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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #653569

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

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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?

Back to alt.usenet.kooks | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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 "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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 18:33 +0100

csiph-web