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

Groups > sci.physics > #719351

Re: Sergio, your post has confessional implications

Show all headers | View raw

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.

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

Thread

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

csiph-web