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

Groups > sci.physics > #571964 > unrolled thread

Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this? I don't.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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

Contents

  Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 17:59 -0700
    Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 18:30 -0700
      Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 02:02 -0700
        Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 07:34 -0700
          Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-21 12:42 -0700
          Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 16:17 -0700
            Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 17:15 -0700
              Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-21 17:48 -0700
                Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 20:42 -0700
                  Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-21 20:51 -0700
                    Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 21:00 -0700
                  Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-22 06:19 +0200
                    Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this? I don't. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:57 +0200
                  Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 21:53 -0700
                    Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 21:59 -0700
                      Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 23:04 -0700
                        Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 09:26 -0700
                          Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 14:53 -0700
                            Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 16:05 -0700
                              Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 17:56 -0700
                                Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 14:55 -0700
                                  Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 09:38 -0700
                                    Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-25 12:34 -0700
                                    Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 12:50 -0700
                                      Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 13:58 -0700
                                        Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-25 21:14 +0000
                                        Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-25 18:01 -0700
                                    Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-27 10:33 -0700
                                      Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this? I don't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:36 -0500
                                        Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this? I don't. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 11:28 -0700
                Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 20:44 -0700
                  Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-21 20:52 -0700
                    Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 21:02 -0700
                      Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-21 21:07 -0700
    Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-20 22:29 -0400
      Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 19:40 -0700
        Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-20 23:25 -0400
          Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 01:39 -0700
            Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 15:53 -0700
              Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 14:42 -0700
                Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 15:32 -0700
                  Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 16:10 -0700
                    Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 14:05 -0700
                      Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this? I don't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 16:12 -0500
                      Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 09:36 -0700
                        Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 15:32 -0700
                          Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 17:09 -0700
                            Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 21:32 -0700
                              Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 23:18 -0700
                                Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 15:23 -0700
                                  Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 17:12 -0700
                                    Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 22:47 -0700
                                      Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this?  I don't. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 08:17 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#572952

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 5:56:12 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 4:05:28 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
> > If you have proof that water forms into a lattice (not just a crystal) why
> > not just show it?
> 
>   If you have some basis for claiming that "lattice" and "crystal" have
> different meanings in this context, why not just say what the difference is?

  So, you got nothing?


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#573116

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 2:55:40 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 5:56:12 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 4:05:28 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > 
> > (snip)
> > 
> > > If you have proof that water forms into a lattice (not just a crystal) why
> > > not just show it?
> > 
> >   If you have some basis for claiming that "lattice" and "crystal" have
> > different meanings in this context, why not just say what the difference is?
> 
>   So, you got nothing?
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

It must be frustrating to be sure you are right and so completely unable to say 
how or why.

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

#573159

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 9:38:19 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> It must be frustrating to be sure you are right and so completely unable to say 
> how or why.

Precisely what everyone else here has been saying to YOU...

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

#573172

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 9:38:19 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 2:55:40 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 5:56:12 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 4:05:28 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > 
> > > (snip)
> > > 
> > > > If you have proof that water forms into a lattice (not just a crystal)
> > > > why not just show it?
> > > 
> > >   If you have some basis for claiming that "lattice" and "crystal" have
> > > different meanings in this context, why not just say what the difference
> > > is?
> > 
> >   So, you got nothing?
> 
> It must be frustrating to be sure you are right and so completely unable to
> say how or why.

  Unlike you, I'm not interested in "being right". I'm interested in being able to make sense of the universe using physics.

  I can and have pointed you to good reasons why I think "lattice" and "crystalline" mean the same when talking about ice,

  You say they don't, but won't say why.

  What are you waiting for?


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#573207

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:50:52 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

>   I can and have pointed you to good reasons why I think "lattice" and 
>   "crystalline" mean the same when talking about ice,

I don't know what you are talking about, honestly.

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

#573214

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:50:52 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> 
>>   I can and have pointed you to good reasons why I think "lattice" and 
>>   "crystalline" mean the same when talking about ice,
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about, honestly.

Then in addition to being a delusional kook, you have the attention
span of a goldfish.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#573284

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 1:58:23 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:50:52 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> 
> >   I can and have pointed you to good reasons why I think "lattice" and 
> >   "crystalline" mean the same when talking about ice,
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about, honestly.

That's because you are stump stupid...

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

#573744

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:38:19 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
[]
> 
> It must be frustrating to be sure you are right and so completely unable to say 
> how or why.

Still talking about yourself JM?

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

#573745 — Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this? I don't.

On 4/27/2016 12:33 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:38:19 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> []
>>
>> It must be frustrating to be sure you are right and so completely unable to say
>> how or why.
>
> Still talking about yourself JM?
>

You know, when I killfiled McGinn as having nothing useful to say, the 
noise level on sci.physics went waaaaaaay down. Nowadays there are only 
a few posts I see on McGinn-originated topics, mostly due to people who 
bother responding to someone who has nothing useful to say.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#573756 — Re: Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this? I don't.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 10:36:08 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/27/2016 12:33 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:38:19 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> > []
> >>
> >> It must be frustrating to be sure you are right and so completely unable to say
> >> how or why.
> >
> > Still talking about yourself JM?
> >
> 
> You know, when I killfiled McGinn as having nothing useful to say, the 
> noise level on sci.physics went waaaaaaay down. Nowadays there are only 
> a few posts I see on McGinn-originated topics, mostly due to people who 
> bother responding to someone who has nothing useful to say.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

It's comical how perturbed sheep get when others don't follow.

Most consumers of science are pretty dumb.  Bodkin is a good example.  The think to realize about humans is that our brains evolved along the lines of being believers.  That means we have evolved to be intellectually inclined to believe what others believe.  Intellectually human follow the flock. 

Scientific methods were developed specifically to defeat the tendency to follow the flock.  Typically people who follow the flock, like Bodkin, will dismiss and/or minimize discrepancies and/or contradictions.  Often these birdbrains have re-imagined the scientific method along the lines of being a means of dismissing or minimizing discrepancies or contradictions.  These imbeciles will often refer to evidence in a general sense, "it's in a textbook somewhere," or "that's high school science," or, "everybody knows that."  

A real scientist looks for contradictions and discrepancies and follows them to new insight, new discoveries.  Very little of what is available in textbooks or on the internet is 100% true.  The trick is to find the things that the sheep don't want to talk about.  Pretenders like Bodkin are very deliberate about not talking about the 10% that isn't quite true.  That's why these bozos are so concerned with killfiles and getting everybody else to follow their killfile suggestions.  Imbeciles like Bodkin genuinely believe that if you just don't talk about the things that are not quite true that doing so fulfills the scientific method.  

I am only interested in talking about the 10% that is not quite true.  Because I know that is the pathway to truth.  Those of you that are not so inclined I suggest you take Bodkins advice and killfile me. 

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

#572290

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:48:43 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:15:47 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 4:17:40 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 7:34:08 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 2:02:41 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:30:38 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:59:32 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:26:34 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=crystal%20lattice%20structure%20of%20ice
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >   Belief isn't science. Diffraction experiments using x rays, electrons
> > > > > > > and neutrons have demonstrated the crystalline forms of ice.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >   You've accidentally admitted that you can use Google, so Google it.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >   What sauce do you like on your crow?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Nobody is disputing that ice is crystalline, dumbass.  Pay attention.
> > > > > >  Quote
> > > > > > me directly and in context.
> > > > > 
> > > > >   Read what you wrote, dumbass:
> > > > > 
> > > > >   "Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this? I don't."
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > It's hard to believe you are this dumb.  Now read what you wrote.
> > > 
> > >   It's hard to believe you are so dumb as to think that "lattice" and "crystalline" mean something different.
> > 
> > Well, they do.  I suggest you do some research.
> 
> But 'lattice' and 'crystalline' BOTH apply to ice...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice#/media/File:Ice_Ih_Crystal_Lattice.png
> 
> "The three-dimensional crystal structure of H2O ice Ih (c) is composed of bases of H2O ice molecules (b) located on lattice points within the two-dimensional hexagonal space lattice (a). The values for the H-O-H angle and O-H distance have come from Physics of Ice[2] with uncertainties of ±1.5° and ±0.005 Å, respectively. The black box in (c) is the unit cell defined by Bernal and Fowler.[3]".
> 
> Still an idiot. Do some research yourself. 
> 
> The lattice structure of ice is well understood. If you don't think so, the burden of proof is entirely on you. Let's see your extraordinary experimental and observational proof. Put up or STFU.

You pinhead think if you find it in wikipedia it must be true.  Duhr.

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

#572292

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 8:44:24 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:48:43 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:15:47 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 4:17:40 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 7:34:08 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 2:02:41 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:30:38 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:59:32 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:26:34 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=crystal%20lattice%20structure%20of%20ice
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >   Belief isn't science. Diffraction experiments using x rays, electrons
> > > > > > > > and neutrons have demonstrated the crystalline forms of ice.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >   You've accidentally admitted that you can use Google, so Google it.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >   What sauce do you like on your crow?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Nobody is disputing that ice is crystalline, dumbass.  Pay attention.
> > > > > > >  Quote
> > > > > > > me directly and in context.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   Read what you wrote, dumbass:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   "Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this? I don't."
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's hard to believe you are this dumb.  Now read what you wrote.
> > > > 
> > > >   It's hard to believe you are so dumb as to think that "lattice" and "crystalline" mean something different.
> > > 
> > > Well, they do.  I suggest you do some research.
> > 
> > But 'lattice' and 'crystalline' BOTH apply to ice...
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice#/media/File:Ice_Ih_Crystal_Lattice.png
> > 
> > "The three-dimensional crystal structure of H2O ice Ih (c) is composed of bases of H2O ice molecules (b) located on lattice points within the two-dimensional hexagonal space lattice (a). The values for the H-O-H angle and O-H distance have come from Physics of Ice[2] with uncertainties of ±1.5° and ±0.005 Å, respectively. The black box in (c) is the unit cell defined by Bernal and Fowler.[3]".
> > 
> > Still an idiot. Do some research yourself. 
> > 
> > The lattice structure of ice is well understood. If you don't think so, the burden of proof is entirely on you. Let's see your extraordinary experimental and observational proof. Put up or STFU.
> 
> You pinhead think if you find it in wikipedia it must be true.  Duhr.

If you can actually show that Wiki is wrong in this case, go ahead...

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

#572294

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 8:52:42 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 8:44:24 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:48:43 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:15:47 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 4:17:40 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 7:34:08 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 2:02:41 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:30:38 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:59:32 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:26:34 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=crystal%20lattice%20structure%20of%20ice
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >   Belief isn't science. Diffraction experiments using x rays, electrons
> > > > > > > > > and neutrons have demonstrated the crystalline forms of ice.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >   You've accidentally admitted that you can use Google, so Google it.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >   What sauce do you like on your crow?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Nobody is disputing that ice is crystalline, dumbass.  Pay attention.
> > > > > > > >  Quote
> > > > > > > > me directly and in context.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >   Read what you wrote, dumbass:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >   "Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this? I don't."
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's hard to believe you are this dumb.  Now read what you wrote.
> > > > > 
> > > > >   It's hard to believe you are so dumb as to think that "lattice" and "crystalline" mean something different.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, they do.  I suggest you do some research.
> > > 
> > > But 'lattice' and 'crystalline' BOTH apply to ice...
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice#/media/File:Ice_Ih_Crystal_Lattice.png
> > > 
> > > "The three-dimensional crystal structure of H2O ice Ih (c) is composed of bases of H2O ice molecules (b) located on lattice points within the two-dimensional hexagonal space lattice (a). The values for the H-O-H angle and O-H distance have come from Physics of Ice[2] with uncertainties of ±1.5° and ±0.005 Å, respectively. The black box in (c) is the unit cell defined by Bernal and Fowler.[3]".
> > > 
> > > Still an idiot. Do some research yourself. 
> > > 
> > > The lattice structure of ice is well understood. If you don't think so, the burden of proof is entirely on you. Let's see your extraordinary experimental and observational proof. Put up or STFU.
> > 
> > You pinhead think if you find it in wikipedia it must be true.  Duhr.
> 
> If you can actually show that Wiki is wrong in this case, go ahead...

Wiki isn't wrong.  It's your gullible imagination that is  wrong.  Wiki does not state that it's ever been observed.  

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

#572295

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 9:02:33 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 8:52:42 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 8:44:24 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:48:43 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:15:47 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 4:17:40 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 7:34:08 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 2:02:41 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:30:38 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:59:32 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:26:34 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=crystal%20lattice%20structure%20of%20ice
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >   Belief isn't science. Diffraction experiments using x rays, electrons
> > > > > > > > > > and neutrons have demonstrated the crystalline forms of ice.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >   You've accidentally admitted that you can use Google, so Google it.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >   What sauce do you like on your crow?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Nobody is disputing that ice is crystalline, dumbass.  Pay attention.
> > > > > > > > >  Quote
> > > > > > > > > me directly and in context.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >   Read what you wrote, dumbass:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >   "Lattice Structure of Ice: Do you believe this? I don't."
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It's hard to believe you are this dumb.  Now read what you wrote.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   It's hard to believe you are so dumb as to think that "lattice" and "crystalline" mean something different.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, they do.  I suggest you do some research.
> > > > 
> > > > But 'lattice' and 'crystalline' BOTH apply to ice...
> > > > 
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice#/media/File:Ice_Ih_Crystal_Lattice.png
> > > > 
> > > > "The three-dimensional crystal structure of H2O ice Ih (c) is composed of bases of H2O ice molecules (b) located on lattice points within the two-dimensional hexagonal space lattice (a). The values for the H-O-H angle and O-H distance have come from Physics of Ice[2] with uncertainties of ±1.5° and ±0.005 Å, respectively. The black box in (c) is the unit cell defined by Bernal and Fowler.[3]".
> > > > 
> > > > Still an idiot. Do some research yourself. 
> > > > 
> > > > The lattice structure of ice is well understood. If you don't think so, the burden of proof is entirely on you. Let's see your extraordinary experimental and observational proof. Put up or STFU.
> > > 
> > > You pinhead think if you find it in wikipedia it must be true.  Duhr.
> > 
> > If you can actually show that Wiki is wrong in this case, go ahead...
> 
> Wiki isn't wrong.  It's your gullible imagination that is  wrong.  Wiki does not state that it's ever been observed.

BFD. It's been observed, look it up...

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

#571983

On 04/20/2016 08:59 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:26:34 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=crystal%20lattice%20structure%20of%20ice
>
>    Belief isn't science. Diffraction experiments using x rays, electrons and neutrons have demonstrated the crystalline forms of ice.
>
>    You've accidentally admitted that you can use Google, so Google it.
>
>    What sauce do you like on your crow?
>
>
>    Mark L. Fergerson
>
HVAC says science is all about belief. If you don't believe what HVAC 
believes then you aren't doing science. Facts are what you believe they 
are!

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

#571991

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 7:29:32 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 04/20/2016 08:59 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:26:34 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=crystal%20lattice%20structure%20of%20ice
> >
> >    Belief isn't science. Diffraction experiments using x rays, electrons and neutrons have demonstrated the crystalline forms of ice.
> >
> >    You've accidentally admitted that you can use Google, so Google it.
> >
> >    What sauce do you like on your crow?
> >
> >
> >    Mark L. Fergerson
> >
> HVAC says science is all about belief. If you don't believe what HVAC 
> believes then you aren't doing science. Facts are what you believe they 
> are!

Science is the new religion and the internet is where all the church-ladies 
meet to discuss their self-righteous indignation that anybody would challenge 
the absolute certainty of science.

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

#571996

On 04/20/2016 10:40 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 7:29:32 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>> On 04/20/2016 08:59 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:26:34 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=crystal%20lattice%20structure%20of%20ice
>>>
>>>     Belief isn't science. Diffraction experiments using x rays, electrons and neutrons have demonstrated the crystalline forms of ice.
>>>
>>>     You've accidentally admitted that you can use Google, so Google it.
>>>
>>>     What sauce do you like on your crow?
>>>
>>>
>>>     Mark L. Fergerson
>>>
>> HVAC says science is all about belief. If you don't believe what HVAC
>> believes then you aren't doing science. Facts are what you believe they
>> are!
>
> Science is the new religion and the internet is where all the church-ladies
> meet to discuss their self-righteous indignation that anybody would challenge
> the absolute certainty of science.
>
Amen, Bro! Fist bump?

Oddly enough if everyone in science followed the "norms" of science and 
operated in the way the scientific method is supposed to operate, none 
of these problems would exist. The problem is people want to bend the 
scientific method until it becomes religion and politics so they can 
effect some personal gain.

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

#572042

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 8:25:35 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:

> Amen, Bro! Fist bump?
> 
> Oddly enough if everyone in science followed the "norms" of science and 
> operated in the way the scientific method is supposed to operate, none 
> of these problems would exist. The problem is people want to bend the 
> scientific method until it becomes religion and politics so they can 
> effect some personal gain.

Take note of how often these imbeciles drop links to webpages or references to papers and that in and of itself is the net sum of their argument.  Google has done all their thinking for them.  That is all they know.  They throw temper tantrums when you ask them to explain their point and present an argument.  That's how bad things have become.  Easy information has overwhelmed the ability to reason.

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

#572235

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 3:39:18 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 8:25:35 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> 
> > Amen, Bro! Fist bump?
> > 
> > Oddly enough if everyone in science followed the "norms" of science and 
> > operated in the way the scientific method is supposed to operate, none 
> > of these problems would exist. The problem is people want to bend the 
> > scientific method until it becomes religion and politics so they can 
> > effect some personal gain.
> 
> Take note of how often these imbeciles drop links to webpages or references to papers and that in and of itself is the net sum of their argument.  Google has done all their thinking for them.  That is all they know.  They throw temper tantrums when you ask them to explain their point and present an argument.  That's how bad things have become.  Easy information has overwhelmed the ability to reason.

I think you will find that the reason references are given is that science is a cumulative and collective activity. I gather that you take a different approach of assuming that nothing in any of those references is of any value, and that you prefer both to "think things out" from scratch on your own and to correspond with others who are willing to do the same, mano y mano, using nothing but reasoning and whatever experimental evidence you can gather on your own in your own garage. You will find that a lonely endeavor and one that you will get precious little engagement from scientists to. If you like, you can muster some self-rationalization that your approach is the only proper way to do science, but I for one am not sympathetic. Frankly, I think you're only in it for the fun of the squabble, which again I have no interest in.

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

#572520

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 3:53:16 PM UTC-7, PD wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 3:39:18 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 8:25:35 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> > 
> > > Amen, Bro! Fist bump?
> > > 
> > > Oddly enough if everyone in science followed the "norms" of science and 
> > > operated in the way the scientific method is supposed to operate, none 
> > > of these problems would exist. The problem is people want to bend the 
> > > scientific method until it becomes religion and politics so they can 
> > > effect some personal gain.
> > 
> > Take note of how often these imbeciles drop links to webpages or references to papers and that in and of itself is the net sum of their argument.  Google has done all their thinking for them.  That is all they know.  They throw temper tantrums when you ask them to explain their point and present an argument.  That's how bad things have become.  Easy information has overwhelmed the ability to reason.
> 
> I think you will find that the reason references are given is that science is a cumulative and collective activity. I gather that you take a different approach of assuming that nothing in any of those references is of any value, and that you prefer both to "think things out" from scratch on your own and to correspond with others who are willing to do the same, mano y mano, using nothing but reasoning and whatever experimental evidence you can gather on your own in your own garage. You will find that a lonely endeavor and one that you will get precious little engagement from scientists to. If you like, you can muster some self-rationalization that your approach is the only proper way to do science, but I for one am not sympathetic. Frankly, I think you're only in it for the fun of the squabble, which again I have no interest in.

What you describe here has more to do with stamp collecting than it does science.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web