Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

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

Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Jan 29, 2017 5:12 pm

Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water
by James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Fristly, I'd like to thank all of you who have entertained my obsession with H2O. And, just in case you may be similarly obsessed, I would like to introduce you to Daniel Elton, by way of his wonderful dissertation, published this November.

Understanding the dielectric properties of water, by Daniel Elton
http://www.danielcelton.com/wp-content/ ... l_copy.pdf

Here is a link to Daniel's main website:
http://www.moreisdifferent.com/

Here are some of the highlights from my obsessed perspective:

1) The crystal clear clarity of Danie's writing
2) The subject matter. Right off the bat he hits on the critical issues. (As I will explain in a subpost, there is one issue--quantum mechanics--I would have liked him to have explored more deeply.
3) Comprehensiveness of his understanding of the literature on the water structure problem.

I've only read the first two chapters. Below are some quotes:

Abstract (Summary):

Liquid water is a complex material with many anomalous properties.

All of water’s special properties can be linked to water’s unique ability to form hydrogen bonds.

Water’s hydrogen bonds form a transient network.

Understanding the average structure of this network and how it changes through the phase diagram remains the focus of intense research.

In the final part of this thesis we turn to the problems one encounters when trying to simulate water from “first principles”, ie. from the laws of quantum mechanics.

The primary technique that physicists use to approximate the quantum mechanics of electrons, density functional theory, does not work well for water, and much work is being done to understand how to fix this problem.

A usual assumption in first principles simulation is that only electrons need to be treated quantum mechanically.

We argue that both electrons and nuclei need to be treated quantum mechanically and we present a new code to do this.

The custom code presented in this thesis implements a novel algorithm which greatly speeds up the calculation of nuclear quantum effects with only minor losses in accuracy.

We hope that others will start using our technique to advance first principles simulation.

Accurate first principles simulation of water is important . . .

Chapter One

“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry... " ” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

<figure> Schematic of the tetrahedral coordination of water molecules

The most widely used method for quantum mechanical simulation, density functional theory (DFT) shows that a water molecule’s dipole moment increases in proportion to the number of hydrogen bonds it has.[22]

The dipole moment of H20 in liquid water is not known exactly.

Liquid water has a lot of anomalous properties which cannot be found in other liquids.

. . . . the liquid-liquid phase transition idea, which says liquid water is best understood as a mixture of two types of liquid - high density liquid (HDL) and low density liquid (LDL).

Discussion of water structure goes back to 1892, when W.K. R¨ontgen proposed that water contains a mixture of two structural motifs “ice like” and “liquid like”.[33] Today, the local structure of water as a function of temperature remains a source of research and lively debate.[34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39] The nature of the water structure debate has changed as more has been learned about the hydrogen bond network of water.

In 2004 x-ray scattering experimentalists published a provocative paper claiming that many molecules in water have only two hydrogen bonds, and that these molecules are connected in long chains. This possibility was debated for some time and is now largely believed to be incorrect.[40]

The present debate about the structure of water originates in large part from the publication of “The inhomogeneous structure of water at ambient conditions” by Huang, Nilsson, et al. in 2009.[37]

Their argument largely rests on their interpretation of small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) below 0.4˚A −1, where a minimum is observed at small q and enhancement is observed as q → 0. The paper failed to find the enhancement when using a popular three-site forcefield model for water . . .

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:02 am

You wont get anywhere with "quantum mechanics".

First you need to solve the structure of the water molecule.

This was done by Miles Mathis >
- http://milesmathis.com/water2.pdf
- http://milesmathis.com/poll.pdf

He has a completely mechanical bonding theory, no electron bonding, only nuclear structure and charge channeling.

I am a long time student of water, started with "the Wizard' , still lots to learn.

Regards,
Daniel

ps. the Elton paper is 320 pages... i only scanned it a bit... he does not seem to have solved the modeling...or? I say he can't because you need to know the structure first.. otherwise you have too many assumptions...especially about the role electrons play...
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:36 am

D_Archer wrote:You wont get anywhere with "quantum mechanics".

You beat me to the punch. I was actually setting up this paper as kind of a straw man.

I agree. In this discipline they use the phrases "quantum mechanics" and another phrase "First Principles" (ab initio) to hide their assumptions, which are poorly considered. The whole discipline uses this method (tactic) to conceal the fact that, as Daniel actually eludes to herein, they just assumed the H bond is like a weak ionic bond.

If you read further you find the following sentences:
"Kirkwood estimated gK for water using a tetrahedral bonding model, and by doing this he was able to find an approximate value of ε."
"The most widely used method for quantum mechanical simulation, density functional theory (DFT) shows that a water molecule’s dipole moment increases in proportion to the number of hydrogen bonds it has."[22]

So, apparently, Kirkwood used another model to determine a value to go into his equation. Does that sound like a valid method? This has been going on for so long nobody in the discipline would dare challenge it.

I suppose when you are submitting something for peer-review you don't want to admit that your assumptions are just guesses. So, by packaging these notions inside of phrases like "quantum mechanics," and "ab initio" you are much more likely to get it through peer review. One must always keep in mind that these are people that are trying to make a living and nobody wants to be the one that killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

In other words, they use the phrases "quantum mechanics" and "ab initio" (first principles) as a club with which to beat anybody that draws attention to the fact their understanding of the nature of the H bond is just a stab in the dark.
D_Archer wrote:First you need to solve the structure of the water molecule.

This was done by Miles Mathis >
- http://milesmathis.com/water2.pdf
- http://milesmathis.com/poll.pdf

He has a completely mechanical bonding theory, no electron bonding, only nuclear structure and charge channeling.

I am a long time student of water, started with "the Wizard' , still lots to learn.

Regards,
Daniel

ps. the Elton paper is 320 pages... i only scanned it a bit... he does not seem to have solved the modeling...or? I say he can't because you need to know the structure first.. otherwise you have too many assumptions...especially about the role electrons play...


I agree. In fact I was, essentially, going to make this same argument. This paper just reflects how completely disconnected with reality the whole discipline is. Daniel is young and, understandably, a bit naive. He is not as good at concealing the fact that the whole discipline has just made guesses at the nature of the H bond.

As with all paradigms, nobody in the discipline can explain why everybody assumes what everybody assumes other than--at best--to point you to the obscure person who first assumed it.

I've read these papers of Miles Mathis previously. He wants to abandon use of the notion of the electron cloud. I am not diametrically opposed to that, however, he fails to follow through to demonstrate how his model is, supposedly, better. And water offers a huge opportunity to do just that, it's numerous unresolved anomalies. Why is he not showing us how his model does a better job at resolving these anomalies than the current model--as I have started doing? Because of that I came to the conclusion--and I may be wrong--that he has made the same error that everbody else has made in assuming that the force associated with H bonding is a constant force when in actuality it is a variable force, as I have described here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117063

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:55 pm

Daniel is, undoubtedly, a smart guy. His characterization of the state of the consensus is accurate. I actually feel a bit envious of the clarity of his writing. And it is because of his intelligence and clarity that I think he exposes some of the shortcomings of this embattled, shaken, and bitterly retreating paradigm.

Nobody within the small group of people (50, maybe 100, worldwide) who seriously debate water structure can explain the empirical basis of the true nature of the force associated with H2O polarity and H bonding. Nobody. They just don't know.

The answer that Daniel gave is as good an answer as you will get from anybody in the field, if they were being honest. If you'll remember, Daniel basically said a researcher in 1932, Kirkwood, put it into an equation and everybody just adopted it. There was no empirical verification.

This is how paradigms work. Notions that are in the lexicon long enough become "indisputable" (sacred). And the phrase "quantum mechanics" becomes just a way to dodge the issue. The phrase is not an explanation, its a category. I understand that QM is complex, but these researchers should, in the least, build a bridge of understanding between QM and their assumptions about the true nature of the force associated with H2O polarity and H bonding. Leaving it to your audience's imagination is a good technique in storytelling. It's not so good in a scientific context.

In my opinion, Daniel's paper might be said to even go so far as to suggest that the quantum mechanics underlying their assumptions--especially with respect to H2O polarity--is a taboo subject within the community of water researchers. My own experiences support that interpretation. Talking to a water researcher about their underlying assumptions about H2O polarity is like talking to a meteorologist about convection or talking to a climatologist about the greenhouse effect. They won't provide details--because there are no details. The truth is nobody knows. Nobody even knows where to start. So these water researchers did the best they could and began to look for rules that are generally applicable to most other molecules--"first principles" (ab initio). Following the example establised in the field, they then provide a reference back to the person who first discussed these "first principles," in this case Kirkwood. That is as close to a straight answer as you will get from anybody in this declining paradigm. You can't get a straight answer from people that don't have a straight answer to give you.

Here are some relevant quotes from Daniel's paper:

The primary technique that physicists use to approximate the quantum mechanics of electrons, density functional theory, does not work well for water, and much work is being done to understand how to fix this problem.

The dipole moment of H20 in liquid water is not known exactly.

Liquid water has a lot of anomalous properties which cannot be found in other liquids.

We argue that both electrons and nuclei need to be treated quantum mechanically . . .

"There is great interest in being able to accurately treat liquid water at the quantum mechanical level.[426] The most widely used methodology for this is density functional theory. However, most density functionals fail to accurately reproduce key thermodynamic properties of water such as its density, compressibility, and diffusion constant. Moreover, different density functionals fail in different ways."

"Most ab-initio techniques are based on the Born-Oppenheimer approximation and the assumption that nuclear dynamics can be treated classically. However, over the past two decades a wide range of studies have demonstrated that this is not a good assumption for water . . ."

As is the case with all paradigms. They just know what they know. Beyond that they are too busy getting their career on track and don't see any point in getting bogged down in philosophical notions.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Some of the greatest scientific truths were first revealed when fractions of evidence that didn't quite fit with the current model kept popping up, irritating everybody. These slivers of contradiction eventually grew into the doorways to new understanding.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby webolife » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:16 am

jimmcginn wrote:James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Some of the greatest scientific truths were first revealed when fractions of evidence that didn't quite fit with the current model kept popping up, irritating everybody. These slivers of contradiction eventually grew into the doorways to new understanding.


Absolutely! Nature has no "anomalies", these are enduring vestiges of our own misunderstanding [aka "science"].

Jim, I'll stay out of this discussion for a while... I'm loving what you're trying to do here, and look forward to the possible event of your changing my mind about the meteorological implications of convection. Hasn't happened yet, but like the dawn, it's first sign of approach is a drop in temperature... so to speak. ;)
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:58 pm

webolife wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Some of the greatest scientific truths were first revealed when fractions of evidence that didn't quite fit with the current model kept popping up, irritating everybody. These slivers of contradiction eventually grew into the doorways to new understanding.


Absolutely! Nature has no "anomalies", these are enduring vestiges of our own misunderstanding [aka "science"].

Yeah, its insightful that you noticed that. The water researchers have, in a sense, changed the meaning of anomalous so that it seems like something good. Actually, an anomaly means that your theory is wrong/incomplete.
webolife wrote:Jim, I'll stay out of this discussion for a while... I'm loving what you're trying to do here, and look forward to the possible event of your changing my mind about the meteorological implications of convection. Hasn't happened yet, but like the dawn, it's first sign of approach is a drop in temperature... so to speak. ;)

If you remember, you originally wanted me to explain why convection was wrong, and I wouldn't do it. Instead I insisted that you explain why it is right, knowing that you wouldn't be able to. In my experience, only when people are put into the position of explaining why they are right do their minds even begin to consider that they don't actually understand but just believe.

I think humans have a hard time with uncertainty. Even when a model reveals contradictions that prove it is wrong they won't reject it until they find something better. And they won't really investigate something new because emotionally they are still attached to the old model. Most people weigh the good and bad of a model like they are buying a car. I don't do that. Once I know a model is wrong I abandon it. When you reject what is impossible it opens your mind to consider what is implausible. And the notion that H2O has an undiscovered plasma phase is, to say the least, extremely implausible.

I hope you don't stay out of the conversation for too long. If my notion about the variability of H2O polarity is wrong I would want to know as soon as possible. I would much prefer being embarassed than to believe I am right when I am actually wrong.

All of the professional water researchers are intent upon suppressing this discovery. Take a look at this conversation I had with Alan Soper (a water researcher). He is an adherent of the current paradigm that blindly assumes that H2O polarity is a constant. As you can see, he tried to win the debate by introducing "the electron cloud" into the discussion and, well, it kind of backfired on him:

James McGinn ("Breakthough" H bonding paper):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... NEM9mnDgAJ
Page 8: "... when a water molecule is symmetrically bonded (having two acceptor bonds [two positively charged "donor" hydrogen atoms from each of two other H2O molecules] attached on its negatively charged "acceptor" oxygen atom]) its polarity is neutralized (it's polarity coefficient is zero) and, therefore, the force that created the bonds is neutralized."

Alan Soper:
You are mixing up the strong attractive force between two hydrogen bonded molecules, with the fact that once a bond is formed, there is no possibility of another molecule forming a hydrogen bond until the first bond is broken.

James McGinn:
I can't make sense of this. It seems like you are suggesting that all bonds are asymmetric, which obviously isn't the case.

Alan Soper:
The charge on a water oxygen atom is NOT neutralised by the hydrogen of a bonding molecule . . . If anything, hydrogen bonding actually INCREASES the polarity (dipole moment) of a water molecule by "stretching" the electron cloud more than in the unbonded molecule.

James McGinn:
This is an assumption that you carried over with your "first principles, (ab initio)" and, well, it is mistaken. This is the reason I wrote this paper. I think you should consider that this is just something you have assumed and it is not something you know, and take more care to represent it as such.

As explained in my paper, hydrogen bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the oxygen atom of the water molecule exactly the same way that covalent bonds neutralize the unruliness of the electron cloud on the carbon atom of the methane molecule. From the electron's perspective there is no difference (assuming the hydrogen "bond" [which, ironically, has zero force holding it] stays put. [in that sense it really isn't a bond {See comment below}]) between a "hydrogen" bond and a covalent bond. The electrons don't know or care whether a bond is covalent or "hydrogen". They act the same regardless. Just like covalent bonds, hydrogen bonds neutralize the asymmetry of the electronegativity charges producing balanced (not lopsided) electronegativity charges, thereby neutralizing polarity.
(Comment: The thing that throws everybody for a loop is this notion [as I indicated parenthetically above] that a bond can be a bond and have no force maintaining it. That seems to be a contradiction. But it isn't a contradiction, because the completion of the bond is itself the mechanism that neutralizes the polarity. [This is the basis of H2O's numerous anomalies.])

Alan Soper:
Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding.

James McGinn:
Well, I know, but that's my point. (Also, why you assume that distance is constant is a complete mystery to me.) My model explains this distance:
Page 8: "We can think of the molecules in liquid water as being in a perpetual state of trying to become a gas and being unsuccessful in that as the hydrogen atom moves away from the oxygen atom polarity re-emerges preventing it from escaping." Also, the resulting pendulumic activity that would eminate from this explains liquid H2O's high heat capacity.

Alan Soper:
Take liquid mercury for example: there is no hydrogen bonding, but the atoms are also in a state of "perpetual" motion, . . .

James McGinn:
I think you misunderstood my point here. I'm not disputing Brownian motion, if that is what you are suggesting. My point had to do with proximity as a mechanism of polarity. The following was copied from the conclusion of my paper:
Page 17: To truly capture water's paradoxical nature we have to take into consideration the fact that proximity to other H2O molecules is the mechanism that neutralizes its polarity. Therefore, the more molecules of water have the collective properties of a liquid (close proximity to each other) the more they have the individual properties of a gas (electromagnetic neutrality) and vice versa. Consequently, molecules of liquid H2O, unlike those of any others substance, just kind of float, banging into each other, bouncing away, producing a pendulumic conservation of energy as, with distance, the charges return that bring them back again, spreading energy through the matrix as a consequence of their high degree of connectivity.

This gets right to the crux of my overall premise. I am saying that the correct relationship is the inverse of what you (and everybody else in the world) have been assuming. I am saying the more the bond is completed (the closer its proximity) the weaker is the strength of the bond. And the reasons for this are perfectly consistent with an advanced underdstanding of the electron cloud associated with quantum mechanic, as I explained. This is not to say that it proves that what you are saying is wrong. My claim is only that this should be considered as an alternate hypothesis. Let the scientific process be the arbiter.

Alan Soper:
I should also point out that the same simple models do a pretty good job at predicting both viscosity and surface tension, so they can't be completely wrong as you appear to want to claim.

James McGinn:
I believe my conjecture--assuming it is correct--is a small but important adjunct or addendum to the larger model. It's not a replacement, it's an improvement. Making improvements to an existing model is a good thing. Is it not?

Alan Soper:
You don't have to "believe" any of this if don't want to, but if you DO dispute it you need to provide an alternative explanation . . . Some of these experimental facts go back more than 100 years, so there is a lot of explaining to do! If you don't do that first, then I can assure you your views will not be accepted by a majority of scientists.

James McGinn:
If every time somebody wanted to make an improvement on the existing model they were required to refute all aspects of the existing model--including the parts with which they have no dispute--that would not be very productive would it?

As I alluded to in the introduction, I arrived at this purported discovery by way of a hunch that H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding underlie a mechanism that maximized surface tension in the atmosphere. (And this underlies the molecular basis of conduits in the atmosphere--but that is a whole other story involving vortices (tornadoes, jet streams.) This hunch was itself born out of frustration with the convection model of storm theory. If you were ever to do the math and scrutinize meteorology's convection model of storm theory you would see that it reduces to nonsense fair quickly. For example, despite the fact that is thermally impossible, they assume steam in their models. Why? Because without it they can't pretend their models make any sense at all. My goal is to provide an alternative model to storm theory. And my theory hinges on this notion that surface tension can be maximized as I suggest.

So, you see, I really had no desire to get involved in this subject. (And only recently have I become aware of what seems to be a continuing controversy.) It was only because the currently accepted model in your discipline represents a significant obstacle to the acceptance of my theoretical thinking in regard to storm theory (atmospheric physics--meteorology) that I endeavored to write this paper.

Alan Soper:
<no response>
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby webolife » Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:01 pm

I guess I'm mostly with Alan Roper there.
If everything else you're saying is actually the case, then I think I understand you are saying that H2O must be forming microdroplets in the atmosphere due to the pendulumic action of the hydrogen bond[s]. You see surface tension as the maximized result of this molecular level attribute of water and the hydrogen bond. But you have no size conception for these droplets [just invisibly small], so I'm assuming you think they're in the hundreds to thousands of H2O molecules? If I've stated that correctly, then I follow you up to that point. Further you believe that this microdroplet state causes humid air to be heavier than dry air, this due to the idea that the microdroplets make the standard comparison of atmospheric H2O to diatomic N and O molecules moot. This also assumes that the volume of air you are measuring in each case contains the same number of particles [ala Avogadro], but also assumes that the waterdroplets mixed with the air cause the air to still have the same number of particles as if the air were mixed with H2O atoms. Am I still following? The non sequitor for me is your view that the solar wind creates this atmospheric voltage differential, that atmospheric water behaves as a plasma, this results in your boundary layers, and that somehow storms are not the result of convection, which for me is just plain obvious. If the solar wind [flux] is responsible why don't we see more storms over the poles and in conjunction with aurorae, and less elsewhere about the globe? Instead hurricanes and tornadoes are spawned by equatorial/tropical circulations as is simply predicted by the heat engine of rising evaporated ocean due to solar heating of water.
To illustrate, here are just a few randomly selected videos from NASA [ISS]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAIyVZoXv9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGtjoxyFtYo
Where are the storms?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:41 pm

webolife wrote:I guess I'm mostly with Alan Roper there.

Why?

If everything else you're saying is actually the case, then I think I understand you are saying that H2O must be forming microdroplets in the atmosphere due to the pendulumic action of the hydrogen bond[s].

No. Apples and oranges. Two different issues. H2O is liquid because of its boiling point temperature is too high for the atmosphere.

You see surface tension as the maximized result of this molecular level attribute of water and the hydrogen bond.

No. I don't even know what you mean by this. Sorry. Surface tension is explained explicitly in Bill

But you have no size conception for these droplets [just invisibly small], so I'm assuming you think they're in the hundreds to thousands of H2O molecules?

Irrelevant. Even if they are just two they are liquid and heavier than dry air, as per Avogadro. It's simple math.

If I've stated that correctly, then I follow you up to that point.

You are definitely not following.

Further you believe that this microdroplet state causes humid air to be heavier than dry air, this due to the idea that the microdroplets make the standard comparison of atmospheric H2O to diatomic N and O molecules moot.

No, due to Avogadro.

This also assumes that the volume of air you are measuring in each case contains the same number of particles [ala Avogadro], but also assumes that the waterdroplets mixed with the air cause the air to still have the same number of particles as if the air were mixed with H2O atoms. Am I still following?

Isn't it obvious? What's your point?

The non sequitor for me is your view that the solar wind creates this atmospheric voltage differential, that atmospheric water behaves as a plasma,

No. I never stated such. It only explains why microdroplets don't fall due to gravity, since they are heavier than the air molecules.

this results in your boundary layers, and that somehow storms are not the result of convection, which for me is just plain obvious.

Obvious nonsense. You are jumping ahead. You want the atmosphere to be simple, and it's not. You now have been introduced to about 20% of my hypothesis on tornadogenesis. Everybody wants to take shortcuts. I refuse. First understand H2O.

If the solar wind [flux] is responsible why don't we see more storms over the poles and in conjunction with aurorae, and less elsewhere about the globe? Instead hurricanes and tornadoes are spawned by equatorial/tropical circulations as is simply predicted by the heat engine of rising evaporated ocean due to solar heating of water.

There is no heat engine. that is an urban legend, unproven. Your imagination is not evidence. First get the facts straight. Be objective.

To illustrate, here are just a few randomly selected videos from NASA [ISS]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAIyVZoXv9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGtjoxyFtYo
Where are the storms?


LOL. Laying on your back watching the stars pass over your head is not evidence that substantiates Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion and that the earth is the center of the universe, right? Likewise, watching thunderstorms does not prove that convection is true. It's just an observation.

Deal with facts. Be objective. Your intuition is wrong.

And, don't be impatient. Understanding the true nature of water is the key. Supersition is the enemy.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby webolife » Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:45 pm

jimmcginn wrote:Deal with facts. Be objective. Your intuition is wrong.
And, don't be impatient. Understanding the true nature of water is the key. Supersition is the enemy.


So was I, or was I not following you?
Why didn't you answer my question [framed in the context of the aurorae] about the solar wind creating the updraft required for storms? Where in my previous post do you think I was relying on "superstition" or not "dealing with facts"... I told you, I taught this stuff for years, not just "lying on my back." You can't convince me with "don't be impatient," that's just patronizing.

There's plenty about the standard model for meteorology that 's counterintuitive, I grant you that... how do you know your intuition isn't wrong? It can't be that you've observed the hydrogen bond in action at the quantum level -- you simply have a model that you've persuaded yourself with. I understand the process of dealing with counterintuitive frameworks, and the effort it takes to overcome your own training or premises, and to be able to clearly communicate through the noisy static of the current paradigms.

Since you didn't answer the first time, let me try again to see if I am understanding your thought path...
Are you visualizing that the electrical atmosphere is a static field or a dynamic one? If static, then the aurorae should be accompanied regularly by updrafts of moist air [they're not]; and if dynamic, are you suggesting that the electric field is elevating water in the tropics [not the heat engine of solar insolation]? If not, what evidence do you put forth for your non-convection model [besides that it doesn't make sense to you], ie. how are we supposed to see it in action? Or are you really just insisting that if we're just a little more "patient", we'll just all come around to your view despite what we can see with our own eyes:
-- the water cycle... cloud formation and rainstorms in general
-- up [and down] drafts in thunderstorms cells, tornados, hurricanes
-- pressure differential driven Coriolis circulated global wind systems
-- convection in our own home heating, sinks and tubs, ovens and other "lab" settings
...all of which strongly support the application of convection in the atmosphere [and weather forecasting]
:?:
My asking questions is how I "deal with the facts". Your dogmatism sounds to me like "superstition".
Put your facts [not just your hypotheses] on the table. Then we can all deal with them.

PS: I mistakenly wrote "Alan Roper" rather than Alan Soper before. :oops:
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:35 pm

James McGinn:
Deal with facts. Be objective. Your intuition is wrong.
And, don't be impatient. Understanding the true nature of water is the key. Superstition is the enemy.

Webolife:
So was I, or was I not following you?

James McGinn:
Well, I appreciate the feedback but, to be honest, no I don't think you are following. I counted about six things that you attributed to me that I never stated. Six in one paragraph!

Webolife:
Why didn't you answer my question [framed in the context of the aurorae] about the solar wind creating the updraft required for storms?

James McGinn:
Because I've never stated anything like this.

Webolife:
Where in my previous post do you think I was relying on "superstition" or not "dealing with facts"... I told you, I taught this stuff for years, not just "lying on my back." You can't convince me with "don't be impatient," that's just patronizing.

James McGinn:
I think you need to slow down. You are mixing different concepts.

As we've discussed previously, if you quote people direct and in context you are much less likely to accidentally misrepresent their word/thinking.

Webolife:
There's plenty about the standard model for meteorology that 's counterintuitive, I grant you that...

James McGinn:
I disagree, the standard model is very intuitive. That's the problem. It seems to make sense to people that are not deductively inclined.

Webolife:
how do you know your intuition isn't wrong? It can't be that you've observed the hydrogen bond in action at the quantum level -- you simply have a model that you've persuaded yourself with. I understand the process of dealing with counterintuitive frameworks, and the effort it takes to overcome your own training or premises, and to be able to clearly communicate through the noisy static of the current paradigms.

James McGinn:
Everybody thinks that they alone are immune to the seductive influence of anecdotal evidence. You aren't. And the fact that you taught this stuff makes you even more susceptible, not less. When you are dealing with notions that are deeply ensconced in superstition you have to be more methodical. Again, quote me directly and in context and you can avoid this confusion.

Webolife:
Since you didn't answer the first time, let me try again to see if I am understanding your thought path...
Are you visualizing that the electrical atmosphere is a static field or a dynamic one?

James McGinn:
Aha, I get it now. I think you may have transposed myself and my model with that of Charles Chandler and his model. Electricity does not have an active role in storms in my model. In my model, electricity, from the solar wind, is only instrumental in explaining how/why heavier microdroplets don't fall out of the sky due to negative buoyancy (being heavier).

Webolife:
If static, then the aurorae should be accompanied regularly by updrafts of moist air [they're not];

James McGinn:
Not relevant to my model. Again, quote me directly and in context and you can avoid this confusion.

Webolife:
and if dynamic, are you suggesting that the electric field is elevating water in the tropics [not the heat engine of solar insolation]?

James McGinn:
I don't understand the distinction between dynamic and static, sorry. (BTW, nothing in the atmosphere is anything like a "heat engine.")

First, understand that in my model the energy of storms is not electric it is kinectic. Electricity explains how microdroplets are suspended. Storms explain how moisture get up to the higher altitudes. (Don't confuse these.) Since moist air, being heavier than dry air, has negative buoyancy in the atmosphere convection plays no role whatsoever in getting moisture high in the atmosphere. (I don't know how I can be any clearer on this.)

Webolife:
If not, what evidence do you put forth for your non-convection model [besides that it doesn't make sense to you], ie. how are we supposed to see it in action?

James McGinn:
It's a hypothesis. Not a movie.

Webolife:
Or are you really just insisting that if we're just a little more "patient", we'll just all come around to your view despite what we can see with our own eyes:
-- the water cycle... cloud formation and rainstorms in general
-- up [and down] drafts in thunderstorms cells, tornados, hurricanes
-- pressure differential driven Coriolis circulated global wind systems
-- convection in our own home heating, sinks and tubs, ovens and other "lab" settings
...all of which strongly support the application of convection in the atmosphere [and weather forecasting]
:?:

James McGinn:
Yes. This is all anecdotal evidence. The form of your argument is the same as that those who opposed Galileo. Your methods are not scientific.

Webolife:
My asking questions is how I "deal with the facts". Your dogmatism sounds to me like "superstition".

James McGinn:
Who cares? That is true for all new ideas.

Ultimately, this is your whole argument: "It doesn't sound like what I believe." Right?

If you start struggling against something before you understand it you risk never understanding it.

Webolife:
Put your facts [not just your hypotheses] on the table. Then we can all deal with them.

James McGinn:
Can you show me the fact that prove your model correct? No? Why ask me to do something you won't do?

You have to struggle with my presentation as I present it. If you have problems maintaining dispassionate objectivity that is not something I can help you with. Sorry.

Webolife:
PS: I mistakenly wrote "Alan Roper" rather than Alan Soper before. :oops:

James McGinn:
Understanding the true nature of water is the key. Superstition is the enemy.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby webolife » Fri Feb 03, 2017 6:43 pm

My "facts", observations, evidence, followed by notes or questions for further discussion:
1. Warm moist air appears to rise in the atmosphere over colder drier air.
Note: This strongly suggests that moist air is less dense than dry air, but perhaps the differential of warm vs. cold gives the air buoyancy regardless of water content, or the nature/size of atmospheric water particles. Whether the moist air contains only microdroplets or molecular H20, or either/both remains to be determined.
2. On the average colder air has a lower humidity than warmer air.
Note: More water is able to be mixed into warmer air, or does water warm up the air, or does this dichotomy matter?
3. Convection causes a water cycle in the home, albeit a cold ceiling, window or mirror surface creates condensation/"clouds" in the home, whereas the adiabatic cooling of water aloft produces condensation/clouds in the atmosphere.
Note: Is the difference between these two relevant to whether convection is likewise responsible for cloud formation in the atmosphere? Ie. is convection in the home/lab not a good model for convection in the atmosphere?
4. Where the aurorae are most observable is rarely where major storms occur.
Note: How is this relevant or explainable if the solar wind is responsible for the elevation of water in the atmosphere?
5. Water evaporates at ambient temperatures, particularly in the presence of higher temperatures or wind, not only at boiling temperatures.
Note: Jim admits that he has no measurable proof that this evaporated water is not gaseous, though it behaves as such. If it is gaseous, then moist air is less dense than dry air, and standard convection works. If not, Jim has yet to demonstrate [not just claim] that the non-gaseous moist air doesn't still act like gaseous moist air; as aforementioned, Jim has no observations confirming the size of his microdroplets, or showing that the count of water particles in a given volume of air is the same regardless of their size [ala Avogadro]. If indeed it can be demonstrated by experiment that moist air is denser than cold air, the convection model is challenged and Jim should patent and start selling his anti-tornado spray! :lol:

Seriously, Jim, I really want to know about this, and have no hold upon or fundamental preference for some "superstition".

While I've presented these before, Jim persists in saying I do not deal with the facts, and that these statements are anecdotal. Ohhh..K... Do you have some observations or facts that contradict these observations and facts?

So how about some answers, and maybe a return list of facts, observations, and questions, not just patronizing ad hominems and claims based on hypotheses.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby webolife » Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:04 pm

webolife wrote:Everybody thinks that they alone are immune to the seductive influence of anecdotal evidence. You aren't. And the fact that you taught this stuff makes you even more susceptible, not less. When you are dealing with notions that are deeply ensconced in superstition you have to be more methodical.

Hmmm...Jim's imputation that I'm seduced and subsequently susceptible supports my suspicion that Jimmcginn may be surreptitiously supplanting superstition for supposition ;)
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:03 am

Webolife:
My "facts", observations, evidence, followed by notes or questions for further discussion:

James McGinn:
Your facts/observations are also my facts/observations. My assertion is that my theory explains/predicts OUR facts/observations better than does your theory. So, you need to stop talking about OUR facts/observations and start talking about how your theory supposedly explains/predicts OUR facts/observations better than my theory.

Webolife:
1. Warm moist air appears to rise in the atmosphere over colder drier air.

James McGinn:
Does it? To me it appears most of the moist air on our planet is within a few hundred feet of the surface, exactly where we'd expect it NOT to be if drier air extending thousands of feet above us was heavier and if convection is, as you suggest, significant. This fact doesn't prove moist air is heavier than dry air but it does create a huge observational discrepancy that meteorologists have never addressed or acknowledged--except through anecdote-based reasoning:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16319
Why do you think it is you never noticed this before? Think about it. At the location where you are at right now there is a column of drier air extending thousands of feet above your head? What is stopping this supposedly heavier air from rushing down at this instant? (The obvious asnwer being that it is lighter and/or that convection is not as significant as meteorologists want us to believe it is.)

Webolife:
Note: More water is able to be mixed into warmer air, or does water warm up the air, or does this dichotomy matter?

James McGinn:
It's an important point to be aware of and most people forget to consider this. As air gets warmer its capacity to absorb water (vapor) increases. It is for this reason (with the exception of the driest of dry environments) warmer air almost always carries more moisture than cooler air in its vicinity. (And its pretty dramatic. Even a moderate increase in temperature has a significant effect on the H2O vapor carrying capacity of air. I found this great chart one time that demonstrated this but I have since been unable to locate it on the internet.)

Webolife:
3. Convection
<snip superstition> . . .

James McGinn:
Moist air has negative buoyancy. It cannot convect. Moist air convection is superstition, not science.

Webolife:
. . . is convection in the home/lab not a good model for convection in the atmosphere?

James McGinn:
I heard it rains a lot in Seattle. But until now I didn't realize it was indoor phenomena. :D

Webolife:
4. Where the aurorae are most observable is rarely where major storms occur.
Note: How is this relevant or explainable if the solar wind is responsible for the elevation of water in the atmosphere?

James McGinn:
I don't know what you are talking about. Storms near the polar regions are especially intense and long lasting. Beyond this, your assertion is so strained I'm not even going to address it.

Webolife:
5. Water evaporates at ambient temperatures, particularly in the presence of higher temperatures or wind, not only at boiling temperatures.

James McGinn:
Yeah, so? (Evaporation and boiling are categorically distinct processes.)

Webolife:
Note: Jim admits that he has no measurable proof that this evaporated water is not gaseous, . . .

James McGinn:
I have laboratory evidence (steam tables). You have consensus (collective imagination).
Also, did you know that your 'cold steam' has something in common with ghosts:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... fQA-f5CQAJ

Webolife:
. . . though it behaves as such. If it is gaseous, then moist air is less dense than dry air, and standard convection works. If not, Jim has yet to demonstrate [not just claim] that the non-gaseous moist air doesn't still act like gaseous moist air; as aforementioned, Jim has no observations confirming the size of his microdroplets, or showing that the count of water particles in a given volume of air is the same regardless of their size [ala Avogadro]. If indeed it can be demonstrated by experiment that moist air is denser than cold air, the convection model is challenged . . .

James McGinn:
If you don't trust steam tables here is a simple experiment that you might consider:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... -8RDoNDwAJ

Webolife:
. . . and Jim should patent and start selling his anti-tornado spray! :lol:

James McGinn:
Product testing has brought some liability issues to the surface. If you remember, the spray would turn a tornado into a summer breeze. Well, it turns out that when it is sprayed into a summer breeze it, apparently, has the opposite effect. So . . . ?

Webolife:
Seriously, Jim, I really want to know about this, and have no hold upon or fundamental preference for some "superstition".

James McGinn:
Well, to show you how confident I am that I can dodge any bullet you might send my way, let me provide you with some ammunition. Let me explain to you what I think are the most problematic or challenging observations for my hypothesis: tropical storms and Hadley cell circulation. If you think about it, the only way my model could explain these observations is if there are tributary jet streams connected to the major (mid latitude) jet stream stretching (presumably along the tropopause) all the way to the equator! So, if it could be shown that these do not exist my hypothesis would be disproven. (Also, hurricanes might be a challenge to my hypothesis--for similar reasons. [Hurricanes only happen when the jet stream is not in the vicinity of the hurricane.]) Ultimately, be aware that my model is most distinctive with respect to where the energy of storms originates and how it arrives at the location of the storm. In my model the low pressure energy originates in the jet streams and it travels against the flow (upstream and down) through vortice conduits. As you surely realize, this is distinctive from the convection model which maintains that the energy of storms is a consequence of air that is (magically) lighter than dry air convecting upwards and (for some unknown reason) eastward to power the jet streams.

Webolife:
While I've presented these before, Jim persists in saying I do not deal with the facts, and that these statements are anecdotal. Ohhh..K... Do you have some observations or facts that contradict these observations and facts?

James McGinn:
No. I have no dispute with OUR facts. All I have is a theory that explains OUR facts more parsimoniously than does your theory. And it does not depend upon magical abilities that have never been demonstrated under laboratory conditions.

My understanding is unique, unfamiliar, and correct. Your understanding is common, familiar, and incorrect. You want me to do something I can't do. You expect me to make my understanding common and familiar. I can't do that. All I can do is show you how it is correct. It will take time for it to become common and familiar to you. Be patient.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby webolife » Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:00 pm

The convection model abundantly explains both hurricanes and tornadoes, yet you want to say it doesn't.
Repeatedly calling convection "superstition" doesn't make it so, just because it countermands your theory.
It can and will rain indoors. When I take a shower without the fan on, the rising moist air condenses on a beam that runs across my ceiling. When the droplets get big enough, they fall to the floor and make a puddle.
There is no mystery about the eastward flowing jet streams. Convection plus the Coriolis effect due to the eastward rotation of the earth show this by simple inertia. They originate in low pressure regions that averagely develop about the 60th latitude, and wavishly wander equator-ward from there. This origination region is at a lower latitude than the average occurrence of the aurorae, which, again, if you study them you will see that major storm cells do not form more frequently during heightened aurora activity. Why is this, according to your solar wind thesis?
Standard meteorology deals with low pressure cyclonic vortices and high pressure Coriolis based wind circulation based on the understanding that moist air rises. And yes the air above me at this very moment is drier than the cloudy air above that, and this is practically always the case (180 days a year) in Seattle! Clouds condense adiabatically as moist air rises to a critical zone of atmospheric low pressure. Face it: this is not a case where one model fails, and the other wins... at least you have not persuaded anyone that your model predicts atmospheric behavior in a superior or more elegant manner. In fact, much of what you say is just bizarre.
No don't quote me out of context! Bizarre doesn't mean "false", I know that! But you can't gain a foothold for your theory simply by hacking off other peoples feet. You can drill your premise that moist water sinks til you're blue in the face, but until you can demonstrate it repeatedly and provide clear evidence that the opposite claim is impossible, all you have is an alternate theory.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:23 pm

webolife wrote:The convection model abundantly explains both hurricanes and tornadoes, yet you want to say it doesn't.
Repeatedly calling convection "superstition" doesn't make it so, just because it countermands your theory.

If you are not scientific and follow your intuition it is easy to believe in the convection model. It is also very easy to teach to others. People want to believe what is intuitive.
webolife wrote:It can and will rain indoors. When I take a shower without the fan on, the rising moist air condenses on a beam that runs across my ceiling. When the droplets get big enough, they fall to the floor and make a puddle.

Anecdote.
webolife wrote:There is no mystery about the eastward flowing jet streams. Convection plus the Coriolis effect due to the eastward rotation of the earth show this by simple inertia.

In my opinion it is plainy absurd to suggest convection explains 300 mph, highly concentrated, snaking winds of the jet stream.
webolife wrote: They originate in low pressure regions that averagely develop about the 60th latitude, and wavishly wander equator-ward from there.

Vague, contrived.
webolife wrote: This origination region is at a lower latitude than the average occurrence of the aurorae, which, again, if you study them you will see that major storm cells do not form more frequently during heightened aurora activity. Why is this, according to your solar wind thesis?

I don't have a solar wind thesis.
webolife wrote:Standard meteorology deals with low pressure cyclonic vortices and high pressure Coriolis based wind circulation based on the understanding that moist air rises.

My theory does also. And my theory does not rely on magical properties (of H2O) that have never been detected in a laboratory.
webolife wrote: And yes the air above me at this very moment is drier than the cloudy air above that, and this is practically always the case (180 days a year) in Seattle!

It's the case everywhere on the planet. Why did you evade my question?
webolife wrote: Clouds condense adiabatically as moist air rises to a critical zone of atmospheric low pressure. Face it: this is not a case where one model fails, and the other wins...

My theory hasn't been fully presented. So it can't win. But your theory did fail.
webolife wrote: at least you have not persuaded anyone that your model predicts atmospheric behavior in a superior or more elegant manner. In fact, much of what you say is just bizarre.

Your theory is vague, anecdotal, and even mystical. Therefore it appeals to the lowest common denominator of science consumer. It's a cargo cult science, as described by Feynman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg
webolife wrote:No don't quote me out of context! Bizarre doesn't mean "false", I know that!

And consensus doesn't mean true.
webolife wrote:But you can't gain a foothold for your theory simply by hacking off other peoples feet.

I agree: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Max Planck
webolife wrote:You can drill your premise that moist water sinks til you're blue in the face, but until you can demonstrate it repeatedly and provide clear evidence that the opposite claim is impossible, all you have is an alternate theory.

I agree. But someday you and your fellow cargo cultists will die and science can begin anew.

Be sure to show my theory to your children and grandchildren so that they will be familiar with it.

Regards,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests