> the past 250+ years, as you blather out fairy tale hypotheticals with
>> no basis in reality.
>> 
>> So now you're denying the Standard Model,

> What is it you think I'm denying,

You've denied the underlying process by which electrostatic attraction
in H bonds *and* electron orbit works, James. You've thus denied the
well-researched Standard Model. If you don't know what the Standard
Model is, then you have no business trying to model anything, James.

> moron?

Yes, you're a moron, Jim.

>>  which means you deny all of
>> particle physics concerning the electromagnetic, weak and strong
>> nuclear forces. And that means they must be "in" on your kooky
>> "conspiracy", right, James?
>> 
>> Didn't you hear, James? The discovery of the top quark in 1995, the
>> tau neutrino in 2000 and the Higgs boson in 2012 cements the Standard
>> Model 

> I was discussing water, you mental retard.

I wasn't, you mental retard. You've denied that electrostatic
attraction diminishes as the inverse square of distance, per Coulomb's
Law. Thus you deny electron orbit, since that is electrostatic
attraction, as well. Thus you deny the Standard Model. Thus you deny
all known scientific knowledge as regards particle physics. Thus
you're far too insane and retarded to model anything.

>> as reality. Deny it to the derisive laughter of sane people
>> everywhere.
>> 
>> Hey, you should file a class-action kooksoot against electrons and
>> photons... they're obviously covertly plotting to thwart your attempt
>> to remodel all of reality. Moron. LOL

No response, James? You've already stated you've got your crayon box
out and you're scribbling up a "class action" kooksoot against
*science*... and when that's laughed out of court, I have no doubt
you'll angrily crayon-scribble up a "class action" kooksoot against
*reality*. You might as well add photons and electrons as defendants,
they're doing all the heavy lifting of subverting your attempt to
remodel all of reality. LOL

>>> Specifically, in my model there is an inverse relationship
>>> between proximity and bond strength, which Nilsson et al
>>> DO NOT assume.  

>> Moron says bond strength becomes *stronger* with increasing distance!
>> 
>> Do you not understand the concept of bond enthalpy, James? Otherwise
>> known as bond energy.

> You don't have a coherent argument.  

You're projecting, James.

> Why discuss science if you are ignorant about it?

Says the moron who denies well-known, well-researched,
oft-corroborated scientific knowledge so he can continue to blather
out his psychosis. LOL

>>  Do you not understand that a hydrogen bond is a
>> dipole-dipole attraction due to differential electronegativity?

> Yeah, duh.

Then you understand what the Coulomb Law is, yes? Because to deny that
is to deny pretty much all of physics... and that'd mean you're fully
psychotic.

Oh... wait... you *have* denied that. Because the Coulomb Law alone
utterly destroys your moronic 'theory'. LOL

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#564242 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:14:04 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > What is it you think I'm denying,
> 
> You've denied the underlying process by which electrostatic attraction
> in H bonds *and* electron orbit works, James.

I wrote a paper explaining it. Why would I deny it?

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

#564355 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:82bacbdf-8188-4688-9812-e8eda5fa6d09@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:14:04 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> What is it you think I'm denying,

>> You've denied the underlying process by which electrostatic attraction
>> in H bonds *and* electron orbit works, James.

> I wrote a paper explaining it. Why would I deny it?

You wrote a paper dedicated to denying it, James. Your paper attempts
to invert Coulomb's Law to exactly the opposite of what it says so you
can fit it to your psychosis, thereby proving you're a dishonest
scientific fraud. In so doing, you're forced to deny pretty much all
of modern scientific knowledge, thereby proving that you're one
thoroughly confused and utterly psychotic kooktard.

I'm sure there are several Special Education classes available in
Antioch, CA which can help you, James. But you have to want to help
yourself before they can help you... which means you have to take your
meds, Jim.

Can you do that, Jim? Or do you need someone to help you swallow by
tilting your head back and rubbing your throat?

You poor pathetic deluded retard.

<snicker>

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#564358 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:01:08 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > I wrote a paper explaining it. Why would I deny it?
> 
> You wrote a paper dedicated to denying it, James. Your paper attempts
> to invert Coulomb's Law 

I already addressed this issue explicitly.  Please refer to that.

Do a search for: Coulomb's Law James McGinn and/or follow this link:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Coulomb$27s$20Law$20James$20McGinn%7Csort:date

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

#564490 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:8e2aee32-5ba8-4334-8d7d-956d306b06a9@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:01:08 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> I wrote a paper explaining it. Why would I deny it?

>> You wrote a paper dedicated to denying it, James. Your paper attempts
>> to invert Coulomb's Law 

> I already addressed this issue explicitly.  Please refer to that.

No, you didn't. You blathered out your stupidity and attempted to turn
Coulomb's Law on its head so it would fit in with your moronic
"theory". You stated that Coulomb's Law indicated the exact opposite
of what it actually says. You're dishonestly trying to twist and
torture scientific fact until it fits your "theory", rather than
fitting your "theory" to known fact. This makes you a scientific
fraud, James. That is reality. Deal with it.

> Do a search for: Coulomb's Law James McGinn and/or follow this link:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Coulomb$27s$20Law$20James$20McGinn%7Csort:date

Referring back to your own retarded blather isn't proof, James. You
have no experimentation, no empirical observation, no corroborating
studies, nothing backing your "theory"... you pulled it straight from
your ass. It is not based upon reality, it is based upon the mad
rantings of an uneducated moron who finds the world so confusing that
he must invent wholly impossible scenarios to explain it all... you're
the modern equivalent of those who believed that chariots towed the
sun through the sky, the contemporary flat earth halfwit, the latter
day Ptolemaic Model believer, making your "model" more and more
complicated to try to fit it to reality, rather than just embracing
reality, because to do so would entail your having to admit you're
wrong, you're retarded, you're uneducated, and you're not special, not
even in the slightest.

As proof of what I state, you'll yet again run away from substantively
addressing the gaping logical contradictions found in your "theory",
as is shown in my .sig.

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#564502 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:37:01 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:8e2aee32-5ba8-4334-8d7d-956d306b06a9@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:01:08 PM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >>> I wrote a paper explaining it. Why would I deny it?
> 
> >> You wrote a paper dedicated to denying it, James. Your paper attempts
> >> to invert Coulomb's Law 
> 
> > I already addressed this issue explicitly.  Please refer to that.
> 
> No, you didn't. 

Actually I did.  See links upthread.

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

#564708 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:9f438c87-b12d-49d7-9d72-5425e5183e66@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:37:01 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:8e2aee32-5ba8-4334-8d7d-956d306b06a9@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:01:08 PM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> I wrote a paper explaining it. Why would I deny it?

>>>> You wrote a paper dedicated to denying it, James. Your paper attempts
>>>> to invert Coulomb's Law 

>>> I already addressed this issue explicitly.  Please refer to that.

>> No, you didn't. You blathered out your stupidity and attempted to turn
>> Coulomb's Law on its head so it would fit in with your moronic
>> "theory". You stated that Coulomb's Law indicated the exact opposite
>> of what it actually says. You're dishonestly trying to twist and
>> torture scientific fact until it fits your "theory", rather than
>> fitting your "theory" to known fact. This makes you a scientific
>> fraud, James. That is reality. Deal with it.

> Actually I did.  See links upthread.

No, you didn't, Jim. You blathered out more retarded shit that has no
connection to reality and got your stupid ass drop-kicked for it.
You're still backpedaling away from the reality that you've lost and
your moronic fabrication of a "theory" is utterly destroyed, Jim.

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#564725 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9:17:43 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:9f438c87-b12d-49d7-9d72-5425e5183e66@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:37:01 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >> James McGinn, in
> >> <news:8e2aee32-5ba8-4334-8d7d-956d306b06a9@googlegroups.com> did
> >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> >>> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:01:08 PM UTC-7,
> >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >>>>> I wrote a paper explaining it. Why would I deny it?
> 
> >>>> You wrote a paper dedicated to denying it, James. Your paper attempts
> >>>> to invert Coulomb's Law 
> 
> >>> I already addressed this issue explicitly.  Please refer to that.
> 
> >> No, you didn't. You blathered out your stupidity and attempted to turn
> >> Coulomb's Law on its head so it would fit in with your moronic
> >> "theory". You stated that Coulomb's Law indicated the exact opposite
> >> of what it actually says. You're dishonestly trying to twist and
> >> torture scientific fact until it fits your "theory", rather than
> >> fitting your "theory" to known fact. This makes you a scientific
> >> fraud, James. That is reality. Deal with it.
> 
> > Actually I did.  See links upthread.
> 
> No, you didn't, Jim. 

Well, uh.  I'm an expert on water structure.  I'm a physicist.  I actually wrote a paper on it.  What did you do?  You did a few Google searches.  

My paper outlines a sharp departure from the standard model of water structure.  Undoubtedly you have no idea what I mean by this or why it's significant.  Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are all at odds with each other.  They haven't figured out what I figured out.  They are arguing with each other as to why there is so much space between water molecules when their model--based on polarity being a constant--predicts there should be little or no space.  They are perplexed. The evidence is inconsistent with what Coulomb's Law predicts.

I am not perplexed.  I figured it out.  I kind of figured it out by accident.  H2O polarity is a variable.  They overlooked the importance of asymmetry to polarity.  I didn't.  They also (or instead) overlooked the fact that H bonds achieve symmetry.  I didn't. Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are all carrying assumptions that were in existence before the importance of symmetry was realized.  (And the thing that really has them trapped is this notion that ice is a lattice.  They, most likely, will never overcome this mistaken notion.)

Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are academics.  People in academia are very sheepish.  They are very good at following rules.  They are not very good at making discoveries.  They have done such a good job of writing papers that confirmed the validity of the standard model that it is incomprehensible to them that they missed something.  They missed something huge.

I'm very good at making discoveries.  The trick is not to lie to yourself.  Most people pretend to understand complex things when they don't really quite understand.  They lie to themselves.  They pretend they have a full understanding when, in reality, they only have a partial understanding.  

Intellectual honesty is not something that can be taught.  You either have it or you do not.  You do not.  That is why you cry all the time.  That is why you act like a child.

Your phony expertise with Coulomb's Law make you look ridiculous to me.

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

#564851 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:e81a5761-4e08-4fc2-8b74-89f65cb8723a@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9:17:43 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:9f438c87-b12d-49d7-9d72-5425e5183e66@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:37:01 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> James McGinn, in
>>>> <news:8e2aee32-5ba8-4334-8d7d-956d306b06a9@googlegroups.com> did
>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>>> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:01:08 PM UTC-7,
>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>>> I wrote a paper explaining it. Why would I deny it?

>>>>>> You wrote a paper dedicated to denying it, James. Your paper attempts
>>>>>> to invert Coulomb's Law 

>>>>> I already addressed this issue explicitly.  Please refer to that.

>>>> No, you didn't. You blathered out your stupidity and attempted to turn
>>>> Coulomb's Law on its head so it would fit in with your moronic
>>>> "theory". You stated that Coulomb's Law indicated the exact opposite
>>>> of what it actually says. You're dishonestly trying to twist and
>>>> torture scientific fact until it fits your "theory", rather than
>>>> fitting your "theory" to known fact. This makes you a scientific
>>>> fraud, James. That is reality. Deal with it.

>>> Actually I did.  See links upthread.

>> No, you didn't, Jim. You blathered out more retarded shit that has no
>> connection to reality and got your stupid ass drop-kicked for it.
>> You're still backpedaling away from the reality that you've lost and
>> your moronic fabrication of a "theory" is utterly destroyed, Jim.

> Well, uh.  I'm an expert on water structure.

No, you're not "an expert on water structure", Jim. You hold no
degrees, you've done no experiments. All of your psychotic blather is
made up, a complete fabrication, a lie. You're a scientific fraud,
James.

> I'm a physicist.

No, you're not "a physicist", James. Your scientific education is the
sum total of a single elective Basic Meteorology class you attended
and quite obviously learned nothing from, because you're so insane
that you're ineducable.

> I actually wrote a paper on it.

Which you can't get through the peer review process and which everyone
laughs at, because it is nothing more than the ranting of a barking
mad uneducated moron, James.

> What did you do?

I utterly destroyed your moronic theory via more than a half dozen
different avenues, using thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed
papers. I put you on the defensive despite your inability to mount a
substantive defense of your psychosis.

> You did a few Google searches.  

That's all it'd take to prove you're a scientific fraud, James Bernard
McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA. That's why I'm GoogleStacking your name...
to be sure that you go down in the annals of history as a psychotic
uneducated moron and a scientific fraud.

> My paper outlines a sharp departure from
  reality. LOL

> the standard model of water structure.  Undoubtedly you have no idea
> what I mean by this or why it's significant.

Sure I do... it means you're psychotic and denying reality.

> Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are all at odds with each other.

No, they're not. They're not, for instance, denying that water has a
gaseous phase, or that latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist, or
that electrostatic bonding strengthens by the square of distance.
You're doing all of that and more, James, because you're psychotic.

> They haven't figured out what I figured out.

You've figured out nothing, James. You pulled an impossible fairy tale
straight from your ass so you could continue to delude yourself that
you 're smarter than every single scientist in the past 250+ years.
But you're not smarter, James. You're demonstrably a moronic retard.

> They are arguing with each other as to why there is so much space
> between water molecules when their model--based on polarity being
> a constant--predicts there should be little or no space.

Contradicting yourself again, James? You just yesterday posted that
you were retracting your variable polarity of the water molecule
blather.

> They are perplexed. The evidence is inconsistent with what Coulomb's Law predicts.
> 
> I am not perplexed.  I figured it out.

No, you didn't, James. You just came up with what to you sounded
plausible to explain it. But you're insane, as are your wholly
unsupported suppositions.

>  I kind of figured it out by accident.  H2O polarity is a variable.

Which you've just yesterday posted that you were retracting, you
contradicting halfwit.

> They overlooked the importance of asymmetry to polarity.

No, they didn't. They knew better than you because they've done the
carefully controlled experimentation to determine that you're a
barking mad paranoid schizophrenic off his meds.

> I didn't.  They also (or instead) overlooked the fact that H bonds
> achieve symmetry.

No, they don't, James. According to your blather, steam is more
symmetrical than ice,  thus steam is sold and ice is a gas... or
weren't you aware that symmetry *increases* H bond strength?

> I didn't. Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are all carrying assumptions

No, they're "carrying" carefully controlled experimentation, whereas
you're "carrying" your psychosis.

> that were in existence before the importance of symmetry was realized.

Liquid-phase water and gaseous-phase water has no symmetry, James. If
it did, it'd be solid.

> (And the thing that really has them trapped is this notion that ice
> is a lattice.

Which it is, which you would know if you had the scientific veracity
to not reject all of known science so you can continue your delusion
of yourself being smarter than every single scientist over the past
250+ years. You're not special, you're not smarter, you don't have the
answers, Jim. You're just a delusional psychotic off his meds.

> They, most likely, will never overcome this mistaken notion.)
> 
> Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are academics.  People in academia are
> very sheepish.  They are very good at following rules.  They are not
> very good at making discoveries.

You've made no discoveries, James. You pulled a retarded supposition
straight out of your ass, a supposition which is 180 degrees out from
reality because you're an uneducated halfwit.

> They have done such a good job of writing papers that confirmed the
> validity of the standard model that it is incomprehensible to them
> that they missed something.  They missed something huge.

No, Jim, they missed nothing. You claim they do, but your claiming
something doesn't make it so. Remember, you're a psychotic moron.

> I'm very good at making discoveries.

No, you're "very good" at pulling retarded anti-science suppositions
straight from your ass, Jim, then twisting scientific reality to fit
your "theory". You're a scientific fraud.

> The trick is not to lie to yourself.

Ironic, given that is the entire foundation of your problem, James.

> Most people pretend to understand complex things when they don't
> really quite understand.  They lie to themselves.  They pretend
> they have a full understanding when, in reality, they only have
> a partial understanding.  

You're projecting, James.

> Intellectual honesty is not something that can be taught.

Which is why you'll never have intellectual honesty, hence your
psychosis and your blathering moronism in form of your "theory".
You're a scientific fraud, James.

> You either have it or you do not.  You do not.

You do not, James. You have done no experimentation to back up your
retarded blather, and in fact you've refused to do so, because you
know the experiments I've proposed would null your moronic blather.

> That is why you cry all the time.  That is why you act like a child.

Your ad hom shows that you're projecting again, James.

> Your phony expertise with Coulomb's Law make you look ridiculous to me.

Your denial of Coulomb's Law makes you look psychotic to the entire
world, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA.

Why can't you substantively address those gaping logic holes in your
moronic blather, James?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#564862 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

Well, uh.  I'm an expert on water structure.  I'm a physicist.  I actually wrote a paper on it.  What did you do?  You did a few Google searches.   

My paper outlines a sharp departure from the standard model of water structure.  Undoubtedly you have no idea what I mean by this or why it's significant.  Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are all at odds with each other.  They haven't figured out what I figured out.  They are arguing with each other as to why there is so much space between water molecules when their model--based on polarity being a constant--predicts there should be little or no space.  They are perplexed. The evidence is inconsistent with what Coulomb's Law predicts. 

I am not perplexed.  I figured it out.  I kind of figured it out by accident.  H2O polarity is a variable.  They overlooked the importance of asymmetry to polarity.  I didn't.  They also (or instead) overlooked the fact that H bonds achieve symmetry.  I didn't. Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are all carrying assumptions that were in existence before the importance of symmetry was realized.  (And the thing that really has them trapped is this notion that ice is a lattice.  They, most likely, will never overcome this mistaken notion.) 

Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are academics.  People in academia are very sheepish.  They are very good at following rules.  They are not very good at making discoveries.  They have done such a good job of writing papers that confirmed the validity of the standard model that it is incomprehensible to them that they missed something.  They missed something huge. 

I'm very good at making discoveries.  The trick is not to lie to yourself.  Most people pretend to understand complex things when they don't really quite understand.  They lie to themselves.  They pretend they have a full understanding when, in reality, they only have a partial understanding.   

Intellectual honesty is not something that can be taught.  You either have it or you do not.  You do not.  That is why you cry all the time.  That is why you act like a child. 

Your phony expertise with Coulomb's Law make you look ridiculous to me.

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

#565922 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:30:13 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> 
Well, uh.  I'm an expert on water structure.  I'm a physicist.  I actually wrote a paper on it.  What did you do?  You did a few Google searches.   
> 
> 
My paper outlines a sharp departure from the standard model of water structure.  Undoubtedly you have no idea what I mean by this or why it's significant.  Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are all at odds with each other.  They haven't figured out what I figured out.  They are arguing with each other as to why there is so much space between water molecules when their model--based on polarity being a constant--predicts there should be little or no space.  They are perplexed. The evidence is inconsistent with what Coulomb's Law predicts. 
> 
> I am not perplexed.  I figured it out.  I kind of figured it out by accident.  H2O polarity is a variable.  They overlooked the importance of asymmetry to polarity.  I didn't.  They also (or instead) overlooked the fact that H bonds achieve symmetry.  I didn't. Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are all carrying assumptions that were in existence before the importance of symmetry was realized.  (And the thing that really has them trapped is this notion that ice is a lattice.  They, most likely, will never overcome this mistaken notion.) 
> 
> Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are academics.  People in academia are very sheepish.  They are very good at following rules.  They are not very good at making discoveries.  They have done such a good job of writing papers that confirmed the validity of the standard model that it is incomprehensible to them that they missed something.  They missed something huge. 
> 
> I'm very good at making discoveries.  The trick is not to lie to yourself.  Most people pretend to understand complex things when they don't really quite understand.  They lie to themselves.  They pretend they have a full understanding when, in reality, they only have a partial understanding.   
> 
> Intellectual honesty is not something that can be taught.  You either have it or you do not.  You do not.  That is why you cry all the time.  That is why you act like a child. 
> 
> Your phony expertise with Coulomb's Law make you look ridiculous to me.

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

#564085 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:02:46 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> Of course you don't. You're a delusional moron who denies all of known
> science 

So, now I'm a science denier?  So, anybody with a different opinion or a different theory is a denier of all science?


> so you can proclaim yourself smarter than every scientist in
> the past 250+ years, as you blather out fairy tale hypotheticals with
> no basis in reality.

You have no substantive dispute with my hypothesis.  Right?

> So now you're denying the Standard Model, which means you deny all of
> particle physics concerning the electromagnetic, weak and strong
> nuclear forces. 

The subject was water and H bonding.  Are you drunk?

> > Specifically, in my model there is an inverse relationship
> > between proximity and bond strength, which Nilsson et al
> > DO NOT assume.  
> 
> Moron says bond strength becomes *stronger* with increasing distance!
> 
> Do you not understand the concept of bond enthalpy, James? 

Make sure you understand the issue before you throw a hissy fit.  



Otherwise
> known as bond energy. Do you not understand that a hydrogen bond is a
> dipole-dipole attraction due to differential electronegativity?

Right.  As I explained.  

Do you have any idea what this conversation is about?  


> 
> According to you, the scenario would go something like this:
> -------------------------------
> A water molecule has closely-bonded intermolecular H bonds, thus the
> bond link is low. Thus when energy hits it, the bond would stretch,
> gain in strength and thus capture that energy, not allowing the bond
> to ever break because the bond just keeps getting stronger and
> stronger with distance.
> -------------------------------

I never would have imagined anybody would be dumb enough to assume such an absurd thing.  I guess it's impossible to account for the limits of human stupidity.



> 
> But you fail to understand that a H bond is an *electrostatic*
> attraction between polar groups due to *electromagnetic* interaction.
> 
> Does electrostatic attraction increase with distance, James?

This one does.  


> 
> No, it does not. In fact, it decreases in strength by the inverse
> square of distance, which is codified in Coulomb's Law.

I'm not contradicting Coulomb's Law.  Read my paper again.  



> 
> In water, there is the additional consideration that if a H bond is
> broken, the diametrically opposed covalent bond will strengthen
> (shorten) until another H bond can be created.

You are an idiot that can't read a diagram.  Covalent bonds are not shortening or strengthening, dumbass.  Isn' this the second tims I explained this to you?

> 
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
> ==================================================
> There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond strengths;
> the stronger is the H--O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H covalent
> bond, and the shorter the O---O distance [1928] (see right).
> Interestingly, this means that the O-H covalent part of the hydrogen
> bonds gets shorter as the temperature of the water increases.
> 
> The dependency on bond length is very important and has been shown to
> exponentially decay with distance.
> ==================================================
> 
> That the H bond is an electrostatic attraction is the reason why it's
> directional. Didn't you know that, James?
> 
> Oh look, James... yet again Martin Chaplin kicks your stupid ass by
> *empirically* *measuring* hydrogen bond strength versus bond length:
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.1355.pdf
> ==================================================
> If the hydrogen bond is close to straight (i.e. 180°), the hydrogen
> bond strength depends almost linearly on its length with shorter
> length giving rise to stronger hydrogen bonding. As the hydrogen bond
> length of water increases with temperature increase but decreases with
> pressure increase, hydrogen bond strength also depends almost
> linearly, outside extreme values, on the temperature and pressure
> (Dougherty, 1998).
> ==================================================
> 
> And that's not to mention that Anders Nilsson's experiment
> (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156), that you were touting as
> supportive of your kooky "theory" and with which I utterly destroyed
> your moronic "theory", directly observed a result of H bond strength,
> James... the more strongly-bound the H bonds in each phase, the weaker
> the photons emitted. And we know that ice has closely-bound H bonds,
> James, which is why the photon energy was lower in ice.
> 
> This should be intuitive, James... why are you so fucking stupid that
> you can't even figure out that electrostatic attraction *decreases*
> with distance?

Because of symmetry, as I explained.  Without assymetry polarity doesn't exist.  H bonds achieve symmetry.  See my videos.

This doesn't contradict Coulumbs law.

> 
> Holy fuck, James, seriously... are you retarded?
> 
> > That is only the first discrepancy between my model and Nilsson's.
> 
> Not just between your model and Nilsson's direct empirical
> observations, James.

What direct observations, you mental reatard.  They are inferring from Xray.



 Your kooky model not only stands in direct
> diametric contrast to *every* water model, and *every* empirical
> observation of water's properties, but in direct contradiction to the
> fundamentals that make molecules behave the way they do! You're now
> denying Coulomb's Law. 

Nope.  If the charge reduces to zero with completion of symmetry then there is no charge to apply Couloumbs law.  Pay attention you silly twit.

Have you never wondered how and why a gold-leaf
> electroscope works, James?
> 
> > And it is a big one.  As I'll explain more explicitly below, it means
> > that what he interprets as indicative of close proximity I interpret
> > as distance and vice versa.*
> 
> Because you're a reality-denying halfwit, James.
> 
> > So, my interpretation of minimum and maximum bond strengths are
> > transposed compared to this: https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=39m56s
> 
> Because you're a reality-denying halfwit, James.

You are too simpleminded to follow a mildly complex argument.

> 
> > (* It is extremely important that you get it clear in your head
> > what exactly I mean when I say that for my model there is an
> > inverse relationship between proximity and bond strength and
> > how/why this is at odds with the standard model.
> 
> Oh, I'm perfectly clear as to why you deny the well-researched and
> long-proven Standard Model... you're a crackpot who denies reality,
> James. LOL

You are weak minded and insecure so you have to resort to "well researched,"  like a child.  What's wrong is weong, dumbass.  It doesn;t matter how long or how many people believe it.  You lack intellectual integrity.  like a child you have to be right about everything.

> 
> > If this concept isn't making 100% sense to you
> 
> No, James. I don't want to think like you... you're insane.

You are a birdbrain,

> 
> > I suggest rereading my paper again or watching this video:
> > https://youtu.be/iDv2RoUrHTY?t=4m10s and/or
> 
> A delusional moron said:
> > "When they are fully bonded, it's not really a bond anymore."
> 
> Fuck sake, Jim. Do you listen to your blather, or just blather without
> thinking? A bond that isn't a bond.

If there is no force then Couloumbs law is inapplicable,  Right?

Answer the question you fucking evasive jackass.

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

#564147 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:34f1a97b-2c5f-4512-aa29-245152f64886@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:02:46 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Of course you don't. You're a delusional moron who denies all of known
>> science 

> So, now I'm a science denier?  So, anybody with a different opinion or
> a different theory is a denier of all science?

When your 'theory' leads you to deny convection, molar mass, molar
volume, density, the Periodic Table of the Elements, electrostatic
attraction's diminishing by the inverse square of distance, Coulomb's
Law, the Standard Model, the mechanism for electron orbit... all while
you blather on about a sentient sky tornado monster that can stretch
its noodly appendages thousands of miles through the atmosphere to
touch down tornadoes while evading detection, avoiding aircraft, only
touching down at the rear portion of cumulonimbus clouds, avoiding
touching down out of clear blue sky or other clouds, and somehow
knowing not to touch down if the ground or water below is cooler than
the air above... all while claiming all scientific knowledge over the
past 250+ years is wrong as are all the scientists over those years...
all while equating yourself to Einstein and Archimedes... all while
claiming you're a 'physicist' because you once took an elective Basic
Meteorology class... all while claiming only *you* have the
"answer"... well, James... that's not a theory.

That's the mad barking of a psychotic.

>> so you can proclaim yourself smarter than every scientist in
>> the past 250+ years, as you blather out fairy tale hypotheticals with
>> no basis in reality.

> You have no substantive dispute with my hypothesis.  Right?

Except for the fact that it's completely wrong, diametrically opposed
to reality, a scientific fraud, a fabrication told by a moron who
can't even make up a believable lie?

>> So now you're denying the Standard Model, which means you deny all of
>> particle physics concerning the electromagnetic, weak and strong
>> nuclear forces. 

> The subject was water and H bonding.  Are you drunk?

Exactly, James. H bonding is electrostatic. Denying that electrostatic
attraction diminishes as the inverse square of distance means you also
deny electron orbit, which means you *must* deny Coulomb's Law *and*
the Standard Model, and thus particle physics, and thus the
fundamentals of the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces.

Did you not think about that before your broken brain fabricated your
retarded 'theory', James?

>>> Specifically, in my model there is an inverse relationship
>>> between proximity and bond strength, which Nilsson et al
>>> DO NOT assume.  

>> Moron says bond strength becomes *stronger* with increasing distance!
>> 
>> Do you not understand the concept of bond enthalpy, James? 

> Make sure you understand the issue before you throw a hissy fit.  

You're projecting, James.

>> Otherwise
>> known as bond energy. Do you not understand that a hydrogen bond is a
>> dipole-dipole attraction due to differential electronegativity?

> Right.  As I explained.  
> 
> Do you have any idea what this conversation is about?  

You've *denied* that electrostatic attraction diminished by the
inverse square of distance in accord with Coulomb's Law, James. Do you
have any idea what that denial entails?

>> According to you, the scenario would go something like this:
>> -------------------------------
>> A water molecule has closely-bonded intermolecular H bonds, thus the
>> bond link is low. Thus when energy hits it, the bond would stretch,
>> gain in strength and thus capture that energy, not allowing the bond
>> to ever break because the bond just keeps getting stronger and
>> stronger with distance.
>> -------------------------------

> I never would have imagined anybody would be dumb enough to assume
> such an absurd thing.  I guess it's impossible to account for the
> limits of human stupidity.

Then get right on explaining your moronic 'theory', James... does the
bond "snap", James? If so, that'd entail a release of potential
energy, and thus a photon upon H bond breakage... and we know that
doesn't happen, James. It *requires* energy to break bonds, it doesn't
yield energy, James. Are you retarded?

>> But you fail to understand that a H bond is an *electrostatic*
>> attraction between polar groups due to *electromagnetic* interaction.
>> 
>> Does electrostatic attraction increase with distance, James?

> This one does.  

Then you *are* retarded. And you *do* deny the Coulomb Law, and
thereby the mechanism for electron orbit, and thereby the Standard
Model, and thereby all of particle physics.

IOW, you're a barking mad psychotic. Take your meds, Jim.

>> No, it does not. In fact, it decreases in strength by the inverse
>> square of distance, which is codified in Coulomb's Law.

> I'm not contradicting Coulomb's Law.  Read my paper again.  

Yes, you are, Jim. By definition, you are. Do you even know what
Coulumb's Law states, James?

>> In water, there is the additional consideration that if a H bond is
>> broken, the diametrically opposed covalent bond will strengthen
>> (shorten) until another H bond can be created.

> You are an idiot that can't read a diagram.  Covalent bonds are not
> shortening or strengthening, dumbass.  Isn' this the second tims
> I explained this to you?

The research, referenced directly below, ascertained via
carefully-controlled scientific experimentation, proves your blather
wrong, James.

>> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
>> ==================================================
>> There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond strengths;
>> the stronger is the H--O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H covalent
>> bond, and the shorter the O---O distance [1928] (see right).
>> Interestingly, this means that the O-H covalent part of the hydrogen
>> bonds gets shorter as the temperature of the water increases.
>> 
>> The dependency on bond length is very important and has been shown to
>> exponentially decay with distance.
>> ==================================================

No response, James? That proves your entire 'theory' wrong, James.

>> That the H bond is an electrostatic attraction is the reason why it's
>> directional. Didn't you know that, James?
>> 
>> Oh look, James... yet again Martin Chaplin kicks your stupid ass by
>> *empirically* *measuring* hydrogen bond strength versus bond length:
>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.1355.pdf
>> ==================================================
>> If the hydrogen bond is close to straight (i.e. 180°), the hydrogen
>> bond strength depends almost linearly on its length with shorter
>> length giving rise to stronger hydrogen bonding. As the hydrogen bond
>> length of water increases with temperature increase but decreases with
>> pressure increase, hydrogen bond strength also depends almost
>> linearly, outside extreme values, on the temperature and pressure
>> (Dougherty, 1998).
>> ==================================================

No response, James? That proves your entire 'theory' wrong, James.

>> And that's not to mention that Anders Nilsson's experiment
>> (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156), that you were touting as
>> supportive of your kooky "theory" and with which I utterly destroyed
>> your moronic "theory", directly observed a result of H bond strength,
>> James... the more strongly-bound the H bonds in each phase, the weaker
>> the photons emitted. And we know that ice has closely-bound H bonds,
>> James, which is why the photon energy was lower in ice.

No response, James? That proves your entire 'theory' wrong, James.

>> This should be intuitive, James... why are you so fucking stupid that
>> you can't even figure out that electrostatic attraction *decreases*
>> with distance?

> Because of symmetry, as I explained.

And as Soper, a legitimate researcher of good repute, who has done the
careful experimentation to ascertain the matter, far saner and smarter
than you, has explained to you that liquid water has no "symmetry",
which is why it's *liquid*. Are you retarded?

>  Without assymetry polarity doesn't exist.

Wrong. Electrostatic attraction is *directional*, James. With
asymmetry, electrostatic attraction is diminished. Yet again, you're
180 degrees out from reality.

> H bonds achieve symmetry.  See my videos.
> 
> This doesn't contradict Coulumbs law.

Yes, it does. It's retarded blather from an insane, uneducated retard.
Take your meds, James.

>> Holy fuck, James, seriously... are you retarded?

James? Are you retarded, James?

>>> That is only the first discrepancy between my model and Nilsson's.

>> Not just between your model and Nilsson's direct empirical
>> observations, James.

> What direct observations, you mental reatard.  They are inferring from Xray.

X-ray spectroscopy as Anders Nilsson used, optical absorption
spectroscopy, dielectric spectroscopy, diffraction methods, models,
nuclear magnetic resonance, vibrational spectra, thermodynamics and
neutron scattering are just some of the methods used, James.

>>  Your kooky model not only stands in direct
>> diametric contrast to *every* water model, and *every* empirical
>> observation of water's properties, but in direct contradiction to the
>> fundamentals that make molecules behave the way they do! You're now
>> denying Coulomb's Law. 

> Nope.  If the charge reduces to zero with completion of symmetry

Liquid water has no symmetry, James. That's why it's *liquid*.

> then there is no charge to apply Couloumbs law.  Pay attention
> you silly twit.

You're attempting to turn Coulomb's Law on its head, James. It's not
working. Coulomb's Law is another piece of well-researched scientific
knowledge that you deny.

>> Have you never wondered how and why a gold-leaf
>> electroscope works, James?

James? No reply? Have you never wondered how and why a gold-leaf
electroscope works, James?

>>> And it is a big one.  As I'll explain more explicitly below, it means
>>> that what he interprets as indicative of close proximity I interpret
>>> as distance and vice versa.*

>> Because you're a reality-denying halfwit, James.

>>> So, my interpretation of minimum and maximum bond strengths are
>>> transposed compared to this: https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=39m56s

>> Because you're a reality-denying halfwit, James.

> You are too simpleminded to follow a mildly complex argument.

No, you're too simpleminded to make a mildly complex argument, James.

That's why your moronic 'theory' has so many gaping logic holes, to
which you have no answer.

>>> (* It is extremely important that you get it clear in your head
>>> what exactly I mean when I say that for my model there is an
>>> inverse relationship between proximity and bond strength and
>>> how/why this is at odds with the standard model.

>> Oh, I'm perfectly clear as to why you deny the well-researched and
>> long-proven Standard Model... you're a crackpot who denies reality,
>> James. LOL

> You are weak minded and insecure so you have to resort to "well
> researched,"  like a child.  What's wrong is weong, dumbass.  It
> doesn;t matter how long or how many people believe it.  You lack
> intellectual integrity.  like a child you have to be right about
> everything.

I am right, James. About everything. Your keyboard-pounding spelling
mistake-making ad hominem blather notwithstanding.

>>> If this concept isn't making 100% sense to you

>> No, James. I don't want to think like you... you're insane.

> You are a birdbrain,

You're projecting, James. And you're perturbed because you find
yourself utterly unable to mount a substantive defense of your moronic
'theory'.

>>> I suggest rereading my paper again or watching this video:
>>> https://youtu.be/iDv2RoUrHTY?t=4m10s and/or

>> A delusional moron said:
>>> "When they are fully bonded, it's not really a bond anymore."

>> Fuck sake, Jim. Do you listen to your blather, or just blather without
>> thinking? A bond that isn't a bond.

> If there is no force then Couloumbs law is inapplicable,  Right?

Wrong, James. You're attempting to invert what Coulomb's Law states.
It's not working.

> Answer the question you fucking evasive jackass.

Yes, James, do be getting right on answering those tough questions
which expose the gaping logic holes in your 'theory', as you will find
in my .sig. Thus far, you've found yourself utterly unable to mount a
substantive defense of your 'theory'.

You're a scientific fraud, James. You're not even smart enough to
concoct a believable lie.

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#564229 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >> Of course you don't. You're a delusional moron who denies all of known
> >> science 
> 
> > So, now I'm a science denier?  So, anybody with a different opinion or
> > a different theory is a denier of all science?
> 
> When your 'theory' leads you to deny 

Uh, er . . . uh, . . . er. . . uh, . . . 

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web