Cracking Water
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm
Cracking Water
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
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
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm
Re: Cracking Water
Please disregard the video in the first thread and see this instead:
https://youtu.be/KF-grRbrBXg
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
https://youtu.be/KF-grRbrBXg
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
-
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am
Re: Cracking Water
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
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
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm
Re: Cracking Water
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
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
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm
Re: Cracking Water
No Steam in the Atmosphere; H2O Polarity is Variable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TccP1_pU5UE&t=26s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TccP1_pU5UE&t=26s
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm
Re: Cracking Water
H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm
Re: Cracking Water
How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm
Re: Cracking Water
How Hydrogen Bonds Are Distinctive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDv2RoUrHTY&t=11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDv2RoUrHTY&t=11s
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm
Re: Cracking Water
How Hydrogen Bonds Are Distinctive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDv2RoUrHTY&t=11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDv2RoUrHTY&t=11s
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm
Re: Cracking Water
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
https://youtu.be/ZyYsDGQ76J4
What They Missed
https://youtu.be/REJw4pCWdP8
Explaining Avogadro
https://youtu.be/KTupySWBLKI
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm
Re: Cracking Water
Pauling's Omission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1bKHUE7SNw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1bKHUE7SNw
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm
Re: Cracking Water
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
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
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests