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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #653797

Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

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:34f1a97b-2c5f-4512-aa29-245152f64886@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:02:46 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Of course you don't. You're a delusional moron who denies all of known
>> science 

> So, now I'm a science denier?  So, anybody with a different opinion or
> a different theory is a denier of all science?

When your 'theory' leads you to deny convection, molar mass, molar
volume, density, the Periodic Table of the Elements, electrostatic
attraction's diminishing by the inverse square of distance, Coulomb's
Law, the Standard Model, the mechanism for electron orbit... all while
you blather on about a sentient sky tornado monster that can stretch
its noodly appendages thousands of miles through the atmosphere to
touch down tornadoes while evading detection, avoiding aircraft, only
touching down at the rear portion of cumulonimbus clouds, avoiding
touching down out of clear blue sky or other clouds, and somehow
knowing not to touch down if the ground or water below is cooler than
the air above... all while claiming all scientific knowledge over the
past 250+ years is wrong as are all the scientists over those years...
all while equating yourself to Einstein and Archimedes... all while
claiming you're a 'physicist' because you once took an elective Basic
Meteorology class... all while claiming only *you* have the
"answer"... well, James... that's not a theory.

That's the mad barking of a psychotic.

>> so you can proclaim yourself smarter than every scientist in
>> the past 250+ years, as you blather out fairy tale hypotheticals with
>> no basis in reality.

> You have no substantive dispute with my hypothesis.  Right?

Except for the fact that it's completely wrong, diametrically opposed
to reality, a scientific fraud, a fabrication told by a moron who
can't even make up a believable lie?

>> So now you're denying the Standard Model, which means you deny all of
>> particle physics concerning the electromagnetic, weak and strong
>> nuclear forces. 

> The subject was water and H bonding.  Are you drunk?

Exactly, James. H bonding is electrostatic. Denying that electrostatic
attraction diminishes as the inverse square of distance means you also
deny electron orbit, which means you *must* deny Coulomb's Law *and*
the Standard Model, and thus particle physics, and thus the
fundamentals of the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces.

Did you not think about that before your broken brain fabricated your
retarded 'theory', James?

>>> Specifically, in my model there is an inverse relationship
>>> between proximity and bond strength, which Nilsson et al
>>> DO NOT assume.  

>> Moron says bond strength becomes *stronger* with increasing distance!
>> 
>> Do you not understand the concept of bond enthalpy, James? 

> Make sure you understand the issue before you throw a hissy fit.  

You're projecting, James.

>> Otherwise
>> known as bond energy. Do you not understand that a hydrogen bond is a
>> dipole-dipole attraction due to differential electronegativity?

> Right.  As I explained.  
> 
> Do you have any idea what this conversation is about?  

You've *denied* that electrostatic attraction diminished by the
inverse square of distance in accord with Coulomb's Law, James. Do you
have any idea what that denial entails?

>> According to you, the scenario would go something like this:
>> -------------------------------
>> A water molecule has closely-bonded intermolecular H bonds, thus the
>> bond link is low. Thus when energy hits it, the bond would stretch,
>> gain in strength and thus capture that energy, not allowing the bond
>> to ever break because the bond just keeps getting stronger and
>> stronger with distance.
>> -------------------------------

> I never would have imagined anybody would be dumb enough to assume
> such an absurd thing.  I guess it's impossible to account for the
> limits of human stupidity.

Then get right on explaining your moronic 'theory', James... does the
bond "snap", James? If so, that'd entail a release of potential
energy, and thus a photon upon H bond breakage... and we know that
doesn't happen, James. It *requires* energy to break bonds, it doesn't
yield energy, James. Are you retarded?

>> But you fail to understand that a H bond is an *electrostatic*
>> attraction between polar groups due to *electromagnetic* interaction.
>> 
>> Does electrostatic attraction increase with distance, James?

> This one does.  

Then you *are* retarded. And you *do* deny the Coulomb Law, and
thereby the mechanism for electron orbit, and thereby the Standard
Model, and thereby all of particle physics.

IOW, you're a barking mad psychotic. Take your meds, Jim.

>> No, it does not. In fact, it decreases in strength by the inverse
>> square of distance, which is codified in Coulomb's Law.

> I'm not contradicting Coulomb's Law.  Read my paper again.  

Yes, you are, Jim. By definition, you are. Do you even know what
Coulumb's Law states, James?

>> In water, there is the additional consideration that if a H bond is
>> broken, the diametrically opposed covalent bond will strengthen
>> (shorten) until another H bond can be created.

> You are an idiot that can't read a diagram.  Covalent bonds are not
> shortening or strengthening, dumbass.  Isn' this the second tims
> I explained this to you?

The research, referenced directly below, ascertained via
carefully-controlled scientific experimentation, proves your blather
wrong, James.

>> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
>> ==================================================
>> There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond strengths;
>> the stronger is the H--O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H covalent
>> bond, and the shorter the O---O distance [1928] (see right).
>> Interestingly, this means that the O-H covalent part of the hydrogen
>> bonds gets shorter as the temperature of the water increases.
>> 
>> The dependency on bond length is very important and has been shown to
>> exponentially decay with distance.
>> ==================================================

No response, James? That proves your entire 'theory' wrong, James.

>> That the H bond is an electrostatic attraction is the reason why it's
>> directional. Didn't you know that, James?
>> 
>> Oh look, James... yet again Martin Chaplin kicks your stupid ass by
>> *empirically* *measuring* hydrogen bond strength versus bond length:
>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.1355.pdf
>> ==================================================
>> If the hydrogen bond is close to straight (i.e. 180°), the hydrogen
>> bond strength depends almost linearly on its length with shorter
>> length giving rise to stronger hydrogen bonding. As the hydrogen bond
>> length of water increases with temperature increase but decreases with
>> pressure increase, hydrogen bond strength also depends almost
>> linearly, outside extreme values, on the temperature and pressure
>> (Dougherty, 1998).
>> ==================================================

No response, James? That proves your entire 'theory' wrong, James.

>> And that's not to mention that Anders Nilsson's experiment
>> (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156), that you were touting as
>> supportive of your kooky "theory" and with which I utterly destroyed
>> your moronic "theory", directly observed a result of H bond strength,
>> James... the more strongly-bound the H bonds in each phase, the weaker
>> the photons emitted. And we know that ice has closely-bound H bonds,
>> James, which is why the photon energy was lower in ice.

No response, James? That proves your entire 'theory' wrong, James.

>> This should be intuitive, James... why are you so fucking stupid that
>> you can't even figure out that electrostatic attraction *decreases*
>> with distance?

> Because of symmetry, as I explained.

And as Soper, a legitimate researcher of good repute, who has done the
careful experimentation to ascertain the matter, far saner and smarter
than you, has explained to you that liquid water has no "symmetry",
which is why it's *liquid*. Are you retarded?

>  Without assymetry polarity doesn't exist.

Wrong. Electrostatic attraction is *directional*, James. With
asymmetry, electrostatic attraction is diminished. Yet again, you're
180 degrees out from reality.

> H bonds achieve symmetry.  See my videos.
> 
> This doesn't contradict Coulumbs law.

Yes, it does. It's retarded blather from an insane, uneducated retard.
Take your meds, James.

>> Holy fuck, James, seriously... are you retarded?

James? Are you retarded, James?

>>> That is only the first discrepancy between my model and Nilsson's.

>> Not just between your model and Nilsson's direct empirical
>> observations, James.

> What direct observations, you mental reatard.  They are inferring from Xray.

X-ray spectroscopy as Anders Nilsson used, optical absorption
spectroscopy, dielectric spectroscopy, diffraction methods, models,
nuclear magnetic resonance, vibrational spectra, thermodynamics and
neutron scattering are just some of the methods used, James.

>>  Your kooky model not only stands in direct
>> diametric contrast to *every* water model, and *every* empirical
>> observation of water's properties, but in direct contradiction to the
>> fundamentals that make molecules behave the way they do! You're now
>> denying Coulomb's Law. 

> Nope.  If the charge reduces to zero with completion of symmetry

Liquid water has no symmetry, James. That's why it's *liquid*.

> then there is no charge to apply Couloumbs law.  Pay attention
> you silly twit.

You're attempting to turn Coulomb's Law on its head, James. It's not
working. Coulomb's Law is another piece of well-researched scientific
knowledge that you deny.

>> Have you never wondered how and why a gold-leaf
>> electroscope works, James?

James? No reply? Have you never wondered how and why a gold-leaf
electroscope works, James?

>>> And it is a big one.  As I'll explain more explicitly below, it means
>>> that what he interprets as indicative of close proximity I interpret
>>> as distance and vice versa.*

>> Because you're a reality-denying halfwit, James.

>>> So, my interpretation of minimum and maximum bond strengths are
>>> transposed compared to this: https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=39m56s

>> Because you're a reality-denying halfwit, James.

> You are too simpleminded to follow a mildly complex argument.

No, you're too simpleminded to make a mildly complex argument, James.

That's why your moronic 'theory' has so many gaping logic holes, to
which you have no answer.

>>> (* It is extremely important that you get it clear in your head
>>> what exactly I mean when I say that for my model there is an
>>> inverse relationship between proximity and bond strength and
>>> how/why this is at odds with the standard model.

>> Oh, I'm perfectly clear as to why you deny the well-researched and
>> long-proven Standard Model... you're a crackpot who denies reality,
>> James. LOL

> You are weak minded and insecure so you have to resort to "well
> researched,"  like a child.  What's wrong is weong, dumbass.  It
> doesn;t matter how long or how many people believe it.  You lack
> intellectual integrity.  like a child you have to be right about
> everything.

I am right, James. About everything. Your keyboard-pounding spelling
mistake-making ad hominem blather notwithstanding.

>>> If this concept isn't making 100% sense to you

>> No, James. I don't want to think like you... you're insane.

> You are a birdbrain,

You're projecting, James. And you're perturbed because you find
yourself utterly unable to mount a substantive defense of your moronic
'theory'.

>>> I suggest rereading my paper again or watching this video:
>>> https://youtu.be/iDv2RoUrHTY?t=4m10s and/or

>> A delusional moron said:
>>> "When they are fully bonded, it's not really a bond anymore."

>> Fuck sake, Jim. Do you listen to your blather, or just blather without
>> thinking? A bond that isn't a bond.

> If there is no force then Couloumbs law is inapplicable,  Right?

Wrong, James. You're attempting to invert what Coulomb's Law states.
It's not working.

> Answer the question you fucking evasive jackass.

Yes, James, do be getting right on answering those tough questions
which expose the gaping logic holes in your 'theory', as you will find
in my .sig. Thus far, you've found yourself utterly unable to mount a
substantive defense of your 'theory'.

You're a scientific fraud, James. You're not even smart enough to
concoct a believable lie.

-- 

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?

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

Thread

Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 06:52 +0100
  Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 18:44 +0100
  Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:09 +0100
    Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:00 +0100
    Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:11 +0100
      Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:01 +0100
    Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:26 +0100
  Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0100
    Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 04:50 +0100
      Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:26 +0100
        Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 05:07 +0100
          Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 17:58 +0100

csiph-web