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

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby webolife » Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:50 am

Once again McGinn, you have refused to deal with any of the observations and information I have presented, and have chosen to dismiss every challenge with hand waving and ad hominems: "superstition", "anecdote", "absurd", "vague", "contrived", "magical", "mystical", "lowest common denominator", "cargo cultist"...
I have tried to engage you with questions and challenges so that you can show with demonstrative evidence [triple redundancy for emphasis] that your hypothesis has merit. I'd really like to see you succeed, but when it comes to the bottom line, all you have to say is that you aren't finished yet... well, as I said before, I look forward to the full presentation.

By the way, what is absurd about a 300 mph differential in relative wind speed [ie. the average speed of the jet stream with respect to the earth's surface from which it is gauged] due to the sphericity of the earth's surface? For a reader's reminder, the equatorial earth surface rotates eastward at 1600+ kph, while the mid to upper latitudes rotate eastward at around in the ranges of 700 - 1100 kph, a difference middling around 700 kph to a stationary observer at those latitudes. So a polarward moving parcel of air originating near the equator will start out at a high eastward speed and "overtake" the slower rotating earth as it moves toward the poles, ie. moving eastward at a faster rate than the rotating earth at the higher latitudes. Likewise winds originating in the higher latitudes lag behind the earth's rotation as they head toward the equator. This is a basic description of the Coriolis effect, commonly stated thus: Currents [wind and water] in the Northern Hemisphere veer to the right [and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere]. This is an almost entirely exigent consequence of simple inertia, oh... and simple convection. It explains the anticyclonic movement in air masses [ie. clockwise in the N Hem}, as well as the cyclonic movement at low pressure frontal systems as considered in the context of convection.

As I've repeated before, I am very interested in your work on the nature of water's hydrogen bond and will be following your ongoing presentations, although I have to say it gets quite tiring to have honest challenges and questions met mostly with ridicule and dismissal. I will therefore step back out of this discussion for a while. Maybe you will find it within yourself to answer other folks with a little more courtesy, and might I suggest the humble tentativity that characterizes honest scientific discourse? You show this from time to time, and almost win me over when you do. But when a sincere challenge or question is offered, out come those gloves! :roll:
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: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:26 pm

webolife wrote:Once again McGinn, you have refused to deal with any of the observations and information I have presented, and have chosen to dismiss every challenge with hand waving and ad hominems: "superstition", "anecdote", "absurd", "vague", "contrived", "magical", "mystical", "lowest common denominator", "cargo cultist"...
I have tried to engage you with questions and challenges so that you can show with demonstrative evidence [triple redundancy for emphasis] that your hypothesis has merit. I'd really like to see you succeed, but when it comes to the bottom line, all you have to say is that you aren't finished yet... well, as I said before, I look forward to the full presentation.

I do genuinely value your feedback.
webolife wrote:By the way, what is absurd about a 300 mph differential in relative wind speed [ie. the average speed of the jet stream with respect to the earth's surface from which it is gauged]

Nothing. Its a highlight of my model. In my model, the jet streams are the repositories of the energy that causes storms. Jet streams and their tributaries deliver this energy (upstream) as low pressure, producing uplift witnessed in storms. (Sometimes the delivery system overshoots producing tornadoes.) My model has no need for this mystical notion that moist air is lighter than dry air.>
webolife wrote:due to the sphericity of the earth's surface? For a reader's reminder, the equatorial earth surface rotates eastward at 1600+ kph, while the mid to upper latitudes rotate eastward at around in the ranges of 700 - 1100 kph, a difference middling around 700 kph to a stationary observer at those latitudes. So a polarward moving parcel of air originating near the equator will start out at a high eastward speed and "overtake" the slower rotating earth as it moves toward the poles, ie. moving eastward at a faster rate than the rotating earth at the higher latitudes. Likewise winds originating in the higher latitudes lag behind the earth's rotation as they head toward the equator. This is a basic description of the Coriolis effect, commonly stated thus: Currents [wind and water] in the Northern Hemisphere veer to the right [and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere]. This is an almost entirely exigent consequence of simple inertia, oh... and simple convection. It explains the anticyclonic movement in air masses [ie. clockwise in the N Hem}, as well as the cyclonic movement at low pressure frontal systems as considered in the context of convection.

You are not answering the question. How does this explain 300 mph jet streams in tropopause? Why/how does the air go so fast? Why tropopause? Why/how does a jet stream maintain its coherence. (This is the subject I was discussing.)
Also, if I'm reading you right, you are (inadvertently) admitting that, essentially, you just assumed convection is true. And beyond that you have a series of anecdote that you claim would not be true if convection is not true. But You don't actually have a concise argument for why we know the upward moving air in storms is powered by convection. It's really just an assumption. Have I correctly characterized your position?
webolife wrote:As I've repeated before, I am very interested in your work on the nature of water's hydrogen bond and will be following your ongoing presentations, although I have to say it gets quite tiring to have honest challenges and questions met mostly with ridicule and dismissal.

I've provided you with all the intellectual tools you need to make a concise argument for your belief in "cold steam" but, like all believers, you don't use them. You don't want to look through the Galileo's telescope of my refutation of the moist air convection myth. Instead you wish only to draw attention to all of the anecdotal evidence--all of which my model explains as well or better.
webolife wrote: I will therefore step back out of this discussion for a while. Maybe you will find it within yourself to answer other folks with a little more courtesy, and might I suggest the humble tentativity that characterizes honest scientific discourse? You show this from time to time, and almost win me over when you do. But when a sincere challenge or question is offered, out come those gloves! :roll:

If I understand correctly, you are a teacher. That is great. I have a different focus. I have a different specialty: science theory. I have learned that if you want to make progress you have to be very careful you don't fall for simple notions just because they seem to make sense.

Here is why Meteorology's Convection Model of Storm Theory Fails

'Cold Steam' Controversy: six things to recognize

1) Recognize that the properties of H2O don't change just because it is suspended in the atmosphere/air.

2) Recognize a clear distinction between liquid, vaporous H2O and genuine steam, monomolecular, gaseous H2O.

3) Recognize that nowhere in the atmosphere is temperature/pressure high/low enough to support the existence of gaseous H2O, according to any and all reproducible experimental evidence.

4) Recognize that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence that the moisture in clear moist air, at ambient temperatures/pressures, is monomolecular, (gaseous) H2O.

5) Along the same lines, recognize that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence that contradicts this moisture in clear moist air at ambient temperatures/pressures being multimolecular, vaporous (liquid) H2O.

6) Recognize that the implications of these five facts is devastating to meteorology's prevailing model of storms, the convection model of storm theory, which is completely dependent upon the notion that moist air is lighter than dry air.

If you want to understand how the atmosphere actually works/operates you must get rid of all the superstition. If you can't/won't do that there is no reason to continue, because you'll just end up frustrated all the time.

Let's not talk about convection in this thread anymore after this. Okay?

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby webolife » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:01 pm

The only thing that frustrates me in this conversation is your continuing rant that the established science is "superstition". Kuhn would not approve. You're welcome to believe that of course, but others who study the standard model and find it to [occasionally or often] be satisfactory for making predictions are still trying to do good science, and your ad hominem epithets do little to advance the science you are claiming to be trying to address. I'm trying very hard to appreciate, understand and apply your work on gaseous water vapor vs. liquid microdroplets, and to visualize what appears to be quite a conceptual leap to your conclusion that moist air is heavier than dry air, buoyed up by solar wind driven plasma currents. If I wasn't patient with you, I'd have given up for good long ago. As it is, I'm thinking you may someday appreciate me being on your side.
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: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:04 pm

webolife wrote:The only thing that frustrates me in this conversation is your continuing rant that the established science is "superstition".

Anybody can do the math on convection and see that the notion fails. Whether its established or not seems not important to me.
webolife wrote:Kuhn would not approve. You're welcome to believe that of course, but others who study the standard model and find it to [occasionally or often] be satisfactory for making predictions are still trying to do good science, and your ad hominem epithets do little to advance the science you are claiming to be trying to address.

People die in tornadoes. That is my primary concern. Maybe people who casually sidestep the issue should take that into consideration.
(BTW, in this very thread I used the standard model [of physics, QM] to show that H2O polarity is actually a variable and not the constant that is assumed by the consensus of water researchers.)
webolife wrote:I'm trying very hard to appreciate, understand and apply your work on gaseous water vapor vs. liquid microdroplets, and to visualize what appears to be quite a conceptual leap to your conclusion that moist air is heavier than dry air, buoyed up by solar wind driven plasma currents.

You're not familiar with it--that's all. Give it time. It took me a while too. (But that was a long time ago.)
webolife wrote:If I wasn't patient with you, I'd have given up for good long ago. As it is, I'm thinking you may someday appreciate me being on your side.

Of course I'd appreciate you on my side, especially considering you are an earth sciences guy. You understand the implications. Others I encounter are often ambivalent about the geographical sciences in general.

And I think this is all right up Kuhn's alley. Many severe weather meteorologists hate Kuhn and they hate physicists too. They have their belief system and they don't like outsiders drawing attention to it. (They don't like me either. And that's a shame because I'm such a pleasant fellow.)

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:03 am

webolife wrote:The only thing that frustrates me in this conversation is your continuing rant that the established science is "superstition".


What bothers me is that you were so busy fighting a battle that, in my opinion, had already been fought and decided (moist air actually being heavier and no lighter than drier air) that you missed the significance of what was stated in this thread and that significance is huge. In fact, I think it is the most significant assertion in everything I have to say. All water researchers before me have (blindly) assumed that H2O polarity is a constant. And they came to this conclusion through a very indirect and scientifically dubious method that was actually conducted by a guy named Kirkwood back in 1932. My reason for quoting Daniel Elton was because he gave us some direct insight the customary thinking that underlies this (blind) assumption. Optimally, I would have wanted you to examine this and compare and contrast it with the thinking associated with Bill: zeroing of polarity:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117063

What is so frustrating is that this kind of thing happens all the time, over and over. The convection superstition will not die. People want to believe what is simple. People aren't tough minded enough to resist what they already believe and what everybody else believes. Facts are of little consequence to the power of simple beliefs.

If you were asked to explain to somebody the difference between my understanding of variability of polarity and the traditional understanding that assumes it to be constant could you explain it. My guess is that the answer to that question is no. And that exemplifies my point. You are spending so much time fighting a battle that is over that you are not comprehending the significance of what I am saying. And you are just one of many. It's like dealing with a cult.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby webolife » Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:34 pm

You just can't get past your ad hominems can you...

I think I can explain your variable [and zeroing] polarity claim. I think it is probably a viable model.
If you would like to discuss competing scientific models, I'll be happy to remain on this thread with you.
If all you have to spout is "superstition" and "cult" diatribe, it will be a waste of my time and energy.
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: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:43 pm

webolife wrote:You just can't get past your ad hominems can you...

I guess it comes so naturally to me I don't even know I'm doing it.

webolife wrote:I think I can explain your variable [and zeroing] polarity claim. I think it is probably a viable model.
If you would like to discuss competing scientific models, I'll be happy to remain on this thread with you.

That's fantastic. Really.

I've been trying to figure out a more direct route with respect to getting the message out on this. If you have any ideas along those lines I'd be glad to hear them.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:07 am

webolife wrote:The convection model abundantly explains both hurricanes and tornadoes, yet you want to say it doesn't.

This is the kind of lowest common denominator thinking that should be banished from science. You are not honestly addressing my argument, you sidestep the math of my argument and blather away with worthless (immeasurable an untestable) anecdote.
webolife wrote:Repeatedly calling convection "superstition" doesn't make it so,

Your inability to defend it makes it so.

It's funny how science pretender like yourself mention Kuhn (all the time) yet you fail to recognize that your kind of severe stubborness is exactly what Kuhn warned us about.
webolife wrote:just because it countermands your theory.

You didn't counter my argument. You didn't even address it. You sidestepped the math. You don't have a real argument. You just have simplistic anecdote and a complete lack of scientific methodology. I invited you to show me where I might have gone wrong in my analysis. Like all true believers you sidestep that and keep laying on the childish anecdote.

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.


More anecdote. That's all you got. That's all you pretenders will ever have. Because this isn't really science to you, it's a religion.

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. They originate in low pressure regions that averagely develop about the 60th latitude, and wavishly wander equator-ward from there.


This explains nothing. Why does it flow eastward? You did a google search and now you think you know the truth.

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?

Address the issue, you evasive twit.

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.


As I've indicated to you previously and repeatedly, my model explains all of the above, but it does not depend on a spiritual notion like moist air convection. Address my argument and stop playing games.

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!


And this observation contradicts your silly belief that moist air is lighter. This observation alone refutes your silly belief that moist air is magicall lighter than dry air because the H2O therein magically turns to steam at ambient temps.

Believers only see what they want to see.

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... 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!


Your sheepishness seems bizarre to me. Its the abundance of and institutionalization of cloddishness that overwhelms real science and reduces all discussions to dimwitted propaganda directed at the lowest common demoninator of science consumer.


webolife wrote: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.


My theory doesn't depend on magic. Yours does. Address the issue or kindly stay out of any threads that I start. I want all of my threads to be free of dimwitted propaganda.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:14 am

webolife wrote:You just can't get past your ad hominems can you...

I think I can explain your variable [and zeroing] polarity claim. I think it is probably a viable model.
If you would like to discuss competing scientific models, I'll be happy to remain on this thread with you.
If all you have to spout is "superstition" and "cult" diatribe, it will be a waste of my time and energy.


This is a serious subject to me. Like all science pretenders you point to evidence over and over again and stubbornly refuse to actually engage in a real discussion.

Stay out of threads I start. Your superstition is not welcome here.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby seasmith » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:19 am

" Hell hath no fury like a ..."
seasmith
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:31 am

seasmith wrote:
" Hell hath no fury like a ..."


What did I just say about these kind of tactics?

Keep your silly propaganda out of threads I started.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:33 am

seasmith wrote:" Hell hath no fury like a ..."


In other words, address the issues discussed in this thread, <moderator edit>

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Last edited by nick c on Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: ad hominem comment removed
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby webolife » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:55 pm

Both Seasmith and I are serious researchers, McGinn.
I told you more than once I would not tolerate your ad hominems.
jimmcginn wrote:This is a serious subject to me. Like all science pretenders you point to evidence over and over again and stubbornly refuse to actually engage in a real discussion.

If repeatedly pointing to evidence makes me a "pretender", then I stand guilty as charged.
If engaging in discussion does not mean presenting the alternate paradigm with serious requests for data based comparisons with your model, then I'm not sure what you expect from a "real discussion"...
Your maths and model for variable hydrogen bonding are very intriguing. I also taught math for several decades and understand full well that not all "good" math has corresponding application in physical reality. I'd like to see you be successful. But you just lost my support with the last several raging posts.
jimmcginn wrote:Address the issue or kindly stay out of any threads that I start.

Your better humor and attempts at moderate objectivity tempted me to rejoin the discussion with you. I won't make the same mistake again.
Good-bye.
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: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:15 pm

Webolife: Both Seasmith and I are serious researchers, McGinn. I told you more than once I would not tolerate your ad hominems.

J McG: You come into a thread I started, evaded the subject that I carefully set up to discuss in this thread, and brought up a subject that was well covered in other threads that I started. I was dumb enough to take the bait. And I gave you a second opportunity to address the rigour and mathematics of my refutation/exposition of Meteorology's vague notion that convection powers storms (including severe weather). And what did you do? Once again, you sidestepped the rigour of my argument and began with common propaganda. You didn't refer to any test or quantitative measurement of convection, which is understandable since such does not exist. But what is not understandable (and, in my opinion, is unforgiveable--always) is that you did not acknowledge that it has never been tested or measured. Then you started with the anecdote-based propaganda--the typical nonsense that can be found in textbooks and all over the internet. Then, after I threw your propaganda back in your face, you accused me of ad hominen.

I wouldn't have minded the propaganda tactics if you had first acknowledged the rigour of my refutation/exposition and/or if you had acknowledged the lack of rigour of meteorology's explanation. But you are a believer. Although they never admit it, believers think that the rules of science, the rules of discourse, and even the rules of common courtesy don't apply to them.

J McG (previous): This is a serious subject to me. Like all science pretenders you point to evidence over and over again and stubbornly refuse to actually engage in a real discussion.

Webolife: If repeatedly pointing to evidence makes me a "pretender", then I stand guilty as charged.
If engaging in discussion does not mean presenting the alternate paradigm with serious requests for data based comparisons with your model, then I'm not sure what you expect from a "real discussion"...

J McG: I expect intellectual honesty and not propaganda tactics. And that involves acknowledging the shortcomings of your position and not just making grandiose claims about a notion THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MEASURED OR TESTED!

Webolife: Your maths and model for variable hydrogen bonding are very intriguing.

J McG: More importantly my model is scientifically valid and purposively explicit whereas the current understanding is scientifically invalid and purposively obscure. They are hiding. They are pretending. Like yourself with the concept of convection, the water researchers pretend to understand but actually just believe and are prone to the same propaganda tactics and intellectual dishonesty that you displayed here. That along with the complexity of the subject, presents my revolutionary model with a political challenge that may be insurmountable. So, I have enough problems without you adding to it with off-topic banter. (Now do you get it?)

Webolife: I also taught math for several decades and understand full well that not all "good" math has corresponding application in physical reality. I'd like to see you be successful. But you just lost my support with the last several raging posts.

J McG: Once again, you make reference to how rigorous you are while dodging the rigour of my presentation. I don't need that kind of support in that it just makes my predicament tougher.

J McG (previous): Address the issue or kindly stay out of any threads that I start.

Webolife: Your better humor and attempts at moderate objectivity tempted me to rejoin the discussion with you. I won't make the same mistake again.
Good-bye.

J McG: I don't mind that you don't agree. I mind that you are deceptive. Academia is in hiding about all of this because they collectively don't want anything to interrupt their percieved expertise. (This is always the case.) Don't make it easier for them.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:48 pm

jimmcginn wrote: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>


***** ***** *****

To people that are not familiar with scientific discourse and argumentive tactics, allow me to explain what took place in this conversation between myself and Alan Soper, an internationally recognized expert in the scientific study of water structure. Alan is dismissing my fully explicated understanding of the force associated with H2O polarity with his traditional, obscure understanding. My explanation was offered in the referenced paper which Alan read. Link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... NEM9mnDgAJ

Alan is saying my paper is wrong because my assumptions are wrong. But he refuses to provide any details except to say that his understanding is supported by "quantum mechanics". Of course this is just a diversionary tactic. He doesn't really have a clear understanding of the basis of the assumptions of his own paradigm. (If he did he would, surely, tell us.) The fact is that all adherents of this current paradigm lack a clear understanding. I know this because I am well read in the literature.

As is explained upthread, the real basis of their assumption is hidden in the obscurity of the phrase 'first principles' (ab initio) and in a diversionary reference to some guy named Kirkwood who used an obscure procedure that nobody can delineate. This is the paradigm's collective tactic for drawing attention away from the fact that, essentially, they just grabbed a number out of the air.

And so, as you can see, not only did Alan refuse to provide any feedback as to where my thinking might have gone off track but, adding insult to deception, he refused to even acknowledge the specifics of my model or its implications. Nor did Alan make any attempt at all to disclose the known shortcomings of the current model of water structure, as more honestly presented (upthread) by Daniel Elton.

(BTW, there is nothing exceptional about Alan's tactics here. These are the tactics common to paradigms and their associated adherents/believers. I am not in any way saying that Alan's maneuvers here were atypical. All paradigms use the exact same tactics. And so, the blame here is not on Alan for using these tactics. He has no choice if he is to be accepted by his fellow researchers. The blame here is on society in general for letting them *all* to get away with these tactics.)

BTW, the quantum mechanical aspects to my explanation are fully explicated in the paper linked above and, more recently, here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117063
As indicated in therein, my explanation indicates that the force of H2O polarity is inverse and highly variable with H bonds being the mechanism thereof. This supposition starkly departs from the understanding associated with the current paradigm both on the basis of the honest, clarity of its presentation but also on the basis of the huge variability indicated therein, setting the stage for resolving all of H2O numerous anomalies.

So, hopefully you can see, there is nothing honest or forthright about Alan's response to my request to read my paper. And the tactics he employs are the tactics we expect from any and all paradigms. (This is *always* the case when dealing with secretive paradigms that have an established body of literature to obscure their pretentiousness.)

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest