The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?

  • 65 Replies
  • 5598 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5784
  • Activity:
    99.5%
  • Thanked: 244 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« Reply #60 on: 20/02/2019 00:10:14 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 22:11:00
Einstein's GR includes Newton. Einstein's GR is an extension of Newton (a modification if u like). Kill Newton & Einstein dies.

Quote from: Kryptid on 19/02/2019 22:01:14
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.

Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 22:11:00
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.
Logged
 



Offline mad aetherist (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 820
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« Reply #61 on: 20/02/2019 01:23:20 »
Quote from: Kryptid on 20/02/2019 00:10:14
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 22:11:00
Einstein's GR includes Newton. Einstein's GR is an extension of Newton (a modification if u like). Kill Newton & Einstein dies.

Quote from: Kryptid on 19/02/2019 22:01:14
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.

Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 22:11:00
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.
Logged
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5784
  • Activity:
    99.5%
  • Thanked: 244 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« Reply #62 on: 20/02/2019 05:37:34 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/02/2019 01:23:20
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.
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 22057
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 518 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« Reply #63 on: 23/02/2019 13:35:21 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/02/2019 22:15:56
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.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline mad aetherist (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 820
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« Reply #64 on: 24/02/2019 00:21:12 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/02/2019 13:35:21
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/02/2019 22:15:56
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.
Logged
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 22057
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 518 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« Reply #65 on: 24/02/2019 09:40:40 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 24/02/2019 00:21:12
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/02/2019 13:35:21
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/02/2019 22:15:56
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.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.141 seconds with 46 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.