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

Groups > sci.physics > #565369

Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying...

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:991b98ff-cb89-4990-a897-43751ed4068c@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:36:31 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Address the issue, dumbass.

Temper, temper, James. Your aggressive psychotic nature, if left
unchecked, will lead to you rampaging through a mall as you scream
about a giant tornado monster in the sky, and how people will
recognize your genius after you've sued photons and electrons and
science and reality for conspiring to hide the truth that only you
know. LOL

>>> If it's true that they were measuring H bonds then there would be
>>> nothing to measure if it was genuine gaseous H2O because there
>>> would be nothing to measure since there are none in gaseous H2O. 
>>> 
>>> Address the issue you evasive twit.

Now, James, calm yourself. Count to 10. Whatever you do, don't pick up
that AR-15 you ordered over the internet and force your mommy whom you
live with to dress you, wipe the drool from your chin, then drive you
to the mall for a psychotic rampage. LOL

>>> Well?

Where's that "class-action" kooksoot you've been scribbling up in
crayon, to sue *science*, Tardnado? Did you add *reality*, *photons*
and *electrons* as co-defendants, James? They're all conspiring to
kick your moronic ass, you know. LOL

Well? Address the issue you evasive twit.

<snicker>

>> They were measuring photon energy from electron orbital descent, you
>> uneducated moronic halfwit. That photon energy is affected by H
>> bonding or the lack thereof. The more closely the H bonds are held,
>> the lower is the photon energy. The more loosely the H bonds are held,
>> the higher is the photon energy. No H bonds, as in gaseous phase water
>> in its monomolecular form, entail a higher photon energy than that of
>> even ortho spin isomer water in liquid phase.
>> 
>> Thus, they were measuring gaseous phase water. Monomolecular, no H
>> bonds because the measured energy was too great for the H bonds to
>> remain bonded, you ignorant uneducated psychotic halfwit.> 

> Obviously, dumbass.

Then you admit you're wrong. That wasn't so hard for you to do, now
was it, Jim?

>  The peak was a statistical distribution, each data point and
> inference was made as to distance. 

Wrong. "distance" LOL

Are you retarded, James? Does your mommy have to brush your teeth and
dress you? Are you so brain damaged that you can't even understand a
concept that a retarded monkey would understand? Take your meds, Jim,
you babbling nutjob. LOL

> So you are just confused.

You're projecting, James. You are, after all James Bernard 'Tardnado'
McGinn, Jr. ... the thoroughly confused and utterly psychotic kooktard
who can't grasp simple concepts, so he has to make up fantastical
fairy tale physical processes with no basis in reality because the
world confuses you so. LOL

> Right.  And in Gaseous H2O THERE IS NO H bonds.

Which means an even higher photon energy, which is what they measured,
you lackwit.

> So the distance would be constant.  

What "distance", James? There are no H bonds, as you've just
admitted... so you've just admitted that gaseous phase water is
monomolecular.

Doh! Is that not what you wanted to admit to, James? Did you have a
brief, bright flash of sanity as you wrote that, James? Now your
insanity will compel you to backpedal away from your admission that
your entire theory is wrong, just as you were forced to backpedal
after your recent retraction of your claim of variable polarity of the
water molecule:

Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

And you've admitted that your moronic "plasma not-a-plasma" *depended* 
*upon* that claim you'd retracted. Yet you kept blathering on about 
your "plasma not-a-plasma"... until you realized that without your 
"variable polarity", your "plasma not-a-plasma could not exist per 
your own "theory not-a-theory", and thus your "plasma not-a-plasma" 
creating "structures and boundaries" which you claim causes the wind 
could not exist, and thus you'd just destroyed your own halfwitted 
"theory not-a-theory" in trying to writhe your way out of being proven 
wrong. Then you went right back to babbling about variable polarity. 
LOL

You're stuck on stupid, Tardnado. Trapped like a rat. Every change you 
try to make to your wholly impossible "theory not-a-theory" in 
attempting to squirm your way out of being proven wrong leads to its 
destruction.

Yer welcome, James.

<snicker>

> Duhr!

Now you're speaking your native tongue, Tardnado. I don't understand
Tardese, though. You'll have to get your mommy to translate for you.
Tell her to wipe the drool from your chin while she's there. Tardnado.
LOL

-- 

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

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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

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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

Thread

Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 18:19 +0100
  Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 10:45 -0700
    Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 20:59 +0100
      Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:10 -0700
        Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 06:36 +0100
          Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 23:27 -0700
            Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 19:49 +0100
              Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-20 14:45 -0600
                Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-20 21:06 +0000
    Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 23:26 -0700
      Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 18:25 +0100
        Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 10:51 -0700
          Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 07:07 +0100
  Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-19 13:30 -0500
    pedaling and noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 18:23 -0700
      Re: pedaling and Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-19 21:54 -0500

csiph-web