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

Groups > sci.physics > #722412

Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood

Show all headers | View raw

<pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:11:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 9:52:24 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> "Nearly all the water vapor in the atmosphere lies in the 
>>> troposphere—the layer extending roughly 20 kilometers from Earth’s 
>>> surface. Dimers make up less than one percent of this water vapor,
>  
>> How did he determine this?
> 
> Why don't you read his 407 papers and find out for yourself? 

Because it’s his objective to:

1. Get you to mine the papers for him

2. Ask you the relevance of what you quote directly, even if the relevance
is obvious

3. Make you prove that the data are trustworthy

4. In the end, dismiss it as consensus science that should be rejected on
that basis alone

5. Loop to 1. 

How much time you got? He has A LOT. 

> You can read, can't you? That's why these guys publish in the first
> place, so that others can read all about it. If you don't believe what he
> has to say, well, you know...
> 
> "The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is
> incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an
> experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally 
>  
>>> "... which makes it difficult to see them compared to single (monomer) water
>>> molecules, particularly in the visible and infrared portion of the 
>>> spectrum, where the light energy is sufficient to destroy the dimers."
>> 
>> Blatant speculation.
> 
> Blatant verbal bullshit from you is more like it. You didn't even read
> the paper, as usual, or you would know the answer. Here are the
> references from that paper, you should follow up by reading them so you
> can learn just how he came to his conclusions...
> 
> References
> N. Goldman, C. Leforestier, and R. J. Saykally, “Water Dimers in the
> Atmosphere II: Results from the VRT(ASP-W)III Potential Surface,” J.
> Phys. Chem. A 108, 787 (2004)
> 
> V. Vaida, “Perspective: Water Cluster Mediated Atmospheric Chemistry,” J.
> Chem. Phys. 135, 020901 (2011)
> 
> A. J. L. Shillings, S. M. Ball, M. J. Barber, J. Tennyson, and R. L.
> Jones, “An Upper Limit for Water Dimer Absorption in the 750 nm Spectral
> Region and a Revised Water Line List,” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 4273 (2011)
> 
> M. Y. Tretyakov, E. A. Serov, M. A. Koshelev, V. V. Parshin, and A. F.
> Krupnov, “Water Dimer Rotationally Resolved Millimeter-Wave Spectrum
> Observation at Room Temperature,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 093001 (2013)
> 
> Y. Scribano and C. Leforestier, “Contribution of Water Dimer Absorption
> to the Millimeter and Far Infrared Atmospheric Water Continuum,” J. Chem.
> Phys. 126, 234301 (2007)
> 
> A. F. Krupnov, M. Yu. Tretyakov, and C. Leforestier, “Possibilities of
> the Observation of the Discrete Spectrum of the Water Dimer at
> Equilibrium in Millimeter-Wave Band,” J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 110, 427 (2009)
> 
> R. A. Bohlander, H. A. Gebbie, and G. W. F. Pardoe, “Absorption Spectrum
> of Water Vapor in the Region of 23 cm−1 At Low Temperatures,” Nature 228, 157 (1970)
> 
> K. L. Busarow, R. C. Cohen, G. A. Blake, K. B. Laughlin, Y. T. Lee, and
> R. J. Saykally, “Measurement of the Perpendicular Rotation-Tunneling
> Spectrum of the Water Dimer by Tunable Far Infrared Laser Spectroscopy in
> a Planar Supersonic Jet,” J. Chem. Phys. 90, 3937 (1989)
> 
> R. C. Cohen, K. L. Busarow, K. B. Laughlin, G. A. Blake, M. Havenith, Y. T. Lee, and 
> 
> R. J. Saykally, “Tunable Far Infrared Laser Spectroscopy of van der Waals
> Bonds: Vibration-Rotation-Tunneling Spectra of Ar-H2O,” J. Chem. Phys. 89, 4494 (1988)
> 
> H. C. Pumphrey and S. Buhler, ”Instrumental and Spectral Parameters:
> Their Effect on and Measurement by Microwave Limb Sounding of the
> Atmosphere”, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiati. Transfer 64, 421 (2000)
> 
> I suppose you will now claim that all of these researchers don't know
> what they are talking about and are just lying to us, right Jim?
> 
>>> Do you finally understand this, Jim?
>  
>> A better question would be does Saykally understand it or is he just
>> pretending.  He has already been caught in lies (just like you).
> 
> No, to say that Dr. Saykally has lied to you is in itself a lie, and I
> have not lied, either. Point out to me where I have lied to you.  You
> will fail. You are one sick puppy, Jim...
>  
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> he's been a professor of chemistry at UC Berkeley for 40 years,
>> 
>> Right. He's a teacher and an academic. He has a standard model to
>> promote and he has a pedestal as a professor to promote it. But this
>> doesn't translate into a license to ignore the scientific method and
>> create your own truth.
> 
> Yet another Big Lie form Jim McGinn, who has never used the scientific
> method in his life. You can't possibly even know what the phrase means.
> It has something to do with observations and experiments, neither of
> which you have. Lies, lies, and more lies from Jim McGinn.
> 
>> Why don't you contact Saykally and ask him to explain how he verified
>> that the IR signature of a dimer is correctly attributable to a dimer.
>> (You won't get a response.) This is kind of a laughable claim in that we
>> know we don't have the ability to see the size of the nanodroplets.
> 
> Dr. Saykally will tell you the same thing that I'm telling you, if you
> want to see his observations and/or experiments, go read his papers. They
> are all on the internet and available to anyone. Dr. Saykally has nothing
> to hide, especially from a dumbfuck like you, who isn't equipped to
> understand much more than 5% of his work in any case.
> 
>> He can make any speculative claim he wants. 
> 
> Just like you can make any claims you want. The difference is that he has
> the research papers to back him up, whereas you have virtually nothing to
> offer up as evidence. You've got nothing!
> 
>> Nobody can dispute him since we don't have the ability to view an H2O
>> molecules as individuals.
> 
> You can't dispute him, that's for sure because you don't know the first
> thing about chemistry! I can't dispute him for essentially the same
> reason, but that's why he is the expert and you and I are not. You don't
> know what you don't know, but I do... but then, I'm not the guy here who
> is proposing theories that directly oppose professional like Dr. Saykally
> without any evidence at all.
> 
> You are dead in the water, you have been outed, and you have nowhere to
> go, except back under your rock or back to your mental facility.
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Thread

Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 20:15 -0800
  Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-03 20:22 -0800
    Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 09:40 -0800
      Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-04 10:08 -0800
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 10:49 -0800
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-04 18:24 -0800
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-05 00:53 -0600
  Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-04 10:03 -0800
    Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-05 00:53 -0600
  Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-05 09:42 -0500
    Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 15:14 -0800
      Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 21:00 -0800
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 21:53 -0800
    Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:18 -0800
      Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 21:52 -0800
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-06 02:13 -0500
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 12:11 -0800
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 13:58 -0800
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 22:16 +0000
              Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 14:31 -0800
              Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:26 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 17:01 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:50 -0800
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:29 -0800
              Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 00:11 +0000
      Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-06 02:09 -0500
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 11:47 -0800
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-07 01:34 -0500
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 23:10 -0800
              Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 09:42 -0600
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 09:19 -0800
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 19:10 -0800
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 19:42 -0800
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-07 01:48 -0500
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 22:58 -0800
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 09:44 -0600
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 08:01 -0800
              Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-08 00:30 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-07 22:22 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-08 09:35 -0600
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 09:27 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-08 13:00 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 13:34 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-09 00:53 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 10:08 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 11:46 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-09 20:11 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 17:13 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-09 20:23 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-10 21:08 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-12 09:47 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-12 13:02 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-12 10:07 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-12 18:21 +0000
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-13 02:40 -0600
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-01-12 18:46 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-26 13:41 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-26 20:16 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 07:49 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-27 12:24 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 11:46 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:16 -0800

csiph-web