Cracking 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

Cracking Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:14 am

This is the first video in a series that involves cracking the current paradigm of water science and resolving the known anomalies of water.

Cracking The Paradigm First Video
https://youtu.be/WK7oC-yabeE

Send questions to jimmcginn9@gmail.com

Answers to questions and subsequent videos in the series will be posted here.

Comments for videos are turned off on the YouTube site.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Cracking Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:34 pm

Please disregard the video in the first thread and see this instead:

https://youtu.be/KF-grRbrBXg

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Cracking Water

Unread postby kevin » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:39 am

As for fluidity....
Consider a perfectly packed crystal universe.
Then consider the geometry of spin fields operating in such.
relative to the geometry of each spin field will determine so called fluidity.
The closer to the universal packing geometry the spin fields are ( diamond) will determine how least fluid anything appears to our limited senses.

We are predominately water based, thus We have local displacement abilities.

We exist within a local dual spin field system, as does the planet, atmosphere is fluid and thus displaces relative to the spin field it encounters.

THE WIND IS NOT BLOWING.

Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Cracking Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:16 pm

https://principia-scientific.org/baldne ... ment-17272

Jerry:
Sutcliffe used the term ‘permanent gases’ without defining for a reader what a permanent gas was. And I am quite certain he never wrote that gaseous water vapor is not a permanent gas. And once I begin to consider that gaseous water vapor is not a permanent gas I must acknowledge that this a critical factor if we are to understand our weather and climate.

JMcG:
There is zero gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere. Some scientific models depend on this dumbed-down notion in order to facilitate easily digestible models to streamline the education process. As explained below, all of this stems from the mistakes of Pauling and Bohr.

Sutcliffe wrote textbooks for his consituents. And his constituents wanted a simple model that had the appearance of truth. Because that is what makes teaching easy. If he was to explain the truth–that H2O has all of these anomalies that nobody can explain–nobody would have bought his textbooks.

Jerry:
But the issue here is not weather and climate; it is we all have faults at the same time we individually get somethings right. James McGinn is a pain because he will not except ‘gaseous water vapor’ is composed of individual, independent, molecules of water. But I cannot remember any other author who writes that water molecule hydrogen bond to each other.

JMcG:
I am not a sheep. I don’t care what other authors recognize. I am only concerned with what the empirical evidence indicates. Belief in ‘cold steam’ is based on empirical ignorance and educational convenience.

Jerry:
And I am reasonably certain that many people have no idea of what hydrogen bonding might be and why it is such an important natural phenomenon.

JMcG:
It’s not taught. And the reason it’s not taught is because the subject is convoluted. And the reason the subject is convoluted is because Pauling and Bohr screwed up about 80 years ago when they failed to realize that each H bond neutralizes 25% of the polarity of both of the H2O molecules that participate in the bond. (And each H2O molecule can participate in up to 4 H bonds with four other H2O molecules.) This is the reason nobody knows about it. So, it’s kind of an chicken and egg thing. Nobody teaches it because it is convoluted and it remains convoluted because nobody teaches it.

As a teacher, Jerry, you should be able to recognize the difficulty of teaching a subject that is convoluted.

Sheep follow sheep.

Watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwD3q-mhNtQ

James McGinn
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Cracking Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:01 pm

No Steam in the Atmosphere; H2O Polarity is Variable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TccP1_pU5UE&t=26s
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Cracking Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:00 pm

jimmcginn
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Cracking Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:25 am

H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Cracking Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:34 am

How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Cracking Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:35 am

How Hydrogen Bonds Are Distinctive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDv2RoUrHTY&t=11s
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Cracking Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:37 am

How Hydrogen Bonds Are Distinctive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDv2RoUrHTY&t=11s
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Cracking Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:42 pm

Incidental Symmetry: Solution to H2O Anomalies
https://youtu.be/ZyYsDGQ76J4

What They Missed
https://youtu.be/REJw4pCWdP8

Explaining Avogadro
https://youtu.be/KTupySWBLKI

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Cracking Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:29 am

jimmcginn
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Cracking Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri May 18, 2018 5:06 pm

So much of what is taken as true or false in the natural sciences has to do with what is easy to understand and convey. Climatology and its most perverse theory of catastrophic global warming is only the most obvious variant on this theme. Misinformation and blatant pseudoscience is thick in all of the natural sciences. At the root of it all is a brain-dead, artificially simplistic understanding of H2O. And the silence of fools.

Much of the foolishness in the natural sciences started with Linus Pauling, about 60 or 70 years ago, when he made a conceptual error and the rest of the scientific community blindly followed. I refer to this error as Pauling's Omission.

Here is a link to a video that obviates this error and its wider ramification:

Pauling's Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=iIQSubWJeNg

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests