Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video)

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

Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video)

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat May 26, 2018 3:25 pm

YouTube Video:
Are you confused about hydrogen bonding in water?
https://youtu.be/RfNuWJDJvRw

Are you confused about hydrogen bonding in water?

Do you think it is because you are stupid?

Guess again . . .

I didn't fully realize it at the time but . . .

I was asking about the central contradiction of the current paradigm of water science.

I was broaching a taboo topic.

Allow me to more fully explain the contradiction . . .

. . . and the taboo.

If the polar forces of the H2O molecule are strong enough to bring H2O molecules into close proximity to each other such that they cannot escape each other's mutual attraction (thereby causing it to be a liquid and not a gas [at ambient temperatures]) then it only stands to reason that these polar forces should be strong enough to cause it to be a solid or, in the least, a higher viscosity liquid than is actually observed?

In other words, if the polar forces are strong enough to prevent H2O from being a gas and to cause it to, instead, be a liquid then they should also be more than strong enough to make it a solid or, in the least, a liquid that possesses higher viscosity than the very low viscosity that is actually observed.

It might be easier to conceptualize this contradiction from the perspective of Coulomb's law.

Coulomb's Law is applicable to all electrostatic forces. Polarity is an electrostatic force. Coulomb's law posits that the magnitude of electrostatic force increases as distance decreases.

In other words, the force gets stronger the closer the molecules get to each other.

Or, at least, that is what should happen according to Coulomb's law.

So the fact that--obviously--this is not what is actually happening with H2O is a huge problem for the current paradigm.

Or, it would be a problem for the current paradigm if its adherents were honest with themselves about their own confusion.

Unfortunately, one of the ugly realities of science is that paradigms never admit they are wrong--even when it is obvious.

So, how does an unbiased, honest, and intelligent person proceed from this point on?

Basically, it comes down to three choices:

Option #1
Ignore the contradiction, resign oneself to the current paradigm, and immediately stop discussing this topic.

Option #2
Assert that--for some unspecified reason--Coulomb's law is not applicable to the electrostatic forces associated with hydrogen bonding.

Option #3
Determine if and how the electrostatic forces associated with hydrogen bonding in water are--somehow--neutralized or turned off as a consequence of H2O molecules being in close proximity to each other (or some other mechanism).

Option #3
Determine if and how the electrostatic forces associated with hydrogen bonding in water are--somehow--neutralized or turned off as a consequence of H2O molecules being in close proximity to each other (or some other mechanism).

The faithful believers in the current paradigm have long ago chosen Option #1.

As you will see in what follows I chose Option #3.

Watch closely:

https://youtu.be/RfNuWJDJvRw

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby Osmosis » Sun May 27, 2018 4:23 pm

Another aspect of water not mentioned yet, is the free precession of the hydrogen in a magnetic field and how this precession might be affected by electrostatic polarizing. Does this charge affect the precession frequency, or will it only react to the magnetic field strength?
Osmosis
Osmosis
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed May 30, 2018 1:15 pm

Osmosis wrote:Another aspect of water not mentioned yet, is the free precession of the hydrogen in a magnetic field and how this precession might be affected by electrostatic polarizing. Does this charge affect the precession frequency, or will it only react to the magnetic field strength?
Osmosis


I have no idea what you mean by "free precession of the hydrogen". Can you clarify?

Thanks

James McGinn
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby Osmosis » Wed May 30, 2018 2:39 pm

Proton Precession Total Field Magnetometer. Utilizes some hydrogen-containing fluid, such as water.
The Precession Frequency detected is a direct measure of the magnetic field.
I wondered if the charge on the water sample would affect this measurement. Could be signal duration, frequency shift, amplitude.

Osmosis
Osmosis
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed May 30, 2018 6:16 pm

Osmosis wrote:Proton Precession Total Field Magnetometer. Utilizes some hydrogen-containing fluid, such as water.
The Precession Frequency detected is a direct measure of the magnetic field.
I wondered if the charge on the water sample would affect this measurement. Could be signal duration, frequency shift, amplitude.

Osmosis


How does a proton precess?

Jim
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby Osmosis » Wed May 30, 2018 7:58 pm

Jim
The precession of the proton is possible, because the hydrogen proton has a dipole moment.
The process starts by immersing the sample in a strong direct current field. This forces most of the protons to align with this field. Then, the current is turned off suddenly and the inductive current is damped and dissipated. The signal can be detected by a very sensitive amplifer. This detected signal is, typically in the audio frequency and is usually counted to indicate the field strength.
The protons will precess at the magnetic field present. This signal is very small, perhaps 5 microvolts and damps quite quickly.
I hope I explained this ok. There may be some geophysicists out there n the Electric Universe to verify or debunk my explanation. :D
Osmosis
Osmosis
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed May 30, 2018 10:56 pm

[quote="Osmosis"]Jim
The precession of the proton is possible,

Okay, but I don't even know what this means. I know what a proton is. But I don't know what it means for it to precess.

How would I distinguish a proton that has precessed from one that has not?
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby Osmosis » Thu May 31, 2018 8:31 am

Jim,
The protons don't keep any information about if/when they precessed. This signal is very short-duration and small.
Sort of like trying to tune in to a very weak radio station.
Osmosis
Osmosis
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu May 31, 2018 5:22 pm

Osmosis wrote:Jim,
The protons don't keep any information about if/when they precessed. This signal is very short-duration and small.
Sort of like trying to tune in to a very weak radio station.
Osmosis


Okay, well, as I think you can see, I don't have an answer to your question. Sorry about that.

But, just in case you haven't seen it yet, there is this:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2018/0 ... pace-news/

Regards,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:27 pm

Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?
https://youtu.be/RfNuWJDJvRw

Comments:

Professor Dave Explains
Water is liquid within a certain range of temperatures. Below that, it's solid. Above that, it's gas. Other substances have their own distinct ranges of temperatures within which they exist as the three states of matter.

Removing two hydrogens from methane would not produce a polar molecule, even if that were physically plausible. C-H bonds are not polar. OH bonds are polar because of the large discrepancy in electronegativity. Polarity is not dependent on the mass of an atom.

There is no "paradigm", and there is no "taboo", there's just you not understanding even the most basic high school chemistry. Instead of spamming my channel with this stuff, watch my content. You can learn about molecular geometry, the chemical bond, intermolecular forces, and lots of other things that will eliminate your confusion.

James McGinn
Hi Dave, Thanks for the response. I really like your presentation style. I don't agree with everything you are saying about water, however. Some of what you say is reflective of urban myth and not empirical science. (I'm an expert on H2O.)

Dave:
Water is liquid within a certain range of temperatures.

JMcG:
I agree. The problem is that there are major factions of science that surreptitiously assume that H2O magically turns to gas at temperatures/pressures far below the known boiling temperature pressure of H2O. Check this out:
We all grow up believing moisture in clear moist air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16471

Dave:
Below that, it's solid. Above that, it's gas. Other substances have their own distinct ranges of temperatures within which they exist as the three states of matter.

JMcG:
This is what they teach in schools. Schools teach simple models. For most substances that is fine. But not for water. Collectively water is very complex and has a lot of unsolved anomalies, over 70. (For more information do a search on the anomalies of H2O.)

In actuality our understanding of H2O is partial.

Dave:
Removing two hydrogens from methane would not produce a polar molecule,

JMcG:
Wrong. There is an electronegativity difference between the carbon and the hydrogen.

Dave:
even if that were physically plausible.

JMcG:
I agree it is not physically plausible. This is a thought experiment. Within the spirit of the thought experiment what I am saying is perfectly reasonable.

Dave:
C-H bonds are not polar.

JMcG:
Surely you realize the electronegativity difference of carbon to H is 1/3 that of oxygen to H. Right? So, at best, your argument is semantic and not empirical. Right?

Dave:
OH bonds are polar because of the large discrepancy in electronegativity. Polarity is not dependent on the mass of an atom.

JMcG:
I agree that they EN difference would only be 1/3 of that of OH. But it is dogmatic to suggest that, therefore, my point is invalid.

Dave:
There is no "paradigm",

JMcG:
There is always a paradigm.

Dave:
and there is no "taboo", there's just you not understanding even the most basic high school chemistry.

JMcG:
You believe simple models. Simple models are great for teaching. But the cutting edge of science involves addressing details and contradictions. (Obviously this is outside your capability.) For example, your model completely fails to explain the five anomalies that I demonstrate that my model explains with ease:
Pauling's Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg

Dave:
Instead of spamming my channel with this stuff, watch my content. You can learn about molecular geometry, the chemical bond, intermolecular forces, and lots of other things that will eliminate your confusion.

JMcG:
Uh, . . . you are a teacher. That means you rely on dumbed down models that appeal to the lowest common denominator of the public. I am a scientist. So, I can't ignore the details and contradictions that you dismiss with a wave of your hand.

The rules of scientific inquiry are very different than the rules of teaching.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

Professor Dave Explains
You are definitely not an expert on water, bud. If you want to become an expert on molecules, get at least a bachelor's degree in chemistry. You are contradicting the definitions of words. CH bonds are not polar because we have categorized them as such. We decide what electronegativity difference qualifies as polar because it's a model of our own construction. It's like you're saying Washington DC is not the capital of America. It is, because we said it is. There are no anomalies regarding water. It is an incredibly simple molecule. Only someone who doesn't understand chemistry in the slightest can look at the whole field and say it's all wrong. It's a very foolish thing to do.

James McGinn
Dave:
You are definitely not an expert on water, bud. If you want to become an expert on molecules, get at least a bachelor's degree in chemistry.

JMcG:
LOL. Obviously my expertise is way beyond a simple BS in chemistry. But that is irrelevant. The difference between me and you is that I am a scientist and you are a teacher. I don't have the luxury of ignoring details and contradictions.

Dave:
You are contradicting the definitions of words. CH bonds are not polar because we have categorized them as such.

JMcG:
Right. It's just a definition. It's just semantics. My point has to do with empirical reality, not semantics. Make an effort to not be dogmatic.

Dave:
We decide what electronegativity difference qualifies as polar because it's a model of our own construction. It's like you're saying Washington DC is not the capital of America. It is, because we said it is.

JMcG:
Irrelevant.

Dave:
There are no anomalies regarding water.

JMcG:
Good luck with that theory:
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_anomalies.html

Dave:
It is an incredibly simple molecule.

JMcG:
Individually, yes. Collectively no, no, no . . . . ad infinitum.

Dave:
Only someone who doesn't understand chemistry in the slightest can look at the whole field and say it's all wrong. It's a very foolish thing to do.

JMcG:
Hmm. In my opinion a fools is somebody that deliberately ignores details and contradictions that dispute their beliefs. Guess where that puts you?

Real scientists can't gloss over details and ignore contradictions (anomalies). You are a teacher. Teachers teach simple models that generally conform to dumbed down consensus beliefs that are mostly base on anecdote not empirical reality.

In fact--as you have demonstrated vividly--it's just about impossible to get a science believer to address empirical facts that contradict their science based beliefs.

Keep teaching. Leave the real science to those of us that have the training and intellect to explore what believers can't even begin to confront or imagine.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16613

Professor Dave Explains
Buddy, you couldn't even pass a high school chemistry test. You are not beyond a bachelor's degree in chemistry. You are deluding yourself. You are not being empirical. You are making things up out of thin air with no regard whatsoever for the terminology or concepts you are using. You are not a scientist. You draw ridiculous misrepresentations of molecules on pieces of paper and talk to camera in front of a lake. You are not doing experiments. I have done waaaay more chemistry than you have, so don't pretend you know more than me about empiricism, that condescension is completely misplaced. I have done actual chemistry in a laboratory. I know what chemistry is and I know how molecules work. I know you think your little "thought experiments" are so controversial and ground-breaking, but there's a reason no one will watch them. Because they are utterly irrelevant and nonsensical. Learn real science.

James McGinn
I'm not being condescending. The point is that there is a big difference between a teacher and an intellectual. Nothing better exemplifies that but the fact that thus far your only point involves a semantic discrepancy. Understandably you failed to address any of the specific points I bring up in my videos. That is because you are a teacher and, therefore, only know the vague, standard model that is taught to undergraduates.

I mean, it's great that you've done experiments and all, but if you lack emotional disposition to directly address discrepancies and contradictions you are not genuinely doing science.

Good luck with your teaching career.

Keep making YouTube videos.

Here is something for you to show your students:
Explaining The Behavior of Non-Newtonian Fluids
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16885

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Professor Dave Explains
It's not a semantic discrepancy. I can barely comment on what you are saying because you don't even put forth a cohesive thought to comment upon. What I learned as an undergraduate and graduate student is not "vague and standard". It is chemistry. It's how molecules work. Have you done chemistry? Have you performed experiments in a lab? Do you not see the absurdity of implying that you know more than me about molecules when you have never worked with molecules? Do you not see that linking to random websites is not the same as chemistry knowledge? You don't know what polarity means. You don't understand the details of the chemical bond. You don't understand the basis for molecular geometry. You don't understand the types of electrostatic interactions that occur in solution. You don't know about colligative properties. You don't know about molecular orbitals. You don't know any of these things because you didn't study them. You watched some YouTube videos and decided in your hubris that you now understand science. Then, as a defense mechanism, you claim that all the science taught in every university in the world is somehow false, so that you can safely dismiss the fact that you never attempted to earn a real education. Reflect on that.

James McGinn
Dave:
It's not a semantic discrepancy.

JMcG:
You admitted it is a definition. Right?

Dave:
I can barely comment on what you are saying because you don't even put forth a cohesive thought to comment upon.

JMcG:
If you don't ask for clarification on specific points I won't be able to help you.

Science requires a different set of intellectual tools than just teaching.

Dave:
What I learned as an undergraduate and graduate student is not "vague and standard". It is chemistry.

JMcG:
It's a model. And, by necessity, it must appeal to a wider audience. So a lot of details (Like the #%?$ anomalies of H2O!) are glossed over.

Dave:
It's how molecules work.

JMcG:
More or less, yes. But I am talking about details on the cutting edge of science. You are talking about generalities.

Dave:
Have you done chemistry?

JMcG:
Yes. Both as a graduate and an undergraduate student. But primarily I am a theorist. As such, I can't just gloss over the details. You have that luxury. I don't.

Dave:
Have you performed experiments in a lab? Do you not see the absurdity of implying that you know more than me about molecules when you have never worked with molecules? Do you not see that linking to random websites is not the same as chemistry knowledge? You don't know what polarity means. You don't understand the details of the chemical bond. You don't understand the basis for molecular geometry. You don't understand the types of electrostatic interactions that occur in solution. You don't know about colligative properties. You don't know about molecular orbitals. You don't know any of these things because you didn't study them. You watched some YouTube videos and decided in your hubris that you now understand science. Then, as a defense mechanism, you claim that all the science taught in every university in the world is somehow false, so that you can safely dismiss the fact that you never attempted to earn a real education. Reflect on that.

JMcG:
I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to explain how and why.

Face it, Dave, you really don't have any dispute with anything I'm saying.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Hydrogen Bonds Neutralize H2O Polarity
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16798

Professor Dave Explains
Okay man, what are these anomalies you speak of? I want to see you try to formulate them in a coherent sentence. If I know so little and you know so much, you should be able to explain them to me, right?

James McGinn
Dave:
Okay man, what are these anomalies you speak of?

JMcG:
Public Lecture—Water: The Strangest Liquid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hGqlEpvODw

Dave:
I want to see you try to formulate them in a coherent sentence.

JMcG:
I think you should always take responsibility for your own education. Never just assume that what you were taught is comprehensive or 100% accurate.

Dave:
If I know so little and you know so much, you should be able to explain them to me, right?

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

I don't think any of this is beyond your capabilities, but you have a long way to go.

Be patient with yourself.

Regards,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Professor Dave Explains
No. Don't link me to a video. Explain it to me. With words. You're an expert, so it should be easy, right? What is it about water that you understand that the entire scientific community does not?

James McGinn
Hmm. Okay. Try to follow. It started with a missing explanation for the vortices in the atmosphere and a hunch that the correct explanation involves a water-based plasma that spins up on wind shear boundaries:
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

Professor Dave Explains
What did I just say? No links. Use your words, bud. Also, right off the bat, "water-based plasma" doesn't mean anything. Plasma is a phase of matter whereby atoms have been stripped of their electrons to yield a soup of nuclei and electrons. Water is made of neutral atoms, so plasma can't be made of water. Are you sure you want to keep going here?

James McGinn
Feynman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxmmcwvkZeM

Professor Dave Explains
Yeah, I can link to videos too, dude. Namely, the 200+ chemistry tutorials I have on my channel that you desperately need to watch. Have fun watching your Feynman videos and pretending that you understand any of his work.

James McGinn
What did I just say? No links. Use your words, bud. Also, right off the bat, "water-based plasma" doesn't mean anything. Plasma is a phase of matter whereby atoms have been stripped of their electrons to yield a soup of nuclei and electrons. Water is made of neutral atoms, so plasma can't be made of water. Are you sure you want to keep going here?b

JMcG:
You tend to formulate principles based on what is known to be true. You can't make discoveries with that attitude. For a teacher that is fine. But if you want to become a real scientists you have to shift your thinking to base your thinking on what has not yet been shown to be false. You also have to aggressively explicate contradictions and eliminate vagueness in your understanding.

Nobody can do this for you. Nobody can teach you how to be a real scientists. You either have that attitude or you figure it out. There are no shortcuts.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

Professor Dave Explains
All I'm asking you to do is explain your ideas to me. If you can't do that, you're not a scientist, you're not an intellectual, you're not anyone of consequence.

James McGinn
Dave:
Plasma is a phase of matter whereby atoms have been stripped of their electrons to yield a soup of nuclei and electrons.

JMcG:
That's an ionic plasma.

Dave:
Water is made of neutral atoms, so plasma can't be made of water.

JMcG:
The sheath of a tornado is made of a water based plasma. Water is polar. Usually the polarity is very weak. But under shear conditions the strong form of polarity emerges. (You have a lot to learn.)

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
What You Never Suspected About Water in the Atmosphere
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16615

Professor Dave Explains
There is no "ionic plasma". It's just plasma. Google ionic plasma. Does anything come up? No. Because that's not a term. Also, google water-based plasma. Does anything come up? No. Because that's not a thing. Saying the polarity of water is "usually very weak" doesn't mean anything. The polarity of water is fixed. The structure of the molecule doesn't change, the bonds don't change, it has a dipole moment that is fixed, like its other physical properties. How, pray tell, can the polarity of water molecules differ from situation to situation? Explain that.

You are saying things that are not things. You are literally making up terms and concepts. Saying "you have a lot to learn" is another defense mechanism. If you knew what you were talking about, you could just have a rational conversation with me without attempting to elevate yourself above me.

Also, stop pasting what I said into your response. It's very irritating. I know what I said. We're not in court.
James McGinn
Dave:
There is no "ionic plasma". It's just plasma. Google ionic plasma. Does anything come up? No. Because that's not a term.

JMcG:
Semantics.

Dave:
Also, google water-based plasma. Does anything come up? No. Because that's not a thing.

JMcG:
Really. So if it's not on the internet it doesn't exist?

Did you know that doing a google search is not an experiment?

Dave:
Saying the polarity of water is "usually very weak" doesn't mean anything. The polarity of water is fixed.

JMcG:
Evidence?

Can you explain the high heat capacity of liquid H2O (and why it doesn't exist in either ice or steam)?

Do you understand tetrahedral symmetry? No?
Study this very carefully before you respond:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg

Dave:
The structure of the molecule doesn't change,

JMcG:
I agree. But this is irrelevant since my model involves incidental symmetry as mechanism that reverse the stretching of the electron cloud that is associated with polarity.

Dave:
the bonds don't change, it has a dipole moment that is fixed, like its other physical properties.

JMcG:
Wrong. It is highly variable.

Dave:
How, pray tell, can the polarity of water molecules differ from situation to situation? Explain that.

JMcG:
(You are asking the right question.) Due to incidental symmetry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg

Dave:
You are saying things that are not things. You are literally making up terms and concepts. Saying "you have a lot to learn" is another defense mechanism. If you knew what you were talking about, you could just have a rational conversation with me without attempting to elevate yourself above me.

JMcG:
Well. I don't know about your educational background. For example, if you don't understand the concept of electron cloud stretching it is going to be about impossible to explain any of this to you. You say you want a rational discussion. But so far are talking in generalities. You are not being specific and you are not directly confronting contradictions (anomalies). So, from my perspective you really do have a lot to learn.

Dave:
Also, stop pasting what I said into your response. It's very irritating. I know what I said. We're not in court.

JMcG:
I have my own reasons for doing it this way.

BTW, if H2O's polarity really is non-variable, as you believe, it could not have the very low viscosity that is actually observed. Being a real scientist begins with being honest about any discrepancies between what your model predicts and what is actually observed. Obviously if H2O's polarity was static (as you believe) its viscosity would be much higher than the very low viscosity that is actually observed.

Can you explain why you never noticed this discrepancy? (I think we both know the answer to this question.)

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
It's Not What You Know That Will Hurt You . . .
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16318

James McGinn
Stick with teaching.

Professor Dave Explains
16 hours ago
Yes. If it's not on the internet it doesn't exist. Definitely. That's pretty indisputable.

I don't need evidence. You are the one that is proposing something that flies in the face of the entirety of the field of chemistry. You are the one that needs to provide evidence. Stop linking me to videos. Explain with words.

Water has a high specific heat because of hydrogen bonding. It has a low viscosity because it's such a tiny molecule. You are inventing discrepancies where there are none. You are saying it should have a higher viscosity. Why? Based on what? How can the dipole change? The molecule must change for the dipole to change. You agreed that the structure doesn't change. The only contradictions are in your own words.

Again. Stop linking to videos. Use words. How can water's dipole change? Why do you think water should have a higher viscosity? These notions are completely absurd.

James McGinn
Yes. If it's not on the internet it doesn't exist. Definitely. That's pretty indisputable.

I don't need evidence. You are the one that is proposing something that flies in the face of the entirety of the field of chemistry. You are the one that needs to provide evidence. Stop linking me to videos. Explain with words.

Water has a high specific heat because of hydrogen bonding. It has a low viscosity because it's such a tiny molecule. You are inventing discrepancies where there are none. You are saying it should have a higher viscosity. Why? Based on what? How can the dipole change? The molecule must change for the dipole to change. You agreed that the structure doesn't change. The only contradictions are in your own words.

Again. Stop linking to videos. Use words. How can water's dipole change? Why do you think water should have a higher viscosity? These notions are completely absurd.

Professor Dave Explains
Yeah... you ok over there, bud? Sounds like you could use a friend.

James McGinn
Dave:
Water has a high specific heat because of hydrogen bonding.

JMcG:
Meaningless

Dave:
has a low viscosity because it's such a tiny molecule.

JMcG:
So, in ice do the molecules get bigger?

Dave:
You are inventing discrepancies where there are none.

JMcG:
Did I also invent all the people that discuss H2O anomalies?

Dave:
You are saying it should have a higher viscosity. Why?

JMcG:
Because of polarity and H bonding. (How in #%?$ is this not obvious?).

Dave:
Based on what? How can the dipole change?

JMcG:
First you have to understand that polarity is a consequence of electron cloud stretching. Then you have to understand the situational factors (incidental symmetry) that reverse electron cloud stretching.
See this for more details:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg

Dave:
The molecule must change for the dipole to change. You agreed that the structure doesn't change.

JMcG:
Right the structure doesn't change.

Its the stretching of the electron cloud that changes. It is reversed. And, due to incidental symmetry, hydrogen bonds alleviate (reverse) the stretching of the electron clouds that underlie polarity. So, through hydrogen bonding, H2O molecules turn off each other's polarity by way of reversing each other's stretching of electron clouds.

(This also explains why H2O has a high heat capacity. But that is a little bit harder to conceptualize.)

This is why these highly polar molecules have such low viscosity--because they literally turn off each other's polarity when they are in close proximity to each other.

I have meetings with investors for the rest of the week. And I will be traveling over the weekend. You have a lot to chew on. I won't be able to respond again until next Monday or Tuesday.

Regards,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

James McGinn
Get a dog.

Professor Dave Explains
Dude, I'm not watching your 40 minute video of rambling. If you can't explain it succinctly here, it's not real. However, I can say with considerable confidence that "electron cloud stretching" is not a thing. Nor is "incidental symmetry". These are terms you have made up out of thin air. Go ahead and explain these concepts, if you please.

As to your other comments, water molecules do not change size. Water freezes below a certain temperature because there is not sufficient kinetic energy for them to remain in motion with respect to one another. Do you not know what freezing is?

Then, I answered your question about specific heat with hydrogen bonding, and you reply "meaningless". Then, I ask why you think water should be more viscous, and you said "hydrogen bonding". So... what are you talking about?

More absurdities: "H2O molecules turn off each other's polarity". Yeah, what? No, they don't. Explain the mechanism by which you propose that occurs. How can an electron cloud stretch? How could it "reverse", and what could that even mean? I'm pretty sure you have no idea what atomic orbitals are.

I'm also super sure you have lots of important meetings, what with the view counts and subscribers your are racking up on this channel of yours. Soon everyone will know the incredible wisdom that you possess! And I'm not a dog person, but thanks for that totally random tidbit.

James McGinn
Dave:
Dude, I'm not watching your 40 minute video of rambling.

JMcG:
LOL. Too technical for you?

Are you a college graduate, or just a stoner who likes to read Wikipedia?

You can't figure anything out, can you? #%?$ moron. All you do is parrot back what you look up on the internet.

Dave:
If you can't explain it succinctly here, it's not real.

JMcG:
So, let me get this straight. Your deliberate ignorance is, uh, . . . my fault? Uh . . . er, uh . . . uh?

Dave:
However, I can say with considerable confidence that "electron cloud stretching" is not a thing.

JMcG:
Electron cloud stretching in one of your videos, dumbass. I think it was one in which you discuss Van Der Waals force. So, with each response here you more and more reveal yourself as a fool and a liar.

BTW, without electron cloud stretching there is no polarity, dumbass. Let me put it this way, the reason the H2O molecule is a polar molecule is not simply because of the electronegativity difference between the oxygen atom and the hydrogen atoms. It is because this electronegativity difference creates an electrical gradient. And the electrical gradient causes the electron clouds on ALL THREE OF THE ATOMS to stretch off center from their nuclei. An atom having its electron cloud stretched off center of its nucleus IS polarity, you imbecile.

You have no understanding of QM. So, you #%?$ don't even understand the basis of molecular polarity. (What junior college did you get your degree from?)

Dave:
Nor is "incidental symmetry". These are terms you have made up out of thin air.

JMcG:
Yes! This is my discovery. You can't dispute it!

Dave:
Go ahead and explain these concepts, if you please.

JMcG:
LOL. You can't dispute it, can you. Admit it. You got nothing!!!

To you H bonding is just a distraction. You barely understand any of this.

Dave:
As to your other comments, water molecules do not change size. Water freezes below a certain temperature because there is not sufficient kinetic energy for them to remain in motion with respect to one another. Do you not know what freezing is?

JMcG:
LOL. You are the one that claimed that viscosity was determined by the size of the molecule, you #%?$ moron. It's not my job to explain your stupidity. Obviously that is a retarded thing to say. Now you are trying to pretend you didn't say it.

Would you like to make a retraction?

Dave:
Then, I answered your question about specific heat with hydrogen bonding, and you reply "meaningless".

JMcG:
Yes, your response is retarded. H bonding is involved. But you obviously don't have the slightest understanding how it is involved. You are just a vague nitwit that has memorized a few concepts. But you don't really understand what is happening on the nano scale.

Dave:
Then, I ask why you think water should be more viscous, and you said "hydrogen bonding". So... what are you talking about?

JMcG:
I described it explicitly in this video. You are a low bandwidth nitwit. Your own thinking is so obscure and vague in your own mind that I have to describe the weaknesses of your model to you. You couldn't figure any of this out in a million years because the model in your mind isn't really a model. It just a collective of memorized assumptions that don't really add up to any kind of physical model.

There is a huge difference between believing something and actually understanding it. You will never understand this because your own thinking is so disjointed and nonphysical that you don't have a starting point.

Dave:
More absurdities: "H2O molecules turn off each other's polarity". Yeah, what? No, they don't.

JMcG:
LOL. You got nothing!!! You can't explain why/how a highly polar molecule can have the low viscosity THAT IS ACTUALLY OBSERVED!!!

You can't see contradictions because your own thinking is so disjointed and obscure that you can't formulate a point of reference. All of this time you've just been pretending to understand. So when it comes to actually figuring any of this out you got nothing.

When pretenders get trapped into revealing the obscurity of their own thinking they/you become belligerent as a tactic to draw attention away from further revealing their/your insipient stupidity and ignorance.

You never actually understood any of this. Admit it.

Dave:
Explain the mechanism by which you propose that occurs. How can an electron cloud stretch? How could it "reverse", and what could that even mean? I'm pretty sure you have no idea what atomic orbitals are.

JMcG:
I'm not running a hand holding service. If you can't figure this stuff out that is not my problem. The only tactic you got left is to keep asking questions to try to deflect attention away from the fact that you really don't get any of this.

Explain how polarity is possible without electron cloud stretching, you moron.

You can't. You got nothing!!!

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Why people who believe storms are caused by convection smell funny
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16841
Show less

Professor Dave Explains
What's with the hostility? Did your big meetings with the important investors not go as planned?

I already told you about my undergraduate and graduate work, so no, I'm sorry, I'm not a stoner that just surfs the internet. I'm starting to think that's what you are, though. I did actually learn and do real science. However, I did surf the internet a little bit to find out about your book, the plagiarism, the hostility towards those who pointed it out, and more ridiculousness. Now I just feel bad for even having initiated this interaction. Enjoy your obscurity, and make the most of your self-aggrandizing illusions in your twilight years, I hope it brings you some peace of mind.


LOL. So, I mention Galileo's daughter and because some imbecile saw a documentary in which his daughter is mentioned that makes me a plagiarist. The desperation of science trolls has no limit. It's literally like dealing with religious whackos.

Real science requires real talent, real intelligence, and real effort. It's easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes. It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend you understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to appeal to what people already want to believe.

Dave, you have zero understanding of molecular polarity. Your thinking is so obscure you can't even formulate a coherent argument. Nor can you identify obvious contradictions to your vaguely understood model. The fact that you graduated from college with zero understanding of the anomalies of H2O is completely unsurprising to me. The same is true for myself and everybody else I have met. The topic is simply not broached at the undergraduate level. This is not by accident.

Here is what you don't get about science. Humans have a deep-seated emotional need to believe they understand their world and there is a lot of money to be made fulfilling that need. And since most science consumers don't have the time or the education to put much effort into it, the most money can be made giving these science consumers excuses for why they don't actually have to literally understand it. And so--for reasons of fiscal necessity--many sciences have dumbed down their models to go with the flow of what people want to believe.

It is for this reason that there are certain concepts in every discipline that are sacred. Their validity is beyond dispute and cannot be contradicted without the person being shunned by the larger discipline. Or, more simply put, certain subjects are taboo.

The anomalies of H2O are a severe embarrassment to all of the scientific disciplines in which water plays a central role. And, obviously, this includes all of the natural science but also physics and chemistry.

This results in dufuses that dismiss and evade contradictions that conflict with these artificially simplistic models.
Like martyrs to a religious cause they are willing to sacrifice their own reputation in order to preserve the perceived sanctity of their science-based beliefs.

To anybody else reading this, here is a link to the video that Professor Dave refuses to watch:
Pauling's Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
A Very Long Confessional Statement Attached To My Application for V-Phasian Membership
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:34 am

Here is a synopsis of the discussion between myself and YouTuber Professor Dave.

Here is a like to Dave's YouTube channel:
Professor Dave Explains
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0cd_- ... LH3UIwoWRA
______________________________________

As you can see, Dave is rather obnoxious right off the bat. Lacking in any kind of substantive dispute with anything I am saying, he starts off with a personal attack, insinuating that his traditional model is correct based on the fact that he has an education and unfounded speculation that I don't have an education.

This is the typical dumbass tactic that comes from vague nitwits that have memorized a certain standard model but who really don't understand it. As you can see herein, when challenged to be specific and/or to address observations that contradict his model his only response involves increasing belligerence. He doesn't realize I am attempting to get him to take a stand--something that believers are very cautious to avoid. He takes the bait. Read on.

First he attacks my thought experiment. No biggie, it was just a thought experiment. It was not meant to be definitive. It was meant to draw attention to an issue that otherwise would remain obscure.

Dave then goes on to put his foot firmly in his mouth by declaring/admitting that he is unaware of there being any anomalies of H2O. Even though I doubt he is being perfectly honest, I take him on his word and provide him some links so that he can get educated on this topic.

Further along Dave takes the bait:
Dave: " . . . The polarity of water is fixed. The structure of the molecule doesn't change, the bonds don't change, it has a dipole moment that is fixed, like its other physical properties. How, pray tell, can the polarity of water molecules differ from situation to situation? Explain that."

The hardest part of being scientific revolutionary is getting the true blue believers of the current model to take a stand on anything. Usually these vague nitwits only put forth vague, wishy washy assertions and otherwise hide behind their credential. You have to draw them out. Dave took the bait. He declared that H2O polarity is fixed. This notion is a hidden assumption of the current paradigm. And it is wrong:

Dave continues:
Saying the polarity of water is "usually very weak" doesn't mean anything. The polarity of water is fixed.

JMcG:
Evidence?

Dave:
The structure of the molecule doesn't change,

JMcG:
I agree. But this is irrelevant since my model involves incidental symmetry as mechanism that reverse the stretching of the electron cloud that is associated with polarity.

Dave:
How, pray tell, can the polarity of water molecules differ from situation to situation? Explain that.

JMcG:
(You are asking the right question.) Due to incidental symmetry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg

Dave:
You are saying things that are not things. You are literally making up terms and concepts.

JMcG:
If you don't understand the concept of electron cloud stretching it is going to be about impossible to explain any of this to you.

You say you want a rational discussion. But so far are talking in generalities. You are not being specific and you are not directly confronting contradictions (anomalies). If H2O's polarity was static (as you believe) the viscosity of liquid water would be much higher than the very low viscosity that is actually observed in liquid water.

Dave:
Based on what? How can the dipole change?

JMcG:
First you have to understand that polarity is a consequence of electron cloud stretching. Then you have to understand the situational factors (incidental symmetry) that reverse electron cloud stretching.
See this for more details:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg

Dave:
The molecule must change for the dipole to change. You agreed that the structure doesn't change.

JMcG:
Right the structure doesn't change. Its the stretching of the electron cloud that changes. It is reversed. And, due to incidental symmetry, hydrogen bonds alleviate (reverse) the stretching of the electron clouds that underlie polarity. So, through hydrogen bonding, H2O molecules turn off each other's polarity by way of reversing each other's stretching of electron clouds. (This explanation is also instrumental with respect to explaining why H2O has a high heat capacity. But that is a little bit harder to conceptualize.)

So, this is why these highly polar molecules have such low viscosity--because they literally turn off each other's polarity when they are in close proximity to each other.

Professor Dave Explains
Dude, I'm not watching your 40 minute video.

JMcG:
LOL. Too technical for you? Are you a college graduate, or just a stoner who likes to read Wikipedia? You can't figure anything out, can you? All you do is parrot back what you look up on the internet.

Dave:
If you can't explain it succinctly here, it's not real.

JMcG:
So, let me get this straight. Your deliberate ignorance is, uh, . . . my fault? Uh . . . er, uh . . . uh?

Dave:
However, I can say with considerable confidence that "electron cloud stretching" is not a thing.

JMcG:
Electron cloud stretching in one of your videos, dumbass. I think it was one in which you discuss Van Der Waals force. So, with each response here you more and more reveal yourself as a fool and a liar.

BTW, without electron cloud stretching there is no polarity. Let me put it this way, the reason the H2O molecule is a polar molecule is not simply because of the electronegativity difference between the oxygen atom and the hydrogen atoms. It is because this electronegativity difference creates an electrical gradient. And the electrical gradient causes the electron clouds on ALL THREE OF THE ATOMS to stretch off center from their nuclei. An atom having its electron cloud stretched off center of its nucleus IS polarity.

I suspect that you have no understanding of QM. Without that you can't understand the basis of molecular polarity.

Dave:
As to your other comments, water molecules do not change size. Water freezes below a certain temperature because there is not sufficient kinetic energy for them to remain in motion with respect to one another. Do you not know what freezing is?

JMcG:
LOL. You are the one that made the dumbass claim that viscosity was determined by the size of the molecule, you moron. Obviously that is a retarded thing to say. But it's not my job to explain your stupidity. Now you are trying to pretend you didn't say it?

Would you like to make a retraction?

Dave:
Then, I answered your question about specific heat with hydrogen bonding, and you reply "meaningless".

JMcG:
Yes, your response is stupid. H bonding is involved. But you obviously don't have the slightest understanding how it is involved. You are just a vague nitwit that has memorized a few concepts. But you don't really understand what is happening on the nano scale.

Dave:
Then, I ask why you think water should be more viscous, and you said "hydrogen bonding". So... what are you talking about?

JMcG:
I described it explicitly in the video. (You know, the one you refuse to watch.) You couldn't figure any of this out in a million years because the model in your mind isn't really a model. It just a collective of memorized assumptions that don't really add up to any kind of physical model.

There is a huge difference between believing something and actually understanding it.

Dave:
More absurdities: "H2O molecules turn off each other's polarity". Yeah, what? No, they don't.

JMcG:
LOL. You got nothing!!! You can't explain why/how a highly polar molecule can have the low viscosity THAT IS ACTUALLY OBSERVED!!!

You can't see contradictions because your own thinking is so disjointed and obscure that you can't formulate a point of reference. All of this time you've just been pretending to understand. So when it comes to actually figuring any of this out you got nothing.

When pretenders get trapped into revealing the obscurity of their own thinking they/you become belligerent as a tactic to draw attention away from further revealing their/your insipient stupidity and ignorance.

You never actually understood any of this. Admit it. (Don't feel bad. All members of your brain-dead paradigm are also just pretending to understand your nonsense model.)

Dave:
Explain the mechanism by which you propose that occurs. How can an electron cloud stretch? How could it "reverse", and what could that even mean?

JMcG:
I'm not running a hand holding service. If you can't figure this stuff out that is not my problem. The only tactic you got left is to keep asking questions to try to deflect attention away from the fact that you really don't get any of this.

Explain how polarity is possible without electron cloud stretching, you moron. You can't. You got nothing!!!

JMcG:
Real science requires real talent, real intelligence, and real effort. It's easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes. It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend you understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to appeal to what people already want to believe.

Dave, you have zero understanding of molecular polarity. Your thinking is so obscure you can't even formulate a coherent argument. Nor can you identify obvious contradictions to your vaguely understood model. The fact that you graduated from college with zero understanding of the anomalies of H2O is completely unsurprising to me. The same is true for myself and everybody else I have met. The topic is simply not broached at the undergraduate level. This is not by accident.

Here is what you don't get about science. Humans have a deep-seated emotional need to believe they understand their world and there is a lot of money to be made fulfilling that need. And since most science consumers don't have the time or the education to put much effort into it, the most money can be made giving these science consumers excuses for why they don't actually have to literally understand it. And so--for reasons of fiscal necessity--many sciences have dumbed down their models to go with the flow of what people want to believe.

It is for this reason that there are certain concepts in every discipline that are sacred. Their validity is beyond dispute and cannot be contradicted without the person being shunned by the larger discipline. Or, more simply put, certain subjects are taboo.

The anomalies of H2O are a severe embarrassment to all of the scientific disciplines in which water plays a central role. And, obviously, this includes all of the natural science but also physics and chemistry.

This results in dufuses that dismiss and evade contradictions that conflict with these artificially simplistic models. Like martyrs to a religious cause they are willing to sacrifice their own reputation in order to preserve the perceived sanctity of their science-based beliefs.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:09 pm

Here is an even more concise synopsis:

Here is a link to Dave's YouTube channel:
Professor Dave Explains
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0cd_- ... LH3UIwoWRA
______________________________________

Dave:
" . . . The polarity of water is fixed. The structure of the molecule doesn't change, the bonds don't change, it has a dipole moment that is fixed, like its other physical properties.

JMcG:
Evidence?

Dave:
The structure of the molecule doesn't change,

JMcG:
I agree. But that is irrelevant. With my model incidental symmetry is the mechanism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg

Dave:
How, pray tell, can the polarity of water molecules differ from situation to situation? Explain that.

JMcG:
If you don't understand the concept of electron cloud stretching it is going to be about impossible to explain any of this to you.

If H2O's polarity was static (as you believe) the viscosity of liquid water would be much higher than the very low viscosity that is actually observed in liquid water.

Dave:
Based on what? How can the dipole change?

JMcG:
First you have to understand that polarity is a consequence of electron cloud stretching. (The notion that electronegativity differences determine molecular polarity is only partially true.) Then you have to understand the situational factors (incidental symmetry) that reverse electron cloud stretching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg

Dave:
The molecule must change for the dipole to change. You agreed that the structure doesn't change.

JMcG:
Right, the structure doesn't change. I agree. Its the stretching of the electron cloud that changes. It is reversed. Hydrogen bonds alleviate (reverse) the stretching of the electron clouds that underlie polarity. So H2O molecules turn off each other's polarity by way of reversing each other's stretching of electron clouds. (This explanation is also instrumental with respect to explaining why H2O has a high heat capacity. But that is a little bit harder to conceptualize.) So, this is why these highly polar molecules have such low viscosity--because they literally turn off each other's polarity when they are in close proximity to each other.

Dave:
Dude, I'm not watching your 40 minute video.

JMcG:
LOL. Too technical for you? Are you a college graduate, or just a stoner who likes to read Wikipedia? You can't figure anything out, can you? All you do is parrot back what you look up on the internet.

Without electron cloud stretching there is no polarity. Let me put it this way, the reason the H2O molecule is a polar molecule is not simply because of the electronegativity difference between the oxygen atom and the hydrogen atoms. It is because this electronegativity difference creates an electrical gradient. And the electrical gradient causes the electron clouds on ALL THREE OF THE ATOMS to stretch off center from their nuclei. An atom having its electron cloud stretched off center of its nucleus IS polarity. And anything that counteracts the electron cloud stretching--H bonds--neutralizes polarity.

Dave:
As to your other comments, water molecules do not change size. Water freezes below a certain temperature because there is not sufficient kinetic energy for them to remain in motion with respect to one another. Do you not know what freezing is?

JMcG:
LOL. You are the one that made the dumbass claim that viscosity was determined by the size of the molecule, you moron. Obviously that is a retarded thing to say. But it's not my job to explain your stupidity. Now it seems you are trying to pretend you didn't say it?

Dave:
Then, I answered your question about specific heat with hydrogen bonding, and you reply "meaningless".

JMcG:
Yes, I was being nice, actually your response is stupid. Bonding means bonding, dumbass. It means there are electrostatic forces that brings molecules into close proximity to each other. H2O heat capacity involves these molecules being in constant movement relative to each other. H bonding (and polarity) can be involved with them coming closer to each other. But it certainly doesn't explain the other half of that movement where they get farther from each other. As I explicate in my videos, my model, involves H bonds functioning to neutralize polarity--due to incidental symmetry. Therefore, in conjunction with energy, my model does explains both of these movements.

Dave:
Then, I ask why you think water should be more viscous, and you said "hydrogen bonding". So... what are you talking about?

JMcG:
I don't think water should be more viscous. The variable polarity of my model perfectly explains why liquid H2O has such low viscosity. Your brain-dead model assumes that polarity is static (fixed). I am just pointing out the obvious. If this brain-dead assumption was true then H2O could not possibly possess the very low viscosity that is actually observed. (Shouldn't science be about what is actually observed rather than being about what brain-dead believers choose to assume?)

BTW, I describe all of this explicitly in the video. (You know, the one you refuse to watch.) You couldn't figure any of this out in a million years because the model in your mind isn't really a model. It just a collective of memorized assumptions that don't really add up to any kind of physical model. There is a huge difference between believing something and actually understanding it. You believe. I understand. This allows me to see contradictions that are just noise to you.

Dave:
More absurdities: "H2O molecules turn off each other's polarity". Yeah, what? No, they don't.

JMcG:
LOL. You got nothing!!! You can't explain why/how a highly polar molecule can have the low viscosity THAT IS ACTUALLY OBSERVED!!!

You can't see contradictions because your own thinking is so disjointed and obscure that you can't formulate a point of reference. All of this time you've just been pretending to understand (just like everybody else). So when it comes to actually figuring any of this out you got nothing!!!

When pretenders get trapped into revealing the obscurity of their own thinking they/you become belligerent as a tactic to draw attention away from further revealing their/your insipient stupidity and ignorance.

You never actually understood any of this. Admit it. (Don't feel bad. All members of your brain-dead paradigm are also just pretending to understand your nonsense model.)

Dave:
Explain the mechanism by which you propose that occurs. How can an electron cloud stretch? How could it "reverse", and what could that even mean?

JMcG:
I'm not running a hand holding service. If you don't understand quantum mechanics that is not my problem. The only tactic you got left is to keep asking questions to try to deflect attention away from the fact that you really don't get any of this.

Real science requires real talent, real intelligence, real effort and real understanding. It's easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes. It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend you understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to appeal to what people already want to believe.

Dave, you have zero understanding of molecular polarity. Your thinking is so obscure you can't even formulate a coherent argument. Nor can you identify obvious contradictions to your vaguely understood model. The fact that you graduated from college with zero understanding of the anomalies of H2O is completely unsurprising to me. The same is true for myself and everybody else I have met. The topic is simply not broached at the undergraduate level. This is not by accident.

Here is what you don't get about science. Humans have a deep-seated emotional need to believe they understand their world and there is a lot of money to be made fulfilling that need. And since most science consumers don't have the time or the education to put much effort into it, the most money can be made giving these science consumers excuses for why they don't actually have to literally understand it. And so--for reasons of fiscal necessity--many sciences have dumbed down their models to go with the flow of what people want to believe.

It is for this reason that there are certain concepts in every discipline that are sacred. Their validity is beyond dispute and cannot be contradicted without the person being shunned by the larger discipline. Or, more simply put, certain subjects are taboo.

The anomalies of H2O are a severe embarrassment to all of the scientific disciplines in which water plays a central role. And, obviously, this includes all of the natural science but also physics and chemistry.

This results in dufuses that dismiss and evade contradictions that conflict with these artificially simplistic models. Like martyrs to a religious cause they are willing to sacrifice their own reputation in order to preserve the perceived sanctity of their science-based beliefs.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:12 am

Dave:
I already told you about my undergraduate and graduate work,

JMcG:
I have no interest in your background.

Paradigms are the result of human intellectual sheepishness.

When fools lose arguments they always use political tactics to save face. You have no evidence that H2O polarity is constant. It's a brain-dead, consensus belief.
<moderator edit>
Last edited by nick c on Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: ad hominem remarks removed
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby Maol » Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:29 am

It could be that something in this research applies to the subject in this thread.

THz spectroscopy could help explain water's anomalies
June 27, 2018, American Institute of Physics

Liquid water sustains life on earth, but its physical properties remain mysterious among scientific researchers. Recently, a team of Swiss researchers used existing THz spectroscopy techniques to measure liquid water's hydrogen bonding. Future efforts with this technique could one day help explain water's peculiar properties. The team reports their findings in The Journal of Chemical Physics.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-thz-spect ... s.html#jCp

"What makes this paper special is the aspect of THz spectroscopy of a liquid. In the THz range, we make spectroscopy explicitly of the intermolecular degrees of freedom of the system in the study, to contrast it to intramolecular degrees of freedom," said Peter Hamm, an author on the paper. "With THz spectroscopy, we can very directly look at the hydrogen bonding between various water molecules."
Maol
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water? (Video

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:54 am

Maol wrote:It could be that something in this research applies to the subject in this thread.

THz spectroscopy could help explain water's anomalies
June 27, 2018, American Institute of Physics

Liquid water sustains life on earth, but its physical properties remain mysterious among scientific researchers. Recently, a team of Swiss researchers used existing THz spectroscopy techniques to measure liquid water's hydrogen bonding. Future efforts with this technique could one day help explain water's peculiar properties. The team reports their findings in The Journal of Chemical Physics.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-thz-spect ... s.html#jCp

"What makes this paper special is the aspect of THz spectroscopy of a liquid. In the THz range, we make spectroscopy explicitly of the intermolecular degrees of freedom of the system in the study, to contrast it to intramolecular degrees of freedom," said Peter Hamm, an author on the paper. "With THz spectroscopy, we can very directly look at the hydrogen bonding between various water molecules."


Actually there are no anomalies of H2O. There is just bad theory which is saddled with bad assumptions that are paradigmatically taboo for researchers. So speculative comments referring to "degrees of freedom" are just the tactics that the paradigmatically faithful employ to avoid confronting the fact that their theory sucks.

In actuality, when you get the theory correct all of H2O's anomalies disappear.

The problem started with an omission by Linus Pauling:
Pauling's Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg&t=1636s

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
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 5 guests