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

Groups > sci.physics > #567436 > unrolled thread

How I Make Scientific Discoveries, by James McGinn

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  How I Make Scientific Discoveries, by James McGinn James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 06:33 -0700
    How I Make Scientific Discoveries, by James McGinn HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 06:41 -0700
      Re: How I Make Scientific Discoveries, by James McGinn benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 12:15 -0400
      Re: How I Make Scientific Discoveries, by James McGinn James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 10:58 -0700
        Re: How I Make Scientific Discoveries, by James McGinn jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-02 18:14 +0000
    Re: How I Make Scientific Discoveries, by James McGinn edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-02 07:22 -0700
    Re: How I Make Scientific Discoveries, by James McGinn Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 18:46 +0200
    Re: How I Make Scientific Discoveries, by James McGinn jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-02 17:39 +0000
    Re: How I Make Scientific Discoveries, by James McGinn its.not.co2@gmail.com - 2016-04-05 21:37 -0700
      Re: How I Make Scientific Discoveries, by James McGinn James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 01:40 -0700

#567436 — How I Make Scientific Discoveries, by James McGinn

How I Make Scientific Discoveries
by James McGinn

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 subject, 
consider the different issues, and 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.) 
And this is why outsiders often make the big breakthroughs.  Outsiders 
aren't as likely to be burdened by a model. 

My breakthrough on hydrogen bonding is a perfect example of this. This discovery would have been impossible if I trusted the validity of the 
existing model of hydrogen bonding. Likewise--and more significantly--
the discovery would have been impossible if I trusted the expertise of 
the people that represent themselves as experts on the topic. I have 
come to realize that, very often, they don't really understand the 
science. They only understand their model and how to that sell it. 

One indicator that a scientific discipline has lost its way is that 
they will bicker with each other over irrelevancies. When I see this 
I know there is a discovery to be made. The trick is to figure out what 
they think they know but only believe. And finding that can be easy 
because you just use the socratic method: keep asking questions until 
you get to a question that they can't answer. That is where the discovery 
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.  (Be aware that many in 
academia make their living creating nonsense. And that is a consequence of 
the fact that there is a big market for it in that many people in the 
public are only interested in simple explanations.  And they look to 
academia to supply that for them.) 

From that point on making the discovery is a matter of common sense. You consider what they aren't thinking about and the answer is obvious--often. 
It always involves something that they would not even consider, something 
on a deeper level of understanding, something that seems crazy to them.   

But then comes the hard part, communicating your discovery.  It is 
especially difficult in that often the people that have the expertise to 
understand it are the same people that don't quite understand the science 
well enough to realize that they have fallen for a false model. And that 
means you have to educate them.  And that is difficult because people in academia are, almost always, tired of learning.  They are tired of 
listening.  They are tired of being sold to.  They only want to sell you 
on their model.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#567441

McFly says
How I Make Scientific Discoveries 
by James McGinn 

I specialize in making scientific discoveries--breakthroughs. 
-----------

I specialize in destroying dimwitted slaptards like McFly 

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

#567477

On 04/02/2016 09:41 AM, HVAC wrote:
> McFly says
> How I Make Scientific Discoveries
> by James McGinn
>
> I specialize in making scientific discoveries--breakthroughs.
> -----------
>
> I specialize in destroying dimwitted slaptards like McFly
>
Still waiting for your list of patents and papers.

Still nothing?

Nobody is surprised.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#567521

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 6:41:19 AM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
> McFly says
> How I Make Scientific Discoveries 
> by James McGinn 
> 
> I specialize in making scientific discoveries--breakthroughs. 
> -----------
> 
> I specialize in destroying dimwitted slaptards like McFly

I'm generally pretty good at ignoring minor distractions.

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

#567524

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 6:41:19 AM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
>> McFly says
>> How I Make Scientific Discoveries 
>> by James McGinn 
>> 
>> I specialize in making scientific discoveries--breakthroughs. 
>> -----------
>> 
>> I specialize in destroying dimwitted slaptards like McFly
> 
> I'm generally pretty good at ignoring minor distractions.

Such as reality.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#567448

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:33:30 AM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> How I Make Scientific Discoveries
> by James McGinn
> 
[]
> 
> My breakthrough on hydrogen bonding is a perfect example of this. 
[James McGinn]
> only understand [James McGinn's] model and how to that sell it. 
> 
[]
[]
> They are tired of 
> listening.  They are tired of being sold to.[]

I am really tired of your drivel.
You claim models are wrong but then try to sell your own.
You claim to flaunt authority yet try to justify your model
based upon your supposed authority.
Others present the evidence for the accepted models and
you again just claim they are wrong, by your supposed authority.

You are a sad man, Jim. I feel truly sorry for you.

The only progress I've seen you make is you no longer claim to
be a Physicist. So I still hope you may try to give up these
other wrong ideas.

Have a good day.
ed

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

#567499

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:6551c1ea-fd79-446a-a5c5-7f31a64d546c@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> How I Make Scientific Discoveries
> by James McGinn
> 
> I specialize in making scientific discoveries<SMACKAKOOK!>

You specialize in pulling moronic blather that has no connection to
reality, straight from your ass, James.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
TornadoTard?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
because much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#567519

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I specialize in making scientific discoveries--breakthroughs.

Delusional kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#568190

Jim

You wrote "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 I agree entirely, as I explained in the following comment written a few weeks ago ...

The brilliant  19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt  first explained how the gravitationally induced temperature gradient forms at the molecular level.  Then James Hansen thought he could ignore that fact (which has never been correctly refuted in any peer-reviewed paper in any physics journal) so the onus is on alarmists and Lukes alike to produce such a paper supporting this fundamental foundation stone of the radiative forcing conjecture, namely the assumption (contrary to long established physics) that isothermal conditions would have existed between the radiating altitude and the surface in the absence of so-called greenhouse gases. There is contrary empirical evidence, so you produce correct physics and counter evidence to support this (false) assumption that is absolutely essential for the GH conjecture to be correct.  It is climatologists who are presenting non-standard physics that is clearly contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics because there would be unbalanced energy potentials and entropy could thus increase due to the extra gravitational potential energy at the radiating altitude relative to that at the surface.

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

#568223

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 9:38:02 PM UTC-7, its.n...@gmail.com wrote:
> Jim
> 
> You wrote "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 I agree entirely, as I explained in the following comment written a few weeks ago ...
> 
> The brilliant  19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt  first explained how the gravitationally induced temperature gradient forms at the molecular level.  Then James Hansen thought he could ignore that fact (which has never been correctly refuted in any peer-reviewed paper in any physics journal) so the onus is on alarmists and Lukes alike to produce such a paper supporting this fundamental foundation stone of the radiative forcing conjecture, namely the assumption (contrary to long established physics) that isothermal conditions would have existed between the radiating altitude and the surface in the absence of so-called greenhouse gases. There is contrary empirical evidence, so you produce correct physics and counter evidence to support this (false) assumption that is absolutely essential for the GH conjecture to be correct.  It is climatologists who are presenting non-standard physics that is clearly contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics because there would be unbalanced energy potentials and entropy could thus increase due to the extra gravitational potential energy at the radiating altitude relative to that at the surface.

So, you found a way to show that something somebody, Hansen, once said is wrong.  I have no reason to doubt that you and Lochsmidt are correct.  The problem is nobody cares. Warmers don't care.  lukes dont' care.  Journalists don't care.  Public doesn't care.  Most likely none of them would make the slightest effort to comprehend it.  Hansen probably wouldn't even acknowledge the question if you put it before him. Skeptics wouldn't care either because warmers have made ten of thousands of plainly dumb statements and continue making them daily.  

The fact is there really is no real scientific discussion about global warming, except with a few skeptic arguing minor items.  That is the reality of the situation.  It's just a brain-dead boring subject that nobody really cares about.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web