[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

I think that it is just the usual runofthemill doginthemanger kind of global auto knee-jerk conspiracy.

Oh look, more charges of conspiracy!

[chiralSPO]

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.

[chiralSPO]

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physics_suppression.png

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

[Kryptid]

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?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.