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

Groups > sci.physics > #718995 > unrolled thread

Sergio, your post has confessional implications

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Sergio, your post has confessional implications James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 09:25 -0800
    Sergio, your post has confessional implications James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 17:07 -0800
      Sergio, your post has confessional implications James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 22:24 -0800
    Re: Sergio, your post has confessional implications pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 22:43 -0800
      Re: Sergio, your post has confessional implications James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 23:28 -0800
        Re: Sergio, your post has confessional implications pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-18 19:45 -0800
          Re: Sergio, your post has confessional implications Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-18 23:32 -0600
      Re: Sergio, your post has confessional implications Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-18 10:59 -0600
        Re: Sergio, your post has confessional implications James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 09:31 -0800

#718995 — Sergio, your post has confessional implications

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:52:01 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> water is well known;
> 
> http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_structure_science.html
> 
> denial of water vapor, is denial of basic science.
> 
> invention of McGinn's magic 'plasma' that somehow causes evaporation,
> has no evidence, just a fog dream

Sergio,

The link you present here has confessional implications.  Firstly, it confesses to the fact that H2O is not well understood (exactly the opposite of your claim) in that it explores the scientific anomalies of H2O.  (Note: something is "anomalous" when current theory fails to predict it or even contradicts its observance.) Secondly, it confesses to your own dimwittedness in that you present it as evidence that water is well understood, which is exactly the opposite of what the web page itself is attempting to convey.

Did you realize any of this?  

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video)
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17078

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#719069

Sergio,  

Its time to address these issues. 

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

#719117

They say the difference between genius and stupid is that genius has it limits. 

Sergio, you are limitless!

From this point on just let belief be your guide.

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

#719122

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:52:01 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> 
> > water is well known;
> > 
> > http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_structure_science.html
> > 
> > denial of water vapor, is denial of basic science.
> > 
> > invention of McGinn's magic 'plasma' that somehow causes evaporation,
> > has no evidence, just a fog dream
> 
> Sergio,
> 
> The link you present here has confessional implications.  Firstly, it confesses to the fact that H2O is not well understood (exactly the opposite of your claim) in that it explores the scientific anomalies of H2O.  (Note: something is "anomalous" when current theory fails to predict it or even contradicts its observance.) Secondly, it confesses to your own dimwittedness in that you present it as evidence that water is well understood, which is exactly the opposite of what the web page itself is attempting to convey.
> 
> Did you realize any of this? 

However, your self-named 'nanodroplets' are, in fact, addressed in Sergio's link, where you can read...

"Water dimer
Much effort has been expended on the structure of small isolated water clusters. The smallest cluster is the dimer. Typically, in the ambient atmosphere, there is over one water dimer for every thousand free water molecules rising to about one in twenty in steam."

So, your 'nanodroplet' is more correctly called a 'water dimer', and it really does exist in the atmosphere... but it is 1000 less populous than free water molecules in the ambient atmosphere! Thanks for the link, Sergio...

Back to the drawing board for you, Jim, yet another hitch in your giddyup.

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

#719124

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 11:03:22 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:52:01 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> > 
> > > water is well known;
> > > 
> > > http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_structure_science.html
> > > 
> > > denial of water vapor, is denial of basic science.
> > > 
> > > invention of McGinn's magic 'plasma' that somehow causes evaporation,
> > > has no evidence, just a fog dream
> > 
> > Sergio,
> > 
> > The link you present here has confessional implications.  Firstly, it confesses to the fact that H2O is not well understood (exactly the opposite of your claim) in that it explores the scientific anomalies of H2O.  (Note: something is "anomalous" when current theory fails to predict it or even contradicts its observance.) Secondly, it confesses to your own dimwittedness in that you present it as evidence that water is well understood, which is exactly the opposite of what the web page itself is attempting to convey.
> > 
> > Did you realize any of this? 
> 
> However, your self-named 'nanodroplets' are, in fact, addressed in Sergio's link, where you can read...
> 
> "Water dimer
> Much effort has been expended on the structure of small isolated water clusters. The smallest cluster is the dimer. Typically, in the ambient atmosphere, there is over one water dimer for every thousand free water molecules rising to about one in twenty in steam."
> 
> So, your 'nanodroplet' is more correctly called a 'water dimer', and it really does exist in the atmosphere... but it is 1000 less populous than free water molecules in the ambient atmosphere! Thanks for the link, Sergio...
> 
> Back to the drawing board for you, Jim, yet another hitch in your giddyup.

How is it possible to know you have dimers and such.  This sounds sketchy to me in that how this is even knowable suggests capabilities beyond current technology. So, I am highly suspicious of this.  

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

#719342

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 11:28:49 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> How is it possible to know you have dimers and such.  This sounds sketchy to me in that how this is even knowable suggests capabilities beyond current technology. So, I am highly suspicious of this.

What? You don't know? I thought you claimed to be smarter than all scientists, like, ever?

di·mer
/ˈdīmər/
noun CHEMISTRY
a molecule or molecular complex consisting of two identical molecules linked together.

You know, like 2 water molecules linked together, rather than a single water molecule, and the unlinked water molecules, in the air, are 1000 times more numerous than the linked molecules (which *you* call nanodroplets). I am absolutely shocked that you didn't use this cool word, dimer, rather than make up your own term, 'nanodroplets'. It is almost as though you didn't know this word beforehand, you, the world's greatest scientist! Who knew?

If, as you say, this knowledge is 'not knowable', how is it that you can claim that water in the atmosphere at temperatures less than the boiling point of water is impossible? Either this knowledge is knowable or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

In any case, it looks like this is common knowledge among the world's chemists, which, to me, makes it pretty much mainstream dogma... and who am I to argue with mainstream dogma? I certainly don't know nearly enough about this stuff to argue with experts, but then again, neither do you... even though you still claim to know more than any living scientist, is this *still* correct, Jim?

So, you say that you are highly suspicious of this whole 'dimer' business and statistics, you know, where the single water molecule outnumbers the dimers (nanodroplets) by 1000 to 1, which of course, blows your entire theory into little tiny bits... do I have this correct? You think that the technology to determine these does not exist, but on the other hand, you have never even heard the term before! How can you deny the existence of something about which you have no knowledge? Are you now going to claim that, even though this is all 'new' information to you, you have nevertheless mastered it? Now you know more about dimers than any of the world's chemists, in addition to all of the world's physicists?

Being suspicious of scientific claims is a worthy goal, but in order to negate those claims that you disagree with, you need to get your shit together with empirical evidence, evidence comprised of observations and/or experiments, and, of course, you have none of these, so you are once again dead in the water. Having a 'feeling' that all is not right is not even remotely related to the scientific method.

In other words, "you've got nothing"!

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

#719351

On 12/18/2018 9:45 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 11:28:49 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> How is it possible to know you have dimers and such.  This sounds sketchy to me in that how this is even knowable suggests capabilities beyond current technology. So, I am highly suspicious of this.
> 
> What? You don't know? I thought you claimed to be smarter than all scientists, like, ever?
> 
> di·mer
> /ˈdīmər/
> noun CHEMISTRY
> a molecule or molecular complex consisting of two identical molecules linked together.
> 
> You know, like 2 water molecules linked together, rather than a single water molecule, and the unlinked water molecules, in the air, are 1000 times more numerous than the linked molecules (which *you* call nanodroplets). I am absolutely shocked that you didn't use this cool word, dimer, rather than make up your own term, 'nanodroplets'. It is almost as though you didn't know this word beforehand, you, the world's greatest scientist! Who knew?
> 
> If, as you say, this knowledge is 'not knowable', how is it that you can claim that water in the atmosphere at temperatures less than the boiling point of water is impossible? Either this knowledge is knowable or it is not. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> In any case, it looks like this is common knowledge among the world's chemists, which, to me, makes it pretty much mainstream dogma... and who am I to argue with mainstream dogma? I certainly don't know nearly enough about this stuff to argue with experts, but then again, neither do you... even though you still claim to know more than any living scientist, is this *still* correct, Jim?
> 
> So, you say that you are highly suspicious of this whole 'dimer' business and statistics, you know, where the single water molecule outnumbers the dimers (nanodroplets) by 1000 to 1, which of course, blows your entire theory into little tiny bits... do I have this correct? You think that the technology to determine these does not exist, but on the other hand, you have never even heard the term before! How can you deny the existence of something about which you have no knowledge? Are you now going to claim that, even though this is all 'new' information to you, you have nevertheless mastered it? Now you know more about dimers than any of the world's chemists, in addition to all of the world's physicists?
> 
> Being suspicious of scientific claims is a worthy goal, but in order to negate those claims that you disagree with, you need to get your shit together with empirical evidence, evidence comprised of observations and/or experiments, and, of course, you have none of these, so you are once again dead in the water. Having a 'feeling' that all is not right is not even remotely related to the scientific method.
> 
> In other words, "you've got nothing"!
> 

Mcginn brain has been desiccating out through his ears and nose for 10
years now.

James McGinn mind has diminishing into a feeble state of neurosis, over
his missing "Cold Steam" he cannot see, and the loss of science he
cannot understand.

now McGinn has less than nothing, he is lost in his own fog of random
imaginations and notions of something something.......  now just a
puttering, shuffling, meaningless pinhead.

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

#719176

On 12/18/2018 12:43 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:52:01 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>
>>> water is well known;
>>>
>>> http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_structure_science.html
>>>
>>> denial of water vapor, is denial of basic science.
>>>
>>> invention of McGinn's magic 'plasma' that somehow causes evaporation,
>>> has no evidence, just a fog dream
>>
>> Sergio,
>>
>> The link you present here has confessional implications.  Firstly, it confesses to the fact that H2O is not well understood (exactly the opposite of your claim) in that it explores the scientific anomalies of H2O.  (Note: something is "anomalous" when current theory fails to predict it or even contradicts its observance.) Secondly, it confesses to your own dimwittedness in that you present it as evidence that water is well understood, which is exactly the opposite of what the web page itself is attempting to convey.
>>
>> Did you realize any of this? 
> 
> However, your self-named 'nanodroplets' are, in fact, addressed in Sergio's link, where you can read...
> 
> "Water dimer
> Much effort has been expended on the structure of small isolated water clusters. The smallest cluster is the dimer. Typically, in the ambient atmosphere, there is over one water dimer for every thousand free water molecules rising to about one in twenty in steam."
> 
> So, your 'nanodroplet' is more correctly called a 'water dimer', and it really does exist in the atmosphere... but it is 1000 less populous than free water molecules in the ambient atmosphere! Thanks for the link, Sergio...
> 
> Back to the drawing board for you, Jim, yet another hitch in your giddyup.
> 

poor Church Lady McGinn in his Confessional admits he fails to
understand the word *anomalie*, and provides an out of context google
search for it.
.
       Water anomalies are well understood and characterized.

from the link;
"The anomalous properties of water are those where the behavior of
liquid water is entirely different from what is found with other liquids."

which sinks all of James McGinn's "notions", "anomalies" are not
"mystery",  they are just different from other liquids.

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

#719198

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 8:59:53 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 12/18/2018 12:43 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:52:01 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >>
> >>> water is well known;
> >>>
> >>> http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_structure_science.html
> >>>
> >>> denial of water vapor, is denial of basic science.
> >>>
> >>> invention of McGinn's magic 'plasma' that somehow causes evaporation,
> >>> has no evidence, just a fog dream
> >>
> >> Sergio,
> >>
> >> The link you present here has confessional implications.  Firstly, it confesses to the fact that H2O is not well understood (exactly the opposite of your claim) in that it explores the scientific anomalies of H2O.  (Note: something is "anomalous" when current theory fails to predict it or even contradicts its observance.) Secondly, it confesses to your own dimwittedness in that you present it as evidence that water is well understood, which is exactly the opposite of what the web page itself is attempting to convey.
> >>
> >> Did you realize any of this? 
> > 
> > However, your self-named 'nanodroplets' are, in fact, addressed in Sergio's link, where you can read...
> > 
> > "Water dimer
> > Much effort has been expended on the structure of small isolated water clusters. The smallest cluster is the dimer. Typically, in the ambient atmosphere, there is over one water dimer for every thousand free water molecules rising to about one in twenty in steam."
> > 
> > So, your 'nanodroplet' is more correctly called a 'water dimer', and it really does exist in the atmosphere... but it is 1000 less populous than free water molecules in the ambient atmosphere! Thanks for the link, Sergio...
> > 
> > Back to the drawing board for you, Jim, yet another hitch in your giddyup.
> > 
> 
> poor Church Lady McGinn in his Confessional admits he fails to
> understand the word *anomalie*, and provides an out of context google
> search for it.
> .
>        Water anomalies are well understood and characterized.
> 
> from the link;
> "The anomalous properties of water are those where the behavior of
> liquid water is entirely different from what is found with other liquids."
> 
> which sinks all of James McGinn's "notions", "anomalies" are not
> "mystery",  they are just different from other liquids

Semantics.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web