Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #828241 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-20 09:13 -0700 |
| Last post | 2021-07-20 22:22 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 64 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 09:13 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-20 12:12 -0500
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 10:42 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-20 22:14 -0500
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 21:24 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 00:40 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 10:51 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 11:10 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 13:32 -0500
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 13:01 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 13:09 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-20 22:51 -0400
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 20:05 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-20 23:11 -0400
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 00:45 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-21 09:03 -0500
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-07-20 20:15 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 21:09 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 21:44 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 21:57 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:13 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:08 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:14 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:30 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:39 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 23:11 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-21 02:37 -0400
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 01:13 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-21 12:21 -0400
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 09:48 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-21 13:16 -0400
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 01:49 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 02:02 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 21:49 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 09:35 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 07:43 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 14:49 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 09:07 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 10:08 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-21 14:00 -0400
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 11:18 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 11:45 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 12:06 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 13:56 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-21 19:15 -0400
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 16:29 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 17:34 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-21 20:37 -0500
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 18:56 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-21 22:30 -0400
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 19:38 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 14:50 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 15:03 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Clutter Freak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 09:55 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 00:57 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 21:22 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 10:52 -0500
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 09:44 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 12:06 -0500
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-21 13:08 -0400
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 11:35 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 11:41 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 12:55 -0700
Re: World's Number One Expert on Storms Has an Informed Opinion whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-20 22:22 -0500
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 11:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b998d19-b50a-4a90-9858-778491bbdab5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828409 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 7/21/2021 1:08 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > > So, if the evidence is so clear and unambiguous why not just present the evidence? Seriously. Think about that. If you had clear, unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. Wouldn't it? > Yes, James. Why don't YOU present your evidence if it is so clear and > unambiguous? Seriously. If you actually had evidence, then you'd present > it and be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. But since you > have no evidence, all you can do is try to bully everyone else into > defending standard science. But as Dr. Saykally told you, that's not how > science works. Hmm. Well, although I consider the H2O phase diagram to be clear unambiguous evidence that confirms my position on this issue I do accept that that is not good enough for you. So, I concede that I have not provided convincing proof of my position. Do you concede that you have not provided convincing proof of your position on this issue? Answer the question, you evasive jackass. Here is another example of an evasive jackass: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd. https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446 James McGinn / Genius
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 11:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <843dd8fe-5dd9-4bc3-8cb4-a5a7de334498n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828411 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:18:06 AM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > > On 7/21/2021 1:08 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > > > > So, if the evidence is so clear and unambiguous why not just present the evidence? Seriously. Think about that. If you had clear, unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. Wouldn't it? > > Yes, James. Why don't YOU present your evidence if it is so clear and > > unambiguous? Seriously. If you actually had evidence, then you'd present > > it and be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. But since you > > have no evidence, all you can do is try to bully everyone else into > > defending standard science. But as Dr. Saykally told you, that's not how > > science works. > Hmm. Well, although I consider the H2O phase diagram to be clear unambiguous evidence that confirms my position on this issue I do accept that that is not good enough for you. So, I concede that I have not provided convincing proof of my position. Do you concede that you have not provided convincing proof of your position on this issue? > > Answer the question, you evasive jackass. > > Here is another example of an evasive jackass: > The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd. > https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446 Are you too stupid to understand that Edwin Berry ripped you several new a$$holes? BTW, this is the post where anyone can see for themselves where you said this... ""BTW, "Claudius Denk" is my "sock-puppet". (That's internet lingo for "alias.") - Jim McGinn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 12:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <704f70e4-5bcb-4b0a-99be-acecdc9e9d2fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828417 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:45:10 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:18:06 AM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote: > > Here is another example of an evasive jackass: > > The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd. > > https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446 > Are you too stupid to understand that Edwin Berry ripped you several new a$$holes? LOL. Your own behavior indicates that you yourself think otherwise. Did you forget? Remember, you quoted Berry here in this forum. You failed to quote my response. I pointed this out to you and you still didn't copy to this forum. What do you think that indicates? James McGinn / Genius
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 13:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66f31770-20b8-466a-b075-c8c7311e8a82n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828421 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:06:40 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:45:10 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:18:06 AM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Here is another example of an evasive jackass: > > > The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd. > > > https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446 > > Are you too stupid to understand that Edwin Berry ripped you several new a$$holes? > LOL. Your own behavior indicates that you yourself think otherwise. Did you forget? Remember, you quoted Berry here in this forum. You failed to quote my response. I pointed this out to you and you still didn't copy to this forum. Sure, I'll quotehim again... "Edwin Berry: James, Your reply above to my request demonstrates that you are a fraud. You claim, without proof, that I “believe” certain things that you disagree with. Likely, you are unable to understand any parts of the standard meteorological books I listed. I gave you the opportunity and you failed. You did not find anything in the six textbooks I listed to demonstrate your claims. You are simply another moronic blowhard climate alarmist from San Jose, California, who does not understand science or meteorology or climate. Bye." > What do you think that indicates? I'm pretty sure it indicates that Edwin Berry nailed you to the wall and left you there to dry out. Remember, he made a simple request of you, which you declines to do... remember? Here is a refresher for you... "Edwin: James, You have done a lot of hand waving about your theory of storms. But you have not produced any evidence to show how accepted meteorology is incorrect. Evidence means data. Yet, you have accused me and all credible meteorologists of being hypocritical. So, to back up your claims, can you show examples where the following meteorological textbooks have made errors that conflict with data?" In other words, Edwin asked the same questions that virtually everyone here asks of you, and you were (and are still) unable to answer even a single one of these questions. Run, Jim, run, as fast as you can! Here is something special, just for you! “[Jim] If your brains were dynamite there wouldn't be enough to blow your hat off.” ― Kurt Vonnegut
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 19:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sda9qu$fqf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #828411 |
On 7/21/2021 2:18 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 7/21/2021 1:08 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: >> >>> So, if the evidence is so clear and unambiguous why not just present the evidence? Seriously. Think about that. If you had clear, unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. Wouldn't it? >> Yes, James. Why don't YOU present your evidence if it is so clear and >> unambiguous? Seriously. If you actually had evidence, then you'd present >> it and be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. But since you >> have no evidence, all you can do is try to bully everyone else into >> defending standard science. But as Dr. Saykally told you, that's not how >> science works. > > Hmm. Well, although I consider the H2O phase diagram to be clear unambiguous evidence that confirms my position on this issue No, James. I'm talking about an actual experiment where you measure the amount of H2O(g) in 20C moist air as well as measure the number and size of H2O(l) nanodroplets, not your misunderstanding the H2O phase diagram and deliberate ignoring Dalton's Law. > I do accept that that is not good enough for you. So, I concede that I have not provided convincing proof of my position. It's certainly true that you have never provided any experimental results proving your claims! > Do you concede that you have not provided convincing proof of your position on this issue? That's not part of what Dr. Saykally said you have to do! YOU have to prove your claim. Scientists do not have to prove the entirety of science (again). You can, however, refer to the original papers where current science is based on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c800da3e-4217-41be-8278-4e569cb10c82n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828443 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 4:15:47 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 7/21/2021 2:18 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> On 7/21/2021 1:08 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > >> > >>> So, if the evidence is so clear and unambiguous why not just present the evidence? Seriously. Think about that. If you had clear, unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. Wouldn't it? > >> Yes, James. Why don't YOU present your evidence if it is so clear and > >> unambiguous? Seriously. If you actually had evidence, then you'd present > >> it and be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. But since you > >> have no evidence, all you can do is try to bully everyone else into > >> defending standard science. But as Dr. Saykally told you, that's not how > >> science works. > > > > Hmm. Well, although I consider the H2O phase diagram to be clear unambiguous evidence that confirms my position on this issue > No, James. I'm talking about an actual experiment where you measure the > amount of H2O(g) in 20C moist air as well as measure the number and size > of H2O(l) nanodroplets, not your misunderstanding the H2O phase diagram > and deliberate ignoring Dalton's Law. > > I do accept that that is not good enough for you. So, I concede that I have not provided convincing proof of my position. > It's certainly true that you have never provided any experimental > results proving your claims! > > Do you concede that you have not provided convincing proof of your position on this issue? > That's not part of what Dr. Saykally said you have to do! YOU have to > prove your claim. Scientists do not have to prove the entirety of > science (again). You can, however, refer to the original papers where > current science is based on. Is that a yes or a no?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 17:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <648db842-2a01-4f26-a643-e4f8aea684fen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828444 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 4:29:25 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 4:15:47 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > > On 7/21/2021 2:18 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> On 7/21/2021 1:08 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > >> > > >>> So, if the evidence is so clear and unambiguous why not just present the evidence? Seriously. Think about that. If you had clear, unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. Wouldn't it? > > >> Yes, James. Why don't YOU present your evidence if it is so clear and > > >> unambiguous? Seriously. If you actually had evidence, then you'd present > > >> it and be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. But since you > > >> have no evidence, all you can do is try to bully everyone else into > > >> defending standard science. But as Dr. Saykally told you, that's not how > > >> science works. > > > > > > Hmm. Well, although I consider the H2O phase diagram to be clear unambiguous evidence that confirms my position on this issue > > No, James. I'm talking about an actual experiment where you measure the > > amount of H2O(g) in 20C moist air as well as measure the number and size > > of H2O(l) nanodroplets, not your misunderstanding the H2O phase diagram > > and deliberate ignoring Dalton's Law. > > > I do accept that that is not good enough for you. So, I concede that I have not provided convincing proof of my position. > > It's certainly true that you have never provided any experimental > > results proving your claims! > > > Do you concede that you have not provided convincing proof of your position on this issue? > > That's not part of what Dr. Saykally said you have to do! YOU have to > > prove your claim. Scientists do not have to prove the entirety of > > science (again). You can, however, refer to the original papers where > > current science is based on. > Is that a yes or a no? That is a "yes, you are as stupid as a mud fence"...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 20:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ils0ebFto3cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #828451 |
On 7/21/2021 7:34 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 4:29:25 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 4:15:47 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> On 7/21/2021 2:18 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>> On 7/21/2021 1:08 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So, if the evidence is so clear and unambiguous why not just present the evidence? Seriously. Think about that. If you had clear, unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. Wouldn't it? >>>>> Yes, James. Why don't YOU present your evidence if it is so clear and >>>>> unambiguous? Seriously. If you actually had evidence, then you'd present >>>>> it and be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. But since you >>>>> have no evidence, all you can do is try to bully everyone else into >>>>> defending standard science. But as Dr. Saykally told you, that's not how >>>>> science works. >>>> >>>> Hmm. Well, although I consider the H2O phase diagram to be clear unambiguous evidence that confirms my position on this issue >>> No, James. I'm talking about an actual experiment where you measure the >>> amount of H2O(g) in 20C moist air as well as measure the number and size >>> of H2O(l) nanodroplets, not your misunderstanding the H2O phase diagram >>> and deliberate ignoring Dalton's Law. >>>> I do accept that that is not good enough for you. So, I concede that I have not provided convincing proof of my position. >>> It's certainly true that you have never provided any experimental >>> results proving your claims! >>>> Do you concede that you have not provided convincing proof of your position on this issue? >>> That's not part of what Dr. Saykally said you have to do! YOU have to >>> prove your claim. Scientists do not have to prove the entirety of >>> science (again). You can, however, refer to the original papers where >>> current science is based on. >> Is that a yes or a no? > > That is a "yes, you are as stupid as a mud fence"... That's an insult to mud fences.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 18:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e2b05a3-3d70-40ee-8279-490b290402dcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828454 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 6:37:20 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 7/21/2021 7:34 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 4:29:25 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 4:15:47 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> On 7/21/2021 2:18 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>> On 7/21/2021 1:08 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> So, if the evidence is so clear and unambiguous why not just present the evidence? Seriously. Think about that. If you had clear, unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. Wouldn't it? > >>>>> Yes, James. Why don't YOU present your evidence if it is so clear and > >>>>> unambiguous? Seriously. If you actually had evidence, then you'd present > >>>>> it and be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. But since you > >>>>> have no evidence, all you can do is try to bully everyone else into > >>>>> defending standard science. But as Dr. Saykally told you, that's not how > >>>>> science works. > >>>> > >>>> Hmm. Well, although I consider the H2O phase diagram to be clear unambiguous evidence that confirms my position on this issue > >>> No, James. I'm talking about an actual experiment where you measure the > >>> amount of H2O(g) in 20C moist air as well as measure the number and size > >>> of H2O(l) nanodroplets, not your misunderstanding the H2O phase diagram > >>> and deliberate ignoring Dalton's Law. > >>>> I do accept that that is not good enough for you. So, I concede that I have not provided convincing proof of my position. > >>> It's certainly true that you have never provided any experimental > >>> results proving your claims! > >>>> Do you concede that you have not provided convincing proof of your position on this issue? > >>> That's not part of what Dr. Saykally said you have to do! YOU have to > >>> prove your claim. Scientists do not have to prove the entirety of > >>> science (again). You can, however, refer to the original papers where > >>> current science is based on. > >> Is that a yes or a no? > > > > That is a "yes, you are as stupid as a mud fence"... > That's an insult to mud fences. My apologies... perhaps I should have said "brick wall...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 22:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sdal8g$1quq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #828456 |
On 7/21/2021 9:56 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 6:37:20 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 7/21/2021 7:34 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 4:29:25 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 4:15:47 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>> On 7/21/2021 2:18 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/21/2021 1:08 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, if the evidence is so clear and unambiguous why not just present the evidence? Seriously. Think about that. If you had clear, unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. Wouldn't it? >>>>>>> Yes, James. Why don't YOU present your evidence if it is so clear and >>>>>>> unambiguous? Seriously. If you actually had evidence, then you'd present >>>>>>> it and be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. But since you >>>>>>> have no evidence, all you can do is try to bully everyone else into >>>>>>> defending standard science. But as Dr. Saykally told you, that's not how >>>>>>> science works. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm. Well, although I consider the H2O phase diagram to be clear unambiguous evidence that confirms my position on this issue >>>>> No, James. I'm talking about an actual experiment where you measure the >>>>> amount of H2O(g) in 20C moist air as well as measure the number and size >>>>> of H2O(l) nanodroplets, not your misunderstanding the H2O phase diagram >>>>> and deliberate ignoring Dalton's Law. >>>>>> I do accept that that is not good enough for you. So, I concede that I have not provided convincing proof of my position. >>>>> It's certainly true that you have never provided any experimental >>>>> results proving your claims! >>>>>> Do you concede that you have not provided convincing proof of your position on this issue? >>>>> That's not part of what Dr. Saykally said you have to do! YOU have to >>>>> prove your claim. Scientists do not have to prove the entirety of >>>>> science (again). You can, however, refer to the original papers where >>>>> current science is based on. >>>> Is that a yes or a no? >>> >>> That is a "yes, you are as stupid as a mud fence"... > >> That's an insult to mud fences. > > My apologies... perhaps I should have said "brick wall... > That is an insult to brick walls. You can't win :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 19:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa13f3fa-6534-4cd6-b17d-1429e3513279n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828462 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 7:30:56 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 7/21/2021 9:56 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 6:37:20 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > >> On 7/21/2021 7:34 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 4:29:25 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 4:15:47 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>> On 7/21/2021 2:18 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > >>>>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>>> On 7/21/2021 1:08 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So, if the evidence is so clear and unambiguous why not just present the evidence? Seriously. Think about that. If you had clear, unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. Wouldn't it? > >>>>>>> Yes, James. Why don't YOU present your evidence if it is so clear and > >>>>>>> unambiguous? Seriously. If you actually had evidence, then you'd present > >>>>>>> it and be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. But since you > >>>>>>> have no evidence, all you can do is try to bully everyone else into > >>>>>>> defending standard science. But as Dr. Saykally told you, that's not how > >>>>>>> science works. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hmm. Well, although I consider the H2O phase diagram to be clear unambiguous evidence that confirms my position on this issue > >>>>> No, James. I'm talking about an actual experiment where you measure the > >>>>> amount of H2O(g) in 20C moist air as well as measure the number and size > >>>>> of H2O(l) nanodroplets, not your misunderstanding the H2O phase diagram > >>>>> and deliberate ignoring Dalton's Law. > >>>>>> I do accept that that is not good enough for you. So, I concede that I have not provided convincing proof of my position. > >>>>> It's certainly true that you have never provided any experimental > >>>>> results proving your claims! > >>>>>> Do you concede that you have not provided convincing proof of your position on this issue? > >>>>> That's not part of what Dr. Saykally said you have to do! YOU have to > >>>>> prove your claim. Scientists do not have to prove the entirety of > >>>>> science (again). You can, however, refer to the original papers where > >>>>> current science is based on. > >>>> Is that a yes or a no? > >>> > >>> That is a "yes, you are as stupid as a mud fence"... > > > >> That's an insult to mud fences. > > > > My apologies... perhaps I should have said "brick wall... > > > That is an insult to brick walls. > > You can't win :-) I give up! You can't please everyone! Just what is McGinn stupider than? Perhaps an overripe kumquat? If that is an insult to kumquats, I don't care, because I don't particularly like kumquats!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sda4qq$m9r$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #828409 |
On 7/21/2021 11:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 7/21/2021 1:08 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > >> So, if the evidence is so clear and unambiguous why not just present >> the evidence? Seriously. Think about that. If you had clear, >> unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. >> Wouldn't it? > > Yes, James. Why don't YOU present your evidence if it is so clear and > unambiguous? Seriously. If you actually had evidence, then you'd present > it and be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. But since you > have no evidence, all you can do is try to bully everyone else into > defending standard science. But as Dr. Saykally told you, that's not how > science works. James should conduct experiments and show them in action over on the YouTube. :^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 15:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <22a9a423-b18e-441b-965b-dda7a20ae8e5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828435 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:50:23 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 7/21/2021 11:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > On 7/21/2021 1:08 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > > >> So, if the evidence is so clear and unambiguous why not just present > >> the evidence? Seriously. Think about that. If you had clear, > >> unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. > >> Wouldn't it? > > > > Yes, James. Why don't YOU present your evidence if it is so clear and > > unambiguous? Seriously. If you actually had evidence, then you'd present > > it and be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. But since you > > have no evidence, all you can do is try to bully everyone else into > > defending standard science. But as Dr. Saykally told you, that's not how > > science works. > James should conduct experiments and show them in action over on the > YouTube. :^) You could do the same, Chris. Right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clutter Freak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb1a86d8-7e8e-4fae-a309-095cde41cd82n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828343 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:11:24 AM UTC-5, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote: > > Leave science to people that understand it. > They're groupies of yours. If they put you in their kill-file they'll be left with their own dicks to suck :-) You think they'll do that? A Jimpanzee I swear wouldn't kill-file me if his life depended on it :) He's already spent 20 years of his fucking life coming here to read my posts!.. Hahah :-) Imagine how important it is for him. A groupie is just a fucking groupie, nothing else :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 00:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sd8k0s$15df$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #828322 |
On 7/20/2021 9:09 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 8:16:08 PM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote: >> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: >>> On 7/20/2021 4:01 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:32:40 AM UTC-7, Clutterfreak wrote: >>>>> On 7/20/2021 1:10 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why don't you two losers start your own thread? >>>> >>>>> Hahhahah :-)) >>>> >>>>> They're not "losers" as long as you and hopefully I are posting to here. >>>>> Cause they come here to learn from us. >>>> >>>> I don't think you could teach a duck to swim! I'm really convinced that you are McGinn's new sock. He has so many it is hard to keep track. Exactly like Jimbo, you have your cranial calculator so far up its rectal storage facility that it might take a crowbar to remove it. >>>> >>> >>> Although "Clutterfreak" is a McGinn apologist for some strange reason, I >>> don't think it's another McGinn sock. "Clutterfreak" is too smart to be >>> McFly. On the other hand, "Clutterfreak" seems to be exhibiting the >>> most rapid descent into kꙫꙫkdom I have ever seen, at least since I >>> noticed that nym being used. (being a McGinn apologist is, of course, a >>> big railroad spike in the coffin of kꙫꙫkery...) >> No, Clutterfreak is not a McGinn sock. >> >> He is just another kook with delusions of competence who dismisses >> anything showing he is wrong about any subject. > > You simpletons can't explain anything, ever. Lots of things appear self evident until you try to explain them. You morons will never understand this because you never explain shit. > > When you don't really understand things you make the error of dismissing anomalies. And if you dismiss anomalies you have zero chance of finding your way to discoveries. > > It's a difference in perspective. You are all engineers, not scientists. Engineers focus on the things they know. Scientists focus on the things that don't quite make sense. > > I made my discoveries about water because I focused on the anomalies and kept asking why on deeper and deeper levels. This would never even occur to any of you engineers. > > Galileo focused on anomalies and it eventually lead to the realization that the earth is not the center of the universe. People like Galileo, Clutterfreak, and myself are very rare. We are special. You engineers are a common as grains of sand. > I believe: lol. :^) https://youtu.be/41zNsqTB7hc?list=PLUkzxeJt28MQZpDD12nNFnfvSEjXM0sBa https://youtu.be/zQeHOKmdiN4 https://youtu.be/o_ulUNxg2Gk Gravitational fields are fun to play with: https://youtu.be/BUbMJJyj7AU ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-20 21:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed56c507-6a81-4faf-83ab-e021642a43c0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828315 |
On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 8:16:08 PM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote: > Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > > On 7/20/2021 4:01 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > >> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:32:40 AM UTC-7, Clutterfreak wrote: > >>> On 7/20/2021 1:10 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >>>>> > >>>> Why don't you two losers start your own thread? > >> > >>> Hahhahah :-)) > >> > >>> They're not "losers" as long as you and hopefully I are posting to here. > >>> Cause they come here to learn from us. > >> > >> I don't think you could teach a duck to swim! I'm really convinced that you are McGinn's new sock. He has so many it is hard to keep track. Exactly like Jimbo, you have your cranial calculator so far up its rectal storage facility that it might take a crowbar to remove it. > >> > > > > Although "Clutterfreak" is a McGinn apologist for some strange reason, I > > don't think it's another McGinn sock. "Clutterfreak" is too smart to be > > McFly. On the other hand, "Clutterfreak" seems to be exhibiting the > > most rapid descent into kꙫꙫkdom I have ever seen, at least since I > > noticed that nym being used. (being a McGinn apologist is, of course, a > > big railroad spike in the coffin of kꙫꙫkery...) > No, Clutterfreak is not a McGinn sock. > > He is just another kook with delusions of competence who dismisses > anything showing he is wrong about any subject. This is a retarded claim. If you think he dismisses something then make an argument to that effect. Of course, you won't. You are a simpleton who is incapable of seeing anything from an objective perspective. Prove me wrong, you lazy asshole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 10:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sd9fsc$h2n$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #828310 |
On 7/20/2021 9:51 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Although "Clutterfreak" is a McGinn apologist for some strange reason, I > don't think it's another McGinn sock. "Clutterfreak" is too smart to be > McFly. On the other hand, "Clutterfreak" seems to be exhibiting the > most rapid descent into kꙫꙫkdom I have ever seen, at least since I > noticed that nym being used. (being a McGinn apologist is, of course, a > big railroad spike in the coffin of kꙫꙫkery...) As I said before I understand your frustration with facts :-) Hehe I wouldn't want to be the offspring of a neanderthal mother who got fucked by an Ayatollah either :) -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a4d94aa-34b5-4c35-bbd7-e0a145b52aebn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828310 |
On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 7:52:00 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 7/20/2021 4:01 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:32:40 AM UTC-7, Clutterfreak wrote: > >> On 7/20/2021 1:10 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >>>> > >>> Why don't you two losers start your own thread? > > > >> Hahhahah :-)) > > > >> They're not "losers" as long as you and hopefully I are posting to here. > >> Cause they come here to learn from us. > > > > I don't think you could teach a duck to swim! I'm really convinced that you are McGinn's new sock. He has so many it is hard to keep track. Exactly like Jimbo, you have your cranial calculator so far up its rectal storage facility that it might take a crowbar to remove it. > > > Although "Clutterfreak" is a McGinn apologist for some strange reason, I > don't think it's another McGinn sock. "Clutterfreak" is too smart to be > McFly. On the other hand, "Clutterfreak" seems to be exhibiting the > most rapid descent into kꙫꙫkdom I have ever seen, at least since I > noticed that nym being used. (being a McGinn apologist is, of course, a > big railroad spike in the coffin of kꙫꙫkery...) Moroney, why don't you try to convince Clutterfreak about the sensibility of your belief that Dalton's law proves the existence of gaseous H2O suspended in humid air (in the ambient temperatures of earth's atmosphere)? (Which I say is impossible.) Then you won't have to spend all this effort trying (in vain) to discredit me. I mean, obviously Clutterfreak is a smart guy. Obviously you should have no trouble explaining the issue to him. Right? Of course--as I suspect you realize--even if you do convince Clutterfreak there isn't the slightest chance you will convince me. But that's because I know this issue too well and because. well. i'm a genius. But at least maybe you will get some personal satisfaction out of it instead of spending all your time calling people names like Alsing and Sergio. Endeavor to rise above. Maybe you'll even learn something. (Okay, probably not. But what do you have to lose. You obviously aren't making any progress on your current course.) They say the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Why don't you see if you can prove them wrong. James McGinn / Genius
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 12:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sd9k62$sh8$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #828392 |
On 7/21/2021 11:44 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > Moroney, why don't you try to convince Clutterfreak about the sensibility of your belief that Dalton's law proves the existence of gaseous H2O suspended in humid air (in the ambient temperatures of earth's atmosphere)? I wouldn't discuss physics with him. Tried it in my Moon blog and he couldn't handle it. He's a groupie, that's all. Groupies real reasons to be groupies is that whoever they're following all the time have something that the groupies covet. In other words they're one form among many others of "sorry asses" that exist in this world. They won't leave you! You leave _them_. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 13:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sd9kap$1bhb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #828392 |
On 7/21/2021 12:44 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 7:52:00 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 7/20/2021 4:01 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:32:40 AM UTC-7, Clutterfreak wrote: >>>> On 7/20/2021 1:10 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> Why don't you two losers start your own thread? >>> >>>> Hahhahah :-)) >>> >>>> They're not "losers" as long as you and hopefully I are posting to here. >>>> Cause they come here to learn from us. >>> >>> I don't think you could teach a duck to swim! I'm really convinced that you are McGinn's new sock. He has so many it is hard to keep track. Exactly like Jimbo, you have your cranial calculator so far up its rectal storage facility that it might take a crowbar to remove it. >>> >> Although "Clutterfreak" is a McGinn apologist for some strange reason, I >> don't think it's another McGinn sock. "Clutterfreak" is too smart to be >> McFly. On the other hand, "Clutterfreak" seems to be exhibiting the >> most rapid descent into kꙫꙫkdom I have ever seen, at least since I >> noticed that nym being used. (being a McGinn apologist is, of course, a >> big railroad spike in the coffin of kꙫꙫkery...) > > Moroney, why don't you try to convince Clutterfreak about the sensibility of your belief that Dalton's law proves the existence of gaseous H2O suspended in humid air (in the ambient temperatures of earth's atmosphere)? Why should I do that? > (Which I say is impossible.) That's the issue. You can only say that, but you have no evidence of that. In science, what you say is worthless. > Then you won't have to spend all this effort trying (in vain) to discredit me. It's trivial to discredit you! All I have to do is repeat that you have no scientific evidence of your claims, so they remain only claims and aren't science. > I mean, obviously Clutterfreak is a smart guy. Umm, no. As I said elsewhere, "smarter than you" is a very low bar. > Obviously you should have no trouble explaining the issue to him. Right? Why are you trying to deflect away from yourself? > > Of course--as I suspect you realize--even if you do convince Clutterfreak there isn't the slightest chance you will convince me. But that's because you are truly dumb and stoopid, and you have no evidence of your claims. A real scientist, of course, would think "While I believe X, I cannot find any evidence to support X at all. Maybe I need to reevaluate my beliefs." > I know this issue too well and because. well. i'm a genius. Nope, you are bag-of-hammers stupid, but with an obsession. Of course you refuse to accept Quantum Bubbles' offer to compare Mensa scores or something. Why is that? > They say the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Why don't you see if you can prove them wrong. Well, you are demonstrating that your stupidity is apparently unlimited, so that statement may be correct. > > James McGinn / Tard > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web