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

Groups > sci.physics > #543872 > unrolled thread

Groundhog Day and the Science of Water

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 11:37 -0800
    Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-08 19:25 -0600
      Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 17:40 -0800
        Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 18:35 -0800
          Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-08 21:41 -0600
            Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 20:10 -0800
            Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:20 -0800
              Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 19:48 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 09:05 -0800
                  Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 11:03 -0800
                    Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 12:23 -0800
                      Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 13:00 -0800
                        Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 13:50 -0800
                          Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 15:22 -0800
                            Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 16:45 -0800
                              Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 18:35 -0800
                                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-12 21:20 -0600
                      Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 10:23 -0800
                        Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-12 19:30 -0600
          Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:12 -0800
            Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-12 21:22 -0600
              Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 19:09 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 19:19 -0800
                  Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 14:51 -0600
                    Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 19:22 -0800
                      Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 21:54 -0600
                        Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 09:01 -0800
    Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 00:26 -0800
    Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 11:35 -0800
      Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 22:34 -0800
    Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 22:30 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#543872 — Groundhog Day and the Science of Water

Science is confused about water because they are confused about polarity.   They see polarity as a function of "polar' bonds (a "polar" bond is a covalent bond that has an electronegativity difference).  It's not that simple.  Many molecules have "polar" bonds but are not polar (they are not dipoles).  A polar molecule is asymmetrical in addition to having electronegativity differences.  And where it really gets confusing is when you consider that with water (and only with water) symmetry is variable--AND ACTUALLY VARIES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HYDROGEN BONDING!

In water polarity drops to zero when symmetry is achieved through coordinated tetrahedral bonds.  The failure to comprehend this and its implications is the reason they are so perplexed by water and its many anomalies.  For example, once you understand this it becomes immediately apparent why H2O has its high heat capacity. Strangely, the professionals have no ability to grasp the importance of symmetry to polarity.  They write paper after paper and do video after video that demonstrates their ignorance of the intricacies of polarity and then they make lists of water's anomalies, pretending they have explained something that they have not explained. The following paper tries to get beyond that same ground hog day, over and over again, glossing over, inability to grasp what is really happening at the molecular level that is so typical of the study of water:

https://zenodo.org/record/37224

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#543920

On 1/8/2016 1:37 PM, James McGinn wrote:
    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!
>

I wrote a book back in 1957 on this, so it is nothing new, perhaps a 
personal discovery for you, but already well know to all chemists, and 
published in most all freshman textbooks.
I'm glad you like chemistry, and keep reading my blog, thanks!

https://tnrtb.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/water-designed-for-life-part-3-of-7/

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biochemistry/tutorials/chemistry/page3.html

http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/beginning-chemistry/section_14/b847b1575c9c606b303a6e840551263f.jpg

http://galedc.com/uploads/c798aead433203cb7c4b07fb1baa31ed2176.JPG

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

#543924

On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 5:25:51 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 1/8/2016 1:37 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>     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!
> >
> 
> I wrote a book back in 1957 on this, so it is nothing new, perhaps a 
> personal discovery for you, but already well know to all chemists, and 
> published in most all freshman textbooks.
> I'm glad you like chemistry, and keep reading my blog, thanks!
> 
> https://tnrtb.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/water-designed-for-life-part-3-of-7/
> 
> http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biochemistry/tutorials/chemistry/page3.html
> 
> http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/beginning-chemistry/section_14/b847b1575c9c606b303a6e840551263f.jpg
> 
> http://galedc.com/uploads/c798aead433203cb7c4b07fb1baa31ed2176.JPG

Pay attention.  These links discuss H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding.  They don't indicate variability thereof.  

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

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

#543932

On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 8:40:57 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 5:25:51 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> > On 1/8/2016 1:37 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >     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!
> > >
> > 
> > I wrote a book back in 1957 on this, so it is nothing new, perhaps a 
> > personal discovery for you, but already well know to all chemists, and 
> > published in most all freshman textbooks.
> > I'm glad you like chemistry, and keep reading my blog, thanks!
> > 
> > https://tnrtb.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/water-designed-for-life-part-3-of-7/
> > 
> > http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biochemistry/tutorials/chemistry/page3.html
> > 
> > http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/beginning-chemistry/section_14/b847b1575c9c606b303a6e840551263f.jpg
> > 
> > http://galedc.com/uploads/c798aead433203cb7c4b07fb1baa31ed2176.JPG
> 
> Pay attention.  These links discuss H2O polarity and hydrogen
> bonding.  They don't indicate variability thereof.

As much as I love Sergio, formerly known as gilber34, ...

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

Now now NOW... that's a perfectly beautiful writ sentiment per Today,
with all its Social Medics! Wish I had writ it. Thanks James.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Then they told me I was the smart one!”

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

#543941

On 1/8/2016 8:35 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 8:40:57 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 5:25:51 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2016 1:37 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>      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!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wrote a book back in 1957 on this, so it is nothing new, perhaps a
>>> personal discovery for you, but already well know to all chemists, and
>>> published in most all freshman textbooks.
>>> I'm glad you like chemistry, and keep reading my blog, thanks!
>>>
>>> https://tnrtb.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/water-designed-for-life-part-3-of-7/
>>>
>>> http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biochemistry/tutorials/chemistry/page3.html
>>>
>>> http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/beginning-chemistry/section_14/b847b1575c9c606b303a6e840551263f.jpg
>>>
>>> http://galedc.com/uploads/c798aead433203cb7c4b07fb1baa31ed2176.JPG
>>
>> Pay attention.  These links discuss H2O polarity and hydrogen
>> bonding.  They don't indicate variability thereof.
>
> As much as I love Sergio, formerly known as gilber34, ...

both name variability, and the variability of H2O bonding hydrogen 
polarity are again shown by movable links to the past textbooks, some at 
Amazon even still.  I gladly teach and inspire (and you too!) via my 
blog about such polarized and bonding of such very very tiny small 
things, a good thing for you to both know, and accept.

>
>> It must be frustrating for you that the internet doesn't allow you
>> to drop a link to your imagination.
>
> Now now NOW... that's a perfectly beautiful writ sentiment per Today,
> with all its Social Medics! Wish I had writ it. Thanks James.

well written, and still intently demonstrated and used hourly by the 
Trumpists and Hillaritits over the internet, tweeter, goohipal, and the 
social websites for the non-functional, (FB, mylittlepony, etc)

>
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Then they told me I was the smart one!”
>

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

#543958

On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 7:42:07 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> both name variability, and the variability of H2O bonding hydrogen 
> polarity are again shown by movable links

Again?

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

#543994

On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 10:42:07 PM UTC-5, Sergio wrote:
> On 1/8/2016 8:35 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 8:40:57 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 5:25:51 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >>> On 1/8/2016 1:37 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>      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!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I wrote a book back in 1957 on this, so it is nothing new, perhaps a
> >>> personal discovery for you, but already well know to all chemists, and
> >>> published in most all freshman textbooks.
> >>> I'm glad you like chemistry, and keep reading my blog, thanks!
> >>>
> >>> https://tnrtb.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/water-designed-for-life-part-3-of-7/
> >>>
> >>> http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biochemistry/tutorials/chemistry/page3.html
> >>>
> >>> http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/beginning-chemistry/section_14/b847b1575c9c606b303a6e840551263f.jpg
> >>>
> >>> http://galedc.com/uploads/c798aead433203cb7c4b07fb1baa31ed2176.JPG
> >>
> >> Pay attention.  These links discuss H2O polarity and hydrogen
> >> bonding.  They don't indicate variability thereof.
> >
> > As much as I love Sergio, formerly known as gilber34, ...
> 
> both name variability, and the variability of H2O bonding hydrogen 
> polarity are again shown by movable links to the past textbooks, some at 
> Amazon even still.  I gladly teach and inspire (and you too!) via my 
> blog about such polarized and bonding of such very very tiny small 
> things, a good thing for you to both know, and accept.

I saw the graphics, jpegs. I'm still thirsty.

> >> It must be frustrating for you that the internet doesn't allow you
> >> to drop a link to your imagination.
> >
> > Now now NOW... that's a perfectly beautiful writ sentiment per Today,
> > with all its Social Medics! Wish I had writ it. Thanks James.
> 
> well written, and still intently demonstrated and used hourly by the 
> Trumpists and Hillaritits over the internet, tweeter, goohipal, and the 
> social websites for the non-functional, (FB, mylittlepony, etc)

Goohipal? Wait a minute... that rhymes with Mahipal?! Coincidence?!

Well, one thing we do know for sure, given his fake golden hair wig,
is that TrumpET Puppets scan each and every tweet. Daily. Per every
real time of a single second. No old tweets count or matter to
them. Thank goodness we're not yet tweeting. Btw... Hillaritits
HillariTits is too funny. Cheers!

Because I am still free and allowed to, I googled “link to your
imagination” and got like about 4,100,000 results (0.50 seconds).

First link, at least for me eyes only personally, was:
http://www.creativitypost.com/create/salvador_dalis_creative_thinking_technique
Where Meme wrote, see comments section, three years ago from this
Today, “That metal plate/spoon thing was actually attributed to
Einstein.” Leaving me imaginingIngIsmIshQ@#, is there anything the
OneStone did not do -- first, most, and best?! Just one?!

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: In my little Town==Google...”

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

#544183

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 5:20:51 AM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:

> > both name variability, and the variability of H2O bonding hydrogen 
> > polarity are again shown by movable links to the past textbooks, some at 
> > Amazon even still.  I gladly teach and inspire (and you too!) via my 
> > blog about such polarized and bonding of such very very tiny small 
> > things, a good thing for you to both know, and accept.
> 
> I saw the graphics, jpegs. I'm still thirsty.

Maybe his imagination needs time to develop. Like a small flower in a dark forest. 

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

#544255

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 5:20:51 AM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
> 
> > > both name variability, and the variability of H2O bonding hydrogen 
> > > polarity are again shown by movable links to the past textbooks, some at 
> > > Amazon even still.  I gladly teach and inspire (and you too!) via my 
> > > blog about such polarized and bonding of such very very tiny small 
> > > things, a good thing for you to both know, and accept.
> > 
> > I saw the graphics, jpegs. I'm still thirsty.
> 
> Maybe his imagination needs time to develop. Like a small flower in a dark forest.

Gibbs NCIS, Rule#42: Never project limitations onto others' imaginations.

You are referring to Sergio. Please be clear James. Attributions
matter. I like Sergio! Fun chap he. It's his Font that gets me!

James, you are, per your posting history, new to this Usenet NG. Why
is that? Where have you been all these many years? Life's good? What's
your Physics Angst? Be clear, I do not want readers' imaginations,
especially mine, to run amok. Beware... I measurably have a tendency
to digress... must reign it in. Most average readers just want to read
me for praising EinStein (==OneStone). I tell them to hold their breath.

The reason I ask why is that I like people who have a history. For,
having lessons learned, only anonymous nym-shifting annoying rude
filthy completely useless posters tend to be born yesterday.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Imagine my state State STATE!”

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

#544272

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:05:48 AM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 5:20:51 AM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
> > 
> > > > both name variability, and the variability of H2O bonding hydrogen 
> > > > polarity are again shown by movable links to the past textbooks, some at 
> > > > Amazon even still.  I gladly teach and inspire (and you too!) via my 
> > > > blog about such polarized and bonding of such very very tiny small 
> > > > things, a good thing for you to both know, and accept.
> > > 
> > > I saw the graphics, jpegs. I'm still thirsty.
> > 
> > Maybe his imagination needs time to develop. Like a small flower in a dark forest.
> 
> Gibbs NCIS, Rule#42: Never project limitations onto others' imaginations.
> 
> You are referring to Sergio.

Of course.

> Please be clear James. Attributions
> matter. I like Sergio! Fun chap he. It's his Font that gets me!

He seems an idiot.

> James, you are, per your posting history, new to this Usenet NG.

I'm just your everyday, average, run of the mill, science genius.


> Why
> is that? Where have you been all these many years? Life's good? What's
> your Physics Angst?

Hmm.  Well, it (my "angst") has to do with the nature of the electron cloud on the oxygen atom of the H2O molecule in regard to hydrogen bonding. I believe one thing and the sheep believe another. See my paper on this NG for details:
Breakthrough: Hydrogen Bonding Neutralizes H2O Polarity

I specialize in making scientific discoveries--breakthroughs.  Making discoveries in science is something I find easy.  Here is my technique which you may find interesting.  First I find a controversial issue. Consider the different issues, study the topic explicitly.  Then look for and expect to find the breakthrough discovery in the aspects of the argument that are NOT under dispute. In other words, don't look for the discovery in the conclusions or the model, look for it in the assumptions that everybody is taking for granted. And most importantly of all (and this is the part that trips up most people) ignore the models.  People always fall in love with their own models and models make their assumptions invisible to them. 

Most of academia is based on creating models--because that is what the public wants. So, all the attention and money goes to people that create SIMPLE models. But models are an obstacle if you want to achieve discoveries. This is why people in academia rarely make discoveries.  (Or, at least, not as often as we would expect given their expertise.) This is why outsiders often make the big breakthrough.  Outsiders are not in love with their model. Personally, I try to ignore models until I understand the subject starting from first principles (ab initio).

I am a perfect example of this.  The discovery I made would have been impossible if I believed in the academic model of hydrogen bonding.  Because the academia has fallen in love with their models (most notably in regard to the freezing process [see my paper for details]).


> Be clear, I do not want readers' imaginations,
> especially mine, to run amok. Beware... I measurably have a tendency
> to digress... must reign it in. Most average readers just want to read
> me for praising EinStein (==OneStone). I tell them to hold their breath.
> 
> The reason I ask why is that I like people who have a history. For,
> having lessons learned, only anonymous nym-shifting annoying

I like people that address substantive issues of science/physics directly, honestly, explicitly.  The rest is just fodder.

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

#544292

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 2:03:59 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:05:48 AM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 5:20:51 AM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > both name variability, and the variability of H2O bonding hydrogen 
> > > > > polarity are again shown by movable links to the past textbooks, some at 
> > > > > Amazon even still.  I gladly teach and inspire (and you too!) via my 
> > > > > blog about such polarized and bonding of such very very tiny small 
> > > > > things, a good thing for you to both know, and accept.
> > > > 
> > > > I saw the graphics, jpegs. I'm still thirsty.
> > > 
> > > Maybe his imagination needs time to develop. Like a small flower in a dark forest.
> > 
> > Gibbs NCIS, Rule#42: Never project limitations onto others' imaginations.
> > 
> > You are referring to Sergio.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> > Please be clear James. Attributions
> > matter. I like Sergio! Fun chap he. It's his Font that gets me!
> 
> He seems an idiot.

Well, revisit your first -- or otherwise -- impressions. I advise.

> > James, you are, per your posting history, new to this Usenet NG.
> 
> I'm just your everyday, average, run of the mill, science genius.

I love that line James, my pal! Kudos and continue. Nice to meet you.

> > Why
> > is that? Where have you been all these many years? Life's good? What's
> > your Physics Angst?
> 
> Hmm.  Well, it (my "angst") has to do with the nature of the
> electron cloud on the oxygen atom of the H2O molecule in regard to
> hydrogen bonding. I believe one thing and the sheep believe
> another. See my paper on this NG for details: Breakthrough: Hydrogen
> Bonding Neutralizes H2O Polarity

First of all, Mark L. Fergerson is a great godsend autodidactic
genius. Please address his specific questions for I am more of a
generalist than either a journalist or a specificist. By which I mean,
I have no idea of the price of tea in Chinese, Seenchi, or IndiaKnees.

> I specialize in making scientific discoveries--breakthroughs.
> Making discoveries in science is something I find easy.  Here is my
> technique which you may find interesting.  First I find a
> controversial issue. Consider the different issues, study the topic
> explicitly.  Then look for and expect to find the breakthrough
> discovery in the aspects of the argument that are NOT under
> dispute. In other words, don't look for the discovery in the
> conclusions or the model, look for it in the assumptions that
> everybody is taking for granted. And most importantly of all (and
> this is the part that trips up most people) ignore the models.
> People always fall in love with their own models and models make
> their assumptions invisible to them.

That's very deep. I think I get it James. Still, very deep.

> Most of academia is based on creating models--because that is what
> the public wants. So, all the attention and money goes to people
> that create SIMPLE models. But models are an obstacle if you want to
> achieve discoveries. This is why people in academia rarely make
> discoveries.  (Or, at least, not as often as we would expect given
> their expertise.) This is why outsiders often make the big
> breakthrough.  Outsiders are not in love with their
> model. Personally, I try to ignore models until I understand the
> subject starting from first principles (ab initio).

Most academia is a waste of time, let alone funds. As is Meet The Press.

> I am a perfect example of this.  The discovery I made would have
> been impossible if I believed in the academic model of hydrogen
> bonding.  Because the academia has fallen in love with their models
> (most notably in regard to the freezing process [see my paper for
> details]).

James, please provide a direct link to your paper. My Google searches
are as reliable as Penn(y)s' Condoms on the HD TV @#TBBT Series.

> > Be clear, I do not want readers' imaginations,
> > especially mine, to run amok. Beware... I measurably have a tendency
> > to digress... must reign it in. Most average readers just want to read
> > me for praising EinStein (==OneStone). I tell them to hold their breath.
> > 
> > The reason I ask why is that I like people who have a history. For,
> > having lessons learned, only anonymous nym-shifting annoying
>
> I like people that address substantive issues of science/physics
>directly, honestly, explicitly.  The rest is just fodder.

IME (== In My Experience), people suck and post fodder. Daily. The
real mystery is why The(y)TheThem people suck and post fodder daily.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: See Through The Looking Glass...”

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

#544302

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 12:23:31 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:

> > Hmm.  Well, it (my "angst") has to do with the nature of the
> > electron cloud on the oxygen atom of the H2O molecule in regard to
> > hydrogen bonding. I believe one thing and the sheep believe
> > another. See my paper on this NG for details: Breakthrough: Hydrogen
> > Bonding Neutralizes H2O Polarity
> 
> First of all, Mark L. Fergerson is a great godsend autodidactic
> genius.

Who?  Link?

> Please address his specific questions

What questions? (If somebody asks a question and can't explain relevance they are just idiots. I ignore them.)

> for I am more of a
> generalist than either a journalist or a specificist. By which I mean,
> I have no idea of the price of tea in Chinese, Seenchi, or IndiaKnees.

Drink coffee.

> > I specialize in making scientific discoveries--breakthroughs.
> > Making discoveries in science is something I find easy.  Here is my
> > technique which you may find interesting.  First I find a
> > controversial issue. Consider the different issues, study the topic
> > explicitly.  Then look for and expect to find the breakthrough
> > discovery in the aspects of the argument that are NOT under
> > dispute. In other words, don't look for the discovery in the
> > conclusions or the model, look for it in the assumptions that
> > everybody is taking for granted. And most importantly of all (and
> > this is the part that trips up most people) ignore the models.
> > People always fall in love with their own models and models make
> > their assumptions invisible to them.
> 
> That's very deep. I think I get it James. Still, very deep.

To me it seems obvious.  

> > Most of academia is based on creating models--because that is what
> > the public wants. So, all the attention and money goes to people
> > that create SIMPLE models. But models are an obstacle if you want to
> > achieve discoveries. This is why people in academia rarely make
> > discoveries.  (Or, at least, not as often as we would expect given
> > their expertise.) This is why outsiders often make the big
> > breakthrough.  Outsiders are not in love with their
> > model. Personally, I try to ignore models until I understand the
> > subject starting from first principles (ab initio).
> 
> Most academia is a waste of time, let alone funds. As is Meet The Press.

I agree. Very often they don't understand the science. They only understand their model and how to that sell it. And, very often, they bicker with each other over irrelevancies.  When I see this I know there is a discovery to be made. The trick is to let the idiots bicker then figure out what they think they know but only believe. (And finding that can be very easy because you just use the socratic method.  Keep asking questions until you get to a question that they can't answer--socratic method.) That is where the discover is to be made. But there are no shortcuts. You really have to understand the subject starting from valid physics/chemistry. And you can't be easily swayed by nonsense, because there is a lot of it.  And many in academia make their living creating nonsense. (Most people in the public are like sheep who blindly follow the nonsense that academia creates.) 

> > I am a perfect example of this.  The discovery I made would have
> > been impossible if I believed in the academic model of hydrogen
> > bonding.  Because the academia has fallen in love with their models
> > (most notably in regard to the freezing process [see my paper for
> > details]).
> 
> James, please provide a direct link to your paper.

Undoubtedly you have already seen it since I posted the whole thing here.  But here is another link:
https://zenodo.org/record/37224

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

#544312

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 4:00:38 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 12:23:31 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
> 
> > > Hmm.  Well, it (my "angst") has to do with the nature of the
> > > electron cloud on the oxygen atom of the H2O molecule in regard to
> > > hydrogen bonding. I believe one thing and the sheep believe
> > > another. See my paper on this NG for details: Breakthrough: Hydrogen
> > > Bonding Neutralizes H2O Polarity
> > 
> > First of all, Mark L. Fergerson is a great godsend autodidactic
> > genius.
> 
> Who?  Link?

My mistake, Usenet is as reliable as is Facebook! Close to zero.

Mark is a great link. Sorry that Usenet is difficult to navigate. Here
are his (Mark's) questions addressed to you (James):

  How does your theory predict an applied electric field will affect
  the phase-changing behavior of water?

  Suppose we place two electrodes 1 meter apart in liquid water and
  apply 1kVDC to them, and lower the temperature of the water. Will it
  freeze the same way as when no voltage is applied?

  Suppose water vapor is suspended in air with a 1 kV/m electrostatic
  field present, and the temperature falls. Will ice pellets (hail)
  form the same way as when there is no field present?

  Conversely, how about melting/boiling point/evaporation/sublimation? 

  Will water boil faster/slower/the same with a 1kV/m field applied as without? 

  Will ice melt faster/slower/the same with 1kV/m applied to it as without? 

  Will ice particles sublime faster/slower/the same when falling
  through a 1kV/m field as when not?

Those are Mark's questions.

> > Please address his specific questions
> 
> What questions? (If somebody asks a question and can't explain
> relevance they are just idiots. I ignore them.)

No, don't merely ignore them. Mock them at a minimum.

> > for I am more of a
> > generalist than either a journalist or a specificist. By which I mean,
> > I have no idea of the price of tea in Chinese, Seenchi, or IndiaKnees.
> 
> Drink coffee.

Espresso? I like Espresso.

> > > I specialize in making scientific discoveries--breakthroughs.
> > > Making discoveries in science is something I find easy.  Here is my
> > > technique which you may find interesting.  First I find a
> > > controversial issue. Consider the different issues, study the topic
> > > explicitly.  Then look for and expect to find the breakthrough
> > > discovery in the aspects of the argument that are NOT under
> > > dispute. In other words, don't look for the discovery in the
> > > conclusions or the model, look for it in the assumptions that
> > > everybody is taking for granted. And most importantly of all (and
> > > this is the part that trips up most people) ignore the models.
> > > People always fall in love with their own models and models make
> > > their assumptions invisible to them.
> > 
> > That's very deep. I think I get it James. Still, very deep.
> 
> To me it seems obvious.  

I love the part where you James wrote: People always fall in love with
their own models and models make their assumptions invisible to them.

> > > Most of academia is based on creating models--because that is what
> > > the public wants. So, all the attention and money goes to people
> > > that create SIMPLE models. But models are an obstacle if you want to
> > > achieve discoveries. This is why people in academia rarely make
> > > discoveries.  (Or, at least, not as often as we would expect given
> > > their expertise.) This is why outsiders often make the big
> > > breakthrough.  Outsiders are not in love with their
> > > model. Personally, I try to ignore models until I understand the
> > > subject starting from first principles (ab initio).
> > 
> > Most academia is a waste of time, let alone funds. As is Meet The Press.
> 
> I agree. Very often they don't understand the science. They only
> understand their model and how to that sell it. And, very often,
> they bicker with each other over irrelevancies.  When I see this I
> know there is a discovery to be made. The trick is to let the idiots
> bicker then figure out what they think they know but only
> believe. (And finding that can be very easy because you just use the
> socratic method.  Keep asking questions until you get to a question
> that they can't answer--socratic method.) That is where the discover
> is to be made. But there are no shortcuts. You really have to
> understand the subject starting from valid physics/chemistry. And
> you can't be easily swayed by nonsense, because there is a lot of
> it.  And many in academia make their living creating nonsense. (Most
> people in the public are like sheep who blindly follow the nonsense
> that academia creates.)

That's true and too funny! Welcome to the Machine (Pink Floyd), James!

Not "where the discover" but "where the discovery" is what you meant.

> > > I am a perfect example of this.  The discovery I made would have
> > > been impossible if I believed in the academic model of hydrogen
> > > bonding.  Because the academia has fallen in love with their models
> > > (most notably in regard to the freezing process [see my paper for
> > > details]).
> > 
> > James, please provide a direct link to your paper.
> 
> Undoubtedly you have already seen it since I posted the whole thing
> here.  But here is another link: https://zenodo.org/record/37224

Thanks James. I downloaded your paper. Reading it now.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt-udg9zQSE”

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

#544340

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 1:51:06 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:

First of all, Mark L. Fergerson is a great godsend autodidactic genius.

Who?  Link?

My mistake, Usenet is as reliable as is Facebook! Close to zero. Mark is a great link. 

Is he?  I think it greater that you help those that, it seems, can not speak for themselves.

(Mark's) questions addressed to you (James):

I don't know the answers.  Maybe you can explain to Mark how to use a search engine.

I love the part where you James wrote: People always fall in love with their own models and models make their assumptions invisible to them.

And that is where you find the discovery.  It always involves something that they would not even consider, something on a deeper level of understanding, something that seems crazy to them.  Making the discovery is never very hard. You consider what they aren't thinking about and the answer is obvious--often.  But communicating it can be very hard because to get them to consider it they must achieve the same depth of understanding, and that is not normal to people that rely on models.

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

#544357

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 6:22:31 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 1:51:06 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
> 
> First of all, Mark L. Fergerson is a great godsend autodidactic genius.
> 
> Who?  Link?
> 
> My mistake, Usenet is as reliable as is Facebook! Close to
> zero. Mark is a great link.

> Is he?  I think it greater that you help those that, it seems, can
> not speak for themselves.

Mark does not need my help to speak for himself. Never did. Never will.

> (Mark's) questions addressed to you (James):
> 
> I don't know the answers.  Maybe you can explain to Mark how to use
> a search engine.

Mark can outthink a search engine with his eyes closed. Be real James.

> I love the part where you James wrote: People always fall in love
> with their own models and models make their assumptions invisible to
> them.

> And that is where you find the discovery.  It always involves
> something that they would not even consider, something on a deeper
> level of understanding, something that seems crazy to them.  Making
> the discovery is never very hard. You consider what they aren't
> thinking about and the answer is obvious--often.  But communicating it
> can be very hard because to get them to consider it they must achieve
> the same depth of understanding, and that is not normal to people that
> rely on models.  

I am the last one of them to be of the Status Quo. Deal with it.

Look, I am not going to bother correcting attributions, in your
Usenet posts, sorry about that, but life James is real and goes on.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: The same I, one and only...”

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

#544382

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 4:46:03 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:

Mark can outthink a search engine with his eyes closed. Be real James.

Yet he spends his time asking people random questions on usenet?

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

#544974

On 1/10/2016 8:35 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 4:46:03 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
>
> Mark can outthink a search engine with his eyes closed. Be real James.
>
> Yet he spends his time asking people random questions on usenet?
>

( it is best to read and review your posts before sending them out, else 
you sound like a flipping idiot pea-brained hamster )

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

#544817

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 12:23:31 PM UTC-8, 

Mark L. Fergerson is a great godsend autodidactic genius. 

Most academia is a waste of time, let alone funds. 

So, Mahipal, can you demonstrate that Mark L. 
Fergerson is a separate entity from yourself?  And Sergio too.  Can you show us separate social media accounts?  

No? Hmm.

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

#544953

On 1/12/2016 12:23 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 12:23:31 PM UTC-8,
>
> Mark L. Fergerson is a great godsend autodidactic genius.
>
> Most academia is a waste of time, let alone funds.
>
> So, Mahipal, can you demonstrate that Mark L. Fergerson is a separate
> entity from yourself?  And Sergio too.  Can you show us separate
> social media accounts?
>
> No? Hmm.
>

wtf ?

To curb your paranoia jamie-boy, leave that nasty medical-meth alone.

  and you lousy troll,  no one reads your blog either,

are you lonely, living in a home for elders ?


James McGinn = Claudius Denk = Fartina Snowstorm

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

#544964

On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 6:35:51 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:

As much as I love Sergio, formerly known as gilber34, ...

You make a nice couple.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web