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

Groups > sci.physics > #544292

Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water

Show all headers | View raw

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 2:03:59 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:05:48 AM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 5:20:51 AM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > both name variability, and the variability of H2O bonding hydrogen 
> > > > > polarity are again shown by movable links to the past textbooks, some at 
> > > > > Amazon even still.  I gladly teach and inspire (and you too!) via my 
> > > > > blog about such polarized and bonding of such very very tiny small 
> > > > > things, a good thing for you to both know, and accept.
> > > > 
> > > > I saw the graphics, jpegs. I'm still thirsty.
> > > 
> > > Maybe his imagination needs time to develop. Like a small flower in a dark forest.
> > 
> > Gibbs NCIS, Rule#42: Never project limitations onto others' imaginations.
> > 
> > You are referring to Sergio.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> > Please be clear James. Attributions
> > matter. I like Sergio! Fun chap he. It's his Font that gets me!
> 
> He seems an idiot.

Well, revisit your first -- or otherwise -- impressions. I advise.

> > James, you are, per your posting history, new to this Usenet NG.
> 
> I'm just your everyday, average, run of the mill, science genius.

I love that line James, my pal! Kudos and continue. Nice to meet you.

> > Why
> > is that? Where have you been all these many years? Life's good? What's
> > your Physics Angst?
> 
> Hmm.  Well, it (my "angst") has to do with the nature of the
> electron cloud on the oxygen atom of the H2O molecule in regard to
> hydrogen bonding. I believe one thing and the sheep believe
> another. See my paper on this NG for details: Breakthrough: Hydrogen
> Bonding Neutralizes H2O Polarity

First of all, Mark L. Fergerson is a great godsend autodidactic
genius. Please address his specific questions for I am more of a
generalist than either a journalist or a specificist. By which I mean,
I have no idea of the price of tea in Chinese, Seenchi, or IndiaKnees.

> I specialize in making scientific discoveries--breakthroughs.
> Making discoveries in science is something I find easy.  Here is my
> technique which you may find interesting.  First I find a
> controversial issue. Consider the different issues, study the topic
> explicitly.  Then look for and expect to find the breakthrough
> discovery in the aspects of the argument that are NOT under
> dispute. In other words, don't look for the discovery in the
> conclusions or the model, look for it in the assumptions that
> everybody is taking for granted. And most importantly of all (and
> this is the part that trips up most people) ignore the models.
> People always fall in love with their own models and models make
> their assumptions invisible to them.

That's very deep. I think I get it James. Still, very deep.

> Most of academia is based on creating models--because that is what
> the public wants. So, all the attention and money goes to people
> that create SIMPLE models. But models are an obstacle if you want to
> achieve discoveries. This is why people in academia rarely make
> discoveries.  (Or, at least, not as often as we would expect given
> their expertise.) This is why outsiders often make the big
> breakthrough.  Outsiders are not in love with their
> model. Personally, I try to ignore models until I understand the
> subject starting from first principles (ab initio).

Most academia is a waste of time, let alone funds. As is Meet The Press.

> I am a perfect example of this.  The discovery I made would have
> been impossible if I believed in the academic model of hydrogen
> bonding.  Because the academia has fallen in love with their models
> (most notably in regard to the freezing process [see my paper for
> details]).

James, please provide a direct link to your paper. My Google searches
are as reliable as Penn(y)s' Condoms on the HD TV @#TBBT Series.

> > Be clear, I do not want readers' imaginations,
> > especially mine, to run amok. Beware... I measurably have a tendency
> > to digress... must reign it in. Most average readers just want to read
> > me for praising EinStein (==OneStone). I tell them to hold their breath.
> > 
> > The reason I ask why is that I like people who have a history. For,
> > having lessons learned, only anonymous nym-shifting annoying
>
> I like people that address substantive issues of science/physics
>directly, honestly, explicitly.  The rest is just fodder.

IME (== In My Experience), people suck and post fodder. Daily. The
real mystery is why The(y)TheThem people suck and post fodder daily.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: See Through The Looking Glass...”

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 11:37 -0800
  Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-08 19:25 -0600
    Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 17:40 -0800
      Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 18:35 -0800
        Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-08 21:41 -0600
          Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 20:10 -0800
          Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:20 -0800
            Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 19:48 -0800
              Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 09:05 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 11:03 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 12:23 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 13:00 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 13:50 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 15:22 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 16:45 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 18:35 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-12 21:20 -0600
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 10:23 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-12 19:30 -0600
        Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:12 -0800
          Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-12 21:22 -0600
            Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 19:09 -0800
              Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 19:19 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 14:51 -0600
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 19:22 -0800
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 21:54 -0600
                Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 09:01 -0800
  Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 00:26 -0800
  Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 11:35 -0800
    Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 22:34 -0800
  Re: Groundhog Day and the Science of Water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 22:30 -0800

csiph-web