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

Groups > sci.physics > #559773 > unrolled thread

Re: Physics Stack Exchange Fail: ineptitude of conventional theory

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: Physics Stack Exchange Fail: ineptitude of conventional theory James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:36 -0800
    Re: Physics Stack Exchange Fail: ineptitude of conventional theory Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-06 16:44 -0600

#559773 — Re: Physics Stack Exchange Fail: ineptitude of conventional theory

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/230174/do-or-can-hydrogen-bonds-between-water-molecules-neutralize-their-own-polarity?noredirect=1#comment500249_230174
> 
> 
> Water is unique. My paper describes why. I am not surprised by your inability to dispute it. In so doing you reveal the ineptitude of conventional theory. But that isn't necessary in that conventional theory has thus far--and despite no shortage of resources--failed miserably to reconcile the numerous anomalies of H2O, preferring, instead, to arrogantly dismiss them, hiding behind the perceived validity of their model instead of addressing arguments directly and, thereby, exposing the shortcomings of conventional misthinking. 
> 
> 
> put on hold as off-topic by David Z♦ yesterday
> 
> This question appears to be off-topic for this site. While what’s on- and off-topic is not always intuitive, you can learn more about it by reading the help center. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
> 
> "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – David Z
> If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.
> 1	 	
> You obviously wrote a controversial paper on polarity in water. After discussions at google groups, which leave many questions on your theory open, you ask the community here to help you justify your arguments? – engineer yesterday
>   	 	
> After reading your paper I agree on one point - it is a unique perspective. – Frisbee yesterday
>   	 	
> Water is unique. My paper describes why. I am not surprised by your inability to dispute it. In so doing you reveal the ineptitude of conventional theory. But that isn't necessary in that conventional theory has thus far--and despite no shortage of resources--failed miserably to reconcile the numerous anomalies of H2O, preferring, instead, to arrogantly dismiss them, hiding behind the perceived validity of their model instead of addressing arguments directly and, thereby, exposing the shortcomings of conventional misthinking. – James McGinn 1 hour ago   
>   	 	
> "After discussions at google groups, which leave many questions on your theory open, . . . " – James McGinn 1 hour ago   
>   	 	
> "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – David Z – James McGinn 1 hour ago   
>   	 	
> I'm only concerned with what is correct. If this site wishes to only parrot back what is "mainstream" then you make yourself irrelevant to scientific progress. – James McGinn 1 hour ago   
>   	 	
> If the sissies at this site can't deal with controversial issues you render yourselves irrelevant and boring. – James McGinn 1 hour ago

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#559838

On 3/6/2016 11:36 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-8, James McGinn
> wrote:
>>

>>
>> put on hold as off-topic by David Z♦ yesterday
>>
>> This question appears to be off-topic for this site. While what’s
>> on- and off-topic is not always intuitive, you can learn more about
>> it by reading the help center. The users who voted to close gave
>> this specific reason:
>>
>> "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general
>> correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic,
>> although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context
>> of established science are usually allowed.


>> If this site wishes to only parrot back what is
>> "mainstream" then you make yourself irrelevant to scientific
>> progress.– James McGinn 1 hour ago


>> If the sissies at this site
>> can't deal with controversial issues you render yourselves
>> irrelevant and boring. – James McGinn 1 hour ago
>

McGinn kicked off another site, again.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web