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

Groups > sci.physics > #563288

Re: Is there a plasma phase of H2O?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

James McGinn, in
<news:98dbe243-eb41-4a1e-b132-7c3d749060d1@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 12:01:36 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

>> Is there any such thing as a plasma phase of water, as indicated in this blog post:

> http://wp.me/p4JijN-8g

>> Note: I'm looking for information that addresses the physical processes indicated in this blog post.  If your only dispute is based on a dogmatic interpretation of what is or is not a plasma don't bother to respond.

You're going around in circles, Jim. And in so doing, you've exposed
the fatal flaw in your kooky "theory".

This may very well be the irresolvable contradiction which finally
causes Mr. McGinn's fabrication to collapse under the weight of its
contradictions.

All fabrications which do not reflect reality must eventually have
their logic holes exposed... the  fabricator often tries to patch the
logic holes by expanding and further complicating the fabrication,
until finally the fabricator is trapped by an irresolvable
contradiction. I believe I've found the "final straw" contradiction
for Mr. McGinn's fabrication of a "theory".

Mr. McGinn makes 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. This is Mr. McGinn's
attempt to overthrow all of known science, to include the known
scientific realities of specific gravity, molar volume, molar mass,
convection, latent heat, etc.

Unfortunately, Mr. McGinn is going around in circles.

Now, Mr. McGinn, you'll get right on answering the following question.
Your inability to do so stands as your tacit admission that your
"theory" has no legs.

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?

Ah, and there's that irresolvable contradiction that will cause your
entire kooky theory to collapse, James.

And that question is added to the long list of inconsistencies and
contradictions you cannot address for fear your kooky theory will
collapse and you can no longer pretend yourself more intelligent than
all the scientists spanning 250+ years.

Now, on to those questions you keep ducking which highlight the 
logical inconsistencies and contradictions in your "theory":

============================================================
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?

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?

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?

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 clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly 
appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / 
giant tornado in the sky" sentient, 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 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?

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

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

Thread

Re: Is there a plasma phase of H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 19:14 -0700
  Re: Is there a plasma phase of H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-17 21:55 -0500
  Re: Is there a plasma phase of H2O? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-18 06:19 +0100

csiph-web