Groups > sci.physics > #566649 > unrolled thread

Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem

Started by	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
First post	2016-03-30 08:05 -0700
Last post	2016-04-01 00:08 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 28 — 9 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

  Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 08:05 -0700
    Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-30 20:07 +0200
      Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 16:04 -0700
        Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-31 05:40 +0200
          Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 22:06 -0700
            Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-31 20:04 +0200
          Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-01 01:15 +0800
            Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 18:23 +0100
              Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-31 11:40 -0600
                Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-31 14:04 -0700
            Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-01 08:33 +0200
              Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-01 03:25 -0600
                Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-04-01 11:02 -0700
      latt-ices noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 13:44 -0700
        Re: latt-ices James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:28 -0700
      Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 18:06 -0700
        Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-04 07:27 +0200
    Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-30 23:29 +0000
      Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 17:33 -0700
        Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-31 02:36 +0000
          Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 20:43 -0700
            Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-31 04:12 +0000
              Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 21:44 -0700
                Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-31 06:04 +0000
                  Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 07:33 -0700
                    Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-31 17:09 +0000
    Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 00:01 -0700
      Re: Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 00:08 -0700

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

#566649 — Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-30 08:05 -0700
Subject	Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem
Message-ID	<8de49478-b960-4888-82a8-ec47c90ac45a@googlegroups.com>

http://www.danielcelton.com/2016/01/21/an-introduction-to-the-water-structure-problem/#comment-81

Ultimately the biggest issue preventing the resolution of the water structure problem is psychological, the tendency for humans to be aesthetically attracted to idealized notions. And, in this case, that manifests itself in this absurd notion that the structure of ice is the result of water molecules forming into a lattice. This notion was assumed back in the 1930's and persists despite the fact it has never been verified. It is believed. And it is a huge obstacle because it gives researchers the false belief that they can ignore what is actually the best evidence we will ever have to untangle the water structure problem, that being the evidence associated with the transition between liquid water and solid ice.

If researchers were forced to admit that the body of evidence associated with this transition was not yet properly explained they would be forced to conclude that there must be some mechanism that is activating polarity over this transition. (Because without this there is no way to reconcile why and how this transition is so discrete and why and how there is such a sharp distinction between the hardness of ice and the fluidity of liquid water.) And this would force them to recognize that, therefore, polarity must be turned off (neutralized) in liquid water. And this would force them to seek out the mechanism that achieves this polarity neutralization in liquid water--which I've already discovered: https://zenodo.org/record/37224

As with much of what can be found in the literature of the structure of bulk water, the notion that water molecules can arrange themselves into a lattice is idealized, pseudo-scientific, phantasmagorical fiction. It is a science-based fairy tale. Only after researchers can psychologically bring themselves to admit that this notion is nonsense will there be any chance of making progress. Of course that means that no progress will be made until the people that lead the sheep in this intellectually dead discipline retire or die.

James McGinn
jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#566703

From	Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
Date	2016-03-30 20:07 +0200
Message-ID	<a60f7b68f9b19fe8408b39f204dfcb38@dizum.com>
In reply to	#566649

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:8de49478-b960-4888-82a8-ec47c90ac45a@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> http://www.danielcelton.com/2016/01/21/an-introduction-to-the-water-structure-problem/#comment-81
> 
> Ultimately the biggest issue preventing the resolution of the water structure
> problem

What problem, Tardnado Jim? Water has been researched thoroughly, the
only anomalies that exist have to do with high-energy interactions and
unusual circumstances such as at extremely high pressures. The
inter-molecular hydrogen bond has been thoroughly researched, there
are no more secrets for it to reveal. You're just a reality-denying
kooktard.

> is psychological,

Only for you, Jimbo TornadoTard, because you are psychotic.

> the tendency for humans to be aesthetically attracted to idealized notions.

"Idealized notions" like your giant sentient tornado monster in the
jet stream, James?

"Idealized notions" like your now-retracted but hastily revived water
molecule variable polarity, Tardnado?

"Idealized notions" like your "plasma not-a-plasma" which you've
*admitted* can not exist, Halfwit Jimmy?

"Idealized notions" like your claim that air density does not change,
thus its buoyancy does not change, thus convection does not exist?

Why haven't you done that simple experiment of blowing up a balloon
and putting it in your freezer, James? That simple experiment utterly
destroys your entire "theory not-a-theory", so it's no wonder you've
run away from doing something even a first grader would understand.

<snicker>

>  And, in this case, that manifests itself in this absurd notion that the
> structure of ice is the result of water molecules forming into a lattice.

<http://www.snowcrystals.com/videos/videos.html>

<https://carnegiescience.edu/news/unfrozen-mystery-h2o-reveals-new-secret>

<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/108939599199783>

<http://ftp-acd.puc-campinas.edu.br/pub/professores/ceatec/souzaef/COMPROVANTES/ARTIGOS/TESCHKE_VALENTE-FILHO_SOUZA_CPL_2010.pdf>

So yet again you're proven to be the anti-science reality-denying
halfwit James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA.

You're backpedaling after having been proven wrong again, James. I've
proven ice does form a lattice, I've proven it's been observed via
atomic force microscopy and other means, I've proven you're a moronic
uneducated halfwit sitting in mommy's basement blathering out retarded
twaddle you don't stand a chance of ever understanding.

> This notion was assumed

Measured.

> back in the 1930's

And empirically observed many times since then, to the point that it
can now be photographed. You're just a reality-denying kooktard.

> and persists despite the fact it has never been verified.

Wrong.

> It is believed.

Wrong.

> And it is a huge obstacle because it gives researchers the false belief
> that they can ignore what is actually the best evidence we will ever have
> to untangle the water structure problem, that being the evidence associated
> with the transition between liquid water and solid ice.

Which you've demonstrated you haven't the first faint fucking clue of
the underlying mechanism for. In fact, you're 180 degrees out from
reality. You claim ice is asymmetric, whereas you claim steam to be
highly symmetric. Hence, according to your blather, plasma from water
must be a solid, ice must be a liquid. According to you, to get steam,
one would freeze water, and to get ice, one would boil it. You are a
psychotic moron, after all.

> If researchers were forced to admit that the body of evidence associated
> with this transition was not yet properly explained

Except it is explained, you're just a reality-denying kooktard.

> they would be forced to conclude that there must be some mechanism that
> is activating polarity over this transition.

Wrong. Water molecule polarity does not change. That would mean that
water solvent properties would also randomly change, which we know it
does not do.

Besides, you've retracted your moronic claim of variable polarity of
the water molecule, remember?

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

Thanks for playing, but you lose.

That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

> (Because without this there is no way to reconcile why and how this
> transition is so discrete and why and how there is such a sharp
> distinction between the hardness of ice and the fluidity of liquid water.)

Unless one takes into account latent heat, which you also deny,
because you're an anti-science reality-denying kooktard.

> And this would force them to recognize that, therefore, polarity must be
> turned off (neutralized) in liquid water.

Wrong. You're back to blathering about variable polarity of the water
molecule after you were forced to retract that claim. A hilarious
fuckup on your part. Watching you scramble to cover up the fact that
you'd stupidly retracted the central premise of your entire "theory
not-a-theory" was especially entertaining. LOL

> And this would force them to seek out the mechanism that achieves this
> polarity neutralization in liquid water

Which doesn't exist. You're just a psychotic blabbering out your
psychosis, Tardnado McGinn.

> --which I've already discovered: https://zenodo.org/record/37224

You've discovered nothing, you've revealed nothing, you've got no
empirical evidence, you've got no experimental evidence, you've got no
proof, you've changed nothing, you'll never change anything. Because
you're blathering out stupidity with no connection to reality. Take
your meds, Jim.

> As with much of what can be found in the literature of the structure
> of bulk water, the notion that water molecules can arrange themselves
> into a lattice is idealized, pseudo-scientific, phantasmagorical fiction.

Except it's been empirically observed and even photographed, as proved
above. You're just a reality-denying kooktard, James.

> It is a science-based fairy tale.

The "science-based fairy tale" is your "theory not-a-theory", James.

> Only after researchers can psychologically bring themselves to admit
> that this notion is nonsense

You mean "lie"? LOL

> will there be any chance of making progress.

Progress has been and is being made without your psychotic blather,
James. All you're doing is wasting researchers' time with your
retardation when they have to take the time to tell you how wrong you
are, which you promptly ignore and continue blathering the same
psychosis you've been blathering for a quarter century.

> Of course that means that no progress will be made until the people that
> lead the sheep in this intellectually dead discipline retire or die.

No, James. Tremendous progress will be made when you finally steal
your mommy's car keys, close the garage door, start the car and
finally stop harassing the scientific community with your psychotic
blathering.

That's reality, James. _Deal_ _with_ _it_.

<snicker>

-- 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

From	Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge>
Date	2016-03-30 16:04 -0700
Message-ID	<MPG.3165fb4f9623395598cc39@news.altopia.com>
In reply to	#566703

From	Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future>
Date	2016-04-01 01:15 +0800
Message-ID	<gfmqfb95fhmqp4lo31ulqaq3bk8cn50mdr@4ax.com>
In reply to	#566822

From	snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
Date	2016-03-31 18:23 +0100
Message-ID	<1mkzn1l.813kav13yn7b4N%snipeco.2@gmail.com>
In reply to	#566971

From	Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Date	2016-03-31 11:40 -0600
Message-ID	<a7oqfblajtds3rp8b14oaj5qbjcgt8g6im@4ax.com>
In reply to	#566983

From	noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-01 13:44 -0700
Subject	latt-ices
Message-ID	<fbf42d12-1707-42fa-b1a3-941d6b04f0d1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#566703

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-03-30 23:29 +0000
Message-ID	<t24usc-n2i.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#566649

Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem

Contents

#566649 — Why Lattice Ice is the Biggest Obstacle to Resolving the Water Structure Problem

#566703

#566778

#566822

#566849

#567002

#566971

#566983

#566992

#567037

#567151

#567168

#567250

#567295 — latt-ices

#567343 — Re: latt-ices

#567747

#567792

#566785

#566796

#566813