We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is g

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:24 am

Hi MerLynn,
MerLynn wrote:the 4 rodded Platinum generator when ingesting the elixir, induces controlled dreaming or hallucinations for about 15 minutes

I think I found a picture of your device...
unusual scientific device.jpg

Is that what you were describing?
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MosaicDave » Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:30 am

Hi MerLynn--

You might get more traction and interest in your ideas, if you just start a thread of your own, concerning the foot bath experiment, electrolysis, etc.

Who knows; it might provoke a large following and diverse discussions all on its own. Personally, I thought the nurse that you mentioned, doing research and experiments in Memphis if I recall correctly, was particularly interesting.

Trying to hijack this thread as a venue for your arguments, I would think is just going to irritate everyone, and predispose them against engaging with you in a substantial way.

--dc
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:04 am

MosaicDave wrote:Hi Jim McGinn--

I believe that in something you had written somewhere, I once saw where you had stated that it takes more energy to remove a single molecule of water from the surface of liquid water, than it does to remove two-or-more water molecules together. To me this would be interesting if so. Do you have any quantitative basis for this statement, a reference perhaps where someone (or you) made some analysis of intermolecular bonding and came to this conclusion?

--dc


I have not detected it empirically. It is based on a comprehensive understanding of H bonding between water molecules, as was fully explicated in "Lookout For Bill." It is also described in this paper:

Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... NEM9mnDgAJ

or, for a hard copy:

https://zenodo.org/record/37224
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MosaicDave » Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:14 pm

jimmcginn wrote:
MosaicDave wrote:I believe that in something you had written somewhere, I once saw where you had stated that it takes more energy to remove a single molecule of water from the surface of liquid water, than it does to remove two-or-more water molecules together. To me this would be interesting if so. Do you have any quantitative basis for this statement, a reference perhaps where someone (or you) made some analysis of intermolecular bonding and came to this conclusion?

I have not detected it empirically. It is based on a comprehensive understanding of H bonding between water molecules, as was fully explicated in "Lookout For Bill." It is also described in this paper:

Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... NEM9mnDgAJ

I don't know what "Lookout for Bill" refers to.

And in the "groups.google.com..." document you reference, I don't feel that there is a lucid and concrete explanation of the proposal that "it takes more energy to remove a single molecule of water from the surface of liquid water, than it does to remove two-or-more water molecules together"; nor of the proposition that hydrogen bonds or "H2O polarity" would somehow be "neutralized" by the presence of other nearby water molecules (if in fact that is what you mean).
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:37 pm

MosaicDave wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:
MosaicDave wrote:I believe that in something you had written somewhere, I once saw where you had stated that it takes more energy to remove a single molecule of water from the surface of liquid water, than it does to remove two-or-more water molecules together. To me this would be interesting if so. Do you have any quantitative basis for this statement, a reference perhaps where someone (or you) made some analysis of intermolecular bonding and came to this conclusion?

I have not detected it empirically. It is based on a comprehensive understanding of H bonding between water molecules, as was fully explicated in "Lookout For Bill." It is also described in this paper:

Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... NEM9mnDgAJ

I don't know what "Lookout for Bill" refers to.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060
MosaicDave wrote:And in the "groups.google.com..." document you reference, I don't feel that there is a lucid and concrete explanation of the proposal that "it takes more energy to remove a single molecule of water from the surface of liquid water, than it does to remove two-or-more water molecules together"; nor of the proposition that hydrogen bonds or "H2O polarity" would somehow be "neutralized".


I agree. You would have to understand polarity neutralization of H bonds first then you can infer my supposition. So, it won't be easy. Sorry. I wish this stuff was simple, but it just isn't.

Under ideal situational factors I would have you read/study both of these documents then I would conduct a class session and step you through it. It would probably take you about a week (I'm guessing) and you would get it. (Any chance you live in the SF bay area?)

As it is, the best I can suggest is that you struggle with it. It won't be easy. It took me three years to work out all the details. Unfortunately, there are many subtle conceptual errors that you will most likely make and these will prevent you from arriving at the right conclusion on all of this.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MosaicDave » Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:59 pm

Is "polarity neutralization of H bonds" your idea, or an idea explained somewhere else that you are building upon?
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MerLynn » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:38 pm

MosaicDave wrote:Is "polarity neutralization of H bonds" your idea, or an idea explained somewhere else that you are building upon?



Does it matter Dave? Jim does not see the fallacy of a determination with only 2 electrodes as verses more electrodes in the Holy Grail water treatment bucket?
And being able to do the experiments himself.

He's unable to prove that water is H2O by his own experiments and relies (re LIES) on the rigged results of others and just 'adds' to them.

Unless of course Jim cares to respond to my answers to his questions so we can get to the bottom of where moisture comes from in the Atmosphere making all the H bonds and O bonds theoretically obsolete.

This is not derailing, this is getting to the bottom of moisture in the atmosphere. A true scientist takes nothing for granted and reproves everything to himself to advance one's and everyone's knowledge.
MerLynn
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:39 pm

MosaicDave wrote:Is "polarity neutralization of H bonds" your idea, or an idea explained somewhere else that you are building upon?


What follows are excerpts of "Lookout For Bill" I think it answers your question:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117062

Even though I now realize I was lying, at that time I genuinely believed that my understanding of H bonding in regard to surface tension and that of the standard model were one and the same. And so, when I directed him to the scientific literature on H bonding between water molecules I was really only lying a little bit in that I really did believe it would be found there.

----------------------------------------

This notion that H bonds are switches that inherently neutralize other H bond(s) in their vicinity and that the breaking of the H bond, thereby, reactivates these other H bond(s)—like air brakes—was a supposition I developed after I became more fully cognizant of the weak/strong dichotomy. Long before I decided to put pen to paper on all of this and even after I began converting it all to ones and zeros, I would occasionally, come across somebody describing the hydrogen bonding of H2O and I noticed a dichotomy. (It is, essentially, the same dichotomy that was mentioned, briefly, above [ladder of lies].) Sometimes people talked about H bonds and the force that underlies it, H2O polarity, as being strong. Sometimes people talked of them being weak. The strength of H bonds, for example, explained the high boiling point of H2O or the hardness of ice, they would say. The weakness of H bonds, on the other hand, explained the extremely low viscosity (high fluidity) of liquid water and ease by which it evaporates/sublimates. So which is it? Are H bonds strong or are they weak? The literature on H bonding seemed to suggest the existence of weak bonds and strong bonds, but otherwise seemed arcane, confused and completely unhelpful. So I just kind of reverse engineered the understanding that I discussed above. It just seemed to fit the facts. Water molecules were both weak and strong. And H bonds themselves were the switch thereof. But it was not a normal switch, it was some kind of reverse switch—kind of like air brakes. (Not the kind in cartoons. The kind in buses and trains.)

One TV show stands out in my memory as having been especially helpful toward the end of helping me conceptualize this weak/strong dichotomy and how it relates to this notion that the structural hardness observed along the surface of liquid H2O (surface tension) was a consequence of broken H bonds. It was an episode of the History Channel’s Marvelous Marvels series. This particular episode was about, you guessed it, the scientific peculiarities and mysteries of H2O. They went into considerable detail about the anomalies of water (high boiling/melting point, surface tension, high heat capacity, expands upon freezing, super-chilled water, Mpemba effect and more, upwards of 70—and counting) And, as I recall, they seemed to suggest that these anomalies were indicative of some deeper mystery of H2O. Maybe I am making more out of it than it was, but I remember being amazed—or marveled—that the most passive of passive elements in our reality—the substance we use to put out fires, feed our plants, animals and ourselves, was so confusing and mysterious. They spent a considerable amount of time on the subject of surface tension. Up to that point the concept seemed a vague, obscure notion, like the concept that H2O has a high heat capacity. It is something people know but they know it by rote. They don’t know the how and why. They don’t really understand it. Up until then that was me in regard to surface tension. Maybe the most significant thing this TV show brought into focus for me is the fact that the surface tension of liquid H2O is associated with H bonds between water molecules and (what was surprising to me at the time) differences in the strengths of these H bonds. Specifically, surface tension involves H bonds along the surface of liquid water being strong H bonds and those below the surface being weak H bonds. It was a small step from there to arrive at the realization that a two dimensional surface would inhibit the completion of some bonds. So it seemed to fit. Broken H bonds, being a reverse switch, were inhibited from neutralizing the other H bond(s) along the surface, producing the observed tensional/structural forces. This explained surface tension. (To this day I don’t know if this ‘reverse switch’ notion is something I hit upon independently or if it was something that I absorbed from some other source. My recollection is that it was suggested on this TV show. But I have since been unable to confirm it.)

For more:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117062

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:08 pm

Science mythology is a huge obstacle to scientific progress; Fortunately we have Usenet

If you repeat something often enough it takes on the look and feel of scientific truth. And it is really easy to get people to repeat things that are consistent with their everyday anecdotal experience. So, as long as you go along with what everybody already generally believes it is really easy to pretend to have a scientifically credible assertion even when the assertion is blatant nonsense.

For example, from the perspective of anybody standing on our planet and looking up into the sky the earth seems to be an immovable object and the heavens move over our heads.

Likewise, H2O in the atmosphere appears to be invisible much of the time. It is known that gaseous H2O is invisible. To scientific illiterates this is proof that the H2O in the atmosphere is gaseous.

The truth is that the invisibility of H2O in the atmosphere is not evidence of it being gaseous it is only evidence of it having a droplet size that has a diameter smaller than a photon.

Most scientists don't have the internal fortitude to confront and correct the moronic collective beliefs of the public. Consequently much of science is saddled with moronic notions like, CO2 heats the atmosphere, or cholesterol causes heart disease, or H2O magically turns to steam at temperatures below its known boiling temperature/pressure. The momentum of public stupidity completely overwhelms any possibility of making progress

What I like about the internet that it is so easy to use and so accessible that even morons are able to use it and this gives us a chance to expose the depths of stupidity that underlies many of the scientific truths that are generally taken for granted.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:21 am

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471?

SN:
Humid air is lighter than dry air according to proven science. There aren’t numerous contradictions. This is a false premise.

JMcG:
I'm an expert on this subject. I didn't just start pursuing this question here. I have been top to bottom with numerous people on this subject for about five years. Your assertion is NOT "PROVEN SCIENCE!" It is well established superstition. Specifically, yourself and many others are the victims of a very popular group delusion. You believe based on anecdote and group think. THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. THIS IS HOW RELIGION WORKS!

SN: If two masses meet, one humid and one dry and the same temp, the dry air would move lower and the humid air would move higher. There would be mixing at the boundary and clouds form in the humid air as it rises. It’s all pretty simple: Different masses of air with different temperatures and humidity levels are what causes fronts in the weather.

JMcG:
LOL. Yeah, it's simple. That is the problem. It is simple and humans (including yourself in this instance) are lazy. All you are doing here is inferring cause and effect and attributing it to what you observe. You have made no effort to substantiate whether the causes you atrributed are causal or just a consequence of some other unkown cause or causal process.

In other words, you are not being a careful scientist, you are just pretending to understand what everybody else is pretending to understand.

Now let me show you how a real, dispassionately objective scientist (myself) assesses this evidence and formulates an alternative hypothesis:

I believe vortice activity, in the upper part of the troposphere (mostly in the tropopause) causes low pressure and uplift, creating what is called cold fronts and warm fronts.

So, now we have two different, competing hypotheses for the cause of cold/warm fronts. One that assumes convection as the cause and another that assumes vortice activity in the tropopause as the cause.

Until you have competing hypotheses you don't have any possibility of defeating the human tendency to believe what is most convenient to believe. Now there is a possibility of discovering new truth and getting away from the seductive influence of what everybody wants to believe.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby Bin-Ra » Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:00 am

Ok. I read through 9 pages so as not to repeat something already said.

Yes - water was used as the metaphor of convenience for 'solid liquid and gas' in my schooling without specifically stating it is a gas. Yes I had noticed many things about water that didn't 'add up' and which I didn't (generally) follow up.

Yes, fitting into the human social structure (narrative identity) is a large part of why something that works on one level - overrides pausing to investigate a sense of reality-dissonance. Yes, a reaction to social constructs as 'lies' can itself seen an equal and opposite reaction.

I feel attracted to and in willingness to align in an integrative conscious experience, rather than persist in a segregative and reactive identity. This involves seeing the same 'data' with new eyes - although I said 'data' when I meant reality. The way we are seeing is resulting in what we see or filter out.

I presumed Gerald Pollack's work was incorporated in EU community - but no one has mentioned it (?).
Phase transitions of 'water' are observable/measurable with regard to surfaces/particles that are charge-separations and structured differently (liquid crystal) to 'bulk water'. These are - as far as I know - inseparable from or part of pervading light - in particular at the infra red spectrum - which the whole Earth radiates - and is I read about 40% of the light received from Sol.

In 'The fourth phase of water' Pollock established step by step - through attempted disproofs - to reveal a different understanding of 'social' water - that is water in relations with itself and with other solutes. particulates, energies or surfaces. In the latter part of the book he investigates water vesicles - as applying to both drops and bubbles - as also to the manner of their forming, and behaviours. This relates directly to the thread and I hold it worthy of immersion and willing attention.

All of which incorporates into my own sense of an electro-magnetic totality or charge relation Universe - upon and yet within which the narrative identity or continuity of 'things' as separated by space or distance and time - plays out as perspectives of experienced meaning or acquired and applied significance - relative to the predicates of the active focus. Word-signs like money, seem to have value in themselves - but such is the nature of a 'spell'!

I don't know that the information in Pollack's book is otherwise available. He has published papers. I've watched a few videos and interviews but the book had more scope - but also importantly, by demonstration, re-instates genuine science as freedom to question and follow on ideas that are then tested for support or otherwise.

In an age of hype Pollack if anything takes understatement too far - but in the light of Gilbert Ling's ostracisation (as one among many whose work calls the established and invested model into question), Pollack's meekness is altogether understandable - if at times I feel, affected.

Electrical force and radiant energy along with properties (as far as I know) specific to 'water' in relation, are all 'contextual' to the specific states and interactions or results.

Radiant energy being inherently part of the process of generating phase transition to ice as well as of the forming of vesicles evaporation and transported particulates.

Water is a key element in the pre-periodic table sense of that term. Moving on the face of the waters is the 'wave' and 'current'. Felling moved is an inner discernment of specific resonant frequencies.

The Electric Universe holds the idea of the transforming or stepping up and down of magnitudes of order, as a scale or hierarchy of fractal patterning. But I also see on Earth - and in water (in substance) a 'translation' of the intrinsic properties of an Instant communication to a 'slowed down' metaphorical representation.

In reading the thread I notice the willingness for communication as well as the charged nature of layers that are set against it by an assertive framing that of course is a self-investiture. The charged nature of our reactive expression, and the magnetic attraction to idea-coherence is part of my 'EU' consideration - as a mythic or narrative 'rendering'
of specific relational focus.

I feel to grow more understanding of why the narrative identity 'lies' or makes story to cover truth, rather than becoming personally defined by reaction to my personification of 'evils' as if to become true or good by opposition - which as I see it is the 'lie and the father of it'.

Only a free imagination can play devil's advocate. But while actively 'in role' is freedom 'a-signed' to the role. Truth remains unaffected by asserted imaginations - but our awareness of true (and our shared culture of true appreciation) is limited or filtered by the explorations of the idea given priority, that become established paths or patterns of significance to an original motivation that may now be rendered 'unconscious' to a presumed 'reality' construct.

Bringing our predicate ideas to awareness is also to re-evaluate them in terms of our currently active desire and intent. Running on framed 'purpose' of a past no longer applicable can deny, block, distort or deprive us of a true appreciation.
Bin-Ra
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:35 pm

Bin-Ra wrote:
Radiant energy being inherently part of the process of generating phase transition to ice as well as of the forming of vesicles evaporation and transported particulates.


This is a critical fact that that a number of respondents to this thread have tried to impress upon the recalcitrant mind of the OP, but to little effect, which is why the OP has had such a struggle with the concept of 'bondings'.
As you know, man is often enthralled by complexity and imagination can easily get in the way of insight.

[btw, there have been other threads here discussing the works of Pollack, Schauberger and others, but one has to use a better search function than the one provided in the forum tools.]
˚
seasmith
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby Bin-Ra » Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:51 pm

seasmith wrote:
Bin-Ra wrote:
Radiant energy being inherently part of the process of generating phase transition to ice as well as of the forming of vesicles evaporation and transported particulates.


This is a critical fact that that a number of respondents to this thread have tried to impress upon the recalcitrant mind of the OP, but to little effect, which is why the OP has had such a struggle with the concept of 'bondings'.
As you know, man is often enthralled by complexity and imagination can easily get in the way of insight.

[btw, there have been other threads here discussing the works of Pollack, Schauberger and others, but one has to use a better search function than the one provided in the forum tools.]
˚


I felt that Pollack's work bears directly on the points raised and persisted in and therefore worthy of at least giving a heads up. I also feel its implications are not expounded by the author - and perhaps that is because he really wants people to grow it from understanding rather than use it to push an agenda - like being right or making a fortune from it. He does clearly want to restore science to its roots.
Bin-Ra
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Feb 23, 2019 11:38 am

Is your thinking on H2O rigorously reductive and explicit? Or is is vague, evasive, harboring invisible assumptions? Are you making an honest attempt to understand water based on the evidence? Or are you fitting observation to what you and others have already assumed? Both of you (Seasick and Bin-Ra) along with Pollack and many others who have dabbled in water theory (ie. structure of bulk water) believe yourselves among the latter, but you are all among the former in my estimation. Inability to comprehend (and/or stubborness to put in the extra work necessary to comprehend) the extreme variability of the force of H2O polarity--itself an artifact of incidental symmetry that is associated with hydrogen bonding (see link below)--is the reason you are all so confused.

It is the extreme variability of the H2O molecule's polar forces that makes bonding between water molecules uniquely different from any other form of bonding. Hydrogen bonding between water molecules is categorically different from either covalent bonding or ionic bonding in that these bond have no variability. And hydrogen bonding between water molecules is relatively different from other forms of hydrogen bonding in that only in H2O can hydrogen bonds reduce polarity all the way to zero. Unless and until all of you accept this you cannot really understand water and its anomalies. All you can do is pretend you understand water and pretend not to notice the anomalies.

Moreover, unless and until you understand the quantum mechanical factors (symmetry and incidental symmetry) that cause H2O polarity to be highly variable you have zero chance of reconciling the mysteries of H2O evidenced in its numerous (over 70 at last count) anomalies. Instead you will continue to make the error of submitting your thinking to the widespread and highly seductive superstition that water is simple and well understood.


Bin-Ra:
Radiant energy being inherently part of the process of generating phase transition to ice as well as of the forming of vesicles evaporation and transported particulates.

James McGinn:
All matter is subject to the laws of thermodynamics (ie. entropy). All matter, including H2O, cools. The thermal factors associated with liquid H2O, however, are unique, which is a direct consequence of the variability of H2O polarity. (It is a result of the variability of H2O polarity, for example, that the IR signature of liquid H2O is a continuum and not discrete like most other chemicals.)

Seasick:
This is a critical fact that that a number of respondents to this thread have tried to impress upon the recalcitrant mind of the OP, but to little effect, which is why the OP has had such a struggle with the concept of 'bondings'.

James McGinn:
Meaningless. Vague. Convoluted. The high heat capacity of H2O is explained by the variability of H2O polarity. Your model offers no explanation whatsoever. Likewise for the broad IR signature of H2O. And likewise the many other anomalies of H2O (including the very low viscosity of liquid H2O [see link below for detail]). The standard model fails to explain these and/or any of the upwards of 70 anomalies of H2O.

Seasick:
As you know, man is often enthralled by complexity and imagination can easily get in the way of insight.

James McGinn:
LOL. All you have is vague, empty-headed rhetoric. You don't have a real argument. Tell us, Seasick, what is insightful about the inability of your model (a model that assumes the polar force of H2O molecules to be static [not variable]) to explain the anomalies of H2O? Your comment suggests that this is a good thing when it is obviously a major failure.

Bin-Ra:
I felt that Pollack's work bears directly on the points raised and persisted in and therefore worthy of at least giving a heads up.

James McGinn:
I find Pollack's thinking to be insightful but convoluted. It is insightful because he does not allow himself to be captured by the brain-dead studidity of the current paradigm that would have us sweep all of the anomalies under the rug and dismiss them with semantics as being incidental. But I find his thinking convoluted in that Pollack seemingly refuses to be rigorously reductive.

Bin-Ra:
I also feel its implications are not expounded by the author - and perhaps that is because he really wants people to grow it from understanding rather than use it to push an agenda - like being right or making a fortune from it. He does clearly want to restore science to its roots.

James McGinn:
I don't know if you are talking about me or Pollack here. Pollacks biggest problem is that his thinking is convoluted and vague. He doesn't understand the current paradigm well enough to realize its pseudoscientific nonsense. So he fails to reject it and he tries to draw attention to the one anomaly (EZ water) that he claims.

Only through understanding the mechanism of H2O polarity's variability can one come to understand water along with its anomalies.

The world is full of vague nitwits who are too lazy to do the real work of science which involves being rigorously reductive.

Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw

Pauling's Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby Bin-Ra » Sat Feb 23, 2019 4:26 pm

jimmcginn wrote:Is your thinking on H2O rigorously reductive and explicit? Or is is vague, evasive, harboring invisible assumptions? Are you making an honest attempt to understand water based on the evidence? Or are you fitting observation to what you and others have already assumed? Both of you (Seasick and Bin-Ra) along with Pollack and many others who have dabbled in water theory (ie. structure of bulk water) believe yourselves among the latter, but you are all among the former in my estimation. Inability to comprehend (and/or stubborness to put in the extra work necessary to comprehend) the extreme variability of the force of H2O polarity--itself an artifact of incidental symmetry that is associated with hydrogen bonding (see link below)--is the reason you are all so confused.

It is the extreme variability of the H2O molecule's polar forces that makes bonding between water molecules uniquely different from any other form of bonding. Hydrogen bonding between water molecules is categorically different from either covalent bonding or ionic bonding in that these bond have no variability. And hydrogen bonding between water molecules is relatively different from other forms of hydrogen bonding in that only in H2O can hydrogen bonds reduce polarity all the way to zero. Unless and until all of you accept this you cannot really understand water and its anomalies. All you can do is pretend you understand water and pretend not to notice the anomalies.

Moreover, unless and until you understand the quantum mechanical factors (symmetry and incidental symmetry) that cause H2O polarity to be highly variable you have zero chance of reconciling the mysteries of H2O evidenced in its numerous (over 70 at last count) anomalies. Instead you will continue to make the error of submitting your thinking to the widespread and highly seductive superstition that water is simple and well understood.

clip

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes


I can feel what you are saying James. You are welcome to your private war.
Is anyone else involved or just your own shadows?

"Water is simple and well understood?"

You said that but do you get that from what is being said here?
Feeling denied of your dues can make a man bitter and mean hearted.
If you truly believe what you have is worth sharing - treat those you want to share it with, with respect for their worthiness to learn it and in ways that invite rather than dictate, belittle and set yourself above everyone else.

The greatest ignorance is not those who don't know but those who believe they already know. They do not even look, let alone question. that is the nature of the 'matrix' of a mind-managed world.

Just because what we disagree with or oppose is plain wrong in our sight - does not make us right.
But that temptation is the wish to be right over the willingness for truth.

In calling (smearing) Pollack a 'dabbler' - you have lost my interest.
"Structure of bulk water";
Why presume to criticise what you reveal yourself to not be acquainted with?

You haven't studied his experimentally tested and verified work.
Whatever his 'theory' his observations are reproducible and relevant, including every way he and his team could imagine trying to prove it wrong.

Self-specialness is in everyones toolkit - but that doesn't mean its true - but it can mean you have a special part to play as has everyone else theirs. Putting others down does you a disservice.

Good learners make good teachers.
Bin-Ra
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest