Maol wrote:Starch is a polymer.
jimmcginn wrote:
...
So, think about that, a solid exists on the surface of liquid water....
Maol wrote:Starch is a polymer.
seasmith wrote:jimmcginn wrote:
...
So, think about that, a solid exists on the surface of liquid water....
An imaginary solid.
Take a good look at the geometries of configurations for 1 through 5 water molecule combinations. They are all
'unbalanced' transitional states.
Try to transcend those mis-informed conceptions of covalent and hydrogen "bondings", and look at the the much more massive
Nucleons as well.
Remember, water is a matter-analog for electricity.
`
jimmcginn wrote:seasmith wrote:jimmcginn wrote:
...
So, think about that, a solid exists on the surface of liquid water....
An imaginary solid.
Take a good look at the geometries of configurations for 1 through 5 water molecule combinations. They are all
'unbalanced' transitional states.
Try to transcend those mis-informed conceptions of covalent and hydrogen "bondings", and look at the the much more massive
Nucleons as well.
Remember, water is a matter-analog for electricity.
`
Very few people can tell the difference between what they believe and what they understand.
...........
The crowd tends to believe stupid things because the crowd tends to conform to the lowest common denominator of what is easiest to believe.
seasmith wrote:jimmcginn wrote:seasmith wrote:jimmcginn wrote:
...
So, think about that, a solid exists on the surface of liquid water....
An imaginary solid.
Take a good look at the geometries of configurations for 1 through 5 water molecule combinations. They are all
'unbalanced' transitional states.
Try to transcend those mis-informed conceptions of covalent and hydrogen "bondings", and look at the the much more massive
Nucleons as well.
Remember, water is a matter-analog for electricity.
`
Very few people can tell the difference between what they believe and what they understand.
...........
The crowd tends to believe stupid things because the crowd tends to conform to the lowest common denominator of what is easiest to believe.
And apparently you are one of that crowd who still cling to the century-old belief that molecules "share" electrons. That without even knowing what is as an electron.
Lots and lots of catchy words piled up around a subject may impress the acolytes, and even convince your own self of things quite plausible, but also quite untrue. It is a favorite practice of mainstream science writers, and it works for the publishers as well.
However the piling up of all those learn-ed sounding words does not mean that you actually understand the physics of water,
or even the mechanics of molecular affinities, i.e. "bondings".
`
seasmith wrote:J,
Try to be more specific.
What is your question ?
Maol wrote:In an effort avoid devolving into ad hominem it would behoove you to divulge your understanding of polymers and specifically how the phenomenon of starch polymerization is frustrating you in your inability to dispute your own explanation for the sudden appearance and disappearance of the structural strength that is evident (upthread) in the mixture of corn starch and water? (A simple Yes or No will NOT suffice.)
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: JP Michael and 4 guests