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

Groups > sci.physics > #563866 > unrolled thread

Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes 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: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 09:47 -0700
    Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 18:51 +0100
      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 11:18 -0700
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 21:40 +0100
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 14:21 -0700
            Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 06:24 +0100
      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-20 16:11 -0400
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 13:40 -0700
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-20 23:17 +0000
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity diblert@evil.megacorp (Diblert) - 2016-03-20 21:03 +0000
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-20 21:06 -0400
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 08:03 +0100
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-21 13:31 -0400
            Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:46 +0100
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-21 16:49 +0800
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-21 10:07 -0400
      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-20 14:39 -0600
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 05:47 +0100
      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:01 -0700
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:31 +0100
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:30 -0700
            Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:16 +0100
              Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 21:34 -0700
                Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:01 +0100
                  Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:40 -0600
                    Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-22 17:21 +0000
                  Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:59 -0700
                    Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:25 +0100
                      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 21:28 -0700
                        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 18:33 +0100
                          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:55 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#563866 — Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 2:52:05 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity: 
> A Unique Perspective on The Transition Between The Liquid and Solid States of Water
> 
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
> solvingtornadoes at gmail dot com
> 
> Significance:
> This paper introduces a theoretical breakthrough: H2O molecules collectively neutralize their own polarity through hydrogen bonding. Dual (symmetric) bonds fully neutralize polarity, allowing for the low viscosity (high fluidity) of liquid water. Singular (asymmetric) bonds neutralize only one half.  Thus, situational factors that remove or inhibit the attachment of one of the duo of weak bonds associated with symmetrically coordinated hydrogen bonds effectively activates the polarity that underlies the structural rigidity and electromagnetic forces evident in ice and surface tension.
> 
> Abstract
> In an attempt to theoretically reconcile the tensional forces that are apparent along the surface of liquid water (surface tension) with those in ice, a radical notion is considered: might the relationship between H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding be involved but in a manner that is the inverse of the manner that is normally considered? Accordingly, the tetrahedral coordinated state would be the structurally weak form of hydrogen bonding underlying the liquid state of water. The strong form of hydrogen bonding would be associated with situational factors that restricted or reversed the comprehensiveness of hydrogen bonds, effectively activating (or failing to neutralize) H2O polarity, causing the remaining bonds to be strong. The precise mechanism thereof is sought through an explicit examination of the theory underlying molecular polarity. A larger theory is developed to explain surface tension, subsurface low-density anomalies, and the freezing process, culminating in the comparing and contrasting of the freezing process with the antithesis of the freezing process that produces supercooled water. An argument is presented that this new understanding provides the foundations of a larger consensus.
> 
> Keywords: hydrogen bonding, polarity, liquid water, surface tension, ice, electronegativity differences, symmetrically coordinated bond, asymmetric bond, low-density anomalies, mechanical matrix, freezing process, supercooled water, PRPA, PNSA, PISD, PMPD.
> 
> 
> Introduction
> 
> Premise
> In an attempt to explain the molecular basis of the structure that is apparent in atmospheric vortices (which will not be discussed here) it is proposed that the surface tension associated with liquid water might, somehow, be involved if some mechanism can be found in the atmosphere that maximizes its surface area, the simple logic being that maximization of surface area should maximize surface tension. Although its relatedness was far from clear in my own mind when it was originally formulated, within this premise was the overarching assumption that H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding might be the causative factors underlying such a mechanism. But the more I considered it the more it seemed I was confronted with a major quandary: if we assume that this hypothetical maximization of surface tension in the atmosphere is some kind of consequence of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding then we have to explain how the forces associated with polarity are absent in the liquid state. In other words, we have to explain how H2O polarity is dormant or neutralized in the liquid state and activated or de-neutralized under conditions that maximize surface area. And the only way I could envision this all working would be if H2O polarity is neutralized in liquid water as a direct consequence of being more comprehensively hydrogen bonded (most of its H2O molecules having hydrogen bonds with four other H2O molecules, two acceptor bonds and two donor bonds) and activated again in the context of situational factors that cause the breaking of some but not all of its hydrogen bonds (resulting in many or most of its H2O molecules having one acceptor and one, or possibly two, donor bonds). 
> 
> Background and Approach
> Examination of the literature very rapidly brought me to the realization that this hypothesis is diametrically incompatible with conventional thinking.1 This incompatibility was most plainly apparent with respect to how these competing hypotheses characterize ice and the freezing process. Indisputably, if the conventional model of ice and freezing is correct then this new hypothesis couldn’t possibly be correct in that the freezing process associated with the conventional model involves H2O molecules forming into a more highly organized, symmetrically coordinated network of polarized H2O molecules.2 In contrast, with the model that I am proposing any such increase in symmetric coordination could only further neutralize polarity. With respect to which, it is important to understand that both of these competing models depend on polarity to explain why the freezing/melting temperature of H2O is at 0 degrees Celsius and not at a much lower temperature, around -170 degrees Celsius, predicted by comparison to other similar but non-polar molecules (methane). So, there was no getting around it. The freezing process associated with this new hypothesis required the inclusion of situational factors that reduce the relative number of symmetrically coordinated bonds in water and increase the relative number of asymmetric bonds. Because otherwise it lacks the polarity required to explain the hardness of ice.
> 
> And so, the challenge at hand was becoming clear. Firstly, the mechanism by which polarity is activated by the breaking of some but not all hydrogen bonds, producing structurally strong hydrogen bonds, needed to be explicated. Secondly, the ensuing theory had to reconcile the freezing process, including an explanation of the lower density of ice. But I had some reservations as to whether this would be convincing. The conceptualization of ice and the freezing process associated with the conventional model had been in place for a long time and had been considered by a large number of researchers and, therefore, had a lot of tacit support behind it. In an effort to find something definitive to distinguish my model from the conventional model I came across supercooled water, the tendency for water to remain unfrozen even at temperatures well below 0 degrees Celsius.3
> 
> Although the process underlying the origins of supercooled water—what we might describe as the antithesis of the freezing process—seemed to not have been adequately explained by the conventional model this was not the main reason my attention was drawn to it. Rather, it was the fact that the situational circumstances associated with its origins seemed to directly contradict what is predicted by the conventional model. Specifically, since the freezing process associated with the conventional model indicates an increase in the polar alignment of H2O molecules during the transition from liquid to ice it seems reasonable that one would predict chaotic or agitated conditions as the underlying root cause, but exactly the opposite is the case. Supercooled water is associated with situational factors in which water is cooled very gradually under placid, calm conditions.3 To me this indicated that the underlying mechanism involves the comprehensiveness of symmetrically coordinated bonds being locked in, forming a threshold that inhibits the breaking of bonds without which, in accordance with my hypothetical thinking, polarity remains dormant, preventing the formation of ice. And so, lastly, I hope to distinguish this new model by demonstrating that it engenders an elegant explanation as to why the conditional factors underlying supercooled water involve gradual cooling and placid, calm conditions.
> 
> Theoretical Presentation
> 
> Molecular Basis of H2O Polarity
> There are two requirements for a molecule to be polar (dipole moment). Firstly, there must be electronegativity differences between its covalently bonded atoms.4 (These are, sometimes, referred to as “polar” bonds. In my opinion this designation is the source of a lot of confusion. Herein polarity is considered an attribute of a molecule in its entirety, not just its bonds.) The H2O molecule has electronegativity differences of 1.34 between its oxygen atom and any one of its two hydrogen atoms.4 Electronegativity differences between the atoms of any molecule do not change regardless of circumstances. Therefore, any purported variability of H2O polarity cannot be solely a consequence of electronegativity differences between its atoms. 
> 
> The second requirement for a molecule to be polar is that electronegativity differences between its atoms must be structurally lopsided, asymmetrically distributed. This can be better understood with comparison to CH4, the methane molecule. Between the carbon atom and any one of the four hydrogen atoms of the methane molecule is an electronegativity difference (.45) that is one third of that (1.34) between the oxygen and any one of the two hydrogen atoms of the water molecule (.45 / 1.34 = .34).4 From this one might, at first, assume that the methane molecule would possess one third the polarity of the water molecule, but it has zero polarity. (And, in comparison to water, this lack of polarity is the reason it is a gas at room temperature, with a boiling point at -164 Celsius and a freezing point at -182 Celsius.) This is because the electronegativity differences of the methane molecule are structurally symmetric. 
> 
> The distinction between the symmetry of the methane molecule and the asymmetry of the water molecule might be better understood with respect to the fact that their respective base molecules, carbon and oxygen, share the same structural template as the underlying factor that dictates the arrangement of their covalent bonds, a tetrahedron.5 Having four unshared electrons in its outer shell, the symmetry of the methane molecule is a consequence of the fact that the carbon atom can, and in the case of methane does, form covalent bonds on all four of the four corners of the tetrahedron. Oxygen possesses only two unshared electrons in its outer shell. Consequently it can only form covalent bonds on two of the four corners of the tetrahedron, as is the case with the water molecule. This results in the electronegativity differences of the water molecule being structurally lopsided (asymmetric), making the water molecule a polar molecule. 
> 
> The convention that is generally used to represent the strength of the electromagnetic forces associated with polarity is the ∂ symbol.6 Although it is not intended to be a precise attribution, its magnitude is generally considered to produce a binding force that is a fraction of that associated with a covalent bond, possibly one twentieth. Being positively charged, each of the two hydrogen atoms on a H2O molecule is attributed a positive charge of +1∂ for a total of +2∂.  Each of the two unbonded pair electrons on the oxygen atom is attributed a negative charge of -1∂ for a total of -2∂.  Accordingly, the H2O molecule is hereby considered to have a polarity coefficient (a net difference in charges from one end of the molecule (-2∂) to the other (+2∂) of 4∂.
> 
> The Mechanism 
> In the context of this understanding we can ask ourselves two rhetorical questions in regard to completing the corners of the tetrahedron of the oxygen atom. Must the bonds be covalent? Would hydrogen bonds not be equally effective as covalent bonds in regard to completing the corners of the tetrahedron to, thereby, effectuate symmetry? I believe the answers to these rhetorical questions are, respectively, no and yes. Accordingly, I believe completion of the tetrahedron with hydrogen bonds effectively establishes symmetry. It becomes a molecule with perfectly balanced electronegativity differences, identical to those of a nonpolar molecule like methane. Accordingly, when a H2O molecule is symmetrically bonded it’s polarity coefficient drops from 4∂ to zero. Removing only one of these bonds (leaving one attached) cuts its polarity in half, giving it a polarity coefficient (-1∂ to +1∂) of 2∂.
> 
> This is all very confusing, but it is even more confusing when you consider that polarity determines the strength of any remaining hydrogen bonds. Accordingly, when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged “donor” hydrogen atoms from each of two other H2O molecules] attached on its negatively charged “acceptor” oxygen atom]) its polarity is neutralized (it’s polarity coefficient is zero) and, therefore, the force that created the bonds is neutralized. Consequently, the hydrogen atoms just float alongside the oxygen atom. The only thing holding them is that if they move away the charge returns. This is why liquid water is so fluid. We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity reemerges preventing it from escaping. (This functionality is also the basis for the pendulumic aspect of symmetrically coordinated bonds, which is discussed more explicitly further along.)
> 
> The H2O molecule has the strongest polarity when both bonds are broken, as in gaseous H2O. (This phrase “gaseous H2O” refers to steam, not evaporate.7 In some less rigorous disciplines, meteorology and climatology for example, it is common to conflate the concepts of steam, a genuine gas that only occurs above the known boiling temperature/pressure of H2O, with evaporate, not a genuine gas but a form of liquid H2O that is suspended in air [often completely invisible] and that only occurs at temperatures below the known boiling temperature/pressure of H2O.) Then, and only then does the H2O molecule have full polarity (its polarity coefficient is restored to 4∂). This explains why the boiling point of water is so high in that it requires having enough energy to break the very strong attraction of the full polarity of the H2O molecule. 
> 
> When bonds are asymmetric (having only one acceptor bond [one positively charged “donor” hydrogen atom from an adjacent H2O molecule attached on its negatively charged “acceptor” oxygen atom]) one half of the polarity is restored or, depending on perspective, one half of its polarity remains un-neutralized (its polarity coefficient is 2∂) producing a strong hydrogen bond. Therefore, situational factors that prevent or reverse the formation of the second of the two acceptor bonds associated with weak symmetrically coordinated bonds (dual) will allow or cause the formation of a strong asymmetric bond (singular). 
> 
> Addressing Explanatory Challenges
> Since the attachment of a hydrogen atom (a donor from an adjacent H2O molecule) to its oxygen atom (the acceptor) is the mechanism that neutralizes or de-activates the polarity of that H2O molecule; and since the removal of the same is the mechanism that activates or de-neutralizes it; and since it can accept up to two hydrogen atoms (a donor from each of two adjacent H2O molecules) producing three variants: 1) no attachment at all; 2) one accepted, being a strong asymmetric bond; or 3) two accepted, being two very weak (floating) symmetrically coordinated bonds; there is huge potential for explanatory confusion. It would appear that this potential for confusion mostly has to do with how we differentiate between the process of attaching and detaching bonds to go back and forth between the weaker and stronger bonding states and the duo of bonds associated with a symmetrically coordinated bond which can also be described as “weaker” and “stronger”. It becomes quite precarious. For example, we might, at first, designate the “weaker” of the duo of bonds as always being the last hydrogen atom accepted or the first one detached and the “stronger” one as always being the first one accepted or the last one detached. But that becomes confusing further along because it, unavoidably, creates the impression that one of the duo is “strong” and the other is “weak”, which is certainly not the case. It gets even more confusing when you consider that whether or not one or the other is attached or detached is relative and not absolute—the closer either or both of them come to the oxygen atom the more they neutralize the polarity that maintains the bond and the farther either or both of them move away from the oxygen atom the more the polarity that underlies the strength of the bonds is reactivated. And, therefore, for all of these reasons, referring to either one of them as “weaker” or “stronger” doesn’t make a lot of sense accept in the context of the process of them becoming fully attached or fully detached. 
> 
> In order to circumvent the potential for confusion between the processes that produce them and the hydrogen bonded variants themselves, I hereby designate the following with respect to encapsulating the different processes associated with hydrogen atoms becoming attached or detached: 
> PRPA Polarity Reducing Primary Attachment: The attachment of one hydrogen atom, a donor from an adjacent H2O molecule, to an unattached oxygen atom of an accepting H2O molecule to create a (singular) strong asymmetric bond.
> PNSA Polarity Neutralizing Secondary Attachment: The attachment of an additional hydrogen atom, a donor from another adjacent H2O molecule, to create two (dual) weak (polarity neutralized [floating]) symmetrically coordinated bonds.
> PISD Polarity Increasing Secondary Detachment: The removal (breaking) of either of the two hydrogen atoms associated with (dual) weak symmetrically coordinated bonds to create a (singular) strong asymmetric bond.
> PMPD Polarity Maximizing Primary Detachment: The removal (breaking) of a (singular) strong asymmetric bond.
> 
> 
Starting from different states, steam and liquid water, PRPA and PISD produce the same end result, a singular, strong asymmetric bond. PRPA and PNSA both neutralize one half of the polarity of a H2O molecule, but they produce very different end results. PRPA involves a transition from steam to a singular, strong asymmetric bond. PNSA involves a transition from a singular, strong asymmetric bond to the dual, weak symmetrically coordinated bonds of liquid water. PRPA and PMPD involve transitions to and from steam and will not be discussed through the rest of this paper. PISD and PNSA involve transitions to and from the singular, strong asymmetric bond associated with the structural properties of water and the dual, weak (floating) symmetrically coordinated bonds associated with the high fluidity of liquid water, both of which are highly relevant through the rest of this theoretical presentation.
> 
> Surface Tension Explained
> The two dimensions of a surface restricts the completion of hydrogen bonds that would normally occur in the less restricted three dimensions below the surface of liquid water, producing PISD events and inhibiting PNSA events for the molecules along the surface. This explains surface tension of liquid water. In calm water its existence is very stable.
> 
> Subsurface, Low-Density Anomalies Explained
> Although its occurrence is considerably more brief in comparison to that of surface tension, another situational factor that causes the formation of the strong, asymmetric bonds actually does occur within the unrestricted three dimensions below the surface of liquid water. These are generally referred to as low-density anomalies.8 In accordance with the understanding being presented here, these subsurface low-density anomalies are, hereby, hypothesized to be a collective consequence of the geometric limitations of H2O molecules in that they don’t quite pack into a 100% symmetrically bonded matrix. Between 3% and 10% (unknown) are collectively excluded and, therefore, can only form asymmetric bonds. (This percentage will, most likely, vary depending on temperature/pressure.) Moreover, this collective inability to form fully symmetric bonds can and will itself be spread between many or even all of the molecules within a body of water. Thus within liquid water (under normal, ambient, conditions) there will always be a small percentage of the structurally strong and electromagnetically active asymmetric bonds. And, since asymmetric bonds are intrinsically lower in density these “anomalies” will be associated with lower density. However, unlike those associated with surface tension, their existence is usually very brief in that as soon as they come into existence they create the tensional forces (polarity) that reestablish higher density, weak symmetrically coordinated bonds. And so, a PISD event creates the conditions that initiate a corresponding PNSA event. And a PNSA event, working through the matrix, will contribute to initiating another PISD event in the general neighborhood. In other words, there is constant interplay between PISD events and PNSA events. And these reverberate, by way of the matrix, through the body of water. So, in addition to being a small percentage of the bonds within the greater matrix these “low-density anomalies” exist for very short periods of time (Consequently, they can only be detected using sophisticated equipment.9) and will, over time, be averaged out over many of the symmetrically coordinated bonds within the greater body of the liquid. 
> 
> Ice and the Freezing Process Explained
> As indicated in the previous paragraph, any PISD event that occurs within liquid water will produce a lower density, strong asymmetric bond that will exist for only a brief instant in time before it is reversed by a corresponding PNSA event. However, at and below 0 degrees Celsius the rules change. At these lower temperatures the same occurrence can initiate a chain reaction of PISD events that produce a network of strong asymmetric bonds that instantaneously inhibit corresponding PNSA events resulting in the structurally strong form of water, ice. This process is commonly referred to as freezing. And so, like surface tension and subsurface, low-density anomalies, the H2O freezing process also involves PISD events, but, as will be explained, it is more complicated because it involves an additional situational factor that causes both a chain reaction of cascading PISD events and inhibition of corresponding PNSA events. Properly conceptualizing this additional situational factor involves, for the most part, getting a better understanding of how the molecules in liquid water collectively comprise a mechanical matrix that itself dictates ensuing implications.
> 
> Mechanical Matrix: Understanding the mechanical matrix and its implications to the freezing process that produces ice, as well as its implications to the antithesis of the freezing process that produces supercooled water, depends on understanding three concepts and their interrelationships: 
> 1) How the pendulumic relationship that exists between the duo of hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom in each of the symmetrically coordinated bonds within a body of liquid water collectively dictates the transfer of kinetic energy (spreads energy) throughout the liquid (which also, arguably, goes a long way into explaining the high heat capacity of water [attributable to the conservation of energy aspect of the pendulum] and high heat conductivity [attributable to the high degree of connectivity between the H2O molecules in that over 90 percent of them have bonds with four of their neighbors]);
> 2) How the collective of symmetrically bonded H2O molecules tends to become more interconnected over time, balancing out kinetic energy and electromagnetic charges (balancing out polarity) throughout the greater body of the liquid, effectuating a larger mechanical matrix and therefore having a higher threshold of resistance to change in that greater momentum is required to move the gears of a larger mechanical matrix; and
> 3) How the displacement of one of the duo of hydrogen atoms (a PISD event) on at least one of the symmetrically coordinated bonds in the greater matrix causes the remaining hydrogen atom of that symmetrically coordinated bond to move to a more central position on its oxygen atom in order to balance out electronegativity differences and how this movement turns the gears of the mechanical matrix causing additional PISD events, causing their remaining hydrogen atoms to move to more central positions on their oxygen atoms, further turning the gears and causing more of the same, producing a cascade of PISD events that produces a network of strong asymmetric bonds that instantaneously inhibit (block) corresponding PNSA events and that, therefore, are highly stable. (Another factor that might power the turning of the gears of the mechanical matrix during PISD events is a shift in the bond angle of the covalently bonded hydrogen atoms of the H2O molecule from 109.5 degrees to 107 degrees. As with the shifts in polarity being hypothesized here, this too is a result of shifts in electronegativity that are an implication of PISD events.)
> 
> Comparing and Contrasting The Freezing Process With Its Antithesis
> Consider two scenarios of water being cooled below 0 degrees Celsius. Both involve a sealed, one liter plastic container filled with pure H2O at normal atmospheric pressure. Scenario A involves the container being placed in a room that is -5 degrees Celsius. Its temperature drops gradually and it does not freeze. It continues to exist as supercooled water all the way down to -5 degrees Celsius. In scenario B the water is cooled both more rapidly and more unevenly. It involves the container having its bottom one quarter suspended in liquid nitrogen. Its temperature drops rapidly and as soon as any part of it drops below 0 degrees it begins to freeze. Why did scenario B produce freezing whereas scenario A did not?
> 
> In scenario A the pendulumic process has more time to process the distribution of changes in energy to all of the molecules in the body of water before its average temperature crosses below 0 degrees. More specifically, the collective, pendulumic process of the mechanical matrix has more time to become one large matrix and to stay as such with gradual reductions in temperature. Therefore there is less variance in the swings of the pendulum of the different symmetrically coordinated bonds therein. Additionally, since the matrix is larger, greater momentum is required to overcome the threshold resistance in order to turn the collective gears of the mechanical matrix. Consequently, for both of these reasons, the chain reaction of cascading PISD events cannot be initiated. And/or (unknown) corresponding PNSA events are not blocked, and the water remains supercooled, unfrozen.
> 
> In contrast, in scenario B the rapid and unequal removal of energy makes achieving the same degree of temperature distribution to all of the molecules in the body of water impossible. More specifically, the pendulumic process has less time to process and become a larger matrix. Instead there exists, in a sense, many different matrices at different energy levels. And, therefore, there is much greater variance in the swings of the pendulums of the various symmetrically coordinated bonds in the body of water. Consequently there is a greater probability that one of the duo of hydrogen atoms associated with at least one of the many symmetrically coordinated bonds in the body of water will swing away from its oxygen atom to initiate a PISD event. And, since the mechanical matrices thereof are smaller there is less threshold resistance to overcome and, therefore, less momentum is required to turn the collective gears of any one matrix, thus a cascade of PISD events has a higher probability of being initiated. Once initiated, the turning of the gears of the highly interconnected matrix causes the ensuing emergence of a network of strong asymmetric bonds that instantaneously inhibit (block) corresponding PNSA events, and the water begins to freeze. The end result, ice, is less dense simply because asymmetric bonds are intrinsically less dense than symmetrically coordinated bonds.
> 
> Discussion
> 
> Addressing Anticipated Objections
> The Mechanism: The only objection I can anticipate to the validity of the mechanism being suggested here—the notion that hydrogen bonds neutralize polarity and their removal, breaking of hydrogen bonds, activates it—are arguments based on dogmatic interpretations of what is a molecule or what is polarity. Us humans tend to emplace absolutistic interpretations on our definitions and subsequently forget that nature doesn’t necessarily always conform with this absolutistic aspect. Along these lines, I would like to suggest a change in perspective. Instead of looking at it from the outside in, look at it from the inside out. Specifically, consider this notion from the perspective of an electron on the oxygen atom of a H2O molecule that maintains (dual) symmetrically coordinated bonds.  When it looks up into each of the four corners of the oxygen molecule’s tetrahedron it will see the same thing, a positively charged hydrogen atom. Is there any reason to assume it would be more or less attracted to the hydrogen atoms on the corners that are covalently bonded than it is to those that are hydrogen bonded? If there is, I don’t know what this would be.
> 
> Freezing and its Antithesis: As for the description of the freezing process and its antithesis that is presented herein there is, in my opinion, much more potential for it to be incomplete, partially wrong, or even (though much less likely in my opinion) fully mistaken.  My concerns in this regard involve the assertion that this hypothesis appears not to predict the increase in density that occurs with drop in temperature between 4 degrees Celsius and 0 degrees Celsius.  My guess is that something distinctive is happening with the mechanical matrix over this transition, something that has not been adequately explained.  It might even indicate that the notion that the, purported, repositioning of the extant hydrogen atom that, purportedly, turns the gears of the mechanical matrix to initiate a cascade of PISD events is either wrong or superfluous.  I also think an alternative hypothesis should be considered with respect to the barrier associated with the the antithesis of the freezing process being something other than the threshold momentum requirements of the mechanical matrix.  Might, for example, the actual barrier have something to do with a larger and more synchronized mechanical matrix having an increases in its mean collective ability to absorb perturbation as it goes below 4 degrees, preventing an initial PISD event, but only when it gets below 0 degrees does it lose its ability to block corresponding PNSA events, due to some unexplained mechanical implication? I am curious as to whether a clue leading to a resolution might be found through more in depth analysis of low-density anomalies in the context of comparing and contrasting the freezing process to the antithesis of the freezing process over the course of this transition.
> 
> Some Resolution to The Strangeness of Water
> Among those that study it, common parlance on the strangeness of water tends to focus on the fact that the H2O molecule is a polar molecule.10 These explanations don’t go far enough. To truly capture its paradoxical nature we have to take into consideration the fact that proximity to other H2O molecules is the mechanism that neutralizes its polarity. Therefore, the more molecules of water have the collective properties of a liquid (close proximity to each other) the more they have the individual properties of a gas (electromagnetic neutrality) and vice versa. Consequently, molecules of liquid H2O, unlike those of any others substance, just kind of float, banging into each other, bouncing away, producing a pendulumic conservation of energy as, with distance, the charges return that bring them back again, spreading energy through the matrix as a consequence of their high degree of connectivity. And this is just to set the stage for more strangeness that emerges in conjunction with the geometry of the H2O molecule that dictate limitations on its collective ability to neutralize its own polarity, which occurs in a highly stable form along the surface of liquid water, producing surface tension, and in a much less stable form below it’s surface, producing low-density anomalies. Additionally, we have to take into consideration the tendency of H2O molecules to collectively form a mechanical matrix that, if the temperature is low enough and the matrix is energetically unbalanced, will facilitate a cascading chain reaction that will produce a widening general interruption in their collective ability to neutralize their own polarity, producing ice; or, if the matrix is energetically balanced and mechanically synchronized (as will be the the case if cooled slowly under calm conditions) will effectuate a threshold that acts as a barrier to its ability to initiate any such cascading chain reaction, producing supercooled water. And, as has been well documented by others, all of this is just a drop in the bucket of the strangeness engendered by this seemingly simple molecule.
> 
> Conclusion and Future Research
> I believe the understanding being proposed here can, and will eventually, serve as the basis of a larger consensus about the nature of water. Additionally, I believe the thinking in this paper sets the stage for the yet discovered forms of structurally hard, electromagnetically active water, which may lead to insight into the mysteries of atmospheric flow, especially with respect to the atmospheric vortices that comprise jet streams and tornadoes. 
> 
> Along these lines, I think it is also interesting to consider the possibility that the mechanical matrix aspect underlying the formation of ice may vary considerably with differences in molecular composition. Might, for example, extremely small quantities of water, as found in microdroplets suspended in the atmosphere, be less likely to freeze due to the fact that their matrix is so small? If so, this might provide an explanation for the prevalence of supercooled water observed in the higher and colder altitudes of the atmosphere (upper troposphere). (The premise here is not simply that PISD events cannot be initiated in smaller matrices but that, in addition, PNSA events cannot be inhibited. Or, it might be only one or the other or some unequal combination of both, all of which may vary with the size of the microdroplet.)
> 
> 
> References
> 
> 1. Bartels-Rausch, Thorsten, et al. "Ice structures, patterns, and processes: A view across the icefields." Reviews of Modern Physics 84.2 (2012): 885.
> 2. Petrenko, Victor F., and Robert W. Whitworth. Physics of ice. Oxford University Press, 1999.
> 3. Uhara, I., et al. "Crystal nucleation given rise by fracturing or by mechanical shock." Kolloid-Zeitschrift und Zeitschrift für Polymere 244.1 (1971): 218-222.
> 4. Pritchard, H. O., and H. A. Skinner. "The concept of electronegativity."Chemical Reviews 55.4 (1955): 745-786.
> 5. Gillespie, Ronald J., and István Hargittai. The VSEPR model of molecular geometry. Courier Corporation, 2013.
> 6. "The Origin of the" Delta" Symbol for Fractional Charges." Journal of Chemical Education 86, no. 5 (2009): 545.
> 7. Water structure and science Site by Martin Chaplin, accessed 15 December 2015: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html (See footnote.)
> 8. Huang, Congcong, et al. "The inhomogeneous structure of water at ambient conditions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.36 (2009): 15214-15218.
> 9. Khaliullin, Rustam Z., et al. "Unravelling the origin of intermolecular interactions using absolutely localized molecular orbitals." The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 111.36 (2007): 8753-8765.
> 10. Barbosa, Marcia. "Tapping the incredible weirdness of water." New Scientist 226.3015 (2015): 26-27.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#563878

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

James McGinn, in
<news:3f91b7cd-2745-4bbc-b176-2d26b45f05df@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>> References
>> 
>> 1. Bartels-Rausch, Thorsten, et al. "Ice structures, patterns, and processes: A view across the icefields." Reviews of Modern Physics 84.2 (2012): 885.
>> 2. Petrenko, Victor F., and Robert W. Whitworth. Physics of ice. Oxford University Press, 1999.
>> 3. Uhara, I., et al. "Crystal nucleation given rise by fracturing or by mechanical shock." Kolloid-Zeitschrift und Zeitschrift für Polymere 244.1 (1971): 218-222.
>> 4. Pritchard, H. O., and H. A. Skinner. "The concept of electronegativity."Chemical Reviews 55.4 (1955): 745-786.
>> 5. Gillespie, Ronald J., and István Hargittai. The VSEPR model of molecular geometry. Courier Corporation, 2013.
>> 6. "The Origin of the" Delta" Symbol for Fractional Charges." Journal of Chemical Education 86, no. 5 (2009): 545.
>> 7. Water structure and science Site by Martin Chaplin, accessed 15 December 2015: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html (See footnote.)
>> 8. Huang, Congcong, et al. "The inhomogeneous structure of water at ambient conditions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.36 (2009): 15214-15218.
>> 9. Khaliullin, Rustam Z., et al. "Unravelling the origin of intermolecular interactions using absolutely localized molecular orbitals." The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 111.36 (2007): 8753-8765.
>> 10. Barbosa, Marcia. "Tapping the incredible weirdness of water." New Scientist 226.3015 (2015): 26-27.

Your references do not support your contentions, James. You'll be
getting right on detailing exactly where, in each of your referenced
papers, they make mention of a variable polarity of the water
molecule... none of them do.

In fact, two of the physicists who wrote papers that you reference
refer to you as either a "crackpot" or "nuts".

It's already been explained to you that the two spectral peaks of
liquid water which Anders Nilsson observed is due to the two spin
isomers of water, causing two water molecule hybrids with two
different H bonding strengths.

It's already been explained to you that H bonds are electrostatic in
nature, and thus their strength diminishes by the inverse square of
distance per Coulomb's Law. They do *not* get *stronger* with
increasing distance, that's just insane twaddle from your broken
brain.

That you continue to ignore reality proves your psychosis... you'd
rather continue on with your comfortable delusion that you know better
than every single scientist over the past 250+ years as you dismiss
and denigrate and deny all of the accumulated scientific knowledge we
have, than explore the possibility that you are an insane moronic
uneducated halfwit who is wrong.

You're attempting to twist scientific fact to fit your model, James,
which is a violation of the Scientific Method. You fit the model to
the facts, James, not vice versa.

Hence the reason you've become known across the entire scientific
community as a scientific fraud and a laughingstock.

You're no physicist, James. The sum total of your scientific education
consists of a single elective Basic Meteorology class, which you
obviously learned nothing from. Which universities did you attend,
what was your major, and what was your PhD thesis, James?

You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.

You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.

As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

-- 

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

============================================================
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.

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?

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
hundreds 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?

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 clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
giant tornado in the sky" sentient, 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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#563880

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:01:38 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> Your references do not support your contentions, James.

My references support my contention that my opponents don't have a substantive dispute with my theory.

> You'll be
> getting right on detailing exactly where, in each of your referenced
> papers, they make mention of a variable polarity of the water
> molecule... none of them do.
> 
> In fact, two of the physicists who wrote papers that you reference
> refer to you as either a "crackpot" or "nuts".

I love ad homenin because it means I'm winning the substantive argument.

> It's already been explained to you that the two spectral peaks of
> liquid water which Anders Nilsson observed is due to the two spin
> isomers of water, causing two water molecule hybrids with two
> different H bonding strengths.

Well, why don't you stop whining write a paper on that?

> It's already been explained to you that H bonds are electrostatic in
> nature, and thus their strength diminishes by the inverse square of
> distance per Coulomb's Law. They do *not* get *stronger* with
> increasing distance, 

Apples and oranges.  As I explained to Alan Soper, Coulomb's Law works for ionic bonds but not H bonds because H bonds are a function of symmetry, as explained in my paper.  My reasoning is fairly well laid out.  Feel free to address it directly.  (Not that there's the slightest chance that a troll like  you actually understands it.)

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

#563945

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

James McGinn, in
<news:c98955a0-f881-4791-97de-d91139b6195f@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:01:38 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Your references do not support your contentions, James.

> My references support my contention that my opponents don't
> have a substantive dispute with my theory.

Liar. They call you "crackpot" and "nutjob", James. That should tell
you something.

>> You'll be getting right on detailing exactly where, in each
>> of your referenced papers, they make mention of a variable
>> polarity of the water molecule... none of them do.
>> 
>> In fact, two of the physicists who wrote papers that you reference
>> refer to you as either a "crackpot" or "nuts".

> I love ad homenin because it means I'm winning the substantive argument.

No, Jim... you're just a crackpot and a nutjob. Alan Soper tried to
educate you, you attempted to twist his carefully-controlled and
empirically-observed research to fit your moronic 'theory', it didn't
work.

You've been reaching out to different researchers, not to find the
flaws in your 'theory' and try to null it as any good researcher would
do, but to desperately try to find someone as barkingly mad as you are
who will lend your insanity even a thin patina of credibility... and
when you can't do that, because no one is as insane as you, you attack
them and claim their research is wrong... while not providing any
research to back up your claims except your halfwitted 4th grade level
wholly uncontrolled "experiment" consisting of mason jars and
"aluminum foil, cotton, fishing line thingies" (your words).

You're an uneducated paranoiac off his meds, desperately trying to
prove you're not insane... but you are insane, James. Face that
reality.

>> It's already been explained to you that the two spectral peaks of
>> liquid water which Anders Nilsson observed is due to the two spin
>> isomers of water, causing two water molecule hybrids with two
>> different H bonding strengths.

> Well, why don't you stop whining write a paper on that?

A paper has already been written on it, James. Several, in fact. So
many, in fact, that all one need do is a simple Google search to find
the truth. That you've not done so, instead choosing to deny reality
so you could continue your delusion that you know better than every
single scientist over the past 250+ years, as you deny every single
bit of scientific knowledge garnered from carefully-controlled
experimentation over the past 250+ years, and as you blather on about
fairy tale suppositions you've pulled straight from your ass such as a
giant sentient sky tornado monster with noodly appendages which it
extends for thousands of miles to touch down tornadoes, and as you not
only fail but you *refuse* to perform any experiments which would null
your moronic blather, is proof that you're psychotic and off your
meds.

That is reality, James. Deal with it.

>> It's already been explained to you that H bonds are electrostatic in
>> nature, and thus their strength diminishes by the inverse square of
>> distance per Coulomb's Law. They do *not* get *stronger* with
>> increasing distance, 

> Apples and oranges.

*Not* "apples and oranges", James, unless you're now claiming your
magical water has magical H bonds that are *not* electrostatic in
nature and thus do not conform to Coulomb's Law.

> As I explained to Alan Soper, Coulomb's Law works for ionic bonds
> but not H bonds because H bonds are a function of symmetry,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond
"A hydrogen bond is the electrostatic attraction between polar groups
that occurs when a hydrogen (H) atom bound to a highly electronegative
atom such as nitrogen (N), oxygen (O) or fluorine (F) experiences
attraction to some other nearby highly electronegative atom."

Now you'll be compelled to deny the very mechanism by which water
exhibits its properties, Jim... you're trapped like a rat.

Soper explained to you, there is no "symmetry" in liquid water. You're
180 degrees out from reality because you're insane and denying
reality. H bonding is an electrostatic bond by its very definition,
James. That you don't know this, or know it and deny it, proves your
psychosis is growing.

Now you'll have to not only sue *science* and *reality* because
they're subverting your attempts to remodel all of reality, you'll
have to include *photons* and *electrons* as defendants, because they
are complicit in your paranoid conspiracy theory. LOL

> as explained in my paper.  My reasoning is fairly well laid out.

No, it's not. Your "reasoning" is the mad ranting of an uneducated and
thoroughly insane kooktard.

> Feel free to address it directly.

Get to refuting reality, you  moronic kooktard:

Sweetman, A. M.; Jarvis, S. P.; Sang, Hongqian; Lekkas, I.; Rahe, P.;
Wang, Yu; Wang, Jianbo; Champness, N.R.; Kantorovich, L.; Moriarty, P.
(2014). "Mapping the force field of a hydrogen-bonded assembly".
Nature Communications 5. doi:10.1038/ncomms4931.

IUPAC, Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 2nd ed. (the "Gold Book")
(1997). Online corrected version:  (2006–) "hydrogen bond".

Arunan, Elangannan; Desiraju, Gautam R.; Klein, Roger A.; Sadlej,
Joanna; Scheiner, Steve; Alkorta, Ibon; Clary, David C.; Crabtree,
Robert H.; Dannenberg, Joseph J.; Hobza, Pavel; Kjaergaard, Henrik G.;
Legon, Anthony C.; Mennucci, Benedetta; Nesbitt, David J. (2011).
"Definition of the hydrogen bond". Pure Appl. Chem. 83 (8): 1637–1641.
doi:10.1351/PAC-REC-10-01-02.

Arunan, Elangannan; Desiraju, Gautam R.; Klein, Roger A.; Sadlej,
Joanna; Scheiner, Steve; Alkorta, Ibon; Clary, David C.; Crabtree,
Robert H.; Dannenberg, Joseph J.; Hobza, Pavel; Kjaergaard, Henrik G.;
Legon, Anthony C.; Mennucci, Benedetta; Nesbitt, David J. (2011).
"Defining the hydrogen bond: An Account". Pure Appl. Chem. 83 (8):
1619–1636. doi:10.1351/PAC-REP-10-01-01.

Beijer, Felix H.; Kooijman, Huub; Spek, Anthony L.; Sijbesma, Rint P.;
Meijer, E. W. (1998). "Self-Complementarity Achieved through Quadruple
Hydrogen Bonding". Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 37 (1–2): 75–78.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(19980202)37:1/2<75::AID-ANIE75>3.0.CO;2-R.

Larson, J. W.; McMahon, T. B. (1984). "Gas-phase bihalide and
pseudobihalide ions. An ion cyclotron resonance determination of
hydrogen bond energies in XHY- species (X, Y = F, Cl, Br, CN)".
Inorganic Chemistry 23 (14): 2029–2033. doi:10.1021/ic00182a010.

Emsley, J. (1980). "Very Strong Hydrogen Bonds". Chemical Society
Reviews 9 (1): 91–124. doi:10.1039/cs9800900091.

Markovitch, Omer and Agmon, Noam (2007). "Structure and energetics of
the hydronium hydration shells". J. Phys. Chem. A 111 (12): 2253–2256.
doi:10.1021/jp068960g. PMID 17388314.

Grunenberg, Jörg (2004). "Direct Assessment of Interresidue Forces in
Watson−Crick Base Pairs Using Theoretical Compliance Constants".
Journal of the American Chemical Society 126 (50): 16310–1.
doi:10.1021/ja046282a. PMID 15600318.

Legon, A. C.; Millen, D. J. (1987). "Angular geometries and other
properties of hydrogen-bonded dimers: a simple electrostatic
interpretation of the success of the electron-pair model". Chemical
Society Reviews 16: 467. doi:10.1039/CS9871600467.

Pauling, L. (1960). The nature of the chemical bond and the structure
of molecules and crystals; an introduction to modern structural
chemistry (3rd ed.). Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. p. 450.
ISBN 0-8014-0333-2.

Jorgensen, W. L. and Madura, J. D. (1985). "Temperature and size
dependence for Monte Carlo simulations of TIP4P water". Mol. Phys. 56
(6): 1381. Bibcode:1985MolPh..56.1381J. doi:10.1080/00268978500103111.

Zielkiewicz, Jan (2005). "Structural properties of water: Comparison
of the SPC, SPCE, TIP4P, and TIP5P models of water". J. Chem. Phys.
123 (10): 104501. Bibcode:2005JChPh.123j4501Z. doi:10.1063/1.2018637.
PMID 16178604.

Jencks, William; Jencks, William P. (1986). "Hydrogen Bonding between
Solutes in Aqueous Solution". J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 108 (14): 4196.
doi:10.1021/ja00274a058.

Dillon, P. F. (2012). Biophysics. Cambridge University Press. p. 37.
ISBN 978-1-139-50462-1.

Laage, Damien and Hynes, James T. (2006). "A Molecular Jump Mechanism
for Water Reorientation". Science 311 (5762): 832–5.
Bibcode:2006Sci...311..832L. doi:10.1126/science.1122154. PMID
16439623.

Markovitch, Omer and Agmon, Noam (2008). "The Distribution of Acceptor
and Donor Hydrogen-Bonds in Bulk Liquid Water". Molecular Physics 106
(2): 485. Bibcode:2008MolPh.106..485M. doi:10.1080/00268970701877921.

Isaacs, E.D.; et al. (1999). "Covalency of the Hydrogen Bond in Ice: A
Direct X-Ray Measurement". Physical Review Letters 82 (3): 600–603.
Bibcode:1999PhRvL..82..600I. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.600.

Cowan ML; Bruner BD; Huse N; et al. (2005). "Ultrafast memory loss and
energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O".
Nature 434 (7030): 199–202. Bibcode:2005Natur.434..199C.
doi:10.1038/nature03383. PMID 15758995.

> (Not that there's the slightest chance that a troll like  you
> actually understands it.)

Awww, poor stupid James McGinn goes ad hom because he knows he's
defeated. LOL

Yet again you have no substantive rebuttal of scientific fact, 
James... your 'theory' is dead, Jim. You've been exposed as a 
scientific fraud and a psychotic halfwit. The world laughs at you and 
your broken brained blathering.

That's reality, Jim. Deal with it.

As proof that what I write is truth, you will yet again run away from 
addressing those gaping logical contradiction in your 'theory', as 
outlined in my .sig.

-- 

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

============================================================
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.

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?

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
hundreds 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?

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 clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
giant tornado in the sky" sentient, 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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#563964

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:50:58 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Well, why don't you stop whining write a paper on that?
> 
> A paper has already been written on it, James. 

Well then why not make an argument to that effect.  

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

#564061

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

James McGinn, in
<news:3b20bae0-48a6-4bcc-a890-159f2068eed6@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:50:58 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Well, why don't you stop whining write a paper on that?

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond
>> "A hydrogen bond is the electrostatic attraction between polar groups
>> that occurs when a hydrogen (H) atom bound to a highly electronegative
>> atom such as nitrogen (N), oxygen (O) or fluorine (F) experiences
>> attraction to some other nearby highly electronegative atom."
>> 
>> Now you'll be compelled to deny the very mechanism by which water
>> exhibits its properties, Jim... you're trapped like a rat.
>> 
>> Soper explained to you, there is no "symmetry" in liquid water. You're
>> 180 degrees out from reality because you're insane and denying
>> reality. H bonding is an electrostatic bond by its very definition,
>> James. That you don't know this, or know it and deny it, proves your
>> psychosis is growing.
>> 
>> Now you'll have to not only sue *science* and *reality* because
>> they're subverting your attempts to remodel all of reality, you'll
>> have to include *photons* and *electrons* as defendants, because they
>> are complicit in your paranoid conspiracy theory. LOL
>> 
>> A paper has already been written on it, James. Several, in fact. So
>> many, in fact, that all one need do is a simple Google search to find
>> the truth. That you've not done so, instead choosing to deny reality
>> so you could continue your delusion that you know better than every
>> single scientist over the past 250+ years, as you deny every single
>> bit of scientific knowledge garnered from carefully-controlled
>> experimentation over the past 250+ years, and as you blather on about
>> fairy tale suppositions you've pulled straight from your ass such as a
>> giant sentient sky tornado monster with noodly appendages which it
>> extends for thousands of miles to touch down tornadoes, and as you not
>> only fail but you *refuse* to perform any experiments which would null
>> your moronic blather, is proof that you're psychotic and off your
>> meds.
>> 
>> That is reality, James. Deal with it.

> Well then why not make an argument to that effect.

Why can't *you* make a substantive argument to support your moronic
blathering, James? Every time you try, you get your stupid ranting
shot full of holes, you're forced to backpedal and slap more patches
on your "theory", and thereby expose even more logical contradictions
in it, all the while proving that you're sliding into psychosis.

Now you're being backed into the corner and forced to deny the very
mechanism by which H bonding gives water its properties, and in so
doing, denying the very fundamentals of all electrostatic bonds, and
hence the basics of electromagnetism itself... which opens up an
entire new wing in the mental asylum for you to stack your logical
contradictions.

Get to refuting reality, you  moronic kooktard:

Sweetman, A. M.; Jarvis, S. P.; Sang, Hongqian; Lekkas, I.; Rahe, P.;
Wang, Yu; Wang, Jianbo; Champness, N.R.; Kantorovich, L.; Moriarty, P.
(2014). "Mapping the force field of a hydrogen-bonded assembly".
Nature Communications 5. doi:10.1038/ncomms4931.

IUPAC, Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 2nd ed. (the "Gold Book")
(1997). Online corrected version:  (2006–) "hydrogen bond".

Arunan, Elangannan; Desiraju, Gautam R.; Klein, Roger A.; Sadlej,
Joanna; Scheiner, Steve; Alkorta, Ibon; Clary, David C.; Crabtree,
Robert H.; Dannenberg, Joseph J.; Hobza, Pavel; Kjaergaard, Henrik G.;
Legon, Anthony C.; Mennucci, Benedetta; Nesbitt, David J. (2011).
"Definition of the hydrogen bond". Pure Appl. Chem. 83 (8): 1637–1641.
doi:10.1351/PAC-REC-10-01-02.

Arunan, Elangannan; Desiraju, Gautam R.; Klein, Roger A.; Sadlej,
Joanna; Scheiner, Steve; Alkorta, Ibon; Clary, David C.; Crabtree,
Robert H.; Dannenberg, Joseph J.; Hobza, Pavel; Kjaergaard, Henrik G.;
Legon, Anthony C.; Mennucci, Benedetta; Nesbitt, David J. (2011).
"Defining the hydrogen bond: An Account". Pure Appl. Chem. 83 (8):
1619–1636. doi:10.1351/PAC-REP-10-01-01.

Beijer, Felix H.; Kooijman, Huub; Spek, Anthony L.; Sijbesma, Rint P.;
Meijer, E. W. (1998). "Self-Complementarity Achieved through Quadruple
Hydrogen Bonding". Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 37 (1–2): 75–78.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(19980202)37:1/2<75::AID-ANIE75>3.0.CO;2-R.

Larson, J. W.; McMahon, T. B. (1984). "Gas-phase bihalide and
pseudobihalide ions. An ion cyclotron resonance determination of
hydrogen bond energies in XHY- species (X, Y = F, Cl, Br, CN)".
Inorganic Chemistry 23 (14): 2029–2033. doi:10.1021/ic00182a010.

Emsley, J. (1980). "Very Strong Hydrogen Bonds". Chemical Society
Reviews 9 (1): 91–124. doi:10.1039/cs9800900091.

Markovitch, Omer and Agmon, Noam (2007). "Structure and energetics of
the hydronium hydration shells". J. Phys. Chem. A 111 (12): 2253–2256.
doi:10.1021/jp068960g. PMID 17388314.

Grunenberg, Jörg (2004). "Direct Assessment of Interresidue Forces in
Watson−Crick Base Pairs Using Theoretical Compliance Constants".
Journal of the American Chemical Society 126 (50): 16310–1.
doi:10.1021/ja046282a. PMID 15600318.

Legon, A. C.; Millen, D. J. (1987). "Angular geometries and other
properties of hydrogen-bonded dimers: a simple electrostatic
interpretation of the success of the electron-pair model". Chemical
Society Reviews 16: 467. doi:10.1039/CS9871600467.

Pauling, L. (1960). The nature of the chemical bond and the structure
of molecules and crystals; an introduction to modern structural
chemistry (3rd ed.). Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. p. 450.
ISBN 0-8014-0333-2.

Jorgensen, W. L. and Madura, J. D. (1985). "Temperature and size
dependence for Monte Carlo simulations of TIP4P water". Mol. Phys. 56
(6): 1381. Bibcode:1985MolPh..56.1381J. doi:10.1080/00268978500103111.

Zielkiewicz, Jan (2005). "Structural properties of water: Comparison
of the SPC, SPCE, TIP4P, and TIP5P models of water". J. Chem. Phys.
123 (10): 104501. Bibcode:2005JChPh.123j4501Z. doi:10.1063/1.2018637.
PMID 16178604.

Jencks, William; Jencks, William P. (1986). "Hydrogen Bonding between
Solutes in Aqueous Solution". J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 108 (14): 4196.
doi:10.1021/ja00274a058.

Dillon, P. F. (2012). Biophysics. Cambridge University Press. p. 37.
ISBN 978-1-139-50462-1.

Laage, Damien and Hynes, James T. (2006). "A Molecular Jump Mechanism
for Water Reorientation". Science 311 (5762): 832–5.
Bibcode:2006Sci...311..832L. doi:10.1126/science.1122154. PMID
16439623.

Markovitch, Omer and Agmon, Noam (2008). "The Distribution of Acceptor
and Donor Hydrogen-Bonds in Bulk Liquid Water". Molecular Physics 106
(2): 485. Bibcode:2008MolPh.106..485M. doi:10.1080/00268970701877921.

Isaacs, E.D.; et al. (1999). "Covalency of the Hydrogen Bond in Ice: A
Direct X-Ray Measurement". Physical Review Letters 82 (3): 600–603.
Bibcode:1999PhRvL..82..600I. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.600.

Cowan ML; Bruner BD; Huse N; et al. (2005). "Ultrafast memory loss and
energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O".
Nature 434 (7030): 199–202. Bibcode:2005Natur.434..199C.
doi:10.1038/nature03383. PMID 15758995.

-- 

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

============================================================
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.

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 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 clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, 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?

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
hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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

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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#563916

On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:51:08 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<...>

You write like a high school dropout, dude! I will demonstrate
how a Ph.D. in Journalism does it better.

>Your references do not support your contentions, James. You'll be
>getting right on detailing exactly where, in each of your referenced
>papers, they make mention of a variable polarity of the water
>molecule... none of them do.

The references you cite do not support your claims, James. Besides,
you failed to quote from those papers where they discuss the variable
polarity of a molecule of water.

>In fact, two of the physicists who wrote papers that you reference
>refer to you as either a "crackpot" or "nuts".

In fact, two of the physicists that you reference say you are either
a "crackpot" or "nuts." (period hugs word)

>It's already been explained to you that the two spectral peaks of
>liquid water which Anders Nilsson observed is due to the two spin
>isomers of water, causing two water molecule hybrids with two
>different H bonding strengths.

It's been explained to you before that the two spectral peaks of
liquid water observed by Nilsson are the result of the two spin
isomers of water which cause two water molecule hybrids that exhibit
two different H bonding strengths.

>It's already been explained to you that H bonds are electrostatic in
>nature, and thus their strength diminishes by the inverse square of
>distance per Coulomb's Law. They do *not* get *stronger* with
>increasing distance, that's just insane twaddle from your broken
>brain.

It has previously been explained to you that H bonds are electrostatic 
and consequently their strength diminishes by the inverse square of
distance per Coulomb's Law. The bonds do not become stronger with
distance. That's just insane twaddle from your incapacitated brain.

>That you continue to ignore reality proves your psychosis... you'd
>rather continue on with your comfortable delusion that you know better
>than every single scientist over the past 250+ years as you dismiss
>and denigrate and deny all of the accumulated scientific knowledge we
>have, than explore the possibility that you are an insane moronic
>uneducated halfwit who is wrong.

That you choose to ignore reality is proof of your psychosis. You'd
rather embrace the delusion that you are more learned than scientists 
over the past two hundred and fifty years whose research demonstrates
otherwise. You dismiss, denigrate and deny a body of accepted scientific
knowledge and fail to consider the possibility that your contradictory 
ideas are seriously flawed.

>You're attempting to twist scientific fact to fit your model, James,
>which is a violation of the Scientific Method. You fit the model to
>the facts, James, not vice versa.

You attempt to mold scientific fact to fit your model, James. This
is a clear violation of the Scientific Method which molds the model
to fit the fact. Ergo, the reason you have become known throughout the
scientific community as a fraud and a laughingstock.

>Hence the reason you've become known across the entire scientific
>community as a scientific fraud and a laughingstock.

Notice how you created a paragraph where another was not called for.

>You're no physicist, James. The sum total of your scientific education
>consists of a single elective Basic Meteorology class, which you
>obviously learned nothing from. Which universities did you attend,
>what was your major, and what was your PhD thesis, James?

You, James, are no physicist. The sum of your scientific education
consists of a Basic Meteorology course from which you obviously 
learned nothing. Which universities did you attend, what was your
major and what is the topic of your Ph.D. Thesis?

>You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
>Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
>cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
>tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
>logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
>suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.

You have been exposed as a scientific fraud, James. Your theory has
been thoroughly debunked scientifically and is indefensible.

>You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
>derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
>world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
>believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.
>
>As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
>substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
>those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
>inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.


In closing, you should rely more on clear, concise, factual, grammatically
correct language and less on ad hominem attacks as such attacks only
serve to expose you as a small, insecure individual.

HTH.



-- 
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.

"It is my erudite opinion that a man
should not mince words just to spare
the sensibilities of the ignorant or
the thin-skinned."

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

#563929

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:11:52 PM UTC-7, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

> >make mention of a variable polarity of the water
> >molecule... none of them do.

If they did I would have had no reason to write the paper.

> >It's already been explained to you that the two spectral peaks of
> >liquid water which Anders Nilsson observed is due to the two spin
> >isomers of water, 

So, if you are such an expert why don't you write a paper on it?

Good luck.

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

#563992

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:11:52 PM UTC-7, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> 
>> >make mention of a variable polarity of the water
>> >molecule... none of them do.
> 
> If they did I would have had no reason to write the paper.

The only reason for you to write a paper is you mental illness.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#563955

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. <greghall@yacht_master.fake> wrote:

> In closing, you should rely more on clear, concise, factual, grammatically
> correct language and less on ad hominem attacks as such attacks only
> serve to expose you as a small, insecure individual.
> 
> HTH.

I want to have your babies.

-- 
Diblert

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

#564012

On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 21:03:40 +0000, diblert@evil.megacorp (Diblert) wrote:
>Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. <greghall@yacht_master.fake> wrote:
>
>> In closing, you should rely more on clear, concise, factual, grammatically
>> correct language and less on ad hominem attacks as such attacks only
>> serve to expose you as a small, insecure individual.
>> 
>> HTH.
>
>I want to have your babies.

LOL!

-- 
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.

"It is my erudite opinion that a man
should not mince words just to spare
the sensibilities of the ignorant or
the thin-skinned."

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

#564083

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

Sir Gargles Balls, Is Queer (aka Craptain Kneel Whorin' the
Pusillanimous Pail-Pooping Pooter Pirate of the SS Cut The [mus]Turd),
in <news:39vteb9pip9cnfr4f4lsrnlc5mproc8co4@4ax.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:51:08 +0100 (CET),
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> You write like a high school dropout, dude! I will demonstrate
> how a Ph.D. in Journalism does it better.

Having your web browser constantly open to thesaurus.com doesn't
constitute your having a PhD in Journalism, Gargles. Especially given
that all your other browser tabs are open to trannyporn.com.

<snicker>

>> Your references do not support your contentions, James. You'll be
>> getting right on detailing exactly where, in each of your referenced
>> papers, they make mention of a variable polarity of the water
>> molecule... none of them do.

> The references you cite do not support your claims, James. Besides,
> you failed to quote from those papers where they discuss the variable
> polarity of a molecule of water.

>> In fact, two of the physicists who wrote papers that you reference
>> refer to you as either a "crackpot" or "nuts".

> In fact, two of the physicists that you reference say you are either
> a "crackpot" or "nuts." (period hugs word)

>> It's already been explained to you that the two spectral peaks of
>> liquid water which Anders Nilsson observed is due to the two spin
>> isomers of water, causing two water molecule hybrids with two
>> different H bonding strengths.

> It's been explained to you before that the two spectral peaks of
> liquid water observed by Nilsson are the result of the two spin
> isomers of water which cause two water molecule hybrids that exhibit
> two different H bonding strengths.

>> It's already been explained to you that H bonds are electrostatic in
>> nature, and thus their strength diminishes by the inverse square of
>> distance per Coulomb's Law. They do *not* get *stronger* with
>> increasing distance, that's just insane twaddle from your broken
>> brain.

> It has previously been explained to you that H bonds are electrostatic 
> and consequently their strength diminishes by the inverse square of
> distance per Coulomb's Law. The bonds do not become stronger with
> distance. That's just insane twaddle from your incapacitated brain.

>> That you continue to ignore reality proves your psychosis... you'd
>> rather continue on with your comfortable delusion that you know better
>> than every single scientist over the past 250+ years as you dismiss
>> and denigrate and deny all of the accumulated scientific knowledge we
>> have, than explore the possibility that you are an insane moronic
>> uneducated halfwit who is wrong.

> That you choose to ignore reality is proof of your psychosis. You'd
> rather embrace the delusion that you are more learned than scientists 
> over the past two hundred and fifty years whose research demonstrates
> otherwise. You dismiss, denigrate and deny a body of accepted scientific
> knowledge and fail to consider the possibility that your contradictory 
> ideas are seriously flawed.

>> You're attempting to twist scientific fact to fit your model, James,
>> which is a violation of the Scientific Method. You fit the model to
>> the facts, James, not vice versa.

> You attempt to mold scientific fact to fit your model, James. This
> is a clear violation of the Scientific Method which molds the model
> to fit the fact. Ergo, the reason you have become known throughout the
> scientific community as a fraud and a laughingstock.

>> Hence the reason you've become known across the entire scientific
>> community as a scientific fraud and a laughingstock.

> Notice how you created a paragraph where another was not called for.

>> You're no physicist, James. The sum total of your scientific education
>> consists of a single elective Basic Meteorology class, which you
>> obviously learned nothing from. Which universities did you attend,
>> what was your major, and what was your PhD thesis, James?

> You, James, are no physicist. The sum of your scientific education
> consists of a Basic Meteorology course from which you obviously 
> learned nothing. Which universities did you attend, what was your
> major and what is the topic of your Ph.D. Thesis?

>> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
>> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
>> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
>> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
>> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
>> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.

> You have been exposed as a scientific fraud, James. Your theory has
> been thoroughly debunked scientifically and is indefensible.

>> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
>> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
>> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
>> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.
>> 
>> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
>> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
>> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
>> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

> In closing,

And to think Gargles did all that while dressed in his schoolmarm
outfit and while he was getting pounded by a tranny. LOL

> you should rely more on clear, concise, factual, grammatically
> correct language and less on ad hominem attacks as such attacks only
> serve to expose you as a small, insecure individual.

Except your "clear, concise, factual, grammatically correct" language
doesn't convey as much information as my "clear, concise, factual,
grammatically correct" language, Gargles. You pedantic twat.

> HTH.

The turdsmith speaketh. LOL

-- 

Chimpy likes tickling pickles.
His picklecycle is a classic.
He visited Greg, who showed him his peg,
but Chimpy only likes Vlasics.

"It's no Vlasic for sure,
but my poor closet door",
said Chimpy as he kneeled on one knee,
"is already broken
so I'll get to throatin',
but after this I get to pee!"

But Gargles had one more condition
before being sucked to perdition.
"Put on this dress
and I'll do the rest,
imagining you're in transition."

The nickel slot glowed furiously hot
and slurping drowned out the sea noise.
Soon Gargles was done, he'd had all his fun.
It was quick because Gargles likes boys.

When Chimpy was done he smacked Gargles' ass
and said, "Now *that's* how to suck it!"
But no Golden Showers for Chimpy, alas.
Greg went to play with his bucket!

Bucket play done Gargles wanted more fun
so he told Chimpy it was his turn.
Chimpy didn't demur, Gargles dropped to the floor
and his throat got a case of cock burn!

"Not to worry", was heard from the retarded turd,
fapping blindingly fast like a fool.
"We'll put everything right by the end of the night.
Just swallow this, trust me, it's cool."

Gargles guzzled for hours before hitting the showers.
"How's the throat?" was the query. "No pain!
So when I am done, we'll have some more fun,
my throat's good so let's do it again!"

On into the night as the waves lapped the boat,
sounds of gagging and slurping and juice.
In that gay little boat, Chimpy battered on throat
'til Gargles said, "Let's call a truce!"

"I can't take any more! You've outgayed me for sure"
Gargles cried as he sat all defeated.

Chimpy beamed victory,
"You can't beat me, you see?
My gayness is just half depleted!"

<snicker>

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

#564195

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 03:03:05 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to constantly open all browser tabs to trannyporn.com.
>
> <snickerTurd>
>
> The turdsmith speaketh.
>

-- 
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.  it says that you're in denial  
about the inversion of your AC legs.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.</GROUCHO MARX>
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages that are archived FOREVER.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016

 

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

#564382

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

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1, in
<news:op.yeoqzardtm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
into the wood chipper again:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 03:03:05 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Time to constantly open all browser tabs to trannyporn.com.
>>
>> <snickerTurd>
>>
>> The turdsmith speaketh.

Yeah, folks, Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper of Penis,
aka Mathematical Mega-Moron, has been reduced to a level of
Numbskulled Post-Editing Nincompoopery on par with that
basement-dwelling sister-fisting unemployable pudgy lawn gnome
Alexander Anthony Cain of Griffin, GA.

LOL!

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Obsessed Retard. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Post-Editing Pathetico. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In Usenet History. LOL

-- 

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757

DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.

> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.

Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.

<snicker>
=================================================

DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================

DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f712515dedb738e450@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================

This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.

150 IQ? LOL

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

#564092

"Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:51:08 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> 
> <...>
> 
> You write like a high school dropout, dude! I will demonstrate
> how a Ph.D. in Journalism does it better.
> 
> >Your references do not support your contentions, James. You'll be
> >getting right on detailing exactly where, in each of your referenced
> >papers, they make mention of a variable polarity of the water
> >molecule... none of them do.
> 
> The references you cite do not support your claims, James. Besides,
> you failed to quote from those papers where they discuss the variable
> polarity of a molecule of water.

But, Gergle... didn't you tell us before that fakey was a
real smart fella?

Now he's getting his cherry-red, glow-in-the-daylight ass
spnaked all across Usenet, and even YOU are correcting him.

What's up with that?

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

#564109

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:49:48 +0800, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:
>"Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:51:08 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>> 
>> <...>
>> 
>> You write like a high school dropout, dude! I will demonstrate
>> how a Ph.D. in Journalism does it better.
>> 
>> >Your references do not support your contentions, James. You'll be
>> >getting right on detailing exactly where, in each of your referenced
>> >papers, they make mention of a variable polarity of the water
>> >molecule... none of them do.
>> 
>> The references you cite do not support your claims, James. Besides,
>> you failed to quote from those papers where they discuss the variable
>> polarity of a molecule of water.
>
>But, Gergle... didn't you tell us before that fakey was a
>real smart fella?
>
>Now he's getting his cherry-red, glow-in-the-daylight ass
>spnaked all across Usenet, and even YOU are correcting him.
>
>What's up with that?

The bastard used to suck my dick for free but now
he tries to charge me twenty-five cents...


-- 
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.

"It is my erudite opinion that a man
should not mince words just to spare
the sensibilities of the ignorant or
the thin-skinned."

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

#563927

On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:51:08 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> as outlined in my .sig



Translation: You know! The bag of lies I drag around.

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

#564058

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

Trailer Trash Tony the Law-Breaking Scam-Running Drug-Dealing
Wife-Beating Child-Endangering Tax-Evading Unemployable Racist
High-School-Dropout Needle-Tracked Drug-Addled Alcoholic Pissbum (aka
Tony Ray Rawlings, aka Anton Ray Eaks of 600 Raintree Blvd #58,
Lamplighter Trailer Park, Canon City, CO), socked up as Skeeter, in
<news:ci2ueblatdegkbs0tig0ug0oc23t2khafg@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:51:08 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Your references do not support your contentions, James. You'll be
>> getting right on detailing exactly where, in each of your referenced
>> papers, they make mention of a variable polarity of the water
>> molecule... none of them do.
>> 
>> In fact, two of the physicists who wrote papers that you reference
>> refer to you as either a "crackpot" or "nuts".
>> 
>> It's already been explained to you that the two spectral peaks of
>> liquid water which Anders Nilsson observed is due to the two spin
>> isomers of water, causing two water molecule hybrids with two
>> different H bonding strengths.
>> 
>> It's already been explained to you that H bonds are electrostatic in
>> nature, and thus their strength diminishes by the inverse square of
>> distance per Coulomb's Law. They do *not* get *stronger* with
>> increasing distance, that's just insane twaddle from your broken
>> brain.
>> 
>> That you continue to ignore reality proves your psychosis... you'd
>> rather continue on with your comfortable delusion that you know better
>> than every single scientist over the past 250+ years as you dismiss
>> and denigrate and deny all of the accumulated scientific knowledge we
>> have, than explore the possibility that you are an insane moronic
>> uneducated halfwit who is wrong.
>> 
>> You're attempting to twist scientific fact to fit your model, James,
>> which is a violation of the Scientific Method. You fit the model to
>> the facts, James, not vice versa.
>> 
>> Hence the reason you've become known across the entire scientific
>> community as a scientific fraud and a laughingstock.
>> 
>> You're no physicist, James. The sum total of your scientific education
>> consists of a single elective Basic Meteorology class, which you
>> obviously learned nothing from. Which universities did you attend,
>> what was your major, and what was your PhD thesis, James?
>> 
>> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
>> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
>> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
>> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
>> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
>> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.
>> 
>> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
>> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
>> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
>> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.
>> 
>> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
>> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
>> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
>> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

> Translation: You know! The bag of lies I drag around.

We're not talking about your pathetic pissbum life and your attempts
to cover up the dismal reality of your pathetic pissbum life, New
Emmett.

<snicker>

> <http://imgur.com/xt9bcTq>
> 
> I were a execyootive reegunal sailes man making deleverys.
> Now I are a toofless unemployalbe pissbum.

<snicker>

> I just found out today. Maybe a year. I love you all.
> My shits fucked up anyboby givs a damn?

No.

Lying Drug-Abusing Woman-Beating Pissbum Trailer Trash Tony Ray Eaks.

<snicker>

-- 

Proof that Lamey (aka Skeeter) is Anton Ray Eaks:
Message-ID: <kus7dj$bh0$1@news.mixmin.net>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/alt.usenet.kooks/messageid$3Akus7dj$24bh0$241@news.mixmin.net/alt.usenet.kooks/MLAQo_O73UM>

Pissbum hard at work to earn his drug-money:
<http://i.imgur.com/hr4eMvS.jpg> <--- LOL!

Just say no to drugs and alcohol, kids!
<http://i.imgur.com/uoZbsGI.jpg> <--- LOL!

It's Howdy Doody Time!:
<http://i.imgur.com/1myBylb.jpg> <--- LOL!

The Pissbum Clan:
<http://i.imgur.com/cixImyq.jpg> <--- LOL!
MID: <81670ab47076fa4432bc62e70914ee31@dizum.com>

Thanks for admitting you live in single-wide trailer #58 at the Lamp
Lighter Mobile Home Park on Raintree Boulevard in Canon City,
Colorado, Pissbum. LOL

<https://web.archive.org/web/20150301045717/http://coloradovoters.info/by_number/0005/59023_anton_ray_eaks.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20150224004840/http://coloradovoters.info/by_address/81212.html>
600 Raintree Blvd. #58
Canon City, CO 81212

Another single-wide? Of course it is... the Lamp Lighter Mobile Home
Park only has single-wide trailers. LOL

And you get caught in your "I don't do FaceBook" lie again, not to
mention your "I'm not Tony Eaks" lie:

A drug-addled loserly pissbum wrote:
Message-ID: <c30abe10716ad5092ff377450c199bae@dizum.com>
"It's dump day today, woke up to fire trucks across the street, seems
the house caught fire. What a view I have now...LOL"

<https://www.facebook.com/CanonCityDailyRecord?hc_location=timeline>
"Tony Eaks - Right across the street from me, Woke up to flames and
lights."

<https://web.archive.org/web/20150122055700/http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/ci_27053304/early-morning-fire-destroys-home-at-lamp-lighter>

And before he was a Canon City, CO single-wide trailer-dwelling
unemployable pissbum, he was a Fairplay, CO single-wide
trailer-dwelling unemployable pissbum. LOL

In Fairplay, CO he mooched his mother to an early death... now he's
mooching his ultra-ugly transsexual Howdy Doody wife Beverly Jean
Johnson-Eaks, who is forced to work two minimum-wage jobs (cashier at
Alco, cashier at Dollar Tree) to support Trailer Trash Tony's drug
habit. LOL

Message-ID: <96a8a62d10d76cd522bcf86bbaef274d@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <91a9d7e35f68d22eef5b72f79ef505c0@dizum.com>
Unit 66. Trailer Trash Tony is a single-wide pissbum! Bwahahahaaa!
============================================================
Trailer Trash Tony wrote:
> Can you prove this single wide trailer thing? Or is it
> just another attempt to try and "act" better than me?  LOL

Yeah, I can now prove "this single wide trailer thing", Trailer Trash
Tony. Which by your own admission makes me better than you. LOL

So I was right about everything I wrote about you... which makes you a
pissbum, Pissbum. LOL

<https://web.archive.org/web/20140724093727/http://coloradovoters.info/0005/59023.html>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anton Ray Eaks was born in 1953 and he registered to vote, giving his
address as 21980 HWY 285 UNIT 66, FAIRPLAY, PARK COUNTY, COLORADO
80440. His telephone number is 1-719-477-3574. His voting status is:
Active. He is unaffiliated.
RESIDENTIAL_ADDRESS:	 21980 HWY 285 UNIT 66
RESIDENTIAL_CITY:	 FAIRPLAY
RESIDENTIAL_STATE:	 CO
RESIDENTIAL_ZIP_CODE:	 80440
REGISTRATION_DATE:	 07/31/2012
BIRTH_YEAR:	 1953
PHONE_NUM:	 719-477-3574
MAILING_ADDRESS_1:	 PO BOX 473
MAILING_CITY:	 FAIRPLAY
MAILING_STATE:	 CO
MAILING_ZIP_CODE:	 80440
MAILING_ZIP_PLUS:	 0473
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOTE: That phone number is the Alcoholics Anonymous hot-line at South
Park Christian Chapel:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20150131161807/http://www.southparkevents.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48:on-going-activities-for-the-month-&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=54>
"Alcoholics Anonymouis meeting 7-8pm at So Pk Christian Chapel
719-477-3574"

Trailer Trash Tony is *such* a drunkard that when he registered to
vote, he put down the AA DrunkieLine as his phone number! LOL

A map of the gravel quarry / junkyard / trailer park where Trailer
Trash Tony rented his shitty single-wide trailer for only $675 / month
(and still couldn't pay the rent, and got evicted! LOL):
<https://www.google.com/maps/place/21980+Hwy+285+%2366,+Fairplay,+CO+80440/@39.2157874,-105.9922529,346m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x876ae8155a400885:0xfb9ff5490348163d>

Unit 66:
This is a 3 bd/2ba single-wide trailer.
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.318572058245476.1073741834.131803693588981&type=1&_fb_noscript=1>

SPANKY-SPANKY! (tm)

<snicker>
============================================================

Lamey (aka Skeeter) the alcoholic wife-beating outer-filthing
drug-addict:
Message-ID: <lfjfe7$b3t$4@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <1b7ef90407a4295786c3f1338e80d553@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <c39bc1cce43a9e6860b642e72943f3ce@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <ae39676e2ac093e5259ccf8210ecbb25@dizum.com>

Trailer Trash Tony makes a multi-pronged confession:
MID: <k9m2ca5g26l46qb2t9h05ff87skcjiov1o@4ax.com>
"Yup, I can take 4 or 5 percs and roof your house. It's called the
paradoxical affect."

Pissbum groveled. LOL
Pissbum lost. LOL!
Message-ID: <lchuas$q96$4@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <c92bbbbfefed840db0563eb29f2d6498@dizum.com>

Cowardly Pissbum gets caught in lie after lie. LOL!
Message-ID: <l0rfde$hv8$2@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l0smsq$fcq$2@news.mixmin.net>

Lamey (aka Skeeter) the forger, busted and scrambling for cover like a
coward:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.usenet.kooks/2oWKmfnSPEA/RE_35HZp8qAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.usenet.kooks/2oWKmfnSPEA/-RZxQp6TAe4J>
Message-ID: <db92667a7bac368fab1b8ff5085f8b2e@dizum.com>

Pissbum gets kicked so hard he's *still* bouncing around Usenet like a
SuperBall:
============================================
Message-ID: <kv42gb$vd8$1@news.mixmin.net>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.usenet.kooks/ZyzzhJiku3c/Q0c2J9_Jc5YJ>

Message-ID: <kuatrj$b2g$1@news.mixmin.net>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.usenet.kooks/N91lSABoN2s/JYDwKwwIZn4J>
============================================

Trailer Trash Tony the Single-Wide Trailer-Dwelling Pissbum is driven
so insane by my truthiness that he's forced by his psychiatric
professional to take Seroquel, a strong anti-psychotic that its maker
(Astra Zeneca) only indicates for use in treating schizophrenia and
bipolar disorder:
==================================================
Lamey (aka Skeeter) admits he now takes Seroquel "to sleep"... it's a
prescription medication for the treatment of mania and depression
associated with bipolar disease and schizophrenia. I've driven him
mad. LOL

Pissbum tries to k'lame his doctor-recommended dosage is only half of
the smallest tablet Astra Zeneca produces for Seroquel:
MID: <3elg2aduthcn6j92jlledhg6sa4ibnbro1@4ax.com>:
"Just like seriquil, I take it for sleep at night, 12.5 mg"

I shred Pissbum Tony's lies and prove he's gone batty:
MID: <0c4a46b95e1b8983104047001ec4e05f@dizum.com>
MID: <11715d7d5e802fb4248513f981621812@dizum.com>
MID: <3bb2754531e630d89eb7330623ee6281@dizum.com>
MID: <8bc988e4842e4338432ad962f84a89d4@dizum.com>
==================================================

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

#564070

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:01:38 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:3f91b7cd-2745-4bbc-b176-2d26b45f05df@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> >> References
> >> 
> >> 1. Bartels-Rausch, Thorsten, et al. "Ice structures, patterns, and processes: A view across the icefields." Reviews of Modern Physics 84.2 (2012): 885.
> >> 2. Petrenko, Victor F., and Robert W. Whitworth. Physics of ice. Oxford University Press, 1999.
> >> 3. Uhara, I., et al. "Crystal nucleation given rise by fracturing or by mechanical shock." Kolloid-Zeitschrift und Zeitschrift für Polymere 244.1 (1971): 218-222.
> >> 4. Pritchard, H. O., and H. A. Skinner. "The concept of electronegativity."Chemical Reviews 55.4 (1955): 745-786.
> >> 5. Gillespie, Ronald J., and István Hargittai. The VSEPR model of molecular geometry. Courier Corporation, 2013.
> >> 6. "The Origin of the" Delta" Symbol for Fractional Charges." Journal of Chemical Education 86, no. 5 (2009): 545.
> >> 7. Water structure and science Site by Martin Chaplin, accessed 15 December 2015: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html (See footnote.)
> >> 8. Huang, Congcong, et al. "The inhomogeneous structure of water at ambient conditions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.36 (2009): 15214-15218.
> >> 9. Khaliullin, Rustam Z., et al. "Unravelling the origin of intermolecular interactions using absolutely localized molecular orbitals." The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 111.36 (2007): 8753-8765.
> >> 10. Barbosa, Marcia. "Tapping the incredible weirdness of water." New Scientist 226.3015 (2015): 26-27.
> 
> Your references do not support your contentions, James. 

Which ones?

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

#564153

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

James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as Solving
Tornadoes, in
<news:48f51e13-e9e7-4534-80f7-429fa44aff91@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:01:38 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:3f91b7cd-2745-4bbc-b176-2d26b45f05df@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>> References
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Bartels-Rausch, Thorsten, et al. "Ice structures, patterns, and processes: A view across the icefields." Reviews of Modern Physics 84.2 (2012): 885.
>>>> 2. Petrenko, Victor F., and Robert W. Whitworth. Physics of ice. Oxford University Press, 1999.
>>>> 3. Uhara, I., et al. "Crystal nucleation given rise by fracturing or by mechanical shock." Kolloid-Zeitschrift und Zeitschrift für Polymere 244.1 (1971): 218-222.
>>>> 4. Pritchard, H. O., and H. A. Skinner. "The concept of electronegativity."Chemical Reviews 55.4 (1955): 745-786.
>>>> 5. Gillespie, Ronald J., and István Hargittai. The VSEPR model of molecular geometry. Courier Corporation, 2013.
>>>> 6. "The Origin of the" Delta" Symbol for Fractional Charges." Journal of Chemical Education 86, no. 5 (2009): 545.
>>>> 7. Water structure and science Site by Martin Chaplin, accessed 15 December 2015: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html (See footnote.)
>>>> 8. Huang, Congcong, et al. "The inhomogeneous structure of water at ambient conditions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.36 (2009): 15214-15218.
>>>> 9. Khaliullin, Rustam Z., et al. "Unravelling the origin of intermolecular interactions using absolutely localized molecular orbitals." The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 111.36 (2007): 8753-8765.
>>>> 10. Barbosa, Marcia. "Tapping the incredible weirdness of water." New Scientist 226.3015 (2015): 26-27.

>> Your references do not support your contentions, James. You'll be
>> getting right on detailing exactly where, in each of your referenced
>> papers, they make mention of a variable polarity of the water
>> molecule... none of them do.
>> 
>> In fact, two of the physicists who wrote papers that you reference
>> refer to you as either a "crackpot" or "nuts".
>> 
>> It's already been explained to you that the two spectral peaks of
>> liquid water which Anders Nilsson observed is due to the two spin
>> isomers of water, causing two water molecule hybrids with two
>> different H bonding strengths.
>> 
>> It's already been explained to you that H bonds are electrostatic in
>> nature, and thus their strength diminishes by the inverse square of
>> distance per Coulomb's Law. They do *not* get *stronger* with
>> increasing distance, that's just insane twaddle from your broken
>> brain.
>> 
>> That you continue to ignore reality proves your psychosis... you'd
>> rather continue on with your comfortable delusion that you know better
>> than every single scientist over the past 250+ years as you dismiss
>> and denigrate and deny all of the accumulated scientific knowledge we
>> have, than explore the possibility that you are an insane moronic
>> uneducated halfwit who is wrong.
>> 
>> You're attempting to twist scientific fact to fit your model, James,
>> which is a violation of the Scientific Method. You fit the model to
>> the facts, James, not vice versa.
>> 
>> Hence the reason you've become known across the entire scientific
>> community as a scientific fraud and a laughingstock.
>> 
>> You're no physicist, James. The sum total of your scientific education
>> consists of a single elective Basic Meteorology class, which you
>> obviously learned nothing from. Which universities did you attend,
>> what was your major, and what was your PhD thesis, James?
>> 
>> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
>> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
>> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
>> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
>> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
>> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.
>> 
>> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
>> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
>> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
>> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.
>> 
>> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
>> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
>> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
>> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

> Which ones?

All of them. In addition, two of the authors believe you to be a
"crackpot" and "nuts".

You've proven what I wrote above, James. You yet again evaded
substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from
those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions
inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

-- 

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

============================================================
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.

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 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 clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, 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?

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
hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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

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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web