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

Groups > sci.physics > #557743 > unrolled thread

Re: Mismeasure of Water

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: Mismeasure of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 19:47 -0800
    Re: Mismeasure of Water jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 04:44 +0000
      Re: Mismeasure of Water Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 23:02 -0800
        Re: Mismeasure of Water jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 19:13 +0000
          Re: Mismeasure of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:44 -0800
            Re: Mismeasure of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 14:12 -0600
              Re: Mismeasure of Water Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:26 -0800
                Re: Mismeasure of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 14:37 -0600
                  Re: Mismeasure of Water Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:54 -0800
                    Re: Mismeasure of Water jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 21:23 +0000
                Re: Mismeasure of Water jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:36 +0000
                  Re: Mismeasure of Water Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:55 -0800
                    Re: Mismeasure of Water jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 21:21 +0000
                      Re: Mismeasure of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:57 -0800
                        Re: Mismeasure of Water jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 23:51 +0000
            Re: Mismeasure of Water jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:22 +0000
              Re: Mismeasure of Water noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:42 -0800

#557743 — Re: Mismeasure of Water

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 12:07:55 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Science is confused about water because they are confused about polarity.   They see polarity as a function of "polar' bonds (a "polar" bond is a covalent bond that has an electronegativity difference).  It's not that simple.  Many molecules have "polar" bonds but are not polar (they are not dipoles).  A polar molecule is asymmetrical in addition to having electronegativity differences.  And where it really gets confusing is when you consider that with water (and only with water) symmetry is variable--AND ACTUALLY VARIES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HYDROGEN BONDING!
> 
> 
In water polarity drops to zero when symmetry is achieved through coordinated tetrahedral bonds.  The failure to comprehend this and its implications is the reason they are so perplexed by water and its many anomalies.  For example, once you understand this it becomes immediately apparent why H2O has its high heat capacity. Strangely, the professionals have no ability to grasp the importance of symmetry to polarity.  They write paper after paper and do video after video that demonstrates their ignorance of the intricacies of polarity and then they make lists of water's anomalies, pretending they have explained something that they have not explained. This paper tries to get beyond that same ground hog day, over and over again, glossing over, inability to grasp what is really happening at the molecular level that is so typical of the study of water:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#557762

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 12:07:55 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

No on gave a shit the first 4 time you posted this nonsense.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557796

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 12:07:55 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> No on gave a shit the first 4 time you posted this nonsense.

Do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship between your inability to dispute my hypothesis and your frustration?

Don't feel bad, Richard Saykally failed to dispute it also, and he's a Berkeley professor.  

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

#557950

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 12:07:55 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> 
>> No on gave a shit the first 4 time you posted this nonsense.
> 
> Do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship between your
> inability to dispute my hypothesis and your frustration?

The reality is your delusional hypothesis has been totally disproven.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557976

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:16:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 12:07:55 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> 
> >> No on gave a shit the first 4 time you posted this nonsense.
> > 
> > Do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship between your
> > inability to dispute my hypothesis and your frustration?
> 
> The reality is your delusional hypothesis has been totally disproven.

Is that a yes or a no?

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

#558001

On 2/29/2016 1:44 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:16:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 12:07:55 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No on gave a shit the first 4 time you posted this nonsense.
>>>
>>> Do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship between your
>>> inability to dispute my hypothesis and your frustration?
>>
>> The reality is your delusional hypothesis has been totally disproven.
>
> Is that a yes or a no?
>

totally disproven

So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, 
rips you a new a$$hole, and not only are you too stupid to realize it, 
you are then stupid enough to broadcast that fact here!


Now everyone here knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are 
crazier than an outhouse rat, and it was all accomplished by your very 
own hand.

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

#558010

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 1:44 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:16:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 12:07:55 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> No on gave a shit the first 4 time you posted this nonsense.
> >>>
> >>> Do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship between your
> >>> inability to dispute my hypothesis and your frustration?
> >>
> >> The reality is your delusional hypothesis has been totally disproven.
> >
> > Is that a yes or a no?
> >
> 
> totally disproven
> 
> So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, 
> rips you a new a$$hole, 

Why not just drop a link to Saykally's earthshattering disproof of my theory?  I mean, if his dispute is so decisive I would think you'd want to make it easy for people to find it.  Right?

It must be frustrating that the internet doesn't allow you to drop a link to your imagination.

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

#558020

On 2/29/2016 2:26 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 2/29/2016 1:44 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:16:06 AM UTC-8,
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8,
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 12:07:55 AM UTC-8, James
>>>>>>> McGinn wrote:

>>>>>> No on gave a shit the first 4 time you posted this
>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship
>>>>> between your inability to dispute my hypothesis and your
>>>>> frustration?
>>>>
>>>> The reality is your delusional hypothesis has been totally
>>>> disproven.
>>>
>>> Is that a yes or a no?
>>>
>>
>> totally disproven
>>
>> So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely
>> Professor, rips you a new a$$hole,
>
> Why not just drop a link to Saykally's earthshattering disproof of my
> theory?  I mean, if his dispute is so decisive I would think you'd
> want to make it easy for people to find it.  Right?

you don't have a theory.

  If you do, post it here.

>
> It must be frustrating that the internet doesn't allow you to drop a
> link to your imagination.
>

you dropped a link alright.  A few gears too.

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

#558037

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:39:02 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> > Why not just drop a link to Saykally's earthshattering disproof of my
> > theory?  I mean, if his dispute is so decisive I would think you'd
> > want to make it easy for people to find it.  Right?
> 
> you don't have a theory.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

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

#558061

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:39:02 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
>> > Why not just drop a link to Saykally's earthshattering disproof of my
>> > theory?  I mean, if his dispute is so decisive I would think you'd
>> > want to make it easy for people to find it.  Right?
>> 
>> you don't have a theory.
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

Where is your proof, that means an experiment, not arm waving, that your
bat shit crazy theory is true?
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558028

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 2/29/2016 1:44 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:16:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 12:07:55 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> No on gave a shit the first 4 time you posted this nonsense.
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship between your
>> >>> inability to dispute my hypothesis and your frustration?
>> >>
>> >> The reality is your delusional hypothesis has been totally disproven.
>> >
>> > Is that a yes or a no?
>> >
>> 
>> totally disproven
>> 
>> So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, 
>> rips you a new a$$hole, 
> 
> Why not just drop a link to Saykally's earthshattering disproof of my theory?

It isn't up to Saykally or anyone else to disprove your bat shit crazy
theory, it is up to you to prove it correct.

So far all you have offered is bat shit crazy arm waving.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558039

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > Why not just drop a link to Saykally's earthshattering disproof of my theory?
> 
> It isn't up to Saykally or anyone else to disprove 

He won't be able to:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

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

#558060

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> > Why not just drop a link to Saykally's earthshattering disproof of my theory?
>> 
>> It isn't up to Saykally or anyone else to disprove 
> 
> He won't be able to:

He doesn't have to even try.

It is you making the bat shit crazy claims so it is up to you to prove
that your claims are in fact true and not bat shit crazy.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558081

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> >> > Why not just drop a link to Saykally's earthshattering disproof of my theory?
> >> 
> >> It isn't up to Saykally or anyone else to disprove 
> > 
> > He won't be able to:
> 
> He doesn't have to even try.

Why would a professional not want to?

Look at this:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39168
and this:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/weekend-open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-114156

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

#558113

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > 
>> >> > Why not just drop a link to Saykally's earthshattering disproof of my theory?
>> >> 
>> >> It isn't up to Saykally or anyone else to disprove 
>> > 
>> > He won't be able to:
>> 
>> He doesn't have to even try.
> 
> Why would a professional not want to?

The only professional that would want to spend time on you would be a
mental health professional.

Any other type of professional would see you as a waste of time as a bat
shit crazy kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558013

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:16:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 12:07:55 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> No on gave a shit the first 4 time you posted this nonsense.
>> > 
>> > Do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship between your
>> > inability to dispute my hypothesis and your frustration?
>> 
>> The reality is your delusional hypothesis has been totally disproven.
> 
> Is that a yes or a no?

Your question is based on the false, actually delusonal, premise that
your "hypothesis" has not been shown to be a steaming pile of nonsense.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558023

HOH is lightter than air is lighter than OCO

> Your question is based on the false, actually delusonal, premise that
> your "hypothesis" has not been shown to be a steaming pile of nonsense.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web