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

Groups > sci.physics > #576630

Re: The Spinning Microdroplets, H2O polymers of the Plasma That Forms Vortices in the Atmosphere

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:342725f3-858e-435b-87a6-9f0df20bf35a@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>> What problem, Tardnado Jim? Water has been researched thoroughly, the
>> only anomalies that exist have to do with high-energy interactions and
>> unusual circumstances such as at extremely high pressures. The
>> inter-molecular hydrogen bond has been thoroughly researched, there
>> are no more secrets for it to reveal. You're just a reality-denying
>> kooktard.

>>> is psychological,

>> Only for you, Jimbo TornadoTard, because you are psychotic.

>>> the tendency for humans to be aesthetically attracted to idealized notions.

>> "Idealized notions" like your giant sentient tornado monster in the
>> jet stream, James?
>> 
>> "Idealized notions" like your now-retracted but hastily revived water
>> molecule variable polarity, Tardnado?
>> 
>> "Idealized notions" like your "plasma not-a-plasma" which you've
>> *admitted* can not exist, Halfwit Jimmy?
>> 
>> "Idealized notions" like your claim that air density does not change,
>> thus its buoyancy does not change, thus convection does not exist?
>> 
>> Why haven't you done that simple experiment of blowing up a balloon
>> and putting it in your freezer, James? That simple experiment utterly
>> destroys your entire "theory not-a-theory", so it's no wonder you've
>> run away from doing something even a first grader would understand.
>> 
>> <snicker>

>> <http://www.snowcrystals.com/videos/videos.html>
>> 
>> <https://carnegiescience.edu/news/unfrozen-mystery-h2o-reveals-new-secret>
>> 
>> <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/108939599199783>
>> 
>> <http://ftp-acd.puc-campinas.edu.br/pub/professores/ceatec/souzaef/COMPROVANTES/ARTIGOS/TESCHKE_VALENTE-FILHO_SOUZA_CPL_2010.pdf>
>> 
>> So yet again you're proven to be the anti-science reality-denying
>> halfwit James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA.
>> 
>> You're backpedaling after having been proven wrong again, James.

> Present your proof, dumbass.

The studies are referenced above, TornadoTard.

In addition, there are more than 2500 peer-reviewed studies proving
you *wrong*, all of which you've run away from:

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>

You'll note both Saykally's and Soper's research is included in that
list of more than 2500 studies that prove you're a moronic uneducated
delusion-blathering halfwit, James.

>> I've proven ice does form a lattice, I've proven it's been observed via
>> atomic force microscopy and other means, I've proven you're a moronic
>> uneducated halfwit sitting in mommy's basement blathering out retarded
>> twaddle you don't stand a chance of ever understanding.

>>> This notion was assumed

>> Measured.

>>> back in the 1930's

>> And empirically observed many times since then, to the point that it
>> can now be photographed. You're just a reality-denying kooktard.

>>> And it is a huge obstacle because it gives researchers the false belief
>>> that they can ignore what is actually the best evidence we will ever have
>>> to untangle the water structure problem, that being the evidence associated
>>> with the transition between liquid water and solid ice.

>> Which you've demonstrated you haven't the first faint fucking clue of
>> the underlying mechanism for. In fact, you're 180 degrees out from
>> reality. You claim ice is asymmetric, whereas you claim steam to be
>> highly symmetric.

> LOL.  You are just confused.

You're projecting, TornadoTard McGinn. Why can't you refute those
thousands of peer-reviewed studies, James? Why are there *no* studies
to back up your moronic blather, James? Why can't you get your
delusion through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even
get your blather on a pre-print server, James?

>> Hence, according to your blather, plasma from water must be a solid, ice
>> must be a liquid. According to you, to get steam, one would freeze water,
>> and to get ice, one would boil it. You are a psychotic moron, after all.

> You are confused.  I'm not running a hand holding service here.  I you
> can't follow the discussion don't lay it on me.

I follow the discussion just fine, James. You're the
delusion-blathering schizo-brained uneducated moron who think ice is
asymmetrical and steam is highly symmetrical. You've admitted it, then
you backpedaled away from providing any proof of your delusions.

>> Wrong. Water molecule polarity does not change. That would mean that
>> water solvent properties would also randomly change, which we know it
>> does not do.

> Why? Be a big boy and present an argument to that effect.

Because if water molecule polarity changed randomly with H bonding,
water's solvent properties would also change randomly, because water's
solvent properties are dependent upon that H bonding. And that's just
one reason...

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?

>> Besides, you've retracted your moronic claim of variable polarity of
>> the water molecule, remember?
>> 
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
>> 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.
>> ========================================================
>> 
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
>> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
>> ========================================================
>> > In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
>> > Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
>> > droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
>> > these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
>> > reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
>> > structural integrity. It is important to note that
>> > without the concept that is the subject of this post
>> > (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
>> > Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
>> > would not be possible.
>> ========================================================
>> 
>> Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
>> your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls,

> Yes, of course it would.  So why don't you make an argument to that effect?

You've made that argument for me, James, by retracting the central
premise for your entire "theory not-a-theory". You've lost. You're
defeated. Stop fucking the carcass of your dead and discredited
"theory not-a-theory" and just bury it already, James.

>> by your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
>> "boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
>> forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
>> just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
>> your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
>> suppositions, James.

> Right. So . . . what is stopping you?  Make my day.

You've already retracted the central premise for your claims, James...
thus all your other claims fall, too. That's gotta be embarrassing for
you, eh? Now you're forced to admit you're just an insane uneducated
moron. LOL

>> Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
>> patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
>> You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
>> understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

> LOL. 

Your maniacal laughter as your delusion collapses around you is noted,
Tardnado McGinn.

>>> (Because without this there is no way to reconcile why and how this
>>> transition is so discrete and why and how there is such a sharp
>>> distinction between the hardness of ice and the fluidity of liquid water.)

>> Unless one takes into account latent heat, which you also deny,
>> because you're an anti-science reality-denying kooktard.

> You have no dipute, right?  What does that indicate?

I dispute all of your moronic delusional blathering, James. In fact,
I've utterly destroyed your "theory not-a-theory". You found yourself
utterly unable to muster a defense of it.

>>> And this would force them to recognize that, therefore, polarity must be
>>> turned off (neutralized) in liquid water.

>> Wrong. You're back to blathering about variable polarity of the water
>> molecule after you were forced to retract that claim. A hilarious
>> fuckup on your part. Watching you scramble to cover up the fact that
>> you'd stupidly retracted the central premise of your entire "theory
>> not-a-theory" was especially entertaining. LOL

> Too bad you can't dispute it.

Too bad you don't have any proof to back up your delusional babbling,
James.

>> You've discovered nothing, you've revealed nothing, you've got no
>> empirical evidence, you've got no experimental evidence, you've got no
>> proof, you've changed nothing, you'll never change anything. Because
>> you're blathering out stupidity with no connection to reality. Take
>> your meds, Jim.

> Really?  Hmm.  Me?  Hmm.

Yes, you, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn the brain-damaged moron
suffering from a crippling affliction... schizophrenia combined with
Dunning-Kruger. You're too stupid to realize how stupid you are,
James.

>> 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.

> Too bad you can't prove it.  Huh?

Nilsson's study does prove it, James. Too bad you can't disprove that
study, eh?

>> 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.

> See my paper for correct details.

Your moronic conspiracy-theory schizo-brained blather has no "correct
details", James. You think scientific reality is attained by just
lying long enough that everyone gives up refuting your lies... you're
a scientific fraud. That's why you're shunned by the scientific
community.

>> 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

> I have a theory.  You can't dispute it.

I've not only disputed it, James, I've utterly destroyed it. I've
proven your moronic uneducated halfwitted blather does not and cannot
reflect reality.

> That doesn't mean I am right.  But your desperation does suggest you
> tried hard and failed.  Right?

Why can't you refute the thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed
studies proving you *wrong*, James? Why can't you provide any proof of
your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the
peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusions on a
pre-print server, 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
>> thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
>> which would make air travel deadly.

> Too bad you can't prove that, huh?

Reference from real storm trackers, James... those who have used
Doppler radar to peer inside the cloud to see how high the tornadic
vortex extends above the cloud base:
<http://stormtrack.org/community/threads/tornado-height-above-ceiling.24951/>

I note you've done *no* tornado research, *no* storm chasing, and
you've never experienced a tornado, TornadoTard.

>> 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?

> Didn't everybody learn this in the third grade?

You deny convection, James, which is the basis for your
crayon-scribble "class-action" kooksoot. So apparently you never made
it to third grade at the Speshul Skool for Speshul Peeple. LOL

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <94b6a929662c285fb820d01980ccf219@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Uh, 'air density and thus convection?'  Gibberish.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <aca6233c926d05d0a5c49dc984b12934@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <6b7c70439e04102b9f92271283173667@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly
> plausible, but actually impossible.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <d8b12acf78b013dc765c1ad3031e6081@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Consequently, I am looking towards doing some kind of a
> Kickstarter (or some similar website) campaign to get funds
> to hire a law firm to put forth a class action lawsuit--the
> defendent beng NOAA and/or some other meteorological
> organization--to force them to do the simple experiments that
> will refute the convection model and acknowledge the results
> publicly.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <19dbe4f7df6c6978fbeb437d648083a9@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Watch my video entitled: convection versus plasma.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <337ad27d8e86048358de5b626d8eda98@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Convection plays no role at all.
========================================================

>> 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?

> Didn't I explain this to you about five times now?

No, you blathered out circular stupidity, claiming the wind was
powered by your "plasma not-plasma" and your "plasma not-a-plasma" was
created by the wind... with no proof, James, while you *admitted* your
"plasma not-a-plasma" doesn't exist, and while you retracted the
central premise of your "theory not-a-theory" with which you claim
your "plasma not-a-plasma" is created. You seem to be confused,
James... perhaps if you had a higher IQ than 65, you'd understand how
moronic you sound. LOL

> Some people have a childish attachment to certainty and when that is
> challenged they lose their marbles a bit because they are not
> familiar with the feeling of uncertainty.

Some people like you, James, have no attachment to reality, so you
blather on about fairy tale fabrications as though they were real,
then backpedal like mad when proof is requested.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
TornadoTard?

-- 

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: The Spinning Microdroplets, H2O polymers of the Plasma That Forms Vortices in the Atmosphere James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 20:12 -0700
  Re: The Spinning Microdroplets, H2O polymers of the Plasma That Forms Vortices in the Atmosphere Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-05-09 06:27 +0200
    Re: The Spinning Microdroplets, H2O polymers of the Plasma That Forms Vortices in the Atmosphere James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 17:43 -0700
      Re: The Spinning Microdroplets, H2O polymers of the Plasma That Forms Vortices in the Atmosphere Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-05-10 09:10 +0200
      Re: The Spinning Microdroplets, H2O polymers of the Plasma That Forms Vortices in the Atmosphere edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-05-10 08:28 -0700

csiph-web