Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mad aetherist on 14/02/2019 07:34:00

Title: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/02/2019 07:34:00
I had another look this week at some of G Pollack's videos & papers re EZ water being the fourth phase of water.  Very interesting. It explains how & why......

EZ water forms in parallel layers up to 1 million layers thick, next to interfaces.
EZ water layers have a hexagonal planar lattice -- & can be called 9a2192de3f75cba8bbbf457e1f0f463d.gif49e4fe93c55ea5f2b7bf970512cbc408.gif
EZ water has a negative charge -- protons sit in the 45e46989e3704bc2ba0899724acdca5c.gif next to the EZ water.
During formation the EZ layers drive non-water out ahead.
Photonic radiation increases the number of layers by up to X10, especially infra red.
EZ water is good at absorbing UV photons.
The speed of light in EZ water is 10% slower than in  45e46989e3704bc2ba0899724acdca5c.gif.
Smaller water droplets in the air are made of EZ water.
If droplets are large they can be seen, eg fog & clouds.
EZ water droplets repel, protons are attracted, & at a certain separation there is in effect an attraction.
45e46989e3704bc2ba0899724acdca5c.gif cannot make ice -- EZ water makes ice.
Explains why ice is less dense than EZ water.
EZ water naturally flows along micro tubes -- light increases the flow.

Gerald Pollack –  Electrically Structured Water – Part 1 & 2.

Dr P M Robitaille – The structure of water.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/02/2019 07:58:01
It all helps to answer lots of questions re lightning & formation of ice on powerlines etc etc.
And of course it explains the very strong nature of surface tension.

After eye operations patients sometimes mention that vizion is hazy & blurry.  The haziness is due to lots of dust-like specks in the fluid of the eye.  The blurriness is due to EZ water forming around each speck, making a diameter equal to praps 1 million layers, & the EZ water has a 10% larger refractive index than 45e46989e3704bc2ba0899724acdca5c.gif.  Actually the refractive index must i think be more complicated than that, due to the very layered nature of EZ water.
And patients report bad glare problems -- due of course to the X10 increase in layers of EZ water when bombarded by photons.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: evan_au on 14/02/2019 10:17:52
Sorry, there are at least 11 known phases of solid water (ice), so any extra phases would have to be #13 or so...

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page)#Phase_diagram
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/02/2019 12:07:53
Sorry, there are at least 11 known phases of solid water (ice), so any extra phases would have to be #13 or so...

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page)#Phase_diagram
Interesting. But that chart is wrong.
Firstly there is only one phase of ice shown at Earthly pressures, so we can forget the other 10.
Nextly it shows only one phase of water, so it is krapp.
Nextly it only shows one phase of vapour, so it is krapp here too.

Pollack shows that there are 2 phases of water, H2O & H3O2 (EZ water). Or u can call the EZ water a gell if u like.
And i reckon that there are 2 phases of vapour. One is a gas, H2O (probly not really a vapour), mixed with air.  The other is air with drops of EZ water (the usual thing found) mixed with air.

One can add another phase i suppose, vapour drops with H2O inside with a skin of EZ water, mixed with air.

So the standard model misses 3 phases, it misses EZ water, & it misses H2O gas, & it misses vapour where the droplets have H2O inside with a skin of EZ water.
And thems useless ten phases of ice that dont occur naturally on Earth can be ignored.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2019 13:17:55
Pollack shows that there are 2 phases of water, H2O & H3O2 (EZ water). Or u can call the EZ water a gell if u like.
H3O2 is not water though is it? In the same way as H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) is not water. The fact that it is promoted by Dr. Mercola should be a clue that it a scam...
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/02/2019 13:32:48
Pollack shows that there are 2 phases of water, H2O & H3O2 (EZ water). Or u can call the EZ water a gell if u like.
H3O2 is not water though is it? In the same way as H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) is not water. The fact that it is promoted by Dr. Mercola should be a clue that it a scam...
Yes & no. There is no such thing as H3O2, the molecule is infinite, having a hexagonal planar lattice (see the pix with the youtube link above), with an identical molecule laying parallel & offset a half hexagon in the xx & in the yy.  But apparently Pollack found some benefit in giving it that formula to differentiate it from H2O. 
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2019 13:34:48
Pollack shows that there are 2 phases of water, H2O & H3O2 (EZ water). Or u can call the EZ water a gell if u like.
H3O2 is not water though is it? In the same way as H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) is not water. The fact that it is promoted by Dr. Mercola should be a clue that it a scam...
Yes & no. There is no such thing as H3O2, the molecule is infinite, having a hexagonal planar lattice (see the pix with the youtube link above), with an identical molecule laying parallel & offset a half hexagon in the xx & in the yy.  But apparently Pollack found some benefit in giving it that formula to differentiate it from H2O. 
Oh well, if it is a you tube link, how could it possibly be a scam!
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2019 13:36:40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagonal_water

' the scam takes advantage of the consumer's limited knowledge of chemistry, physics, and physiology' like the dihydrogen monoxide hoax..
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/02/2019 13:42:09
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagonal_water
' the scam takes advantage of the consumer's limited knowledge of chemistry, physics, and physiology' like the dihydrogen monoxide hoax..
There might be a scam re health or something (i havnt read it), but that doesnt mean that a hexagonal planar lattice doesnt exist.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2019 13:50:40
There is no such thing as H3O2
So why claim it is a phase of water?
An interesting discussion here
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/5925/ez-water-fraud-or-breakthrough

Giving something a catchy sounding, marketing friendly name (EZ Water for example) instantly raises suspicions of a scam.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/02/2019 14:05:14
There is no such thing as H3O2
So why claim it is a phase of water?
An interesting discussion here
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/5925/ez-water-fraud-or-breakthrough

Giving something a catchy sounding, marketing friendly name (EZ Water for example) instantly raises suspicions of a scam.
Had a look at that link. It has no good info which in any way detracts from Pollack's EZ water theory.
EZ water is so called because as it forms it pushes non-water out ahead leaving clean water behind, giving an exclusion zone filled with hexagonal planar lattice.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2019 14:19:59
EZ water is so called because as it forms it pushes non-water out ahead leaving clean water behind
What does that even mean?
Are you sure you looked at the link?
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2019 19:01:34
What a load of Pollacks
And
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille
isn't any better

Nextly it shows only one phase of water, so it is krapp.
Learn to count.
There might be a scam re health or something (i havnt read it), but that doesnt mean that a hexagonal planar lattice doesnt exist.
You have that the wrong way round.
Because there is no such  thing as hexagonal water, we know it is a scam.
Nextly it only shows one phase of vapour, so it is krapp here too.

Unless you can actually show that there's more than 1 vapour phase, you are the one talking crap.
So, go on...
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/02/2019 20:07:52
EZ water is so called because as it forms it pushes non-water out ahead leaving clean water behind
What does that even mean? Are you sure you looked at the link?
The moving images in the video are wonderful, showing the growth of an EZ water layer, driving junk out ahead.  Pollack suspects that salt is also driven out ahead, but i think that he cant find a good indicator that shows this.
And i think that there is moving images of the layers of growth of ice in the EZ layers.
Pollack possibly aint sure whether salt is driven out during the EZ formation or during the ice formation.
But i  was wrong when i said that the EZ layers drive non-water ahead, because it didnt drive Pollack's pH dye out ahead (the dye that indicates the balance of electrons-protons).
I think i read all about this & saw the videos a year or two ago but one forgets -- its an aha moment in one's physics life.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/02/2019 20:23:06
What a load of Pollacks
And https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille isn't any better
Nextly it shows only one phase of water, so it is krapp.
Learn to count.
Yes i should have said only one phase of liquid (& so it is krapp).  There are 2 phases of liquid water, H2O, & the H3O2 hexagonal planar lattice.  I suppose more than 2 phases if u start looking at exotic mixtures with a large range of non-water substances.
There might be a scam re health or something (i havnt read it), but that doesnt mean that a hexagonal planar lattice doesnt exist.
You have that the wrong way round.
Because there is no such  thing as hexagonal water, we know it is a scam.
Pollack shows that diffraction shows that it is hexagonal.
Robitaille's footage of the blackness of the water surface radiating out from an atomic test is good evidence, based on the similarity to the known blackness we find with the hex carbon in graphite. Actually this might qualify as being another phase of water (another phase of EZ water).
Nextly it only shows one phase of vapor, so it is krapp here too.
Unless you can actually show that there's more than 1 vapor phase, you are the one talking crap. So, go on...
I cant remember whether Pollack shows droplets of EZ water, i think not. It would be difficult to keep a droplet steady, & to look inside.  A measurement of the negative charge would be good evidence (there might be such a measurement in the footage). 
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2019 21:22:45
Yes i should have said only one phase of liquid (& so it is krapp).
So, the best you can do is beg the question.
  I suppose more than 2 phases if u start looking at exotic mixtures with a large range of non-water substances.
And then it wouldn't be the phase diagram for water.
, based on the similarity to the known blackness we find with the hex carbon in graphite.
You can't seriously say "they both are black, so they must be the same" on a science page.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2019 21:57:54
You can't seriously say "they both are black, so they must be the same" on a science page.
Maybe  he got lost on the way to the Spinal Tap forum....
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: chiralSPO on 14/02/2019 23:04:09
It is well known that liquid water does form a more highly ordered structure at interfaces with air and hydrophobic materials (this is the source of the hydrophobic effect)
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html


This ordering is very important for things like nucleation of ice crystals (which doesn't happen easily in pure bulk water), and is also essential to much of biochemistry (much of the interesting chemistry happens between organic molecules that are either solvated with water or sandwiched between water and other organic bits (and the structure of water in and around proteins is quite interesting).

That said, anyone claiming that a phase of water can be represented as H3O2 is either ignorant or careless. No matter the arrangement, it must have the same empirical formula to be the same substance (I would be ok with H3O1.5, or H4O2, as long as there is good reason to specify the formula other than H2O)

I haven't watched the video or followed any of the links, so I cannot comment on the rest.

EDIT: There is a another option for the discrepancy--you haven't reported it properly! Dr. Pollack could be modeling EZ water as (H+)(H3O2), which is reasonable.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 14/02/2019 23:22:21
  I suppose more than 2 phases if u start looking at exotic mixtures with a large range of non-water substances.
And then it wouldn't be the phase diagram for water.
Yes & no. I meant the form that water might take at-near the interface (even if not very many molecule widths involved).
, based on the similarity to the known blackness we find with the hex carbon in graphite.
You can't seriously say "they both are black, so they must be the same" on a science page.
I had another look at Dr R's wonderful 28:59 video.          This gives a step by step explanation of how water goes black in the optical under pressure, & how this gives a similar black in many hex carbon compounds when they are shocked (they form graphite).
I love Dr R's story at 19:00 of how he found (& then lost & then found again) the most important book that he had ever read -- The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (1977) -- at the urging of Dr Bailey.
At 14:10 Dr R says that Lippincott first explained the hex planar lattice of water in 1969, & that it is not mentioned in any text books (ie it has been censored).
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 15/02/2019 00:01:56
It is well known that liquid water does form a more highly ordered structure at interfaces with air and hydrophobic materials (this is the source of the hydrophobic effect) http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html
This ordering is very important for things like nucleation of ice crystals (which doesn't happen easily in pure bulk water), and is also essential to much of biochemistry (much of the interesting chemistry happens between organic molecules that are either solvated with water or sandwiched between water and other organic bits (and the structure of water in and around proteins is quite interesting).

That said, anyone claiming that a phase of water can be represented as H3O2 is either ignorant or careless. No matter the arrangement, it must have the same empirical formula to be the same substance (I would be ok with H3O1.5, or H4O2, as long as there is good reason to specify the formula other than H2O)

I haven't watched the video or followed any of the links, so I cannot comment on the rest.

EDIT: There is a another option for the discrepancy--you haven't reported it properly! Dr. Pollack could be modeling EZ water as (H+)(H3O2), which is reasonable.
Excellent comments. Thanx for that link, i am working my way throo it. Yes the H3O2 is best shown negative. And it results in lots of protons in the nearby bulk water (H2O).

I guess that the info in that link is about as sensible as i will find under standard science.  Lots of it supports Pollack & Robitaille. Some of it misses the obvious (but i wont mention). Some snippets are.....

The structure of the surface is not completely understood, but some information has been determined.     Pollack & Robitaille understand it.

The aerosol mists formed at waterfalls (see left) are found to be negatively charged [2049].
Yep, because the droplets are EZ water (or mostly)(or partly).

Re slipperyness of ice -- Pollack explains that this is due to plasma (free protons) allowing slippage tween layers of the hex planar lattice.
No mention of Brownian motion being dampened in the EZ layer.
No mention of ice growing in layers in the EZ. No mention that ice cannot form in H2O.
I like the use of the term bulk water. Very good. This is of course H2O (& H3O2 at interfaces).
But i thought that u get EZ at hydrophilic interfaces not hydrophobic (i will have to have another looksee).

I am very interested in tornadoes, & lightning. This stuff will help.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 15/02/2019 02:36:14
Gerald Pollack – Weather and EZ water – July 29 2018 -- 1:01:03..
Wonderful stuff by Pollack.  I will mention a few items............

X-sections of vapour coming off a cup of coffee. Mosaic structure of surface of coffee.
Structure of bubbles & droplets.  Protons push out & give spherical shape.
Tubicals extend down into coffee.  Tubicals rise & emerge to give vapour.
Humid air scatters light, especially in summer.
Clouds have charge.  Clouds held aloft by charge.
Clouds attracted to Earth by inducted charge.  Rain falls due to downwards attraction.
Charge increases atmospheric pressure.
Rubbed balloon attracts a stream of falling water.
Wind is due to charge gradient with altitude.
Wind east to west is due to daily movement of Sun affecting amount of charge.
Tradewinds go east to west, jetstreams go west to east.
Raindrops fall ten times as fast as expected.
Charge affects development of tornadoes.
Induction helps to lift refrigerators.
No weather forecast ever mentions charge.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: chiralSPO on 15/02/2019 03:07:20
Ok, now I have watched some of the videos and done some more research.

A few takeaways:
There are lots of people trying to sell H3O2 or H3O2 generators, making claims about its healing and cleansing properties. This is snake oil, either being peddled by scammers or those who have been scammed.

Dr. Pollack appears to be genuinely interested in finding the truth, rather than trying to scam people. He is observing and measuring many real phenomena, but I question his interpretation. He is making very extraordinary claims, with little evidence to back them up. Additionally, he appears to have made some obviously wrong claims: for instance, his explanations of clouds, steam, mist, etc. are easily debunked (we can observe the exact same phenomena with substances other than water, like acetone and dichloromethane, neither of which are capable of dissociating into protons, or hydrogen bonding with itself).

I would recommend that people be very critical about his proposals.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: chiralSPO on 15/02/2019 03:36:20
Someone else has spent a good deal of time putting together a critical analysis of Dr. Pollack's work: http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/11/19/debunking-exclusion-zone-water/

Long story short: Pollack has found something interesting, but is making grandiose claims without sufficient evidence.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 15/02/2019 04:09:37
Someone else has spent a good deal of time putting together a critical analysis of Dr. Pollack's work: http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/11/19/debunking-exclusion-zone-water/ Long story short: Pollack has found something interesting, but is making grandiose claims without sufficient evidence.
Interesting, & i will work my way throo that over the next week.  But a quick look doesnt impress me at all, lots of bad arguments (against EZ water) obvious even to me a non-scientist. There is no argument against the pH dye findings of a uniform negative throo the EZ due to its chemistry & a gradated positive floating around in the nearby H2O bulk water with strongest color adjacent due to Faraday induction.

But the standard science mafia's continual failure to find a big multi-micro-meter layer (they keep finding only a thin multi-nano-meter layer) is a worry. It might be because the mafia keep referring to hydrophobic interfaces whereaz Pollack says EZ needs hydrophilic.

Funny, try reading some of that attempted debunking but swap the word vanderWaals with the word EZ water & vice versa.

Have u links to acetone etc giving same (vapor i think) effects? Where acetone forms droplets in air (especially a vizible fog).  I couldnt find any.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/02/2019 20:53:29
The proposed structure of this EZ water is not feasible from a chemistry standpoint. He's trying to liken it to graphite yet he doesn't seem to realize why graphite has the structure that it does in the first place. Graphite is composed of hexagonal rings of carbon, each ring containing three pairs of electrons in its pi system. Aromatic (stabilizing) character is afforded to a molecule if there are an odd number of electron pairs in the pi system (see benzene, the tropylium cation and the cyclopropenium cation). For this reason, graphite is more stable when its molecular orbitals are arranged into sp2 hybridization with a pi system than when they are not.

The case is the opposite when the number of electron pairs in the pi system is even. This results in anti-aromatic (destabilizing) character which makes molecules less stable than they otherwise would be. Cyclobutadiene is probably the best known example, and is so unstable that it cannot be isolated above 35 kelvins. If you try to form a hexagon of oxygen atoms using water molecules like in the video, you end up with a pi system containing 6 electron pairs. That's anti-aromatic and therefore destabilizing. The hexagon would be more stable if the oxygen atoms were sp3 hybridized than if they were sp2 hybridized.

Another thing that would make this configuration unstable is anti-bonding orbitals. If you count the number of electrons in the pi system, you find out that you have to put just as many into bonding (stabilizing) orbitals as you do into anti-bonding (destabilizing) orbitals. That results in a net bond strength of zero, which means that the pi system effectively does not exist at all.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 15/02/2019 22:29:32
The proposed structure of this EZ water is not feasible from a chemistry standpoint. He's trying to liken it to graphite yet he doesn't seem to realize why graphite has the structure that it does in the first place. Graphite is composed of hexagonal rings of carbon, each ring containing three pairs of electrons in its pi system. Aromatic (stabilizing) character is afforded to a molecule if there are an odd number of electron pairs in the pi system (see benzene, the tropylium cation and the cyclopropenium cation). For this reason, graphite is more stable when its molecular orbitals are arranged into sp2 hybridization with a pi system than when they are not.

The case is the opposite when the number of electron pairs in the pi system is even. This results in anti-aromatic (destabilizing) character which makes molecules less stable than they otherwise would be. Cyclobutadiene is probably the best known example, and is so unstable that it cannot be isolated above 35 kelvins. If you try to form a hexagon of oxygen atoms using water molecules like in the video, you end up with a pi system containing 6 electron pairs. That's anti-aromatic and therefore destabilizing. The hexagon would be more stable if the oxygen atoms were sp3 hybridized than if they were sp2 hybridized.

Another thing that would make this configuration unstable is anti-bonding orbitals. If you count the number of electrons in the pi system, you find out that you have to put just as many into bonding (stabilizing) orbitals as you do into anti-bonding (destabilizing) orbitals. That results in a net bond strength of zero, which means that the pi system effectively does not exist at all.
I will go back in Dr G Pollack's video & find where he mentions the Xray diffraction that shows that EZ has a hex structure. I will be back within the hour.

Here is Dr Robitaille's video, & the footage where he explains some of the hex stuff. 
16:21.  In addition to the text written on the pix in the video, Dr R says......
Since we are dealing with H3O minus i just took a part of the structure on the left just to localize where the electrons are so the electrons that had originally come from the oxygen are in red & the ones that came from the hydrogen are greyish.  In total u will see that there are 16 electrons in this structure.  And such sub units can be made to make these hexagonal planes.  And in this case u have 2 electrons in the 3p orbital. 
So when dealing with  H3O2 minus molecules.......

Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/02/2019 23:19:05
I will go back in Dr G Pollack's video & find where he mentions the Xray diffraction that shows that EZ has a hex structure. I will be back within the hour.

Merely having a hexagonal crystal structure does not mean that there is any kind of pi system involved. Ice is hexagonal but all of the molecular orbitals involved are sigma, not pi.

Since we are dealing with H3O minus i just took a part of the structure on the left just to localize where the electrons are so the electrons that had originally come from the oxygen are in red & the ones that came from the hydrogen are greyish.  In total u will see that there are 16 electrons in this structure.  And such sub units can be made to make these hexagonal planes.  And in this case u have 2 electrons in the 3p orbital. 
So when dealing with  H3O2 minus molecules.......

This is exactly what I was talking about. He has an unstable molecular system drawn in his video.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 16/02/2019 06:15:12
I will go back in Dr G Pollack's video & find where he mentions the Xray diffraction that shows that EZ has a hex structure. I will be back within the hour.
Merely having a hexagonal crystal structure does not mean that there is any kind of pi system involved. Ice is hexagonal but all of the molecular orbitals involved are sigma, not pi.
Since we are dealing with H3O minus i just took a part of the structure on the left just to localize where the electrons are so the electrons that had originally come from the oxygen are in red & the ones that came from the hydrogen are greyish.  In total u will see that there are 16 electrons in this structure.  And such sub units can be made to make these hexagonal planes.  And in this case u have 2 electrons in the 3p orbital. 
So when dealing with  H3O2 minus molecules.......
This is exactly what I was talking about. He has an unstable molecular system drawn in his video.
I had another slow look throo Pollacks Part 1 video. There is lots of stuff re the hex planar lattice structure.
24:05.  Says there have been lots of papers saying that water has a hex structure near interfaces.
24:10   A Harvard group found a hex Xray diffraction pattern for water held inside a small vesicle of ATP synthase subunit C.
What u might be missing in your chemical analysis is that the layer to layer glue is due to electrostatic attraction, because the layers are offset a half hex, hencely a hydrogen sits between the midpoint of each two oxygens.
Which by the way is why ice is less dense than EZ water (& H2O bulk water), because in ice the oxygens sit opposite each other with a hydrogen between.
Note also that Pollack says that EZ is at hydrophilic surfaces (not so much at hydrophobic). At 7:45 he says that many kinds of surfaces work.

15:18 Sir William Hardy posited a 4th phase of water in 1912.
16:57. Shows hex of ice & hex of water.
20:20.  The hex EZ can form a helix with a form similar to DNA & RNA.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/02/2019 07:05:57
I had another slow look throo Pollacks Part 1 video. There is lots of stuff re the hex planar lattice structure.
24:05.  Says there have been lots of papers saying that water has a hex structure near interfaces.
24:10   A Harvard group found a hex Xray diffraction pattern for water held inside a small vesicle of ATP synthase subunit C.

Again, hexagonal crystal structure is not what I'm critiquing. I'm talking about the p-orbitals and how he likens it to the bonding in graphite (which isn't feasible for reasons I stated earlier).

What u might be missing in your chemical analysis is that the layer to layer glue is due to electrostatic attraction, because the layers are offset a half hex, hencely a hydrogen sits between the midpoint of each two oxygens.
Which by the way is why ice is less dense than EZ water (& H2O bulk water), because in ice the oxygens sit opposite each other with a hydrogen between.
Note also that Pollack says that EZ is at hydrophilic surfaces (not so much at hydrophobic). At 7:45 he says that many kinds of surfaces work.

15:18 Sir William Hardy posited a 4th phase of water in 1912.
16:57. Shows hex of ice & hex of water.
20:20.  The hex EZ can form a helix with a form similar to DNA & RNA.

None of that has anything to do with the pi system or the claimed sp2 hybridization of the oxygen atoms...
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 16/02/2019 22:26:27
I had another slow look throo Pollacks Part 1 video. There is lots of stuff re the hex planar lattice structure.
24:05.  Says there have been lots of papers saying that water has a hex structure near interfaces.
24:10   A Harvard group found a hex Xray diffraction pattern for water held inside a small vesicle of ATP synthase subunit C.
Again, hexagonal crystal structure is not what I'm critiquing. I'm talking about the p-orbitals and how he likens it to the bonding in graphite (which isn't feasible for reasons I stated earlier).
So u accept that.....
(1) the oxygen & hydrogen in water can form a hex molecule, &
(2) the hex structure can join others to form a large planar structure,
(3) which has a negative charge,
(4) some protons having been expelled into the adjacent bulk water (H2O), &
(5) the planar structures can form parallel to others &
(6) be held electrostatically to form a thick negatively charged lattice, &
(7) this process drives out most impurities ahead into the bulk water, &
(8 ) its ok to call the water in this exclusion zone EZ water, &
(9) its ok to call the water in this zone crystal water, &
(10) a Harvard group did find a hex Xray diffraction pattern for water in such a zone.

But u dont agree with ...........
(a) Robitaille's description of the p-orbitals in EZ water, &
(b) Robitaille likening the bonding in hex EZ water to the bonding in graphite, & u reckon that
(c) Robitaille's model for bonding in the hex EZ water isn't feasible (for reasons u stated earlier).

So actually (genuine question)(not being sarcastic or anything)(i did some skoolkid chemistry in 1964) u are........
(d) ok re the existence of a hex planar lattice EZ water at interfaces, but
(e) u are not happy with Robitaille's description of it, &
(f) u are not happy with Robitaille's description that it has similarities with graphite (ie that the EZ water gives a black absorption when the EZ water is compressed).

And if i have all of that aright then....
(i) u have no serious argument with Pollack's EZ water (ie the primary thrust of this thread), but
(ii) u dont agree with Robitaille's microwave etc claims re water, & hencely
(iii) u dont agree with Robitaille's criticism of the historic measurements of CMB radiation (ie all of that 2.7 K stuff)(not mentioned in this thread but possibly mentioned in Robitaille's video)(link mentioned earlier in  this thread)(& mentioned by me in recent threads).
What u might be missing in your chemical analysis is that the layer to layer glue is due to electrostatic attraction, because the layers are offset a half hex, hencely a hydrogen sits between the midpoint of each two oxygens.
Which by the way is why ice is less dense than EZ water (& H2O bulk water), because in ice the oxygens sit opposite each other with a hydrogen between.
Note also that Pollack says that EZ is at hydrophilic surfaces (not so much at hydrophobic). At 7:45 he says that many kinds of surfaces work.
15:18 Sir William Hardy posited a 4th phase of water in 1912.
16:57. Shows hex of ice & hex of water.
20:20.  The hex EZ can form a helix with a form similar to DNA & RNA.
None of that has anything to do with the pi system or the claimed sp2 hybridization of the oxygen atoms...
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/02/2019 00:08:59
So u accept that.....
(1) the oxygen & hydrogen in water can form a hex molecule, &
(2) the hex structure can join others to form a large planar structure,
(3) which has a negative charge,
(4) some protons having been expelled into the adjacent bulk water (H2O), &
(5) the planar structures can form parallel to others &
(6) be held electrostatically to form a thick negatively charged lattice, &
(7) this process drives out most impurities ahead into the bulk water, &
(8 ) its ok to call the water in this exclusion zone EZ water, &
(9) its ok to call the water in this zone crystal water, &
(10) a Harvard group did find a hex Xray diffraction pattern for water in such a zone.

I wouldn't say that I necessarily accept all of that, but I don't straight-out reject it either.

But u dont agree with ...........
(a) Robitaille's description of the p-orbitals in EZ water, &
(b) Robitaille likening the bonding in hex EZ water to the bonding in graphite, & u reckon that
(c) Robitaille's model for bonding in the hex EZ water isn't feasible (for reasons u stated earlier).

Right.

So actually (genuine question)(not being sarcastic or anything)(i did some skoolkid chemistry in 1964) u are........
(d) ok re the existence of a hex planar lattice EZ water at interfaces, but

I'm uncertain about it.

Quote
(e) u are not happy with Robitaille's description of it, &
(f) u are not happy with Robitaille's description that it has similarities with graphite (ie that the EZ water gives a black absorption when the EZ water is compressed).

Correct. It goes against what we know of chemistry.

And if i have all of that aright then....
(i) u have no serious argument with Pollack's EZ water (ie the primary thrust of this thread), but

If his EZ water requires the structure he proposed, then that would be my argument against it.

(ii) u dont agree with Robitaille's microwave etc claims re water, & hencely

What microwave claims about water?

(iii) u dont agree with Robitaille's criticism of the historic measurements of CMB radiation (ie all of that 2.7 K stuff)(not mentioned in this thread but possibly mentioned in Robitaille's video)(link mentioned earlier in  this thread)(& mentioned by me in recent threads).

His claim that the microwave background is caused by the oceans is ridiculous. The temperature variations in the oceans are constantly shifting. If the CMBR was caused by that, then CMBR maps would reflect those constant fluctuations in temperature. They don't.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: evan_au on 17/02/2019 02:29:49
Quote from: mad aetherist
a step by step explanation of how water goes black in the optical under pressure
Since this is different behavior than normal Water, it suggests that, under pressure, liquid water turns into yet another phase (which is not EZ water).

Quote
thems useless ten phases of ice that dont occur naturally on Earth can be ignored.
So you are suggesting that we can safely ignore Pollack's "black" phase of water, as that doesn't occur naturally on Earth either?
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 17/02/2019 04:46:08
Quote from: mad aetherist
a step by step explanation of how water goes black in the optical under pressure
Since this is different behavior than normal Water, it suggests that, under pressure, liquid water turns into yet another phase (which is not EZ water).
Yes, i see that at 17:50 of his video Dr Robitaille says that if EZ in the surface of water is compressed then electrons might delocalized & band lengths are shortened, delocalized electrons i think giving blackness. That change might deserve to be called a different phase, even if it exists for short periods, & even if only near underwater atomic explosions, but at least it can be observed on Earth by Earthlings using their eyes (unlike the umpteen supposed phases of ice that cant ever be observed even if u exploded an atomic bomb at one of Earth's poles).
Quote
thems useless ten phases of ice that dont occur naturally on Earth can be ignored.
So you are suggesting that we can safely ignore Pollack's "black" phase of water, as that doesn't occur naturally on Earth either?
No the black phase has been easily observed on Earth many times, & has been called "the oil slick".  It is described in THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS written in 1977 which is where Dr R got the idea.  At 20:55 the video shows this black phase in footage of the underwater blast at the Bikini Atoll in 1946.  But i suppose that some of us might not call an atomic blast natural.  But Pollack doesnt mention this stuff, it is Dr Robitaille.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2019 09:10:12
So u accept that.....
(1) the oxygen & hydrogen in water can form a hex molecule, &
(2) the hex structure can join others to form a large planar structure,
(3) which has a negative charge,
No
Charge conservation rules out "3"

I'm not saying any of your other stuff is right (it isn't, btw) but this bit is particularly obviously wrong.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/02/2019 01:08:11
So u accept that.....
(1) the oxygen & hydrogen in water can form a hex molecule, &
(2) the hex structure can join others to form a large planar structure,
(3) which has a negative charge,
No Charge conservation rules out "3"
I'm not saying any of your other stuff is right (it isn't, btw) but this bit is particularly obviously wrong.
I thort that (3) is a no brainer, the the EZ has a negative charge.  The positive charge goes into the adjacent bulk water. Thusly conservation. 
But anyhow here is a link to what is in effect the content of one of Pollack's videos.
Molecules, Water, and Radiant Energy: New Clues for the Origin of Life
Gerald H. Pollack,* Xavier Figueroa, and Qing Zhao
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680624/

I am now looking thinking re how EZ water helps make lightning.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/02/2019 01:22:01
The original reference to Pollack's stuff.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/08/17/gerald-pollack-the-fourth-phase-of-water/

Some links to some of Pollack's stuff.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0161/7154/files/FOURTH_PHASE_SAMPLE.pdf
https://www.pollacklab.org/research
https://ecee.colorado.edu/~ecen5555/SourceMaterial/Pollack13.pdf


Miles Mathis mentions Pollack. http://milesmathis.com/poll.pdf
Pollack then tells us why water theory is so moribund: two major discoveries that the mainstream didn't
like were forcibly suppressed in recent decades, leading everyone but the berzerkers to bail. First,
polywater was discovered by Nikolai Fedyakin in the late 1960's. Polywater was just water forced
through narrow capillary tubes, as in a plant. It showed some structured characteristics, including
increased viscosity. Since mainstream science didn't like the idea of polywater (they later said, “it
should have been dismissed on theoretical grounds alone”), great pressure was applied to force the
researchers to admit that there were impurities in the water and that these impurities explained the new
qualities. This wasn't true, because the amount of impurities said to be in the water couldn't explain the
qualities of the water using mainstream theory. Small amounts of impurities don't cause water to gain
that much viscosity. We will see more proof of this in a moment with Pollack's experiments in the EZ.
But for now, I beg you to notice that polywater confirms my charge channeling as well as my theory of
transport in plants. This is the real reason the mainstream was so irrationally militant against the idea
of polywater. Polywater immediately provided an easy alternative explanation to the pressure-flow
theory that had been ascendant since 1926. It also threatened to undermine all mainstream theory of
cell transport in animals as well as plants. Beyond that, many probably saw it as a threat to electron
orbital theory—which it was. Since this fiasco was in the late 1960's and early 70's, it also threatened
the rising theory of the strong force, and through it all of QCD. For this reason, all of mainstream
physics, chemistry, and biology combined forces to bury this data by any means possible, including
intimidation, character assassination, and outright lies.

http://milesmathis.com/poll2.pdf
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2019 20:02:06
Have you ever used "waterglass"?
It's a solution of sodium silicate in water. It's very viscous- roughly as viscous as golden syrup or honey.

You make it by dissolving sodium silicate in water.

If you take glass tubing, melt it and draw it out into a capillary a couple of things happen.
First, the inside of the tube is degrades- the freshly made surface is much more chemically active. In particular it is much more soluble in water.
Secondly, you massively increase the ratio of area to mass. Again, that makes the material more soluble.

Now, you may also be aware that water is a pretty good solvent.
In particular, very high purity, hot water- of the sort that might be condensed into a capillary tube- is a very aggressive solvent.

So, you have particularly soluble sodium silicate, under conditions that make it very likely to dissolve.
So, it's pretty much bound to dissolve in the water.
And you know that solutions of silicates in water are very viscous.


So why would you then write "Small amounts of impurities don't cause water to gain that much viscosity. ".

Nobody is talking about small amounts of impurities, we are talking about something akin to silica gel soaked in waterglass.

That's the problem. These guys keep saying stuff that's superficially reasonable, but doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny by people who know anything about, for example, silicates.



I thort that (3) is a no brainer, the the EZ has a negative charge.  The positive charge goes into the adjacent bulk water.
Well, if you had thought just a bit harder, you would have realised it's not water if it is charged.
So, yes, it's a no brainer; and you didn't get it.
What does that tell you?
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Kryptid on 18/02/2019 20:38:06
For this reason, all of mainstream
physics, chemistry, and biology combined forces to bury this data by any means possible, including
intimidation, character assassination, and outright lies.

Oh look, more charges of conspiracy!
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2019 21:18:06
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physics_suppression.png
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/02/2019 22:15:56
Have you ever used "waterglass"?It's a solution of sodium silicate in water. It's very viscous- roughly as viscous as golden syrup or honey.
You make it by dissolving sodium silicate in water.If you take glass tubing, melt it and draw it out into a capillary a couple of things happen.First, the inside of the tube is degrades- the freshly made surface is much more chemically active. In particular it is much more soluble in water.Secondly, you massively increase the ratio of area to mass. Again, that makes the material more soluble. Now, you may also be aware that water is a pretty good solvent.
In particular, very high purity, hot water- of the sort that might be condensed into a capillary tube- is a very aggressive solvent. So, you have particularly soluble sodium silicate, under conditions that make it very likely to dissolve. So, it's pretty much bound to dissolve in the water. And you know that solutions of silicates in water are very viscous. So why would you then write "Small amounts of impurities don't cause water to gain that much viscosity. " Nobody is talking about small amounts of impurities, we are talking about something akin to silica gel soaked in waterglass. That's the problem. These guys keep saying stuff that's superficially reasonable, but doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny by people who know anything about, for example, silicates.
I dont remember Pollack mentioning EZ next to glass. But anyhow most of his stuff is re EZ next to all kinds of materials.
I thort that (3) is a no brainer, the the EZ has a negative charge.  The positive charge goes into the adjacent bulk water.
Well, if you had thought just a bit harder, you would have realised it's not water if it is charged. So, yes, it's a no brainer; and you didn't get it. What does that tell you?
I didnt realize that things that had charge were different things.  So there is no such thing as cloud to cloud lighting, it is actually not-cloud to not-cloud (the not-clouds being made of not-water)(ie water with charge), & then after the lightning they become clouds again.

So there are five phases of water -- gas (H2O in eg air) -- vapour (EZ water in eg air) -- liquid (bulk H2O water) -- EZ water (found only in thin layers at interfaces) -- solid water (ice).
And five phases of not-water -- all of the above but with charge.  Or ten if u differentiate negative & positive.

But i dont believe its not-water.
If u take away an electron or two from water then surely it is water anyhow.
If u add a proton or two then praps there is a real change to real chemistry, & praps in some cases the water becomes not-water.
I guess it depends on how many properties one wants to look into, & within any one property how finely u divide that into divisions or classes or sub-phases or something.

How about the neutrons. 
We & Pollack havent mentioned heavy water.  Isnt that a phase?  U can separate HW from bulk water. What would a cloud of heavy water look like?  How low would it be compared to light water?  And if HW is a phase then it would deserve its own five sub-phases.

And then light water would be a phase -- & it too would deserve its own five sub-phases. 
Or praps LW doesnt form EZ water (ie EZLW). Likewize HW (ie EZHW).
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/02/2019 22:29:03
For this reason, all of mainstream
physics, chemistry, and biology combined forces to bury this data by any means possible, including
intimidation, character assassination, and outright lies.
Oh look, more charges of conspiracy!
No i dont think there is any science mafia conspiracy using much of that intimidation etc. I think that it is just the usual runofthemill doginthemanger kind of global auto knee-jerk conspiracy.
But Pollack mentions separate similar findings by about 20 other finders.  Actually Pollack is about No 4 in the line.
Pollack mentions that the main problem with the science of water is that for a long time it suffered from the civil war surrounding polywater, & then it was tainted by that water-memory saga, so scientists tended to clam up & kept away from serious research.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Kryptid on 19/02/2019 00:13:51
I think that it is just the usual runofthemill doginthemanger kind of global auto knee-jerk conspiracy.

Oh look, more charges of conspiracy!
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: chiralSPO on 19/02/2019 01:43:50
Adding and removing electrons from things very much changes their chemical identities (half of my doctoral thesis was focused on work I did in electrochemistry, so I know what I'm talking about here).

H+ (just a proton) is the fundamental component of all Brønsted acids--it is an excellent catalyst for many chemical reactions, and will react quickly with any slightly basic compound.

Add an electron to it, and you get an H atom, which is a free radical. It is not acidic at all, and instead reacts with compounds that have carbon-carbon double or triple bonds in them (alkenes and alkynes) as well as compounds with weak single bonds, like elemental halogens, and organometallic compounds.

Add another electron to it, and you get H (hydride). This is not acidic, actually it is a *very* strong base. It won't typically react with alkenes or alkynes, but can deprotonate many organic molecules (alcohols, terminal alkynes, primary amides etc. etc.). Under the right circumstances, it can also react with aldehydes and similar compounds to forms carbon-hydrogen bonds.

Fe is iron. Fe2+ is iron minus two electrons, or ferrous ion--which is typically light green in color and highly water soluble. Take away another electron, and you get a pale yellow/orange ferric ion which is typically not very soluble in water.

The list goes on and on...

Long story short, charge is extremely important to the identity of a substance. H3O2 is NOT water.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: chiralSPO on 19/02/2019 01:49:13
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physics_suppression.png
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 03:09:58
I think that it is just the usual runofthemill doginthemanger kind of global auto knee-jerk conspiracy.
Oh look, more charges of conspiracy!
Here is a snippet from Pollack's book...........
So, for that and other loudly trumpeted heresies, Ling eventually fell from favor. Scientists holding more traditional views reviled him as a provocateur. I thought otherwise. I found his views on cell water to be just as sound as Iwazumi’s views on muscle contraction. Unresolved issues remained, but on the whole his proposal seemed evidence-based, logical, and potentially far-reaching in its scope. I recall inviting Ling to present a lecture at my university. A senior colleague admonished me to reconsider. In an ostensibly fatherly way, he warned that my sponsorship of so controversial a figure could irrevocably compromise my own reputation. I took the risk — but the implications of his warning lingered.

Ling’s case opened my eyes wider. I began to understand why challengers suffered the fates they did: always, the challenges provoked discomfort among the orthodox believers. That stirred trouble for the challengers. I also came to realize that challenges were common, more so than generally appreciated. Not only were the water and muscle fields under siege, but voices of dissent could also be heard in fields ranging from nerve transmission to cosmic gravitation. The more I looked, the more I found. I don’t mean flaky challenges coming from attention-seeking wackos; I’m referring to the meaningful challenges coming from thoughtful, professional scientists.

Serious challenges abound throughout science. You may be unaware of these challenges, just as I had been until fairly recently, because the challenges are often kept beneath the radar. The respective establishments see little gain in exposing the chinks in their armor, so the challenges are not broadcast. Even young scientists entering their various fields may not know that their particular field’s orthodoxy is under siege.

The challenges follow a predictable pattern. Troubled by a theory’s mounting complexity and its discord with observation, a scientist will stand up and announce a problem; often that announcement will come with a replacement theory. The establishment typically responds by ignoring the challenge. This dooms most challenges to rot in the basement of obscurity. Those few challenges that do gain a following are often dealt with aggressively: the establishment dismisses the challenger with scorn and disdain, often charging the poor soul with multiple counts of lunacy.

The consequence is predictable: science maintains the status quo. Not much happens. Cancer is not cured. The edifices of science continue to grow on weathered and sometimes even crumbling foundations, leading to cumbersome models and ever-fatter textbooks filled with myriad, sometimes inconsequential details. Some fields have grown so complex as to become practically incomprehensible. Often, we cannot relate. Many scientists maintain that that’s just the way modern science must be — complicated, remote, separated from human experience. To them, cause-and-effect simplicity is a quaint feature of the past, tossed out in favor of the complex statistical correlations of modernity.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 03:14:11
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physics_suppression.png
Thats not the way i see it. What i see is that Dark Energy & Dark Matter & Dark Flow are needed to prop up Einsteinian dogma.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Kryptid on 19/02/2019 03:15:32
What i see is that Dark Energy & Dark Matter & Dark Flow are needed to prop up Einsteinian dogma.

So they faked data, huh? Another conspiracy claim?
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 03:31:06
Adding and removing electrons from things very much changes their chemical identities (half of my doctoral thesis was focused on work I did in electrochemistry, so I know what I'm talking about here).

H+ (just a proton) is the fundamental component of all Brønsted acids--it is an excellent catalyst for many chemical reactions, and will react quickly with any slightly basic compound.

Add an electron to it, and you get an H atom, which is a free radical. It is not acidic at all, and instead reacts with compounds that have carbon-carbon double or triple bonds in them (alkenes and alkynes) as well as compounds with weak single bonds, like elemental halogens, and organometallic compounds.

Add another electron to it, and you get H (hydride). This is not acidic, actually it is a *very* strong base. It won't typically react with alkenes or alkynes, but can deprotonate many organic molecules (alcohols, terminal alkynes, primary amides etc. etc.). Under the right circumstances, it can also react with aldehydes and similar compounds to forms carbon-hydrogen bonds.

Fe is iron. Fe2+ is iron minus two electrons, or ferrous ion--which is typically light green in color and highly water soluble. Take away another electron, and you get a pale yellow/orange ferric ion which is typically not very soluble in water.

The list goes on and on...

Long story short, charge is extremely important to the identity of a substance. H3O2 is NOT water.
Yes, but if i rub a balloon its still a balloon.
I wish i knew a bit more about chemistry & bonding etc, but that aint a high priority for me at present. I am happy with Pollack's hex planar lattice EZ water.
Today i went to an eye specialist & i told the tech assistant that checked my eyes & my eyesight that the hazyness seen by patients like myself after some eye operations was due to lots of small dot particles floating in the water in the cornea probly & the blurryness seen by patients like myself was due to that hazyness because the dot which might be say 10 microns forms an EZ layer say 100 microns in diameter & the refractive index of the EZ is 10% larger than bulk water, & the accompanying glare problem found in such eyes might be partly due to reflection off the EZ layer.

But today i am now more interested in (1) lightning & (2) what is the cause of the automatic natural flow of water along thin tubes.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 03:35:47
What i see is that Dark Energy & Dark Matter & Dark Flow are needed to prop up Einsteinian dogma.
So they faked data, huh? Another conspiracy claim?
No i dont think that there is any fudging of measurements -- but any redshift computations & crunching of thems measurements to make their data will be nonsense hencely some of their data will be nonsense -- & their dark theories are wrong.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Kryptid on 19/02/2019 14:33:36
No i dont think that there is any fudging of measurements -- but any redshift computations & crunching of thems measurements to make their data will be nonsense hencely some of their data will be nonsense -- & their dark theories are wrong.

Why do you consider dark matter essential to supporting relativity? The initial evidence for dark matter, the anomalous galactic rotation curves, was actually implied by Kepler's second law (formulated long before relativity). The velocity of those stars is far too small for relativistic effects to be important anyway.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2019 18:28:16
Thats not the way i see it. What i see is that Dark Energy & Dark Matter & Dark Flow are needed to prop up Einsteinian dogma.
That may be  what you see, but it's not what the evidence supports.
Dark matter is needed because the real universe doesn't seem to follow Newtonian or Einsteinian physics without it.
I wish i knew a bit more about chemistry & bonding etc
So do I.
If you did, you would see that this hexagonal water is obviously nonsense.
Today i went to an eye specialist & i told the tech assistant that checked my eyes & my eyesight that the hazyness seen by patients like myself after some eye operations was due to lots of small dot particles floating in the water in the cornea probly & the blurryness seen by patients like myself was due to that hazyness because the dot which might be say 10 microns forms an EZ layer say 100 microns in diameter & the refractive index of the EZ is 10% larger than bulk water, & the accompanying glare problem found in such eyes might be partly due to reflection off the EZ layer.
The effect ihas a known demonstrable cause.
No need for you to invent more nonsense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floater



Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 20:52:04
Today i went to an eye specialist & i told the tech assistant that checked my eyes & my eyesight that the hazyness seen by patients like myself after some eye operations was due to lots of small dot particles floating in the water in the cornea probly & the blurryness seen by patients like myself was due to that hazyness because the dot which might be say 10 microns forms an EZ layer say 100 microns in diameter & the refractive index of the EZ is 10% larger than bulk water, & the accompanying glare problem found in such eyes might be partly due to reflection off the EZ layer.
The effect ihas a known demonstrable cause. No need for you to invent more nonsense  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floater 
The issue is not the cause of the dots which cause hazyness, the issue is the associated blurriness.  And i explained the blurriness, & i threw in a mention of glare  (no so important).  But if u come across the mainstream explanation of blurriness then i would be happy to show where exactly they are wrong.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 21:01:16
No i dont think that there is any fudging of measurements -- but any redshift computations & crunching of thems measurements to make their data will be nonsense hencely some of their data will be nonsense -- & their dark theories are wrong.
Why do you consider dark matter essential to supporting relativity? The initial evidence for dark matter, the anomalous galactic rotation curves, was actually implied by Kepler's second law (formulated long before relativity). The velocity of those stars is far too small for relativistic effects to be important anyway.
Thats not the way i see it. What i see is that Dark Energy & Dark Matter & Dark Flow are needed to prop up Einsteinian dogma.
That may be  what you see, but it's not what the evidence supports.
Dark matter is needed because the real universe doesn't seem to follow Newtonian or Einsteinian physics without it.
My point was that the science-mafia (Einsteinologists) were happy to accept papers etc positing dark this & dark that because thems papers helped prop up Einsteinology.
I suppose that it can be argued that Einsteinian relativity is merely an extension of Newtonian etc stuff, & is immune from problems surrounding Newtonian stuff -- but i  think that Einsteinology accepts Newton & thusly sinks or swims with Newton.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2019 21:06:57
because thems papers helped prop up Einsteinology.
But, and you seem to have missed this,
THEY  DON'T PROP IT UP.

It really would be better if you stopped posting nonsense and learned some science.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2019 21:08:47
But if u come across the mainstream explanation of blurriness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mie_scattering

Just for the record, it's a classical physics effect.
You don't have to blame Einstein for it
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Kryptid on 19/02/2019 21:25:28
My point was that the science-mafia (Einsteinologists) were happy to accept papers etc positing dark this & dark that because thems papers helped prop up Einsteinology.

And I ask again, how does dark matter "prop up" relativity when relativity doesn't even factor into the anomalous galactic rotation curves?
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 21:48:21
But if u come across the mainstream explanation of blurriness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mie_scattering Just for the record, it's a classical physics effect.  You don't have to blame Einstein for it
Once again u have failed to see the  issue.  The issue is not how light might be refracted or scattered etc, the issue is that EZ theory shows that there is a large layer of EZ water surrounding each dot (the dot might be blood). Standard theory has no such layer (or praps it does, ie a dipole layer or something about 3 molecules thick).  So, EZ theory posits a large sphere at each dot.  So, u can now introduce any old theory u like for refraction or scattering in that sphere. The issue is that standard science has no sphere, zilch, zero, nix.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 21:56:32
My point was that the science-mafia (Einsteinologists) were happy to accept papers etc positing dark this & dark that because thems papers helped prop up Einsteinology.
And I ask again, how does dark matter "prop up" relativity when relativity doesn't even factor into the anomalous galactic rotation curves?
because thems papers helped prop up Einsteinology.
But, and you seem to have missed this, THEY  DON'T PROP IT UP.  It really would be better if you stopped posting nonsense and learned some science.
Einstein's equations include Newton. Attack Newton & u attack Einstein.
Anyhow dark thisorthat does not of itself attack Einstein's relativity, hencely it cant injure SR or GR. But as i said, dark thisorthat defends ER.  So in fact u have two reasons for dark thisorthat being allowed.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Kryptid on 19/02/2019 22:01:14
Einstein's equations include Newton. Attack Newton & u attack Einstein.

That makes absolutely no sense when you consider that Newton's equations and Einstein's equations give different answers to queries about things like kinetic energy and gravitational lensing. Newton being wrong then obviously does not make Einstein wrong.

But as i said, dark thisorthat defends ER.

How?
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 22:11:00
Einstein's equations include Newton. Attack Newton & u attack Einstein.
That makes absolutely no sense when you consider that Newton's equations and Einstein's equations give different answers to queries about things like kinetic energy and gravitational lensing. Newton being wrong then obviously does not make Einstein wrong.
But as i said, dark thisorthat defends ER.
How?
Einstein's GR includes Newton. Einstein's GR is an extension of Newton (a modification if u like). Kill Newton & Einstein dies.

Or praps u dont care if Newton dies.  Praps u are confident that Einsteinian relativity can simply detach from Newton's corpse & simply suck onto any passing basic body of theory while that body is alive, until that theory is itself killed off or something, at which time ER can just do it all again, getting bigger all the time, nothing to see here, hey everyone look over there its a blackhole.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2019 00:10:14
Einstein's GR includes Newton. Einstein's GR is an extension of Newton (a modification if u like). Kill Newton & Einstein dies.

That makes absolutely no sense when you consider that Newton's equations and Einstein's equations give different answers to queries about things like kinetic energy and gravitational lensing. Newton being wrong then obviously does not make Einstein wrong.

Or praps u dont care if Newton dies.  Praps u are confident that Einsteinian relativity can simply detach from Newton's corpse & simply suck onto any passing basic body of theory while that body is alive, until that theory is itself killed off or something, at which time ER can just do it all again, getting bigger all the time, nothing to see here, hey everyone look over there its a blackhole.

Relativity is a theory unto itself. It makes its own predictions. It doesn't "care" what other theories do or do not exist.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/02/2019 01:23:20
Einstein's GR includes Newton. Einstein's GR is an extension of Newton (a modification if u like). Kill Newton & Einstein dies.

That makes absolutely no sense when you consider that Newton's equations and Einstein's equations give different answers to queries about things like kinetic energy and gravitational lensing. Newton being wrong then obviously does not make Einstein wrong.

Or praps u dont care if Newton dies.  Praps u are confident that Einsteinian relativity can simply detach from Newton's corpse & simply suck onto any passing basic body of theory while that body is alive, until that theory is itself killed off or something, at which time ER can just do it all again, getting bigger all the time, nothing to see here, hey everyone look over there its a blackhole.
Relativity is a theory unto itself. It makes its own predictions. It doesn't "care" what other theories do or do not exist.
Good, then GR gives a 1/R for a spiral galaxy, no dark matter needed.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2019 05:37:34
Good, then GR gives a 1/R for a spiral galaxy

If it did, then it would have been falsified long ago as it would not even match the behavior of gravity in our Solar System.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2019 13:35:21
I dont remember Pollack mentioning EZ next to glass.
Nobody said he had.
But you did try to pretend that "polywater" was real while science shows that it's not.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: mad aetherist on 24/02/2019 00:21:12
I dont remember Pollack mentioning EZ next to glass.
Nobody said he had. But you did try to pretend that "polywater" was real while science shows that it's not.
I have not looked into the history of polywater, but i daresay that what they found was EZ water.
Title: Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2019 09:40:40
I dont remember Pollack mentioning EZ next to glass.
Nobody said he had. But you did try to pretend that "polywater" was real while science shows that it's not.
I have not looked into the history of polywater, but i daresay that what they found was EZ water.
You may well be right, in the sense that neither exists.
If you had looked into it, you would have found that it's not real.
And then you might have recognised that you shouldn't rely on a post that mentions it 6 times as "evidence" for your ideas.

You are building on foundations that don't exist.