Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #580290

Re: Let's start with latent heat

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:613b1e93-443c-4640-929f-a8ac29b9e45a@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Aww, look at poor stupid Jimmy McGinn the delusional kooktard
post-editing, cowardly snipping and squirming like a worm on a
hotplate because he knows that simple experiment will null his entire
kooky 'theory'. LOL

You've set quite a task for yourself, Jim... taking on all of
established science *and* quantum physics, not to mention hundreds of
thousands of scientists over the past 250+ years, every single one of
them smarter and saner than you.

You had a touch of delusion of grandeur, imagined yourself smarter
than every single scientist in the past 250+ years, concocted a kooky
and utterly impossible 'theory' so you could substantiate your k'lame
that you're smarter than every single scientist in the past 250+
years... and now that you're being called to account for your kooky
claims, you're scrambling like mad to evade providing any proof of
those utterly impossible claims, Jim.

Dunning-Kruger, delusions of grandeur and more than a touch of
insanity... gotta be a bitch.

<snicker>

> Nutcase Dude:
> I'm equally able to converse on para- and ortho-form water (the scientific reality that water comprises two spin isomers and thus two hydrogen bonding strengths, as empirically measured) and the existence of latent heat. 
> 
> James McGinn:
> Excellent.  Let's start with latent heat:
> 
> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39375
> 
> James McGinn says:
> 14th March 2016 at 5:06 am
> 
> NOY (Nutcase Dude):
> It was answered, Jim. You're backpedaling. . . .
> 
> James McGinn:
> Hmm. Well. I guess we're at an impasse then. Because unless we can explicate the reproducible experimental evidence that underlies these numbers (below) I don't see the point in continuing the conversation.
> 
> Latent Heat Values (-25 to 40 C):
> =================================
> Evaporation: -597.3 cal/g, -2,500,000 J/kg
> Condensation: +597.3 cal/g, +2,500,000 J/kg
> 
> But I'll tell you what. If it will make you feel any better I will allow you make a retraction.
> 
> Even better. I know how embarrassing it must be to have to make a retraction in a public forum, so all you have to do is just not respond to this post and I will consider you to have made a defacto retraction.
> 
> Fair enough?
> 
> So, all you have to do is not respond.
> 
> Don't do it!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/rMriJSuEVow/fUp31NpmBQAJ

No explication of the reproducible experimental evidence is necessary,
James. They've been corroborated over 250+ years via experiment after
experiment, each of them arriving at the same values.

Your task is to prove your kooky contention that latent heat doesn't
exist.

You’ll remember I said in a prior post:
==========================================================
Ok, Jim… prove your kooky contention. Measure the heat being carried
away by evaporation. If it amounts to 2,500,000 J/kg, then your kooky
theory is wrong.

But if the water being evaporated only carries away 2326 J/kg, then
you'll know you are right, and that your kooky conspiracy theory
thereby reflects reality.

Who wants to lay odds that James McGinn will run away from doing that
simple experiment which will either verify or null his kooky
conspiracy theory, because he knows it'll null.
==========================================================

And you're running, Jim. You won't do that simple, reproducible
experiment to test your supposition (because we all know your kooky
claims don't rise to even the level of a hypothesis, let along a
theory... you have absolutely no corroborating data to support your
supposition) because you know it'll null.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, 
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Let's start with latent heat James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 19:42 -0700
  Re: Let's start with latent heat "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-05-25 07:00 +0200
    Re: Let's start with latent heat "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-10 10:54 +0200
      Re: Let's start with latent heat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-11 00:19 +0000
        Re: Let's start with latent heat "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-11 07:29 +0200
        Re: Let's start with latent heat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-11 05:33 -0400
          Re: Let's start with latent heat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-11 20:53 +0000
            Re: Let's start with latent heat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-12 05:22 -0400
              Re: Let's start with latent heat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-12 20:20 +0000
                Re: Let's start with latent heat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-13 13:55 -0400
                Re: Let's start with latent heat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-13 21:52 +0000
                Re: Let's start with latent heat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-14 13:36 -0400
                Re: Let's start with latent heat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-15 00:25 +0000
                Re: Let's start with latent heat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-15 14:46 -0400
                Re: Let's start with latent heat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-15 21:21 +0000
      Re: Let's start with latent heat "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-11 07:34 +0200
        Re: Let's start with latent heat noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 14:09 -0700
          huygrometers in motion noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:41 -0700

csiph-web