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

Groups > sci.physics > #562534

KOOKSOOT!

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

James McGinn babbled:

> FNVWe wrote:

>> If, as James McGinn claims, latent heat of evaporation doesn't
>> exist because a phase change doesn't occur upon evaporation
>> and thus clusters of water are launching into the air upon
>> evaporation, then the *only* heat that can be carried away
>> is specific heat, which would be equivalent to 2326 J/kg.
>> 
>> If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists
>> since the 1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation
>> *does* exist, there will be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away.
>> This result will null the underlying premise of Mr. McGinn's
>> claims, thus disproving his entire "theory".
>> 
>> It's a simple experiment, and given that Mr. McGinn has made
>> claims that fly in the face of 250+ years of experimentally,
>> empirically measured data, the onus is upon Mr. McGinn to
>> prove his claims.
>> 
>> That Mr. McGinn continues to avoid doing that simple experiment
>> to prove his extraordinary claims speaks volumes, don't you think?
>> 
>> In the balance hangs Mr. McGinn either likely being nominated
>> for a Nobel Prize for overturning 250+ years of rigorously and
>> empirically measured scientific data, or his being forced to
>> retract his claims and his claims being subsumed into the heap
>> of odd theories that are used as examples of wrong-headedness.
>> 
>> Do you wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his claims?

> The issue here would not be improved by me replicating an
> experiment because the obstacle here isn't rational it's political.
> No non-meteorologists with any authority is going to risk their
> position by contradicting a long-held belief (and one that seems
> rather obscure to anybody that is an outsider to the atmospheric
> sciences) of the meteorological monopoly. And, for similar reasons,
> no meteorologist is going to even acknowledge the issue. They are
> quite comfortable sitting back and letting the FNVWe's of the world
> shout down anybody that has the temerity to point out that the
> emperor is naked.
> 
> The only way to get them to acknowledge the issue will be in a
> court of law as a result of a class action lawsuit – which I am
> working towards.

"the obstacle here isn't rational it's political" LOL!

The obstacle here is your denying well-established
experimentally-derived empirically-observed science which has been
going on with greater and greater accuracy for more than 250 years,
James.

Further, your refusal to substantiate your claims with any sort of
experimental data (said experiment the responsibility for which falls
to you and only you, given that you've made claims that fly in the
face of that 250+ years of established science) means you know the
experiment will null your supposition and thus relegate your
unscientific suppositions to the midden heap of history as just
another case of someone gone outside the bounds of the scientific
method and making up fantastical fairy tales that do not and cannot
reflect reality.

Your refusal to substantiate your claims further proves what I said
was right... you prefer your delusion, in which you paint yourself as
smarter than every scientist in the last 250+ years, to reality.

You were provided the means to substantiate your claims, James. If, as
you claim, latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist because a phase
change doesn't occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water are
launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that can
be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to 2326
J/kg.

If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the
1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will
be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying
premise of your claims, James, thus disproving your entire "theory".

Your being wrong is painful to you, isn't it, James? Knowing you are
wrong and that you are being called to account for your being wrong is
perturbing you to the point that you’re "working towards" "class
action lawsuits"... what we on Usenet know as kooksoots... yet another
prototypical manifestation of Dunning-Kruger afflicted individuals
refusing to believe they could ever be wrong.

Do you really believe any "class action lawsuit" will be allowed to
proceed without that experimentally-derived empirically-observed
scientifically-rigorous data, James? You'd best get right on
performing that experiment if you want your "class action lawsuit" to
have any chance whatsoever, James.

Meanwhile, James, how about you get right on addressing the multiple
holes in your fairy tale of a "theory"?

==========================================================

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 so your claims have even a semblance of
plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation
energy of water are identical, and thus the water will 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
claims are workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

Thread

KOOKSOOT! Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-15 05:59 +0100
  Re: KOOKSOOT! "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-15 01:14 -0400
    Re: KOOKSOOT! Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-15 16:17 +0100
      Re: KOOKSOOT! "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-15 17:41 -0400
      Re: KOOKSOOT! Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-17 10:29 -0600

csiph-web