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

Groups > sci.physics > #556893 > unrolled thread

Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 09:35 -0800
    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 10:14 -0800
      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:07 -0800
        Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:24 -0800
      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:11 -0800
        Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:26 -0600
          Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:38 -0800
            Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:02 -0600
    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 18:06 +0000
    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:34 -0600
      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:11 -0800
        Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:22 -0600
          Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:26 -0800
            Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:29 -0600
              Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:00 -0800
                Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:04 -0800
                  Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:06 -0600
                    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:17 -0800
                      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:01 +0000
                        Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:24 -0800
                          Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:42 +0000
                            Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:33 -0800
                              Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 03:52 +0000
                                pull or\and push it noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 16:58 -0800
                        Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 16:03 -0800
                Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:05 -0600
                  Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:13 -0800
                    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:16 -0600
                Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 20:52 +0000
                  Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:05 -0800
                    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:02 +0000
                      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:25 -0800
                        Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:47 +0000
    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 13:03 -0600
    is pulled by noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:46 -0800
    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:41 -0800
      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-06 11:47 -0600
    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 19:38 +1100
      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 01:01 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#557083

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:26 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:06:09 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >  
>> >>    Wrong, James, you don't understand evaporation.
>> > 
>> > Dumb people believe the invisibility of an evaporate proves it is gas. 
>> > 
>> > It doesn't.  
>> 
>> True, but LOTS of other things do.
> 
> Your delusions aren't evidence.

I wasn't talking about your beliefs, but rather thousands and thousands
of repeatible experiments done by scientists over hundred of years.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557114

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:26 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:06:09 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> >  
> >> >>    Wrong, James, you don't understand evaporation.
> >> > 
> >> > Dumb people believe the invisibility of an evaporate proves it is gas. 
> >> > 
> >> > It doesn't.  
> >> 
> >> True, but LOTS of other things do.
> > 
> > Your delusions aren't evidence.
> 
> I wasn't talking about your beliefs, but rather thousands and thousands
> of repeatible experiments done by scientists over hundred of years.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

Idiocracy - Electrolytes - YouTube 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA 

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

#557125

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:26 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:06:09 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >> >  
>> >> >>    Wrong, James, you don't understand evaporation.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Dumb people believe the invisibility of an evaporate proves it is gas. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > It doesn't.  
>> >> 
>> >> True, but LOTS of other things do.
>> > 
>> > Your delusions aren't evidence.
>> 
>> I wasn't talking about your beliefs, but rather thousands and thousands
>> of repeatible experiments done by scientists over hundred of years.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jim Pennino
> 
> Idiocracy - Electrolytes - YouTube 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA 

Why do you keep bringing up this loser movie?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557437 — pull or\and push it

he's going for the Guinness golD,
most sylli posting per diem

> Why do you keep bringing up this loser movie?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

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

#559851

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:26 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > Dumb people believe the invisibility of an evaporate proves it is gas. 
> > 
> > It doesn't.  
> 
> True, but LOTS of other things do.

All it take is one and you've gained $100,000.00.

Just one!!!

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

#556969

On 2/26/16 2:00 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Gaseous H2O; H2O(g) = Invisible (g is for gas)
>
> Evaporate H2O; H2O(l) = Sometimes invisible, sometimes visible * (l is for liquid)

   Evaporate H2O is ALWAYS gas, James, and always invisible.

   Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
   gas. There is nothing to see.

 > Water vapour (H2O molecules)

 > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
 > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
 > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
 > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
 > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
 > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
 > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
 > lead to clouds.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#556978

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:05:16 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/26/16 2:00 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > Gaseous H2O; H2O(g) = Invisible (g is for gas)
> >
> > Evaporate H2O; H2O(l) = Sometimes invisible, sometimes visible * (l is for liquid)
> 
>    Evaporate H2O is ALWAYS gas, James, and always invisible.

Obviously we disagree, Sam.  

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

#556979

On 2/26/16 2:13 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:05:16 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/26/16 2:00 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> Gaseous H2O; H2O(g) = Invisible (g is for gas)
>>>
>>> Evaporate H2O; H2O(l) = Sometimes invisible, sometimes visible * (l is for liquid)
>>
>>     Evaporate H2O is ALWAYS gas, James, and always invisible.
>
> Obviously we disagree, Sam.
>

   Duh!

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#557006

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:29:37 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/26/16 1:26 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> > Sam, other than the one on top of your head, do you have a point?
>> 
>> 
>>    Here is my point, James:
>> 
>>    Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
>>    gas. There is nothing to see.
> 
> Gaseous H2O; H2O(g) = Invisible (g is for gas)
> 
> Evaporate H2O; H2O(l) = Sometimes invisible, sometimes visible * (l is for liquid)
> 
> (*) It depends on size of droplet/cluster.  The exact number isn't known,
> but generally a cluster with a diameter smaller than a photon is invisible.

The size of an individual H2O molecule is 2.75 A, therefore two H2O
molecules are about 5.5 A, or about the size of a far UV photon.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557007

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 1:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:29:37 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 2/26/16 1:26 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >> > Sam, other than the one on top of your head, do you have a point?
> >> 
> >> 
> >>    Here is my point, James:
> >> 
> >>    Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
> >>    gas. There is nothing to see.
> > 
> > Gaseous H2O; H2O(g) = Invisible (g is for gas)
> > 
> > Evaporate H2O; H2O(l) = Sometimes invisible, sometimes visible * (l is for liquid)
> > 
> > (*) It depends on size of droplet/cluster.  The exact number isn't known,
> > but generally a cluster with a diameter smaller than a photon is invisible.
> 
> The size of an individual H2O molecule is 2.75 A, therefore two H2O
> molecules are about 5.5 A, or about the size of a far UV photon.

Keep going.  Get to the visible spectrum.  Come on, you can do it.

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

#557066

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 1:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:29:37 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >> On 2/26/16 1:26 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> >> > Sam, other than the one on top of your head, do you have a point?
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>    Here is my point, James:
>> >> 
>> >>    Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
>> >>    gas. There is nothing to see.
>> > 
>> > Gaseous H2O; H2O(g) = Invisible (g is for gas)
>> > 
>> > Evaporate H2O; H2O(l) = Sometimes invisible, sometimes visible * (l is for liquid)
>> > 
>> > (*) It depends on size of droplet/cluster.  The exact number isn't known,
>> > but generally a cluster with a diameter smaller than a photon is invisible.
>> 
>> The size of an individual H2O molecule is 2.75 A, therefore two H2O
>> molecules are about 5.5 A, or about the size of a far UV photon.
> 
> Keep going.  Get to the visible spectrum.  Come on, you can do it.

Why?

Does the concept of UV imaging boggle your little mind?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557073

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:16:04 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 1:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:29:37 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> >> On 2/26/16 1:26 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >> >> > Sam, other than the one on top of your head, do you have a point?
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >>    Here is my point, James:
> >> >> 
> >> >>    Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
> >> >>    gas. There is nothing to see.
> >> > 
> >> > Gaseous H2O; H2O(g) = Invisible (g is for gas)
> >> > 
> >> > Evaporate H2O; H2O(l) = Sometimes invisible, sometimes visible * (l is for liquid)
> >> > 
> >> > (*) It depends on size of droplet/cluster.  The exact number isn't known,
> >> > but generally a cluster with a diameter smaller than a photon is invisible.
> >> 
> >> The size of an individual H2O molecule is 2.75 A, therefore two H2O
> >> molecules are about 5.5 A, or about the size of a far UV photon.
> > 
> > Keep going.  Get to the visible spectrum.  Come on, you can do it.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Does the concept of UV imaging boggle your little mind?

UV is invisible, dumbass.

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

#557086

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:16:04 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 1:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:29:37 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >> >> On 2/26/16 1:26 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> >> >> > Sam, other than the one on top of your head, do you have a point?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>    Here is my point, James:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>    Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
>> >> >>    gas. There is nothing to see.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Gaseous H2O; H2O(g) = Invisible (g is for gas)
>> >> > 
>> >> > Evaporate H2O; H2O(l) = Sometimes invisible, sometimes visible * (l is for liquid)
>> >> > 
>> >> > (*) It depends on size of droplet/cluster.  The exact number isn't known,
>> >> > but generally a cluster with a diameter smaller than a photon is invisible.
>> >> 
>> >> The size of an individual H2O molecule is 2.75 A, therefore two H2O
>> >> molecules are about 5.5 A, or about the size of a far UV photon.
>> > 
>> > Keep going.  Get to the visible spectrum.  Come on, you can do it.
>> 
>> Why?
>> 
>> Does the concept of UV imaging boggle your little mind?
> 
> UV is invisible, dumbass.

UV imaging, dumbass.

That means some apparatus, of which there are many, that converts an
image in the UV spectrum into one in the visible spectrum.

Do I have to spoon feed you everything?



-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556927

On 2/26/2016 11:35 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>
>
> Will: My point is that no one or group has the slightest clue as to
> how this atmosphere may work. Any claim of such must be an attempt at
> deliberate scam!
>
> James: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled.

explain....
or we call you a silly person.

> Expansiveness
> and buoyancy play no role.

buoyancy does play a role.  What do you mean by Expansiveness, explain 
or we call you idiot. got any context ?


> Kinetic energy running along distinct
> boundaries at the top of the troposphere create the flows--jet
> strams--that create the LOW PRESSURE that pulls the rest of the
> atmosphere along.

wrong, that is your imagination.  How did the Kinetic Energy get there ?

explain, or are you just making this stuff up ?


>Moisture in the atmosphere

how did your water get up there ??   your "moist air" is too heavy, you 
say that.

> facilitates the kinetic
> energy and provides the leverage by which the upper atmosphere
> maintains its grip on the lower atmosphere through storms.

no, that is silly, how can gasses "grip"  they cannot, you try to fool 
people



> One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection model
> is wrong: The fact that storms and low pressure are correlated.
> Specifically, if the convection model was correct then storms would
> have to be correlated with high pressure.  Bu they aren't.  As
> predicted by my model storms are associated with low pressure.

wrong.  Intentionally wrong.  you have low pressure between your ears. a 
vacuum.

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

#557097 — is pulled by

as is well-known, but
evaporated water is still lighter than air

> Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled.  Expansiveness and buoyancy play no role.  Kinetic energy running along distinct boundaries at the top of the troposphere create the flows--jet strams--that create the LOW PRESSURE that pulls the rest of the atmosphere along.  Moisture in the atmosphere facilitates the kinetic energy and provides the leverage by which the upper atmosphere maintains its grip on the lower atmosphere through storms.
> 
> One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection model is wrong:
> The fact that storms and low pressure are correlated.  Specifically, if the convection model was correct then storms would have to be correlated with high pressure.  Bu they aren't.  As predicted by my model storms are associated with low pressure.

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

#559781

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-7/#comment-114096
> 
> 
> Will:
> My point is that no one or group has the slightest clue as to how this atmosphere may work. Any claim of such must be an attempt at deliberate scam!
> 
> James:
> Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled.  Expansiveness and buoyancy play no role.  Kinetic energy running along distinct boundaries at the top of the troposphere create the flows--jet strams--that create the LOW PRESSURE that pulls the rest of the atmosphere along.  Moisture in the atmosphere facilitates the kinetic energy and provides the leverage by which the upper atmosphere maintains its grip on the lower atmosphere through storms.
> 
> 
One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection model is wrong:
> The fact that storms and low pressure are correlated.  Specifically, if the convection model was correct then storms would have to be correlated with high pressure.  Bu they aren't.  As predicted by my model storms are associated with low pressure.

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

#559782

On 3/6/2016 11:41 AM, James McGoonie wrote:



<snip troll crap>

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

#559931

On 27/02/2016 4:35 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-7/#comment-114096
>
>
>
> Will: My point is that no one or group has the slightest clue as to
> how this atmosphere may work. Any claim of such must be an attempt at
> deliberate scam!
>
> James: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled.  Expansiveness
> and buoyancy play no role.  Kinetic energy running along distinct
> boundaries at the top of the troposphere create the flows--jet
> strams--that create the LOW PRESSURE that pulls the rest of the
> atmosphere along.  Moisture in the atmosphere facilitates the kinetic
> energy and provides the leverage by which the upper atmosphere
> maintains its grip on the lower atmosphere through storms.
>
> One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection model
> is wrong: The fact that storms and low pressure are correlated.
> Specifically, if the convection model was correct then storms would
> have to be correlated with high pressure.  Bu they aren't.  As
> predicted by my model storms are associated with low pressure.
>

On a molecular level, how does pulling work in a gas?

Sylvia.

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

#559939

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 12:38:40 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/02/2016 4:35 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> > https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-7/#comment-114096
> >
> >
> >
> > Will: My point is that no one or group has the slightest clue as to
> > how this atmosphere may work. Any claim of such must be an attempt at
> > deliberate scam!
> >
> > James: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled.  Expansiveness
> > and buoyancy play no role.  Kinetic energy running along distinct
> > boundaries at the top of the troposphere create the flows--jet
> > streams--that create the LOW PRESSURE that pulls the rest of the
> > atmosphere along.  Moisture in the atmosphere facilitates the kinetic
> > energy and provides the leverage by which the upper atmosphere
> > maintains its grip on the lower atmosphere through storms.
> >
> > One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection model
> > is wrong: The fact that storms and low pressure are correlated.
> > Specifically, if the convection model was correct then storms would
> > have to be correlated with high pressure.  Bu they aren't.  As
> > predicted by my model storms are associated with low pressure.
> >
> 
> On a molecular level, how does pulling work in a gas?
> 
> Sylvia.

This is one of the smartest questions I've been asked.  My answer involves flat boundary layers between moist air and dry air, like those that form naturally along the tropopause; it involves energy acccumulating in a stream; it involves plasma; it involve spinning; it involves high wind speeds; it involves Bernoulli effect; it involves long distances; it involve differential pressure as the energy source . . . and more:

Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web