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

Groups > sci.physics > #560004 > unrolled thread

Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 18:01 +0100
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 10:04 -0800
      Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 17:39 +0100
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 09:30 -0800
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:54 +0100
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 21:22 -0800
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:11 +0100
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 04:09 +0800
                  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:12 -0800
                    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 20:23 +0000
                  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 20:21 +0000
                    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:23 -0800
                  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:59 +0100
                    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 17:59 +0800
                      Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:21 +0100
                        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:19 +0800
                          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:55 +0100
                            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 21:58 +0800
                              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 10:07 -0800
                              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:17 +0100
                        pretty clouds in cOOl shapes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:04 -0800
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-03-09 08:43 +0000
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:30 +0100
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 23:26 -0800
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:53 -0600
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:56 -0600
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 09:04 -0600
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:28 +0100
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 02:34 +0800
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I "\"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> - 2016-03-08 13:47 -0500
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 03:33 +0800
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:05 +0100
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-09 05:39 -0700
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 22:44 +0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 08:51 -0800
                  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 17:21 +0000
                    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 02:03 +0800
                      Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 10:13 -0800
                        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 18:17 +0000
                        Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 15:50 -0500
                          Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:24 -0800
                            Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:28 -0500
                              Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:37 -0800
                                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:39 -0500
                  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I "\"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> - 2016-03-09 12:36 -0500
                    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 02:06 +0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#560004 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I

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

James McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:28d533ed-69ed-4872-bd59-863b931b3b52@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> convection versus plasma
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

>>>> You're wrong, Jim.

>>> Prove it.

>> I already have, via several different avenues, Jim. Why do you refuse
>> to take your meds? You meds will help your broken brain to reconcile
>> itself to reality.

>>>> At time 3:45, you launch into your kooky take on water molecules
>>>> aggregating and *increasing* their aggregate polarity as a result...
>>>> water, as does everything in the universe, seeks its *lowest* energy
>>>> state. Hence liquid water is a lower energy state than gaseous phase
>>>> water.

>>> Polarity.  

>> Exactly right. The 8+ electronegativity of the oxygen atom and the 1+
>> electronegativity of each hydrogen atom means water molecules usually
>> align in liquid phase with inter-molecular hydrogen bonding... but
>> it's a weak bond comparative to the covalent O-H bond,

> I'm impressed that you've actually enumerated electronegativity.
> The bond is weaker than covalent.  But the strength of he H bond is
> not constant.  And that is because polarity of the H2O molecule is
> not constant.

Wrong. It is because the inter-molecular bond is weaker and thus has a
higher probability of being broken via random thermal-driven
collisions imparting sufficient energy to a molecule to break the
inter-molecular H bond.

Again, if the bond strength was variable, the solvent properties of
water would be variable. It is not, therefore the H bond strength
cannot be variable.

But then, you're the idiot who thinks warmer air is *heavier* than
cooler air (and therefore the steam off the pots on your stove must
fall to the floor, right?), so you can't be expected to understand
such things as solvent properties of water.

>  And that is because polarity is not simply a function of
> electronegativity, it is also a function of asymmetry.

For fuck sake, no it's not. Bond strength is a function of bond angle,
but molecular polarity does not change. You'll be getting right on
detailing exactly how a water molecule is giving up electrons or
taking on extra electrons to change its polarity, you fecking nong.
Have you ever taken even an *introductory* physics or chemistry class?
I bet not.

> And H bonds restore symmetry thereby neutralizing H2O polarity in
> the liquid state. IOW, in the liquid state of water the molecules
> therein have had their polarity neutralized by H bonds.  

Wrong. Bond angle (your misuse of the word symmetry is noted) and thus
bond strength changes as a result of random thermal collisions, but
molecular polarity does not change.

> There are many implications of the quirkiness mentioned in the
> above paragraph.

And all of it in your quirky brain.

> One of these implications is that H2O forms very small droplets
> that appear to be a gas when mixed in with air at ambient
> temperatures.

Wrong. Any vapor below its Critical Temperature will have both vapor
*and* gaseous phase. Water is no different, so even if there is water
vapor in the atmosphere (as in a cloud), some percentage of it will be
gaseous. Therefore you have been proven wrong, and you owe me
$100,000. Pay up, Jim, or I continue tearing your kooky theory apart
and proving you're a moron.

> This is what has everybody perplexed.

No one is perplexed but you, Jim. The molecular properties of water
are well-modeled. Simply because water exhibits anomalous properties
as compared to other liquids doesn't mean we don't have explanations
for those properties.

> But it isn't actually a gas.

Yes, it is. You're just a confused kooktard. I note you've provided
absolutely no evidence nor any proof of your kooky contentions that
whole while I've been supplying scientific facts, equations, diagrams
and concepts tearing your kooky theory to shreds.

> It's very small droplets that look like gas to the naked eye and
> that are even too small to be seen on microscope.  

Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?

> Read this paper for more details:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

Referring to your own kook blather isn't proof of anything other than
you're suffering from a crippling case of Dunning-Kruger, Jim. Where
is your third-party corroborable proof? Why has every meteorologist,
physicist and physical sciences researcher told you that you are
wrong, Jim? Might that be a clue that you're a kooktard, Jim?

>> and can be broken via random thermal fluctuations, as I've proven.

> You haven't proven shit.

Sure I have. The proof is in my prior posts, which you cowardly
snipped out and ran away from, because you know it proves you and your
kooky theory wrong. You don't dare try to refute it, because you know
you'll get your stupid ass kicked.

>> This minimizes the free energy of the system as a whole. 

> Amateurish.

FFS, Jim. That's exactly what happens. You can deny reality all you
want, but the fact remains you're a moronic kooktard with a moronic
theory that doesn't work. You've provided no proof, only links to your
own kooky blather, which has been *proven* wrong.

>> But those random thermal
>> fluctuations still exist, and can still break the inter-molecular
>> hydrogen bonding to evaporate water or sublimate ice, despite your
>> denials.

> You are ignorant.  It's not singular bonds.

I never said it was, Jim. You are ignorant to think I did so.

> Each H2O can form two acceptor bonds on its negative Oxygen molecule.
> WHEN YOU BREAK ONE YOU ACTIVATE THE POLARITY MAKING THE OTHER ONE A
> STRONGER BOND. Evaporation is associate with breakng the first
> (weaker) hond.  Boiling is involved with the second.  That is why
> boiling requires such high temps and is impossible at ambient temps.
> Read my paper for details.

Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
*different* water molecules. Thus to break one of those water
molecules free (to evaporate it) only requires breaking one
inter-molecular H bond. Polarity is polarity, the electronegativity of
the second inter-molecular bond won't become stronger simply because
it can *only* achieve an electronegativity of 1+.

In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the covalent bonds will
preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of the inter-molecular
bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high frequency AC to
dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond frequency, as the
long covalent bond frequency is too close to the O-O frequency, and if
you break that, you strengthen the covalent bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

> You don't understand H2O. I am a expert.  Trust me.

You are a low-information kooktard suffering from Dunning-Kruger
effect. You fancy yourself a president of a company that does nothing,
you've written a book that has gotten bad reviews, your kooky theory
is demonstrably wrong. You're no expert, you're merely suffering from
Dunning-Kruger and fancy yourself an expert. In reality, you know next
to nothing, because like all D-K sufferers, you'd rather blather and
crow than learn.

>>>> That gaseous phase water has had sufficient energy added to it
>>>> via thermal collisions to escape the inter-molecular hydrogen bonding,
>>>> which I've already discussed:

>>> Vague.  Simpleminded.  Pedestrian.  

>> That is the exact scientific process

> Bullshit.  It's nonsense based on the "first principles" of other
> molecules that don't have the peculiarities of H2O.

Bullshit. It's based upon plenty of research of the water molecule by
people far smarter and saner than you, Jim.

>>  by which evaporation and sublimation occurs, Jim. Are you denying
>> that evaporation and sublimation occurs, Jim?

> Hell no.  I'm denying that they are the same a boiling.  

They are exactly the same as boiling, Jim, except that in boiling, the
partial pressure is high enough to overcome atmospheric pressure and
thus form bubbles, whereas below that pressure, the molecules will
still be miscible in air, but no bubbles can form.

>> If you hope to wear me down by your constant denials of reality and
>> non sequiturs, you don't know me very well...

> You understand electronegativity--but what about symmetry . . .
> That is your shortcoming.  You will either admit I am right

Because you are wrong, Jim. You're not even using that term correctly.

> or you will blow a fuse.  (I'm leaning toward the latter.)

Or I'll continue kicking your retarded ass until you pay me the
$100,000 you owe me for meeting your kooky challenge, Jim. Or you go
insane.

>> I argued with the Tholenbot until it *broke*... that's why Tholen took
>> it offline. Yeah, I out-Tholen'd the Tholenbot, had it so twisted
>> around it was arguing with itself.

> I assure you, you have more than met your match.

I assure you, I have not, Jim. You're a kooktard with a kooky theory
that everyone laughs at. You can't even get your kooky theory into any
peer-reviewed journals, can you? There's a reason for that, Jim.

>>> First start by acknowledging that the high boiling point of H2O

>> Has nothing whatsoever

> Address the issue, you evasive twit.  H2O does have a high boiling
> point, does it not?

You fecking moron. Your theory is wrong. When one of the
inter-molecular bonds is broken, the covalent bonds shorten and
strengthen. Every commercial water dissociation company building HHO
generators know this, which is why they use a frequency of AC which
targets the short covalent bond. Trying to break the long covalent
bond (did you even realize the covalent bond lengths were different,
Jim?) puts your frequency too close to the inter-molecular H bond
frequency, and breaking that strengthens the covalent bonds, making it
more energetically costly to dissociate the water.

Your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim.

>> to do with the random thermal motion of
>> molecules sometimes randomly imparting sufficient energy to a molecule

> Wrong. (Did you get this from Feynman? [If so, you misinterpreted him.])
> Water has extremely high heat conductivity. IOW, its temp tends to
> average out aggressively.  (This is a consequence of its high connectivity,
> sharing, usually, four bonds with four neighbors.) So the notion that
> there is a wide range of activity (a wide bell-curve, let's say) is
> mistaken.

Inter-molecular hydrogen bond strength depends nearly linearly upon
bond length. While water has an anomalously high boiling point, it
also has an anomalously high surface enthalpy. If you'll remember,
I've already stated that the Laws of Thermodynamics states that if a
system can trade its enthalpy for increased entropy, it will do so.
Further, water also has an anomalous surface enthalpy/temperature
behavior.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_properties.html#senth>
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/physical_anomalies.html#ST>

>> to allow it to break the hydrogen bonds and thus evaporate or
>> sublimate, Jim. Are you denying evaporation and sublimation, Jim?

> Obviously not.  I'm denying the absurd notion that it evaporation
> and sublimation produce gaseous H2O.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.

>>> is due to its polarity.

>> Which has nothing to do with the fact that random thermal motion of
>> the molecules

> That is your little fairy tale that you, probably, got from Feynman.

No, I got the above from Feynman. Do you deny that water has a
negative surface potential, or that air has a positive electric
potential?

> The high boiling point of H2O is a result of it's polarity.
> See my paper for details.

Referring to your own retarded and demonstrably wrong kookblather is
huge kooksign, Jim. You're wrong. I've just proven you wrong.
Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process of electrical attachment
to the molecules in the air, helped with a 'kick' from thermal
vibrations of the water. Hence, gaseous water is evaporating *and*
sublimating. You've been proven wrong, Ko0OkTard. Again. You'll be
paying me that $100,000 now.

>> can impart sufficient energy to a molecule such that it
>> can break those hydrogen bonds and evaporate or sublimate, as long as
>> the partial vapor pressure is below the equilibrium vapor pressure,
>> Jim. To deny this fact is to deny that evaporation and sublimation can
>> occur... is that what you're doing, Jim?

> No, dumbass.  I'm denying it produces gaseous H2O.

And you were proven wrong immediately above, Jim. That's reality, deal
with it.

> Where is your evidence that it is gaseous?

It's directly above, Jim. You've got that $100,000 ready for
disbursment, yes?

> The fact that it is invisible to the naked eye, I presume?
>  Right?  (Answer the question you evasive jackass.)

Wrong. The fact that evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process of
electrical attraction between the negative potential surface and the
positive potential air, helped with thermal vibrations in the bulk of
the water to 'kick' the molecules free. Do you believe the air is
grabbing clusters of molecules during evaporation, Jim?

>> A primer for you, Jim:
>> <https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/p670/Wi04/textbook/per5.pdf>
>> ========================================================
>> Evaporative Cooling
>> We observe that a liquid in an open container will eventually
>> disappear.

> It "disappears" because the droplets are smaller than a photon,

You fucking moron. A photon has no "size", it only has wavelength. Yet
again you display the fact that you're an uneducated boob.

-- 

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#560030

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:11:40 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > I'm impressed that you've actually enumerated electronegativity.
> > The bond is weaker than covalent.  But the strength of he H bond is
> > not constant.  And that is because polarity of the H2O molecule is
> > not constant.
> 
> Wrong. It is because the inter-molecular bond is weaker and thus has a
> higher probability of being broken via random thermal-driven
> collisions imparting sufficient energy to a molecule to break the
> inter-molecular H bond.

Nobody debates that it is weaker.  But that is not the issue, AFAIC.


> 
> Again, if the bond strength was variable, the solvent properties of
> water would be variable.

Why do you assume this and/or why do you assume they (the solvent properties) are not variable?

> >  And that is because polarity is not simply a function of
> > electronegativity, it is also a function of asymmetry.
> 
> For fuck sake, no it's not. Bond strength is a function of bond angle,
> but molecular polarity does not change. 

How would you prove this?

> You'll be getting right on
> detailing exactly how a water molecule is giving up electrons or
> taking on extra electrons to change its polarity,

It doesn't.  The location of the electrons (or, the electron cloud) shifts.

> > And H bonds restore symmetry thereby neutralizing H2O polarity in
> > the liquid state. IOW, in the liquid state of water the molecules
> > therein have had their polarity neutralized by H bonds.  
> 
> Wrong. Bond angle (your misuse of the word symmetry is noted) and thus
> bond strength changes as a result of random thermal collisions, but
> molecular polarity does not change.

That is your premise.  I have my premise.  Neither of us has proof.

But I am offering genuine cash if you can prove H2O a gas below its boiling temperature/pressure.

> > There are many implications of the quirkiness mentioned in the
> > above paragraph.
> 
> And all of it in your quirky brain.
> 
> > One of these implications is that H2O forms very small droplets
> > that appear to be a gas when mixed in with air at ambient
> > temperatures.
> 
> Wrong. Any vapor below its Critical Temperature will have both vapor
> *and* gaseous phase.

Too bad you can't prove this.  

> > It's very small droplets that look like gas to the naked eye and
> > that are even too small to be seen on microscope.  
> 
> Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
> so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?

So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?


> > Read this paper for more details:
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> 
> Referring to your own kook blather isn't proof of anything other than
> you're suffering from a crippling case of Dunning-Kruger, Jim. Where
> is your third-party corroborable proof? Why has every meteorologist,
> physicist and physical sciences researcher told you that you are
> wrong, Jim? Might that be a clue that you're a kooktard, Jim?

Ever heard of the scientific method?


> > Amateurish.
> 
> FFS, Jim. That's exactly what happens. 

Speculation.

> > You are ignorant.  It's not singular bonds.
> 
> I never said it was, Jim. You are ignorant to think I did so.
> 
> > Each H2O can form two acceptor bonds on its negative Oxygen molecule.
> > WHEN YOU BREAK ONE YOU ACTIVATE THE POLARITY MAKING THE OTHER ONE A
> > STRONGER BOND. Evaporation is associate with breakng the first
> > (weaker) hond.  Boiling is involved with the second.  That is why
> > boiling requires such high temps and is impossible at ambient temps.
> > Read my paper for details.
> 
> Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
> *different* water molecules. 

No duh.

> Thus to break one of those water
> molecules free (to evaporate it) only requires breaking one
> inter-molecular H bond. Polarity is polarity, the electronegativity of
> the second inter-molecular bond won't become stronger simply because
> it can *only* achieve an electronegativity of 1+.

You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.  

I understand polarity better than anybody

> In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.

Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.  If what you are saying is true H2O would have no surface tension.  


> 
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
> strengths; the stronger the H路路路路O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
> covalent bond, and the shorter the O路路路路O distance"
> 
> Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
> than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
> ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the covalent bonds will
> preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of the inter-molecular
> bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high frequency AC to
> dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond frequency, as the
> long covalent bond frequency is too close to the O-O frequency, and if
> you break that, you strengthen the covalent bonds.

That's a model, dumbass.  That is not reality.  That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.  So, only a loon would employ that as proof.


> You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
> premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
> kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.

> 
> > You don't understand H2O. I am a expert.  Trust me.

> > Hell no.  I'm denying that they are the same a boiling.  
> 
> They are exactly the same as boiling,

Then do the experiment that prove it.  

> > You understand electronegativity--but what about symmetry . . .
> > That is your shortcoming.  You will either admit I am right
> 
> Because you are wrong, Jim. You're not even using that term correctly.
> 
> > or you will blow a fuse.  (I'm leaning toward the latter.)
> 

> > I assure you, you have more than met your match.
> 
> I assure you, I have not, 

You already lost the argument.  

> > Address the issue, you evasive twit.  H2O does have a high boiling
> > point, does it not?

Answer the question you evasive twit.


> Inter-molecular hydrogen bond strength depends nearly linearly upon
> bond length.

Dimwitted.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#560359

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

James McGinn, in 
<news:54765c2d-3b30-4d28-bfe8-cb5a94b25771@googlegroups.com> did 
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:11:40 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Wrong. It is because the inter-molecular bond is weaker and thus has a
>> higher probability of being broken via random thermal-driven
>> collisions imparting sufficient energy to a molecule to break the
>> inter-molecular H bond.

> Nobody debates that it is weaker.  But that is not the issue, AFAIC.

Oh, good. That established, then you're forced to admit that the much 
stronger diametrically-opposed covalent bond preferentially shortens 
and strengthens when one of the H bonds is broken, as I've proven via 
reference to peer-reviewed studies. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is one 
of the central tenets of your kooky theory, Jim... IOW, I've just 
utterly destroyed your theory, Jim. Because you're a low-information 
moron who can't wrap your underpowered brain around physical 
processes, Jim.

>> Again, if the bond strength was variable, the solvent properties of
>> water would be variable.

> Why do you assume this and/or why do you assume they (the solvent
> properties) are not variable?

Because, you fucking moron, the solvent properties of water *depends* 
upon the hydrogen bonding of water. If the polarity of water varied as 
you claim, the hydrogen bond strength would vary, thus the solvent 
properties of water would vary. We know it doesn't, Jim. Thus, yet 
another central tenet of your kooky theory is destroyed, Jim.

>>>  And that is because polarity is not simply a function of
>>> electronegativity, it is also a function of asymmetry.

>> For fuck sake, no it's not. Bond strength is a function of bond angle,
>> but molecular polarity does not change. 

> How would you prove this?

Well, Jim, if you knew even the most basic about molecular physics, 
you'd realize that hydrogen bonding has a preferred direction and thus 
an optimum strength.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
==========================================================
An important feature of the hydrogen bond is that it possesses 
direction; by convention this direction is that of the shorter O-H 
(->) covalent bond (the O-H hydrogen atom being donated to the O-atom 
acceptor atom on another H2O molecule).
==========================================================

And that destroys yet another central tenet of your kooky little 
theory, Jim... I can continue doing this until you're forced to admit 
you're a low-information delusional moron, or you can save yourself 
the concomitant embarrassment and admit it now, Jim.

>> For fuck sake, no it's not. Bond strength is a function of bond angle,
>> but molecular polarity does not change. You'll be getting right on
>> detailing exactly how a water molecule is giving up electrons or
>> taking on extra electrons to change its polarity, you fecking nong.
>> Have you ever taken even an *introductory* physics or chemistry class?
>> I bet not.

> It doesn't.  The location of the electrons (or, the electron cloud) shifts.

Oh, so you're saying it changes its polarity, but it doesn't change 
its polarity, then. Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense, now does 
it, Jim?

And what, pray tell, causes your purported shift in electron 
probability distribution about the molecule, Jim?

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can 
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the 
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we, 
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that 
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge 
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been 
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me 
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

>>> And H bonds restore symmetry thereby neutralizing H2O polarity in
>>> the liquid state. IOW, in the liquid state of water the molecules
>>> therein have had their polarity neutralized by H bonds.  

>> Wrong. Bond angle (your misuse of the word symmetry is noted) and thus
>> bond strength changes as a result of random thermal collisions, but
>> molecular polarity does not change.

> That is your premise.  I have my premise.  Neither of us has proof.

Sure I have proof, Jim. You don't. In fact, I posted that proof, 
remember? You ran away from it before, you'll likely do it again:

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html>
<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz>

Why are you so stupid, Jim? People far smarter than you have figured 
all this out long before you conceived of your kooky discredited 
theory, Jim.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
<http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
=================================================
A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in 
the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number 
is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least 
one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the 
obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain 
sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, 
the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, 
and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that 
an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise 
interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent 
collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the 
liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was 
interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the 
evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation 
process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's 
cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a 
well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.
=================================================

"one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule 
process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the 
atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, 
meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been 
provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been 
utterly destroyed, meaning you  owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, 
Jim.

<snicker>

> But I am offering genuine cash if you can prove H2O a gas below its
> boiling temperature/pressure.

I just did, Jim. Using peer-reviewed research from people far smarter 
and saner than you. You'll be forwarding that money. Now.

>>> One of these implications is that H2O forms very small droplets
>>> that appear to be a gas when mixed in with air at ambient
>>> temperatures.

>> Wrong. Any vapor below its Critical Temperature will have both vapor
>> *and* gaseous phase.

> Too bad you can't prove this.  

Sure I can prove it... in fact, that's how weather forecasters and 
climate researchers determine cloud depth. Oh, Jim didn't realize that 
water in its gaseous phase, water in its liquid phase and water in its 
solid phase would reflect and refract different wavelengths, did he?

Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation 
at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus 
the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.

Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous 
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and 
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?

Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing 
temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet not 
immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its gaseous 
phase... individual molecules... it can only phase change to ice once 
it condenses together, which requires collision with other water 
molecules, and thus takes time. Individual water molecules cannot 
"freeze", Jim.)?

Do you not understand that the term "vapor" is merely gaseous water at 
a temperature lower than its condensation temperature, ie: a mixture 
of gaseous and liquid water, Jim? According to you, since you k'lame 
all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air 
and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its 
downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft... thus 
rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would 
perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface 
would be perpetually covered with a film of water.

Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at all, 
Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky little 
theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your "discovery" without 
fully testing its premises, Jim?

Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous 
water exists in the atmosphere:
<http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/>
=========================================================
Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum 
absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains 
controversial.
=========================================================

That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, 
thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you 
promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding 
challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves 
you're a moronic kooktard, Jim.

>>> It's very small droplets that look like gas to the naked eye and
>>> that are even too small to be seen on microscope.  

>> Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
>> so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?

> So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?

I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study proving that 
gaseous water exists in the atmosphere, thereby proving your kooky 
theory wrong, while meeting the conditions of your kooky challenge, 
Jim. You'll be paying me that $100,000 now.

>>> Read this paper for more details:
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

>> Referring to your own kook blather isn't proof of anything other than
>> you're suffering from a crippling case of Dunning-Kruger, Jim. Where
>> is your third-party corroborable proof? Why has every meteorologist,
>> physicist and physical sciences researcher told you that you are
>> wrong, Jim? Might that be a clue that you're a kooktard, Jim?

> Ever heard of the scientific method?

Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of 
peer reviewed studies... said studies having torn your kooky theory to 
shreds. It's apparent you've never heard of the scientific method, 
though... you think a kooky thought, then go out searching for 
evidence to support your kooky thought, ignoring that evidence proving 
your kooky thought wrong, while conflating any evidence you can 
distort to fit your kooky theory.

>>> Each H2O can form two acceptor bonds on its negative Oxygen molecule.
>>> WHEN YOU BREAK ONE YOU ACTIVATE THE POLARITY MAKING THE OTHER ONE A
>>> STRONGER BOND. Evaporation is associate with breakng the first
>>> (weaker) hond.  Boiling is involved with the second.  That is why
>>> boiling requires such high temps and is impossible at ambient temps.
>>> Read my paper for details.

>> Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
>> *different* water molecules. 

> No duh.

Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard. It will affect 
the diametrically-opposed covalent bond, as I proved above, Jim... 
which destroys yet another tenet of your kooky theory.

>> Thus to break one of those water
>> molecules free (to evaporate it) only requires breaking one
>> inter-molecular H bond. Polarity is polarity, the electronegativity of
>> the second inter-molecular bond won't become stronger simply because
>> it can *only* achieve an electronegativity of 1+.

> You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.  

You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim, given that you've been 
misusing it all this time. Moron.

> I understand polarity better than anybody

No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted 
kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody, 
but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.

>> In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.

> Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.

You've already been proven wrong below, Jim. Peer reviewed data.

> If what you are saying is true H2O would have no surface tension.  

The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you 
don't know about it.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable 
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just 
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less 
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the 
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and 
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a 
lower temperature).
=====================================================

So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the 
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon 
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet 
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?

>> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
>> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
>> strengths; the stronger the H--O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
>> covalent bond, and the shorter the O--O distance"
>> 
>> Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
>> than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
>> ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the covalent bonds will
>> preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of the inter-molecular
>> bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high frequency AC to
>> dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond frequency, as the
>> long covalent bond frequency is too close to the O-O frequency, and if
>> you break that, you strengthen the covalent bonds.

> That's a model, dumbass.  That is not reality.
> That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
> So, only a loon would employ that as proof.

That model happens to be the model that is accepted as more accurate 
than any of the dozens of other water models, Jim. I note your kooky 
theory has no water model, no mathematics, nothing... just the blather 
from a Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard who employs denial, 
backpedaling, non sequiturs and deflection to cover up the numerous 
shortcomings in his kooky theory.

>> You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
>> premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
>> kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

> Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.

Then it's a good thing the descriptive model I used to utterly destroy 
your kooky theory is considered the most accurate water model ever 
conceived of, Jim. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying 
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious due to the fact that the 
loss of one hydrogen bond doesn't strengthen the other hydrogen bond, 
it preferentially strengthens the diametrically opposite covalent 
bond, as the peer reviewed data I presented proved, Jim.

>>> Hell no.  I'm denying that they are the same a boiling.  

>> They are exactly the same as boiling, Jim, except that in boiling, the
>> partial pressure is high enough to overcome atmospheric pressure and
>> thus form bubbles, whereas below that pressure, the molecules will
>> still be miscible in air, but no bubbles can form.

> Then do the experiment that prove it.  

Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known 
for a very long time... do you not know these simple facts about water 
because you're stupid, Jim, or because you're an uneducated oaf?

I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea 
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is 
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.

Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is 
insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so 
boiling does not occur, yet evaporation does occur.

Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt. 
Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will 
again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being 
70 C.

Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process, but evaporation 
has the condition where gaseous phase pressure is insufficient to 
overcome atmospheric pressure, and thus bulk boiling cannot occur, and 
hence bubbles will not form in the bulk of the liquid.

You'll note the only condition that changed to transition from 
evaporation to boiling was atmospheric pressure, Jim... hence 
evaporation and boiling are the same process under different 
conditions.

And that destroys yet another of your kooky tenets of your kooky 
theory, Jim. Now you'll be forced to backpedal away from reality 
again.

> You already lost the argument.  

Says the moron as he cowardly snips out all the proof which utterly 
decimates his kooky theory, while he backpedals like mad, doesn't even 
attempt to refute the reality I promulgate, and instead is engaged in 
a duck-n-cover retreat as he proves himself more and more to be a 
moron who really knows very little about much of anything.

>>> Address the issue, you evasive twit.  H2O does have a high boiling
>>> point, does it not?

Awwww, poor stupid Jim cowardly snipped out my reply so he could bleat 
again. Restored:

> Answer the question you evasive twit.

James McGinn is *so* stupid he doesn't realize that when a H bond is 
broken, it doesn't strengthen the other H bond, it preferentially 
strengthens the diametrically-opposite covalent bond.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the covalent bonds will
preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of the inter-molecular
bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high frequency AC to
dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond frequency, as the
long covalent bond frequency is too close to the O-O frequency, and if
you break that, you strengthen the covalent bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

>> Inter-molecular hydrogen bond strength depends nearly linearly upon
>> bond length.

> Dimwitted.

For fuck sake, Jim, if you're going to continue denying reality, 
people are going to come to realize you're nothing more than a 
delusional dimwitted Dunning-Kruger afflicted uneducated moron.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
==========================================================
As hydrogen bond strength depends almost linearly on its length 
(shorter length giving stronger hydrogen bonding), it also depends 
almost linearly (outside extreme values) on the temperature and 
pressure [818].

[818] R. C. Dougherty, Temperature and pressure dependence of hydrogen 
bond strength: A perturbation molecular orbital approach, J. Chem. 
Phys. 109 (1998) 7372-7378.
==========================================================

That's yet another peer-reviewed study proving you're a moronic 
kooktard, Jim. It also happens to yet again poke holes in your kooky 
theory, Jim. Now you'll be forced to run away from reality again, 
Jim... keep doing that long enough and it'll become a habit leading to 
you becoming fully delusional. Trust me on this... I'm an expert on 
driving kooks like you insane.

<snicker>

-- 

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#560371

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:49:50 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Nobody debates that it is weaker.  But that is not the issue, AFAIC.
> 
> Oh, good. That established, then you're forced to admit that the much 
> stronger diametrically-opposed covalent bond preferentially shortens 
> and strengthens when one of the H bonds is broken,

Relevance?

> >> Again, if the bond strength was variable, the solvent properties of
> >> water would be variable.
> 
> > Why do you assume this and/or why do you assume they (the solvent
> > properties) are not variable?
> 
> Because, you fucking moron, the solvent properties of water *depends* 
> upon the hydrogen bonding of water. If the polarity of water varied as 
> you claim, the hydrogen bond strength would vary,

How do you know they don't?  

Answer the question you evasive twit?




> >> For fuck sake, no it's not. Bond strength is a function of bond angle,
> >> but molecular polarity does not change. 
> 
> > How would you prove this?
> 
> Well, Jim, if you knew even the most basic about molecular physics, 
> you'd realize that hydrogen bonding has a preferred direction and thus 
> an optimum strength.

I can't figure out what you point is.  Sorry.

> > It doesn't.  The location of the electrons (or, the electron cloud) shifts.
> 
> Oh, so you're saying it changes its polarity, but it doesn't change 
> its polarity, then. Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense, now does 
> it, Jim?
> 
> And what, pray tell, causes your purported shift in electron 
> probability distribution about the molecule, Jim?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk



> 
> The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can 
> shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the 
> water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we, 
> Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that 
> gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge 
> has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been 
> utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me 
> $100,000 for meeting your challenge.
> 
> You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.
> 
> >>> And H bonds restore symmetry thereby neutralizing H2O polarity in
> >>> the liquid state. IOW, in the liquid state of water the molecules
> >>> therein have had their polarity neutralized by H bonds.  
> 

> >> Wrong. Bond angle (your misuse of the word symmetry is noted) and thus
> >> bond strength changes as a result of random thermal collisions, but
> >> molecular polarity does not change.
> 
> > That is your premise.  I have my premise.  Neither of us has proof.
> 
> Sure I have proof, Jim. You don't. In fact, I posted that proof, 
> remember? You ran away from it before, you'll likely do it again:
> 
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
> group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
> 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
> [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
> negative charge on the surface."

What does this prove?

> >> Wrong. Any vapor below its Critical Temperature will have both vapor
> >> *and* gaseous phase.
> 
> > Too bad you can't prove this.  
> 
> Sure I can prove it... in fact, that's how weather forecasters and 
> climate researchers determine cloud depth.

Why don't you see if Al Gore can help you then. LOL.


> Oh, Jim didn't realize that 
> water in its gaseous phase, water in its liquid phase and water in its 
> solid phase would reflect and refract different wavelengths, did he?
> 
> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation 
> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus 
> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.

If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?  But it has to be definitive.  No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.


> 
> Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous 
> phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and 
> nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?

Yes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

> 
> Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing 
> temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet not 
> immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its gaseous 
> phase... individual molecules... 

Wrong.  It' is always liquid or solid (ice).  It is never gaseous.


According to you, since you k'lame 
> all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air 
> and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its 
> downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft... 

I address this point in my videos.

thus 
> rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would 
> perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface 
> would be perpetually covered with a film of water.

Right.  Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of the sky like bricks.  Right?  But they don't. Why do you think that is?

> Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at all, 
> Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky little 
> theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your "discovery" without 
> fully testing its premises, Jim?

You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.


> >> Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
> >> so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?
> 
> > So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?
> 
> I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study

Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?

> > Ever heard of the scientific method?
> 
> Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of 
> peer reviewed studies... 

Peer review is consensus.  Consensus is politics.  (I am not a climate scientist.)  Only empirical evidence is valid if you want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble.  I thought this was obvious.  Sorry if you got the wrong idea.

> >> Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
> >> *different* water molecules. 
> 
> > No duh.
> 
> Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.

It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.

> > You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.  
> 
> You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim, 

Look into VESPR theory.  


> > I understand polarity better than anybody
> 
> No, you don't. 

Actually I do.

> >> In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.
> 
> > Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.
> 
> You've already been proven wrong below, Jim. 

Explain surface tension using your model.  Go ahead.  What are you waiting for?

> > If what you are saying is true H2O would have no surface tension.  
> 
> The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you 
> don't know about it.
> 
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
> =====================================================
> Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable 
> structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just 
> under 4 掳C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less 
> with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the 
> water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 掳C and 
> more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a 
> lower temperature).
> =====================================================
> 
> So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the 
> interfacial water, 

Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.  You just tacked it on. It's worthless. 

> > That's a model, dumbass.  That is not reality.
> > That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
> > So, only a loon would employ that as proof.
> 
> That model happens to be the model that is accepted

It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's are not evidence.  That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.

> > Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
> > Then do the experiment that prove it.  
> 
> Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known 
> for a very long time... 

As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.

> I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea 
> level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is 
> sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
> 
> Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is 
> insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so 
> boiling does not occur, 

Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.

> yet evaporation does occur.

Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.

> 
> Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt. 
> Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will 
> again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being 
> 70 C.

You're an idiot.

> 
> Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,

Surreal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#560655 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

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

James McGinn, in
<news:8d251d04-1985-4e03-8cb6-29552ed00ae0@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:49:50 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Nobody debates that it is weaker.  But that is not the issue, AFAIC.

>> Oh, good. That established, then you're forced to admit that the much 
>> stronger diametrically-opposed covalent bond preferentially shortens 
>> and strengthens when one of the H bonds is broken,

> Relevance?

The relevance is that your lack of understanding of atomic processes
has led you to make a false premise, then build an entire kooky
conspiracy theory upon that false premise. The relevance is that your
kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim, because the
underlying premise of your entire kooky conspiracy theory has been
destroyed.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."

Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.

Again, your  lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.

<snicker>

>>>> Again, if the bond strength was variable, the solvent properties of
>>>> water would be variable.

>>> Why do you assume this and/or why do you assume they (the solvent
>>> properties) are not variable?

>> Because, you fucking moron, the solvent properties of water *depends* 
>> upon the hydrogen bonding of water. If the polarity of water varied as 
>> you claim, the hydrogen bond strength would vary,

> How do you know they don't?  

Because it's been measured, Jim.

===========================================================
I'll further note that the polarity of water is not variable. It is
fixed at 1.09 (http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_properties.html).

References:
========================
C-H. Gu, H. Li, R. B. Gandhi and K. Raghavan, Grouping solvents by
statistical analysis of solvent property parameters:implication to
polymorph screening. Int. J. Pharmaceutics 283 (2004) 117-125.

R. S. Varma, Clean chemical synthesis in water, Org. Chem. Highlights
(2007), February.
========================

If water's polarity were variable, its solvent properties would be
variable, as well. It is not, therefore its polarity is not variable,
Jim. Why do you deny reality, Jim?
===========================================================

> Answer the question you evasive twit?

The question has already been answered, you evasive twit. You snipped
it out and ran away from it because it proves you and your kooky
conspiracy theory *wrong*, which means you owe me $100,000, Jim.

>>>> For fuck sake, no it's not. Bond strength is a function of bond angle,
>>>> but molecular polarity does not change. 

>>> How would you prove this?

>> Well, Jim, if you knew even the most basic about molecular physics, 
>> you'd realize that hydrogen bonding has a preferred direction and thus 
>> an optimum strength.
>> 
>> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
>> ==========================================================
>> An important feature of the hydrogen bond is that it possesses 
>> direction; by convention this direction is that of the shorter O-H 
>> (->) covalent bond (the O-H hydrogen atom being donated to the O-atom 
>> acceptor atom on another H2O molecule).
>> ==========================================================
>> 
>> And that destroys yet another central tenet of your kooky little 
>> theory, Jim... I can continue doing this until you're forced to admit 
>> you're a low-information delusional moron, or you can save yourself 
>> the concomitant embarrassment and admit it now, Jim.

> I can't figure out what you point is.  Sorry.

Your lack of comprehension is no one's fault but your own, Jim.
Rectify your stupidity via formal education. Finish high school.

<snicker>

>>> It doesn't.  The location of the electrons (or, the electron cloud) shifts.

>> Oh, so you're saying it changes its polarity, but it doesn't change 
>> its polarity, then. Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense, now does 
>> it, Jim?
>> 
>> And what, pray tell, causes your purported shift in electron 
>> probability distribution about the molecule, Jim?

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

Referring to your own video-based kook blather is not proof, Jim. Do
you not understand the scientific method?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.

>> The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can 
>> shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the 
>> water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we, 
>> Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that 
>> gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge 
>> has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been 
>> utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me 
>> $100,000 for meeting your challenge.
>> 
>> You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

<crickets>

>>>>> And H bonds restore symmetry thereby neutralizing H2O polarity in
>>>>> the liquid state. IOW, in the liquid state of water the molecules
>>>>> therein have had their polarity neutralized by H bonds.  

>>>> Wrong. Bond angle (your misuse of the word symmetry is noted) and thus
>>>> bond strength changes as a result of random thermal collisions, but
>>>> molecular polarity does not change.

>>> That is your premise.  I have my premise.  Neither of us has proof.

>> Sure I have proof, Jim. You don't. In fact, I posted that proof, 
>> remember? You ran away from it before, you'll likely do it again:
>> 
>> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
>> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
>> group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
>> 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
>> [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
>> negative charge on the surface."
>> 
>> What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
>> in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
>> electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
>> thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
>> molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
>> Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.
>> 
>> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html>
>> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz>
>> 
>> Why are you so stupid, Jim? People far smarter than you have figured 
>> all this out long before you conceived of your kooky discredited 
>> theory, Jim.
>> 
>> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
>> <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
>> =================================================
>> A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in 
>> the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number 
>> is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least 
>> one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the 
>> obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain 
>> sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, 
>> the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, 
>> and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that 
>> an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise 
>> interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent 
>> collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the 
>> liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was 
>> interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the 
>> evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation 
>> process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's 
>> cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a 
>> well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.
>> =================================================
>> 
>> "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule 
>> process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the 
>> atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, 
>> meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been 
>> provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been 
>> utterly destroyed, meaning you  owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, 
>> Jim.
>> 
>> <snicker>

> What does this prove?

It proves that evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, meaning
that water in its gaseous phase is entering the atmosphere, meaning
water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, meaning your kooky
challenge has been met and the proof has been provided, meaning the
underlying premise of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed,
meaning you  owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, Jim.

<snicker>

-- 

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#560668 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:04:36 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >> Oh, good. That established, then you're forced to admit that the much 
> >> stronger diametrically-opposed covalent bond preferentially shortens 
> >> and strengthens when one of the H bonds is broken,

I think you misread a diagram, or something.  H bonds (supposedly) shorten and strengthen.  (Actually they shorten and weaken.)

> The relevance is that your lack of understanding of atomic processes

You are becoming boring.

> >> Because, you fucking moron, the solvent 
> >> properties of water *depends* 
> >> upon the hydrogen bonding of water. If 
> >> the polarity of water varied as 
> >> you claim, the hydrogen bond strength would vary,
> 
> > How do you know they don't?  
> 
> Because it's been measured, Jim.

Wrong.  It's been estimated based on xrap spectrography.  They are too small to measure.  

> I'll further note that the polarity of water is not variable. It is
> fixed at 1.09 (http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_properties.html).

It's not possible to directly measure them.  It's estimated.  

> If water's polarity were variable, its solvent properties would be
> variable, as well. 

Evidence?

> > I can't figure out what you point is.  Sorry.
> 
> Your lack of comprehension is no one's fault but your own, Jim.
> Rectify your stupidity via formal education. Finish high school.

LOL.  You look things up on the internet, and now you are an expert.

> >> And what, pray tell, causes your purported shift in electron 
> >> probability distribution about the molecule, Jim?
> 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
> 
> Referring to your own video-based kook blather is not proof,

That is my hypothesis.  You can't dispute it, right?

> Jim. Do
> you not understand the scientific method?
> 
> Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
> process, 

It's way too advanced. 

> > What does this prove?
> 
> It proves that evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process,

Birdbrain. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#560845 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

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

James McGinn, in
<news:9ab6efa2-9ef7-471b-9a63-59581d03aef0@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:04:36 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> Oh, good. That established, then you're forced to admit that the much 
>>>> stronger diametrically-opposed covalent bond preferentially shortens 
>>>> and strengthens when one of the H bonds is broken,

> I think you misread a diagram, or something.  H bonds (supposedly) shorten and strengthen.  (Actually they shorten and weaken.)

Bwahahaaa! Now the moron k'lames that as bonds shorten, they *weaken*,
*and* that covalent bonds cannot change length!

Holy shit, Jim. You're no physicist, you're just a kooktard proving
yourself to be utterly clue repellant.

>> The relevance is that your lack of understanding of atomic processes

> You are becoming boring.

Every kook says that when they're losing, Jim. It's so prototypically
'kook' that it's considered major kooksign.

>>>> Because, you fucking moron, the solvent 
>>>> properties of water *depends* 
>>>> upon the hydrogen bonding of water. If 
>>>> the polarity of water varied as 
>>>> you claim, the hydrogen bond strength would vary,

>>> How do you know they don't?  

>> Because it's been measured, Jim.

> Wrong.  It's been estimated based on xrap spectrography.  They are
> too small to measure.  

Wrong. It's been measured, Jim. Do you think the solvent properties of
water require "xrap spectrography" to measure, Jim? Or are you just
desperately spewing whatever blather you think will get you out of
your latest jam, in which you've yet again demonstrated that you know
far too little to ever construct a theory that reflects reality?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.

===========================================================
I'll further note that the polarity of water is not variable. It is
fixed at 1.09 (http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_properties.html).

References:
========================
C-H. Gu, H. Li, R. B. Gandhi and K. Raghavan, Grouping solvents by
statistical analysis of solvent property parameters:implication to
polymorph screening. Int. J. Pharmaceutics 283 (2004) 117-125.

R. S. Varma, Clean chemical synthesis in water, Org. Chem. Highlights
(2007), February.
========================

If water's polarity were variable, its solvent properties would be
variable, as well. It is not, therefore its polarity is not variable,
Jim. Why do you deny reality, Jim?
===========================================================

>> I'll further note that the polarity of water is not variable. It is
>> fixed at 1.09 (http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_properties.html).

> It's not possible to directly measure them.  It's estimated.  

No, it's not, Jim. You're just a backpedaling moron hoping it's
estimated. For the rest of the world, we know the polarity of water is
directly measured.

>> If water's polarity were variable, its solvent properties would be
>> variable, as well. 

> Evidence?

The evidence is that water's solvent properties *depend* upon the
hydrogen bonding, and if the water molecule's polarity changed, it's
bond length (covalent and intermolecular) would change, thus changing
its solvent properties, Jim. The solvent properties of water are a
known quantity, Jim.

>>> I can't figure out what you point is.  Sorry.

>> Your lack of comprehension is no one's fault but your own, Jim.
>> Rectify your stupidity via formal education. Finish high school.

> LOL.  You look things up on the internet, and now you are an expert.

LOL. You take one Basic Meteorology elective class, and now you are a
'physicist'.

>>>> And what, pray tell, causes your purported shift in electron 
>>>> probability distribution about the molecule, Jim?

>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

>> Referring to your own video-based kook blather is not proof,

> That is my hypothesis.  You can't dispute it, right?

I not only disputed it, Jim, I utterly demolished it. Proved you're
discussing a physical impossibility. No plasma in the troposphere, no
kooky conspiracy theory.

>> Jim. Do you not understand the scientific method?
>> 
>> Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
>> process, 

> It's way too advanced. 

Bwahahaaa! It's been rejected and laughed at by every single reviewer,
Jim.

Let's see your peer-review rejection letters, Jim.

>>> What does this prove?

>> It proves that evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process,

> Birdbrain.

And that's the *best* James McGinn has in defense of his kooky
conspiracy theory, folks.

<snicker>

-- 

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#560902 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
<FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Holy shit, Jim. You're no physicist, you're just a kooktard proving
> yourself to be utterly clue repellant.

And the land shook, trees sprung from their mooring, fish
raced over the fields, and pigs winged through the darkened
skies, as kook-0-meters everywhere imploded in smoke and
flame.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#560906 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

In article <7g01eb5d2i0n7efhag9davusq66jfhvl6g@4ax.com>, 
bender@the.future says...


> 
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> 
> > Holy shit, Jim. You're no physicist, you're just a kooktard proving
> > yourself to be utterly clue repellant.
> 
> And the land shook, trees sprung from their mooring, fish
> raced over the fields, and pigs winged through the darkened
> skies, as kook-0-meters everywhere imploded in smoke and
> flame.

Everyone applauded.

-- 
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#560915 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote:

> In article <7g01eb5d2i0n7efhag9davusq66jfhvl6g@4ax.com>, 
> bender@the.future says...
> 
> > Snickerturd the Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus 
> > <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> plucked at the seat of his pants as he wrote:
> > 
> > > Holy shit, Jim. You're no physicist, you're just a kooktard proving
> > > yourself to be utterly clue repellant.
> > 
> > And the land shook, trees sprung from their mooring, fish
> > raced over the fields, and pigs winged through the darkened
> > skies, as kook-0-meters everywhere imploded in smoke and
> > flame.
> 
> Everyone applauded.

Did too, yay!    [phweep-phweeep]

-- 
^Ï^.       Sn!pe       <snipeco.1@gmail.com>

My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.
My pet rock Gordon wants out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#560911 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:

> Snickerturd the Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus 
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> squirmed as he wrote:
> 
> > Holy shit, Jim. You're no physicist, you're just a kooktard
> > proving yourself to be utterly clue repellant.
> >
>
> And the land shook, trees sprung from their mooring, fish
> raced over the fields, and pigs winged through the darkened
> skies, as kook-0-meters everywhere imploded in smoke and
> flame.
>

PorkAir Flight 123, you are cleared for landing.
Do not -- repeat -- DO NOT attempt an instrument landing, 
you're on your own for this, Big Feller, best of luck.

<titter>

-- 
^Ï^.       Sn!pe       <snipeco.1@gmail.com>

My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.
My pet rock Gordon just grinned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#560916 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

In article <1mjv1o1.kks7q1bvfthbN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, snipeco.2
@gmail.com says...


> 
> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:
> 
> > Snickerturd the Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus 
> > <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> squirmed as he wrote:
> > 
> > > Holy shit, Jim. You're no physicist, you're just a kooktard
> > > proving yourself to be utterly clue repellant.
> > >
> >
> > And the land shook, trees sprung from their mooring, fish
> > raced over the fields, and pigs winged through the darkened
> > skies, as kook-0-meters everywhere imploded in smoke and
> > flame.
> >
> 
> PorkAir Flight 123, you are cleared for landing.
> Do not -- repeat -- DO NOT attempt an instrument landing, 
> you're on your own for this, Big Feller, best of luck.
> 
> <titter>

<golf clap>

-- 
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561049 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:7g01eb5d2i0n7efhag9davusq66jfhvl6g@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Holy shit, Jim. You're no physicist, you're just a kooktard proving
>> yourself to be utterly clue repellant.

> And the land shook, trees sprung from their mooring, fish
> raced over the fields, and pigs winged through the darkened
> skies, as kook-0-meters everywhere imploded in smoke and
> flame.

Just what are you trying but utterly failing (again) to say?

Why are you such a moron?

<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 water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561089 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

Fakey wrote:

> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
> 
> > Fakey wrote:
> 
> >> Holy shit, Jim. You're no physicist, you're just a kooktard proving
> >> yourself to be utterly clue repellant.
> 
> > And the land shook, trees sprung from their mooring, fish
> > raced over the fields, and pigs winged through the darkened
> > skies, as kook-0-meters everywhere imploded in smoke and
> > flame.
> 
> Just what are you trying but utterly failing (again) to say?

Forget it, Ersatzia.  You're just a kooktard proving
yourself to be so utterly clue repellent, you wouldn't
understand it.

What's the electronegativity of any oxygen ATOM, faketard?

Is it hard to find?  Let me help you...

<https://www.google.com/search?q=electronegativity+of+oxygen>

-- 
"..the term 'electronegativity' denotes a *positive* nucleal
charge."  --Fakey the Chemist waxes stupid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561171 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:apg2ebpatvu9h8ccl7hp63sv5u29ju39kt@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

>>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>>>> Holy shit, Jim. You're no physicist, you're just a kooktard proving
>>>> yourself to be utterly clue repellant.

>>> And the land shook, trees sprung from their mooring, fish
>>> raced over the fields, and pigs winged through the darkened
>>> skies, as kook-0-meters everywhere imploded in smoke and
>>> flame.

>> Just what are you trying but utterly failing (again) to say?

> Forget it, Ersatzia.  You're just a kooktard proving
> yourself to be so utterly clue repellent, you wouldn't
> understand it.

Translation:
"I don't have a point, I'm just a blither-blathering moron." LOL

> What's the electronegativity of any oxygen ATOM, faketard?

Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen 
with that of the oxygen atom in a water molecule and prove that PhD 
professor of applied sciences wrong, eh, Moron? LOL

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html>
London South Bank University - Physics Department
Martin Chaplin BSc PhD CChem FRSC
Emeritus Professor of Applied Science
111 peer-reviewed studies published
3 books published
3 patents granted
==================================================
Due to the relatively large positive charge on the oxygen atom nucleus
(8+) and the closeness of its electrons, the oxygen atom attracts
electrons much more strongly (i.e. is much more electronegative) than
the hydrogen atoms (1+). This results in a charge transfer from the
hydrogen atoms towards the oxygen atom and, hence, the polarity of the
water molecule.

Early 5-point molecular models, with explicit negative charge where
the lone pairs are purported to be, fared poorly in describing
hydrogen bonding, but more recent models show some promise. Although
there is no apparent consensus of opinion [116], such descriptions of
substantial sp3-hybridized lone pairs in the isolated water molecule
should perhaps be avoided [117], as an sp2-hybridized structure (plus
a pz orbital) is indicated.

The molecule H2O has 10 electrons associated, 8 from the oxygen atom
and one each from the two hydrogen atoms.
==================================================

And all of the above backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies by people
far smarter and saner than you, Moron.

SPNAK!

I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.

<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 water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561198 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

Fakey wrote:

<snip re-recycled screed in an attempt to avoid admitting
he's wrong>

*yawn*.......

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561440 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:6ie3ebpdvvbqbss9j05p0mojg1r27hiq0u@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

> <snip re-recycled screed in an attempt to avoid admitting
> he's wrong>
> 
> *yawn*.......

Awwwww, look at the retard snipping wholesale as tacit admission that
he's *wrong*. Again. LOL

Don't you ever get tired of being *wrong*, Moron? LOL

<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law>
========================================
Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal 
gas law applies to within 10% error.

The ideal gas law is derived from a model (the ideal gas), and like 
every other model it applies where it's underling assumptions are good 
approximations to reality.
========================================

The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water 
vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for 
using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong.

It most certainly does follow the Ideal Gas Law when using it for 
water in its gaseous phase in the atmosphere, as I did to prove that 
James McGinn's kooky conspiracy theory was wrong.

<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137556/use-of-the-ideal-gas-law-for-earths-atmosphere-and-the-role-of-density>
=================================================
To a good approximation the atmosphere behaves as an ideal gas, with 
each mole of gas obeying the law:

pVm=RT
=================================================

Hence my use of molar volume and molar density with a given 
temperature and pressure to make the molar volume of atmosphere in the 
example an intensive property.

SPNAK!

-- 

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 water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal 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.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561505 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
<FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
> 
> > Fakey wrote:
> 
> > <snip re-recycled screed in an attempt to avoid admitting
> > he's wrong>
> > 
> > *yawn*.......

<snip RE-re-recycled screed in an attempt to avoid admitting
he's wrong>

Repeating the same debunked shit doesn't prove you are
smart, fakey.

-- 
"3-phase AC power constitutes a closed loop!"
  --Fakey demonstrates his mastery of Kirchoff's Law

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561605 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

In article <ejj5ebtg8immtoaftqsfc2arh3uk7i0s7a@4ax.com>, 
bender@the.future says...


> 
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> 
> > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
> > 
> > > Fakey wrote:
> > 
> > > <snip re-recycled screed in an attempt to avoid admitting
> > > he's wrong>
> > > 
> > > *yawn*.......
> 
> <snip RE-re-recycled screed in an attempt to avoid admitting
> he's wrong>
> 
> Repeating the same debunked shit doesn't prove you are
> smart, fakey.

"RMS voltage is a sinusoidal wave".   -some ko0k

-- 
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562050 — Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:ejj5ebtg8immtoaftqsfc2arh3uk7i0s7a@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

>>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again.:

>>> <snip re-recycled screed in an attempt to avoid admitting
>>> he's wrong>

Translation:
"<cowardly snip of reality being drummed into my ultra-dense skull>"

<snicker>

>>> *yawn*.......

> <snip RE-re-recycled screed in an attempt to avoid admitting
> he's wrong>

Translation:
"<cowardly snip of more reality being drummed into my ultra-dense
skull>"

<snicker>

> Repeating the same debunked shit doesn't prove you are
> smart, fakey.

Repeating reality to a moron proves I'm smarter than that moron,
Moron. LOL

> -- 
> "3-phase AC power constitutes a closed loop!"
>   --Fakey demonstrates his mastery of Kirchoff's Law

<https://youtu.be/pgzc4aU_HeY?t=110>
"The reason that we have these degree designators is because these 
represent fractions of a full circle, and in fact the sine waves are a 
manifestation of circular motion, that's why the sine function is 
sometimes called a circular function."

SPNAK!

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

<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 water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal 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.

That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web