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

Groups > sci.physics > #557736 > unrolled thread

Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity

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: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 19:45 -0800
    Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-28 20:01 -0800
      Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-28 20:06 -0800
        Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 20:26 -0800
      Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 20:24 -0800
        Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-28 21:18 -0800
          Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 21:52 -0800
            Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-28 22:33 -0800
              Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 22:49 -0800
                Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 11:06 -0600
                  Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 10:16 -0800
                Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-29 11:31 -0800
                  Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 13:46 -0600
                    Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-29 12:03 -0800
                      Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:17 -0600
                        Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-29 12:23 -0800
                        Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:57 -0800
                          Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 21:24 +0000
                            Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:57 -0800
                              Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 23:52 +0000
                    Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:11 -0800
                      Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:24 +0000
              Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 08:40 -0800
                Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 11:13 -0600
                Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 19:17 +0000
                  Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:43 -0800
                    Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 14:10 -0600
                    Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:25 +0000
          Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 08:45 -0800
            Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 19:19 +0000
              Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:42 -0800
                Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:26 +0000
                  Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:48 -0800
                    Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 21:24 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#557736 — Re: Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity
> 
> I saw the following video and then initiated the email conversation, with Richard Saykally, that follows.  What follow immediately is some choice quotes that I am, effectively, responding to from the video:
> 
> 
https://vimeo.com/11854837
> 
> Go to 37:00 to 38:05
> 
> Rich Saykally:
> "So, what's the deal.  It's so simple.  This is water, H2O, everybody knows that.  Right?  It is fair to say that we understand everything about an isolated water molecule.  We know it's structure to those kind of decimal places.  We know the properties of an isolated water molecule to very high precision and in great detail."
> 
> "So what's the problem?"
> 
> "The problem is that we still can't properly describe, we could say is, how do water molecules touch? What exactly is the physics of the interaction when two water molecules come together to form a hydrogen bond?  We still can't describe that in sufficient detail to be able to predict the properties of the liquid and the solid that are the ultimate manifestation of water.  That's the issue. What's the nature of the hydrogen bond?" 
> 
> Further along, 38:25 to 38:57  you state: 
> 
> "My goal in this project is to develop the ultimate theoretical model of water where you ask me any question, about what makes water wet, and I can answer it by doing a calculation with my model.  That's the goal.  We are a long way from that yet."  Then there wouldn't be all these arguments arguments.  Somebody would make some outrageous claim like rings and chains and we'd just do the calculations and, (shrugging) tell them that can't be right."
> 
> The following conversation is in reference to this paper:
> 
> https://zenodo.org/record/37224
> 
> ******************************************
> 
> Dear Dr. Saykally,
> 
> I am a scientist pursuing theoretical advancements . . .hydrogen bonding in water and implications thereof.  '  . . . . Either I have made an error or I have happened upon a breakthrough. I have written a paper 
> https://zenodo.org/record/37224
> Might you be able to give me some feedback?
> 
> *********************
> 
> Jim....To be frank and honest I think that you are wasting your time on these arguments.  There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems.  It is the old language and the oversimplifiedl level of your argument(sorry) that causes the confusion.  Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically(ab initio quantum mechanics), and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision.  There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid, and rare events that are very difficult to model.  Have a look at my pub list for some recent  papers on this.  But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
> 					Best,,,Rich
> 
> *********************
> From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016
> 
> Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically (ab initio quantum mechanics),
> 
> It's regrettable that you, it seems, use this fact as an excuse rather than as a tool.
> 
> and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision.
> 
> Uh, yeah, so?  If you can't point to any such "highly detailed predictions" to easily and concisely dispute (or confirm) the mechanism that I delineated then it is obvious that your models are worthless.  All you have is one big, circular argument that has no practical purpose--other then to keep people employed pretending they understand something they don't.  
> 
> There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid.
> 
> "Statistical fluctuations?'  Are you serious?  Is there any such thing as a fluctuation that isn't statistical?  Do all your explanations involve circular reasoning?   
> 
> There is wide disparity in opinion about the nature of low density anomalies. Additionally, the standard model of freezing is obvious nonsense, surface tension also.  And there is little or no resolution of the numerous other anomalies.  Yet, you'd have us believe you got it all figured out.
> 
> You can't address simple issues like the one I raised, yet you'd have me and the rest of the public just turn a blind eye because you gave us your assurance that you got it all figured out. Isn't that essentially what you are saying here?
> 
> Science doesn't work this way. If you can't answer questions and address issues you are just pretending to be a scientist.
> 
> and rare events that are very difficult to model.  Have a look at my pub list for some recent  papers on this.
> 
> So, you can't give me a direct, relevant reference.  Instead, you want to send me on a wild goose chase to find something that exists only in your imagination.  
> 
> But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
> 
> LOL.  Obviously if you can't address the issue I raised, then they aren't well understood by you, are they?
> 
> I don't want to speculate about your motivation, but the fact that you can't directly address the simple issue I indicated suggest there is something very wrong here. Putting the best spin on it I might suggest you have mistaken your model for reality. But if that was the case one would think you would at least attempt an argument that referenced your model, even if only in a peripheral manner. So there must be some reason you are evading it.
> 
> *********************
> From Rich Saykally to James McGinn, Jan 3rd, 2016
> 
> Jim...I am surprised at your incivility!  This is just science.....not a prize fight!   The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims.
> 
> *********************
> From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016
> 
> I was surprised by your arrogance and self-righteousness.  Honestly,
> 
> If you can't address my thinking directly, honestly and/or you can't (or won't) help me find somebody (a graduate student, for example) that can, then just say so.  
> 
> Moreover, you seem to have no idea how absurdly evasive you sound suggesting one "must' always propose an experiment to discuss theory. That is the talk of a bureaucrat, not a scientist. Real scientists have no need for that kind of dogmatic nonsense. Honestly, you seem out of touch. (Sorry to be so blunt.)
> 
> I've exchanged no less than eight emails with Alan Soper over the last week.  Like you, he thought he originally assured me that the science is sound.  But he, at least, attempted an argument.  It turns out he didn't understand the full implications of what he believed. Now he is beginning to understand the limits of his beliefs.
> 
> If you can't explain why you believe what you believe then chances are you don't understand it, you just believe it.  
> 
> As I explained to Alan:
> "In general, my readings convinced me that there are a lot of assumptions associated with the standard model that are not empirical and that are otherwise unexplained.  It seems that these assumptions originated as honest conjectures but then, over a number of years, they gradually became adopted as dishonest "truths".  In other words, they were adopted for reasons that involve explanatory convenience and not for reasons that are scientifically credible."
> 
> *********************
> From Rich Saykally to James McGinn, Jan 4th, 2016
> 
> Jim...I wish you luck.
> 				Rich
> *********************
> From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 4th, 2016
> 
> Rich,
> I went to your website, something I should have before I first contacted you. I now realize you weren't being arrogant, you are just confused. And I am beginning to realize that this is the case for much of academia.
> In your video you are asked why water is wet.  You responded, "because of strong, tetrahedrally coordinated bonds."  (Which is not completely false.) With those words there is a blatant contradiction staring you in the face. A contradiction that you do not see: If tetrahedrally coordinated bonds are strong why is liquid water fluid? Why is it not hard?
> 
> You can't see the relevance of this question because your whole paradigm is designed to dismiss it. Consequently the whole standard model is convoluted. You and much of academia are in a state of continuing confusion.  And, therefore, a big part of the story that you present to the public involves concealing your confusion. And this gets to the heart of why you can't (or won't) answer simple questions. You are pretending to understand and wish only to maintain the illusion.
> 
> As I indicated, you are very much not alone in this respect. All of academia is involved in maintaining the illusion.
> 
> The answer to the question is that tetrahedral coordination achieves symmetry, thereby neutralizing polarity, as explained in my manuscript. This is why liquid water is fluid. But the real difficulties come when you try to reconcile this notion with ice and the freezing process.
> 
> I hope there are no hard feeling. But if there are it is not my fault, it is your fault for not being honest about what you really don't understand.
> 
> 
> Discussion:
> 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]). 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.) 
> 
> 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] | [next] | [standalone]

#557748

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 7:45:03 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity
> > 
> > I saw the following video and then initiated the email conversation, with Richard Saykally, that follows.  What follow immediately is some choice quotes that I am, effectively, responding to from the video:
> > 
> > 
> https://vimeo.com/11854837
> > 
> > Go to 37:00 to 38:05
> > 
> > Rich Saykally:
> > "So, what's the deal.  It's so simple.  This is water, H2O, everybody knows that.  Right?  It is fair to say that we understand everything about an isolated water molecule.  We know it's structure to those kind of decimal places.  We know the properties of an isolated water molecule to very high precision and in great detail."
> > 
> > "So what's the problem?"
> > 
> > "The problem is that we still can't properly describe, we could say is, how do water molecules touch? What exactly is the physics of the interaction when two water molecules come together to form a hydrogen bond?  We still can't describe that in sufficient detail to be able to predict the properties of the liquid and the solid that are the ultimate manifestation of water.  That's the issue. What's the nature of the hydrogen bond?" 
> > 
> > Further along, 38:25 to 38:57  you state: 
> > 
> > "My goal in this project is to develop the ultimate theoretical model of water where you ask me any question, about what makes water wet, and I can answer it by doing a calculation with my model.  That's the goal.  We are a long way from that yet."  Then there wouldn't be all these arguments arguments.  Somebody would make some outrageous claim like rings and chains and we'd just do the calculations and, (shrugging) tell them that can't be right."
> > 
> > The following conversation is in reference to this paper:
> > 
> > https://zenodo.org/record/37224
> > 
> > ******************************************
> > 
> > Dear Dr. Saykally,
> > 
> > I am a scientist pursuing theoretical advancements . . .hydrogen bonding in water and implications thereof.  '  . . . . Either I have made an error or I have happened upon a breakthrough. I have written a paper 
> > https://zenodo.org/record/37224
> > Might you be able to give me some feedback?
> > 
> > *********************
> > 
> > Jim....To be frank and honest I think that you are wasting your time on these arguments.  There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems.  It is the old language and the oversimplifiedl level of your argument(sorry) that causes the confusion.  Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically(ab initio quantum mechanics), and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision.  There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid, and rare events that are very difficult to model.  Have a look at my pub list for some recent  papers on this.  But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
> > 					Best,,,Rich
> > 
> > *********************
> > From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016
> > 
> > Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically (ab initio quantum mechanics),
> > 
> > It's regrettable that you, it seems, use this fact as an excuse rather than as a tool.
> > 
> > and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision.
> > 
> > Uh, yeah, so?  If you can't point to any such "highly detailed predictions" to easily and concisely dispute (or confirm) the mechanism that I delineated then it is obvious that your models are worthless.  All you have is one big, circular argument that has no practical purpose--other then to keep people employed pretending they understand something they don't.  
> > 
> > There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid.
> > 
> > "Statistical fluctuations?'  Are you serious?  Is there any such thing as a fluctuation that isn't statistical?  Do all your explanations involve circular reasoning?   
> > 
> > There is wide disparity in opinion about the nature of low density anomalies. Additionally, the standard model of freezing is obvious nonsense, surface tension also.  And there is little or no resolution of the numerous other anomalies.  Yet, you'd have us believe you got it all figured out.
> > 
> > You can't address simple issues like the one I raised, yet you'd have me and the rest of the public just turn a blind eye because you gave us your assurance that you got it all figured out. Isn't that essentially what you are saying here?
> > 
> > Science doesn't work this way. If you can't answer questions and address issues you are just pretending to be a scientist.
> > 
> > and rare events that are very difficult to model.  Have a look at my pub list for some recent  papers on this.
> > 
> > So, you can't give me a direct, relevant reference.  Instead, you want to send me on a wild goose chase to find something that exists only in your imagination.  
> > 
> > But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
> > 
> > LOL.  Obviously if you can't address the issue I raised, then they aren't well understood by you, are they?
> > 
> > I don't want to speculate about your motivation, but the fact that you can't directly address the simple issue I indicated suggest there is something very wrong here. Putting the best spin on it I might suggest you have mistaken your model for reality. But if that was the case one would think you would at least attempt an argument that referenced your model, even if only in a peripheral manner. So there must be some reason you are evading it.
> > 
> > *********************
> > From Rich Saykally to James McGinn, Jan 3rd, 2016
> > 
> > Jim...I am surprised at your incivility!  This is just science.....not a prize fight!   The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims.
> > 
> > *********************
> > From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016
> > 
> > I was surprised by your arrogance and self-righteousness.  Honestly,
> > 
> > If you can't address my thinking directly, honestly and/or you can't (or won't) help me find somebody (a graduate student, for example) that can, then just say so.  
> > 
> > Moreover, you seem to have no idea how absurdly evasive you sound suggesting one "must' always propose an experiment to discuss theory. That is the talk of a bureaucrat, not a scientist. Real scientists have no need for that kind of dogmatic nonsense. Honestly, you seem out of touch. (Sorry to be so blunt.)
> > 
> > I've exchanged no less than eight emails with Alan Soper over the last week.  Like you, he thought he originally assured me that the science is sound.  But he, at least, attempted an argument.  It turns out he didn't understand the full implications of what he believed. Now he is beginning to understand the limits of his beliefs.
> > 
> > If you can't explain why you believe what you believe then chances are you don't understand it, you just believe it.  
> > 
> > As I explained to Alan:
> > "In general, my readings convinced me that there are a lot of assumptions associated with the standard model that are not empirical and that are otherwise unexplained.  It seems that these assumptions originated as honest conjectures but then, over a number of years, they gradually became adopted as dishonest "truths".  In other words, they were adopted for reasons that involve explanatory convenience and not for reasons that are scientifically credible."
> > 
> > *********************
> > From Rich Saykally to James McGinn, Jan 4th, 2016
> > 
> > Jim...I wish you luck.
> > 				Rich
> > *********************
> > From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 4th, 2016
> > 
> > Rich,
> > I went to your website, something I should have before I first contacted you. I now realize you weren't being arrogant, you are just confused. And I am beginning to realize that this is the case for much of academia.
> > In your video you are asked why water is wet.  You responded, "because of strong, tetrahedrally coordinated bonds."  (Which is not completely false.) With those words there is a blatant contradiction staring you in the face. A contradiction that you do not see: If tetrahedrally coordinated bonds are strong why is liquid water fluid? Why is it not hard?
> > 
> > You can't see the relevance of this question because your whole paradigm is designed to dismiss it. Consequently the whole standard model is convoluted. You and much of academia are in a state of continuing confusion.  And, therefore, a big part of the story that you present to the public involves concealing your confusion. And this gets to the heart of why you can't (or won't) answer simple questions. You are pretending to understand and wish only to maintain the illusion.
> > 
> > As I indicated, you are very much not alone in this respect. All of academia is involved in maintaining the illusion.
> > 
> > The answer to the question is that tetrahedral coordination achieves symmetry, thereby neutralizing polarity, as explained in my manuscript. This is why liquid water is fluid. But the real difficulties come when you try to reconcile this notion with ice and the freezing process.
> > 
> > I hope there are no hard feeling. But if there are it is not my fault, it is your fault for not being honest about what you really don't understand.
> > 
> > 
> > Discussion:
> > 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]). 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.) 
> > 
> > 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.

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. Here is my favorite quote from Dr. Saykally, and you should take this very, very seriously...

"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally

On this point you have failed miserably, and this is perfectly clear to all readers here. Like others before you, you simply don't know what you don't know, and that is just sad. This fellow clearly knows his stuff...

http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/rjsgrp/

http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/faculty/chem/saykally

... where by you are a pretender, at most, and clearly not a physicist in the least.

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

#557749

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 8:01:44 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 7:45:03 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity
> > > 
> > > I saw the following video and then initiated the email conversation, with Richard Saykally, that follows.  What follow immediately is some choice quotes that I am, effectively, responding to from the video:
> > > 
> > > 
> > https://vimeo.com/11854837
> > > 
> > > Go to 37:00 to 38:05
> > > 
> > > Rich Saykally:
> > > "So, what's the deal.  It's so simple.  This is water, H2O, everybody knows that.  Right?  It is fair to say that we understand everything about an isolated water molecule.  We know it's structure to those kind of decimal places.  We know the properties of an isolated water molecule to very high precision and in great detail."
> > > 
> > > "So what's the problem?"
> > > 
> > > "The problem is that we still can't properly describe, we could say is, how do water molecules touch? What exactly is the physics of the interaction when two water molecules come together to form a hydrogen bond?  We still can't describe that in sufficient detail to be able to predict the properties of the liquid and the solid that are the ultimate manifestation of water.  That's the issue. What's the nature of the hydrogen bond?" 
> > > 
> > > Further along, 38:25 to 38:57  you state: 
> > > 
> > > "My goal in this project is to develop the ultimate theoretical model of water where you ask me any question, about what makes water wet, and I can answer it by doing a calculation with my model.  That's the goal.  We are a long way from that yet."  Then there wouldn't be all these arguments arguments.  Somebody would make some outrageous claim like rings and chains and we'd just do the calculations and, (shrugging) tell them that can't be right."
> > > 
> > > The following conversation is in reference to this paper:
> > > 
> > > https://zenodo.org/record/37224
> > > 
> > > ******************************************
> > > 
> > > Dear Dr. Saykally,
> > > 
> > > I am a scientist pursuing theoretical advancements . . .hydrogen bonding in water and implications thereof.  '  . . . . Either I have made an error or I have happened upon a breakthrough. I have written a paper 
> > > https://zenodo.org/record/37224
> > > Might you be able to give me some feedback?
> > > 
> > > *********************
> > > 
> > > Jim....To be frank and honest I think that you are wasting your time on these arguments.  There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems.  It is the old language and the oversimplifiedl level of your argument(sorry) that causes the confusion.  Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically(ab initio quantum mechanics), and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision.  There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid, and rare events that are very difficult to model.  Have a look at my pub list for some recent  papers on this.  But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
> > > 					Best,,,Rich
> > > 
> > > *********************
> > > From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016
> > > 
> > > Modern chemistry treats hydrogen bonding quantum mechanically (ab initio quantum mechanics),
> > > 
> > > It's regrettable that you, it seems, use this fact as an excuse rather than as a tool.
> > > 
> > > and makes highly detailed predictions about hydrogen bonding in water that have been verified by spectroscopy experiments to very high numerical precision.
> > > 
> > > Uh, yeah, so?  If you can't point to any such "highly detailed predictions" to easily and concisely dispute (or confirm) the mechanism that I delineated then it is obvious that your models are worthless.  All you have is one big, circular argument that has no practical purpose--other then to keep people employed pretending they understand something they don't.  
> > > 
> > > There are indeed several phenomena involving water that are not yet satisfactorily explained, but these are a result of the statistical fluctuations that occur in the liquid.
> > > 
> > > "Statistical fluctuations?'  Are you serious?  Is there any such thing as a fluctuation that isn't statistical?  Do all your explanations involve circular reasoning?   
> > > 
> > > There is wide disparity in opinion about the nature of low density anomalies. Additionally, the standard model of freezing is obvious nonsense, surface tension also.  And there is little or no resolution of the numerous other anomalies.  Yet, you'd have us believe you got it all figured out.
> > > 
> > > You can't address simple issues like the one I raised, yet you'd have me and the rest of the public just turn a blind eye because you gave us your assurance that you got it all figured out. Isn't that essentially what you are saying here?
> > > 
> > > Science doesn't work this way. If you can't answer questions and address issues you are just pretending to be a scientist.
> > > 
> > > and rare events that are very difficult to model.  Have a look at my pub list for some recent  papers on this.
> > > 
> > > So, you can't give me a direct, relevant reference.  Instead, you want to send me on a wild goose chase to find something that exists only in your imagination.  
> > > 
> > > But the nature of hydrogen bonding and surface tension are really quite well understood.
> > > 
> > > LOL.  Obviously if you can't address the issue I raised, then they aren't well understood by you, are they?
> > > 
> > > I don't want to speculate about your motivation, but the fact that you can't directly address the simple issue I indicated suggest there is something very wrong here. Putting the best spin on it I might suggest you have mistaken your model for reality. But if that was the case one would think you would at least attempt an argument that referenced your model, even if only in a peripheral manner. So there must be some reason you are evading it.
> > > 
> > > *********************
> > > From Rich Saykally to James McGinn, Jan 3rd, 2016
> > > 
> > > Jim...I am surprised at your incivility!  This is just science.....not a prize fight!   The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims.
> > > 
> > > *********************
> > > From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 3rd, 2016
> > > 
> > > I was surprised by your arrogance and self-righteousness.  Honestly,
> > > 
> > > If you can't address my thinking directly, honestly and/or you can't (or won't) help me find somebody (a graduate student, for example) that can, then just say so.  
> > > 
> > > Moreover, you seem to have no idea how absurdly evasive you sound suggesting one "must' always propose an experiment to discuss theory. That is the talk of a bureaucrat, not a scientist. Real scientists have no need for that kind of dogmatic nonsense. Honestly, you seem out of touch. (Sorry to be so blunt.)
> > > 
> > > I've exchanged no less than eight emails with Alan Soper over the last week.  Like you, he thought he originally assured me that the science is sound.  But he, at least, attempted an argument.  It turns out he didn't understand the full implications of what he believed. Now he is beginning to understand the limits of his beliefs.
> > > 
> > > If you can't explain why you believe what you believe then chances are you don't understand it, you just believe it.  
> > > 
> > > As I explained to Alan:
> > > "In general, my readings convinced me that there are a lot of assumptions associated with the standard model that are not empirical and that are otherwise unexplained.  It seems that these assumptions originated as honest conjectures but then, over a number of years, they gradually became adopted as dishonest "truths".  In other words, they were adopted for reasons that involve explanatory convenience and not for reasons that are scientifically credible."
> > > 
> > > *********************
> > > From Rich Saykally to James McGinn, Jan 4th, 2016
> > > 
> > > Jim...I wish you luck.
> > > 				Rich
> > > *********************
> > > From James McGinn to Rich Saykally, Jan 4th, 2016
> > > 
> > > Rich,
> > > I went to your website, something I should have before I first contacted you. I now realize you weren't being arrogant, you are just confused. And I am beginning to realize that this is the case for much of academia.
> > > In your video you are asked why water is wet.  You responded, "because of strong, tetrahedrally coordinated bonds."  (Which is not completely false.) With those words there is a blatant contradiction staring you in the face. A contradiction that you do not see: If tetrahedrally coordinated bonds are strong why is liquid water fluid? Why is it not hard?
> > > 
> > > You can't see the relevance of this question because your whole paradigm is designed to dismiss it. Consequently the whole standard model is convoluted. You and much of academia are in a state of continuing confusion.  And, therefore, a big part of the story that you present to the public involves concealing your confusion. And this gets to the heart of why you can't (or won't) answer simple questions. You are pretending to understand and wish only to maintain the illusion.
> > > 
> > > As I indicated, you are very much not alone in this respect. All of academia is involved in maintaining the illusion.
> > > 
> > > The answer to the question is that tetrahedral coordination achieves symmetry, thereby neutralizing polarity, as explained in my manuscript. This is why liquid water is fluid. But the real difficulties come when you try to reconcile this notion with ice and the freezing process.
> > > 
> > > I hope there are no hard feeling. But if there are it is not my fault, it is your fault for not being honest about what you really don't understand.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Discussion:
> > > 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]). 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.) 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
> 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. Here is my favorite quote from Dr. Saykally, and you should take this very, very seriously...
> 
> "The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
> 
> On this point you have failed miserably, and this is perfectly clear to all readers here. Like others before you, you simply don't know what you don't know, and that is just sad. This fellow clearly knows his stuff...
> 
> http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/rjsgrp/
> 
> http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/faculty/chem/saykally
> 
> ... where by you are a pretender, at most, and clearly not a physicist in the least.

I forgot to add... no offense intended, but you need a new hobby...

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

#557756

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 8:06:26 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> I forgot to add... no offense intended, but you need a new hobby...

You forgot to tell us the nature of your expertise on the subject discussed in the paper.  

Go ahead, nose-picker, tell us your credentials.

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

#557755

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 8:01:44 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, rips you a new a$$hole,

Actually, his dispute was completely superficial.  And so is yours. 

Failure to address content--especially by a professional--shows that he doesn't really know his subject.  

> "The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally

That is an absurdly defensive posture for Saykally to take.  Note that I had asked him to comment on the mechanism that I proposed.  That was all I asked.  And he completely dodged that issue. Why do you think that is?

Let me ask you this, given that you, obviously, have no understanding of the subject of the paper, did Saykally's dispute give you any kind of better understanding of the phenomena under discussion?

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

#557767

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 8:24:36 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 8:01:44 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > So, basically, this fellow, Dr. Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, rips you a new a$$hole,
> 
> Actually, his dispute was completely superficial.  And so is yours. 
> 
> Failure to address content--especially by a professional--shows that he doesn't really know his subject.  
> 
> > "The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
> 
> That is an absurdly defensive posture for Saykally to take.  Note that I had asked him to comment on the mechanism that I proposed.  That was all I asked.  And he completely dodged that issue. Why do you think that is?

He didn't dodge the issue because he saw no issue, because there IS no issue. If you don't have any experimental proof, you've got nothing. If you were really a physicist, or any kind of scientist at all, you would already know that this is a primary requirement in the field. You are no physicist, indeed, you are not a scientist at all! Just a pretender, as Dr. Saykally has shown. You've been irrevocably exposed.
 
> Let me ask you this, given that you, obviously, have no understanding of the subject of the paper, did Saykally's dispute give you any kind of better understanding of the phenomena under discussion?

Dr. Saykally is not the issue here, he simply pointed out...

"So, what's the deal.  It's so simple.  This is water, H2O, everybody knows that.  Right?  It is fair to say that we understand everything about an isolated water molecule.  We know it's structure to those kind of decimal places.  We know the properties of an isolated water molecule to very high precision and in great detail." 

Did you in any way comprehend his comments? He is telling you that in order to make an extraordinary claim, such as you have made, you must provide extraordinary proof, including repeatable experiments, experiments that anyone can reproduce over and over again, with the same result. Since you have not provided such experiments, you can safely be completely ignored by the scientific community, and if you were really a physicist (or just a generic scientist), you should already know this. In my view, you should consider yourself lucky that he responded at all!

I'm not your problem here, YOU are the problem. I readily admit that I am not a meteorologist or climate scientist, not a chemist, I'm just a guy with a few bachelor's degrees in physics, math, astronomy, basic stuff, about 50 years ago, but I have a lot of broad knowledge of science in general, but I am familiar with the way things work in the scientific community, and you are just pissed off because you are not being respected, even though you are breaking all the rules and trying to take shortcuts that are prohibited in this community. You haven't paid any dues and don't deserve the benefit of the doubt; anything you have to say needs to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and in this regard you have completely failed.

I don't know what else to say to you. You have not provided a lick of proof to support your own positions, and your feedback on this forum, from both actual scientists and knowledgeable amateurs alike, has been nothing but negative. Not one person that I can see champions your cause, and yet you persist in slogging forward, claiming that no one is smart enough or educated enough to "see the light". Jim P. is probably correct when he states that you are delusional. I have no idea why anyone would put himself in such a position, but then, I am no psychiatrist, either.

I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise (and neither do you, for that matter), but I have a GREAT bullshit detector... and you may have broken it!

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

#557770

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise 

Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.

Here are some links to my undisputed paper:

https://zenodo.org/record/37224 

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

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

#557780

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise 
> 
> Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.
> 
> Here are some links to my undisputed paper:
> 
> https://zenodo.org/record/37224 
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

Just more of the same from you; not a single experiment, not a single calculation, no mathematical argument, no chemistry argument, nothing of substance whatsoever, just a large number of words, all of it raw speculation. SPECULATION!

And yet, you remain miffed that professionals don't take you seriously. Really?

Zinodo.org is where you published your paper... here is a review of this site, from https://sixstat.com/ratings-reviews/zenodo.org/ ...

"zenodo.org was registered 3 years 3 months ago. It has a alexa rank of #518,752 in the world. This domain uses the .org extension. It's Google PageRank is 6/10. It is estimated to be worth $ 1,680.00 with a daily income of $ 7.00."

In other words, perhaps they will publish just about anything, that $7 per day is very important...

If I had the time or inclination I would calculate your score on the Crackpot Index...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

... but right off the bat you score some low-hanging fruit...

* 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

* 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it. 

* 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory

* 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 

* 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 

* 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 

Earlier you advised me to quit while I was ahead... maybe you should quit before you fall so far behind that you can never recover... but maybe it is too late for that by now...

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

#557788

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise 
> > 
> > Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.
> > 
> > Here are some links to my undisputed paper:
> > 
> > https://zenodo.org/record/37224 
> > 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> 
> Just more of the same from you

Do you think you'd be so emotional if you had a substantive dispute with my hypothesis?

Think about it.

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

#557879

On 2/29/2016 12:49 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes
>> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8,
>>> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of
>>>> expertise
>>>

>>>
>>> Here are some links to my retard paper:
>>>
>>
>> Just more of the same from you
>
> Do you think you'd be so emotional if you had a substantive dispute
> with my hypothesis?
>

he's not emotional at all, just stating facts.

your hypothesis is doo-doo.

> Think about it.

no need.

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

#557924

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 9:07:18 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> he's not emotional at all, just stating facts.

Is it not a fact that his dispute is emotional, not subtantive?
Answer the question you evasive jackass.

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

#557958

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:49:11 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:52:34 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:18:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I have no credentials whatsoever in this specific field of expertise 
> > > 
> > > Don't sell yourself short, your dispute of my paper was no less substantive than was that of Saykally, and he's a Berkeley professor.
> > > 
> > > Here are some links to my undisputed paper:
> > > 
> > > https://zenodo.org/record/37224 
> > > 
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> > 
> > Just more of the same from you
> 
> Do you think you'd be so emotional if you had a substantive dispute with my hypothesis?
> 
> Think about it.

James, you're a laugh riot! Let's review a few facts, facts that you yourself have presented;

1. You post a video and several segments of your email correspondence with Dr. Saykally, a UC Berkeley physical chemist.

2. In this exchange you present to him a link to you paper and ask for his feedback.

3. Dr. Saykally replies to you, and in that process he states "To be frank and honest I think that you are wasting your time on these arguments.  There are no mysteries about the hydrogen bond in water, or in other systems.  It is the old language and the oversimplifiedl level of your argument(sorry) that causes the confusion." 

I would call that response 'feedback', even if you don't. You should consider yourself lucky that he even read your paper, even though his reply indicates that he thinks you might be confused.

4. You (being the actual emotional one here), respond to Dr. Saykally with phrases like these; 

"It's regrettable that you, it seems, use this fact as an excuse...", 

"You can't address simple issues like the one I raised, yet you'd have me and the rest of the public just turn a blind eye because you gave us your assurance that you got it all figured out. Isn't that essentially what you are saying here?"

"Science doesn't work this way. If you can't answer questions and address issues you are just pretending to be a scientist."

"Obviously if you can't address the issue I raised, then they aren't well understood by you, are they?"

"I might suggest you have mistaken your model for reality."

4. Dr. Saykally responds with much more restraint (and much less emotion than your own comments had) than most people would, saying ... "Jim...I am surprised at your incivility!  This is just science.....not a prize fight!   The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims."

5. This is exactly what most people on this forum have been telling you all along...

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan. 

6. You keep DEMANDING that anyone who disagrees with you must prove their position to YOU, but the reality of the scientific community is just the reverse.

There is no way in the world that I, or anyone else, needs to provide, as you have stated, "a substantive dispute with my hypothesis". The burden of proof lies squarely on you own shoulders. If you do not agree with this perspective, well, it only goes to show that you have little knowledge of the Scientific Method, and is just another bullet in the gun that claims you are not a physicist at all, but just another crackpot seeking attention. Not that you are alone in this regard, you have plenty of company on these forums.

If you can't walk the walk and talk the talk, you shouldn't be making these extraordinary claims to begin with, at least not in public. It is pretty obvious that you don't have the math and chemistry chops to fool anybody.

What do you think this indicates?

Think about it.

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

#557983

On 2/29/2016 1:31 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 4. Dr. Saykally responds with much more restraint (and much less emotion than your own comments
> had) than most people would, saying ... "Jim...I am surprised at your incivility!  This is just
> science.....not a prize fight!   The way our business works is that one who argues that a given
> model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test
> that can clearly evidence the claims."
>
> 5. This is exactly what most people on this forum have been telling you all along...
>
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan.
>
> 6. You keep DEMANDING that anyone who disagrees with you must prove their position to YOU, but
> the reality of the scientific community is just the reverse.
>
> There is no way in the world that I, or anyone else, needs to provide, as you have stated, "a
> substantive dispute with my hypothesis". The burden of proof lies squarely on you own shoulders.
> If you do not agree with this perspective, well, it only goes to show that you have little
> knowledge of the Scientific Method, and is just another bullet in the gun that claims you are not
> a physicist at all, but just another crackpot seeking attention. Not that you are alone in this
> regard, you have plenty of company on these forums.
>
> If you can't walk the walk and talk the talk, you shouldn't be making these extraordinary claims
> to begin with, at least not in public. It is pretty obvious that you don't have the math and
> chemistry chops to fool anybody.
>
> What do you think this indicates?
>
> Think about it.

What you lay out for Jim, however, involves work. This is not in fact 
what he wants to do. Instead, he is happy to banter and bluster, because 
it's not really the scientific point he's interested in, but rather some 
attention.

He's been highly successful with his banter/bluster tactics at 
sustaining attention, even if it means resurrecting old conversations or 
replying to himself.

It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since 
he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now, 
there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.


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

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

#557995

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since 
> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now, 
> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.

"Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

-- Robert A. Heinlein

I know, I know... too much time on my hands, I need to do something more productive...

\Paul A

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

#558005

On 2/29/2016 2:03 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
>> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
>> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.
>
> "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
>
> -- Robert A. Heinlein

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw

>
> I know, I know... too much time on my hands, I need to do something more productive...
>
> \Paul A
>


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

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

#558008

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:17:06 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 2:03 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
> >> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
> >> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.
> >
> > "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
> >
> > -- Robert A. Heinlein
 
> "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
> besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw

Touché!

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

#558041

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:17:06 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 2:03 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
> >> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
> >> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.
> >
> > "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
> >
> > -- Robert A. Heinlein
> 
> "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
> besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw

So that everybody can see what all the excitement is about:

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

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

#558062

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:17:06 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/29/2016 2:03 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> >
>> >> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
>> >> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
>> >> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.
>> >
>> > "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
>> >
>> > -- Robert A. Heinlein
>> 
>> "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
>> besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw
> 
> So that everybody can see what all the excitement is about:
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

So where is your proof, i.e. an experiment, that shows your bat shit
crazy theory is true?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558082

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 1:31:10 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:17:06 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/29/2016 2:03 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
> >> >> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
> >> >> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.
> >> >
> >> > "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
> >> >
> >> > -- Robert A. Heinlein
> >> 
> >> "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
> >> besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw
> > 
> > So that everybody can see what all the excitement is about:
> > 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> 
> So where is your proof

You are my proof.

Get it?

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

#558114

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 1:31:10 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:17:06 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> >> On 2/29/2016 2:03 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> It doesn't even matter anymore if all he gets is stony silence, since
>> >> >> he's gotten to the point where he can amuse himself in his own mud. Now,
>> >> >> there's only the question of whether you want to crawl in there with him.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
>> >> >
>> >> > -- Robert A. Heinlein
>> >> 
>> >> "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
>> >> besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw
>> > 
>> > So that everybody can see what all the excitement is about:
>> > 
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
>> 
>> So where is your proof
> 
> You are my proof.
> 
> Get it?

Yes, you are bat shit crazy; I got that a long time ago.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web