Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #563399 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-18 09:33 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-03-20 01:28 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 39 — 6 participants |
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.
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 09:33 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 07:20 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 10:58 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 20:59 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 21:12 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 07:39 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 23:52 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 18:29 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 10:56 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 20:16 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 12:40 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 22:01 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 14:23 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 05:06 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 21:38 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 17:29 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:16 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:56 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 22:44 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:16 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:42 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 05:27 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:21 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 17:53 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:27 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 06:24 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 22:45 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 17:54 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 10:27 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 07:17 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:44 -0600
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:44 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:41 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-21 11:23 -0600
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- "\"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> - 2016-03-21 13:26 -0400
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:15 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:26 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- "\"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> - 2016-03-20 02:53 -0400
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-20 01:28 -0600
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 09:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <f663061c-8891-4e44-b99b-7c181e3d0fc8@googlegroups.com> |
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 9:13:12 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply] > > 8:13 PM (46 minutes ago) > > > This thread seems to have run its course. The basic thermodynamics > of water in its various phases is well-understood, and no substantive > arguments to the contrary have emerged. After discussion between the > moderators, we have therefore unanamously agreed to close this thread. > > ciao, > > -- > -- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu> > Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA > "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched > at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police > plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable > that they watched everybody all the time." -- George Orwell, "1984" > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/TVKql-ReCQAJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/0k78tLsACgAJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/7mheNz66CwAJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/7mheNz66CwAJ
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 07:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <b35fc654f75a526133dc318752121b53@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #563399 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:f663061c-8891-4e44-b99b-7c181e3d0fc8@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched > at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police > plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable > that they watched everybody all the time." -- George Orwell, "1984" Bwahahaaaa! Your paranoid schizophrenia is flaring up, James. Is that big meanie Reality kicking your retarded ass again, James? You should sue it, Jimmy. You should sue it and Science for being so mean that they don't immediately bow down before your delusions and proclaim James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA King Of Science... but they've not done that, James... you've been declared the joker, a pathetic bumbling moronic idiotic delusional halfwit. Your delusion is complex because you refuse to acknowledge actual reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions onto your kooky "theory" to cover up the gaping logical inconsistencies and contradictions that are brought to light... thus your delusion grows until you are fully psychotic, believing the entire world, every single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy because it doesn't agree with your delusion... this is why Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you often end up psychotic, James. Your "theory" holds no water, James. Especially in light of all that ongoing research into monomolecular water in the atmosphere: Water In The Gas Phase - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/ Not ab initio... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous phase. 16 referenced papers. Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation. http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/ Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere And that's not to mention that we see a perfect example of this each and every time we go to a weather website... the weather satellites and ground stations can differentiate between monomolecular gaseous-phase water (humidity) in the atmosphere, and liquid-phase water (clouds) in the atmosphere, Jim, because each absorbs and emits at a different wavelength, just as that video *you* *provided* featuring Anders Nilsson's work on x-ray spectroscopy of water in its three phases shows. Remember? =============================================== https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156 They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two phases. https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304 You'll note the double peak of liquid water. Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory: "Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules." =============================================== That was a reference *you* *provided*, Jim, and it proves you *wrong*... that you didn't and don't realize that fact is testament that you lack the requisite educational background to even be attempting to form a model of the atmosphere... hence the reason your "theory" is so wrong in so many ways. And as I explained to you, the dual peak of liquid water, one near the gaseous-phase monomolecular water peak (remember, you've claimed that all water must be liquid in the atmosphere, thus if a different spectral peak is observed than that of liquid water, it *must* be gaseous phase monomolecular water, not liquid water, which would have the same spectral peaks as bulk liquid water), and one near the solid-phase water peak, which are due to the two spin isomers of water. There are two water molecule hybrids. This also happens to utterly destroy your contention that water molecule polarity changes upon H bonding (which would mean that water solvent properties randomly change... and we know that's not the case, James). The water molecule polarity isn't changing upon H bonding, thereby lending a variable strength H bond, there are two spin isomers of water with two different H bond strengths. This is well-established and rigorously-studied science, James, corroborated by study upon study upon study. Now on to those questions you continue ducking, James. They highlight the contradictions and inconsistencies in your "theory", which you cannot explain, so it's little wonder you've evaded addressing them... note the first one is a circulus in probando causality dilemma, making your "theory" wholly impossible. ================================================ You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of *maximum* 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ================================================== Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== MID: <13d33d0638e0ec690b63393d0710f658@dizum.com> MID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com> The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*). That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms. That superposition is the same as wave interference. That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves. That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things. That RMS isn't a DC voltage. That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L. That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1. The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave. That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering. What a positive or negative vector is. That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero. That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic". That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective nuclear charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842% margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F. That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames. That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes into account molar volume. That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error". That water can be plasmized. That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 10:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <cb2295bb-8059-46d3-af5e-cf6413ba9079@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #563591 |
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 11:30:53 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:f663061c-8891-4e44-b99b-7c181e3d0fc8@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched > > at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police > > plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable > > that they watched everybody all the time." -- George Orwell, "1984" > > Bwahahaaaa! Your paranoid schizophrenia is flaring up, James. Is that > big meanie Reality kicking your retarded ass again, James? You should > sue it, Jimmy. You should sue it and Science for being so mean that > they don't immediately bow down before your delusions and proclaim > James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA King Of Science... but > they've not done that, James... you've been declared the joker, a > pathetic bumbling moronic idiotic delusional halfwit. > > Your delusion is complex because you refuse to acknowledge actual > reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions onto your > kooky "theory" to cover up the gaping logical inconsistencies and > contradictions that are brought to light... thus your delusion grows > until you are fully psychotic, believing the entire world, every > single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy because it doesn't agree > with your delusion... this is why Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards > like you often end up psychotic, James. > > Your "theory" holds no water, James. Especially in light of all that > ongoing research into monomolecular water in the atmosphere: > > Water In The Gas Phase - > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/ > Not ab initio... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the > gaseous phase. 16 referenced papers. > > Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research > http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation > Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation. > > http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/ > Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to > directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere So, if your only argument is to point to people that made the same assumption you made, . . . what conclusion should we draw from this? Think about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 20:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <740bd5f27aa8a4f49bb33870adf0a0cc@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #563666 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:cb2295bb-8059-46d3-af5e-cf6413ba9079@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 11:30:53 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James McGinn, in >> <news:f663061c-8891-4e44-b99b-7c181e3d0fc8@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched >>> at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police >>> plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable >>> that they watched everybody all the time." -- George Orwell, "1984" >> Bwahahaaaa! Your paranoid schizophrenia is flaring up, James. Is that >> big meanie Reality kicking your retarded ass again, James? You should >> sue it, Jimmy. You should sue it and Science for being so mean that >> they don't immediately bow down before your delusions and proclaim >> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA King Of Science... but >> they've not done that, James... you've been declared the joker, a >> pathetic bumbling moronic idiotic delusional halfwit. >> >> Your delusion is complex because you refuse to acknowledge actual >> reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions onto your >> kooky "theory" to cover up the gaping logical inconsistencies and >> contradictions that are brought to light... thus your delusion grows >> until you are fully psychotic, believing the entire world, every >> single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy because it doesn't agree >> with your delusion... this is why Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards >> like you often end up psychotic, James. >> >> Your "theory" holds no water, James. Especially in light of all that >> ongoing research into monomolecular water in the atmosphere: >> >> Water In The Gas Phase - >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/ >> Not ab initio... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the >> gaseous phase. 16 referenced papers. >> >> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research >> http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation >> Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation. >> >> http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/ >> Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to >> directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere > So, if your only argument is to point to people that made the same assumption you made, . . . what conclusion should we draw from this? > > Think about it. The conclusion to be drawn from that is that you're too fucking retarded and delusional to understand that you've just had your kooky fabrication of a "theory" torn to shreds, and now you're making a laughingstock of yourself, James. The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the lesser the photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here: https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156 That Anders Nilsson et. al. were measuring a spectral peak that did not coincide with solid-phase water nor with liquid-phase water, a spectral peak with *higher* photon energy than liquid-phase water, means they were measuring gaseous-phase water, Jim. No H bonding, monomolecular. You'll note the gaseous-phase water's photon energy was *higher* because it was monomer water, and thus had no inter-molecular H bonds. If it had had any H bonds, it would have been liquid water, and thus would have had a spectral peak identical to that of liquid water. It could *not* have been liquid water, no matter how small the droplet, James, or the spectral peak would have been identical to that of liquid water. Do you not understand this, James? That fact proves the existence of gaseous water, hence that evaporation is a per-molecule process, hence that latent heat of evaporation exists, hence the central premise of your retarded "theory" is yet again destroyed, Jim. Stop embarrassing yourself, Jim. It's over. You've been exposed as a scientific fraud and a moron far too stupid and delusional to ever model the atmosphere. Now before you run away again, James, do get right on addressing those tough questions you've been running from... they highlight the gaping logic holes in your "theory not-a-theory". Your continuing failure to address them stands as your tacit admission that you know your theory is indefensible. ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? -- Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== MID: <13d33d0638e0ec690b63393d0710f658@dizum.com> MID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com> The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*). That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms. That superposition is the same as wave interference. That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves. That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things. That RMS isn't a DC voltage. That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L. That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1. The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave. That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering. What a positive or negative vector is. That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero. That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic". That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective nuclear charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842% margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F. That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames. That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes into account molar volume. That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error". That water can be plasmized. That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== Shiny Tinfoil Spankard the Mathematical Moron maunders and mewls: ===================================== "All you've shown us is graphs of formulas. No equal signs, no maths done." - Shiny Tinfoil Brain demonstrates his Mathematical Moronism. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 21:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <3b443b30-1bce-4110-9a9d-6f5e8911c4fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #563707 |
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:09:59 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > So, if your only argument is to point to people that made the same assumption you made, . . . what conclusion should we draw from this? > > > > Think about it. > > The conclusion to be drawn from that is that you're too fucking > retarded and delusional to understand that you've just had your kooky > fabrication of a "theory" torn to shreds, and now you're making a > laughingstock of yourself, James. You didn't answer my question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 07:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <1c31842926661af6a8b975bd0b183c27@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #563805 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:3b443b30-1bce-4110-9a9d-6f5e8911c4fb@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:09:59 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> So, if your only argument is to point to people that made >>> the same assumption you made, . . . what conclusion should >>> we draw from this? >>> >>> Think about it. >> The conclusion to be drawn from that is that you're too fucking >> retarded and delusional to understand that you've just had your kooky >> fabrication of a "theory" torn to shreds, and now you're making a >> laughingstock of yourself, James. >> >> The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon >> energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the lesser the >> photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here: >> https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156 >> >> That Anders Nilsson et. al. were measuring a spectral peak that did >> not coincide with solid-phase water nor with liquid-phase water, a >> spectral peak with *higher* photon energy than liquid-phase water, >> means they were measuring gaseous-phase water, Jim. No H bonding, >> monomolecular. >> >> You'll note the gaseous-phase water's photon energy was *higher* >> because it was monomer water, and thus had no inter-molecular H bonds. >> If it had had any H bonds, it would have been liquid water, and thus >> would have had a spectral peak identical to that of liquid water. >> >> It could *not* have been liquid water, no matter how small the >> droplet, James, or the spectral peak would have been identical to that >> of liquid water. >> >> Do you not understand this, James? That fact proves the existence of >> gaseous water, hence that evaporation is a per-molecule process, hence >> that latent heat of evaporation exists, hence the central premise of >> your retarded "theory" is yet again destroyed, Jim. >> >> Stop embarrassing yourself, Jim. It's over. You've been exposed as a >> scientific fraud and a moron far too stupid and delusional to ever >> model the atmosphere. > You didn't answer my question. I most certainly did, and in the process, I proved your moronic "theory" is a sham, a fraud, a fabrication told by a deluded moron too stupid to make up a plausible lie. Now before you go, do that a gander at my .sig and do your dead level best to embarrass yourself one last time... either by spewing more of your moronic blather in trying to explain away the gaping logic holes in your moronic "theory", or by running away from those tough questions again. Your choice. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 23:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <e42f37dc-b99d-4f0d-9946-3e1d8b424114@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #563826 |
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:49:53 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > You didn't answer my question. > > I most certainly did, You seem to not have a relevant point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 18:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <a0535884746744447ca1a08b76447be6@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #563827 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:e42f37dc-b99d-4f0d-9946-3e1d8b424114@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:49:53 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> You didn't answer my question. >> I most certainly did, and in the process, I proved your moronic >> "theory" is a sham, a fraud, a fabrication told by a deluded moron too >> stupid to make up a plausible lie. >> >> Now before you go, do that a gander at my .sig and do your dead level >> best to embarrass yourself one last time... either by spewing more of >> your moronic blather in trying to explain away the gaping logic holes >> in your moronic "theory", or by running away from those tough >> questions again. Your choice. > You seem to not have a relevant point. You've just made my point, James. And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'. You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of suppositions you pulled straight from your ass. You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster. As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 10:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <63f94294-1e5a-4172-b9bf-823696926eb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #563873 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 10:40:04 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > You seem to not have a relevant point. > > You've just made my point, James. Maybe you should find a simpler hobby. You know, one that doesn't involve facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 20:16 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <7b8c6778868e80561e46aa0d23f5edd4@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #563876 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:63f94294-1e5a-4172-b9bf-823696926eb2@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 10:40:04 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>> You didn't answer my question. >>>> I most certainly did, and in the process, I proved your moronic >>>> "theory" is a sham, a fraud, a fabrication told by a deluded moron too >>>> stupid to make up a plausible lie. >>>> >>>> Now before you go, do take a gander at my .sig and do your dead level >>>> best to embarrass yourself one last time... either by spewing more of >>>> your moronic blather in trying to explain away the gaping logic holes >>>> in your moronic "theory", or by running away from those tough >>>> questions again. Your choice. >>> You seem to not have a relevant point. >> You've just made my point, James. >> >> And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA >> can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'. >> >> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. >> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you >> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic >> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more >> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of >> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass. >> >> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of >> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire >> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who >> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster. >> >> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade >> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from >> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions >> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig. > Maybe you should find a simpler hobby. You know, one that > doesn't involve facts. You've just proven my point again, James. And you're projecting. And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'. You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of suppositions you pulled straight from your ass. You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster. As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 12:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <7070edfe-4b1e-4ce2-a3e3-56373e641908@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #563904 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:26:47 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:63f94294-1e5a-4172-b9bf-823696926eb2@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 10:40:04 AM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>> You didn't answer my question. > > >>>> I most certainly did, and in the process, I proved your moronic > >>>> "theory" is a sham, a fraud, a fabrication told by a deluded moron too > >>>> stupid to make up a plausible lie. > >>>> > >>>> Now before you go, do take a gander at my .sig and do your dead level > >>>> best to embarrass yourself one last time... either by spewing more of > >>>> your moronic blather in trying to explain away the gaping logic holes > >>>> in your moronic "theory", or by running away from those tough > >>>> questions again. Your choice. > > >>> You seem to not have a relevant point. > > >> You've just made my point, James. > >> > >> And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA > >> can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'. > >> > >> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. > >> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you > >> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic > >> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more > >> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of > >> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass. > >> > >> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of > >> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire > >> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who > >> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster. > >> > >> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade > >> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from > >> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions > >> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig. > > > Maybe you should find a simpler hobby. You know, one that > > doesn't involve facts. > > You've just proven my point again, James. And you're projecting. > > And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA > can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'. > > You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. > Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you > cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic > tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more > logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of > suppositions you pulled straight from your ass. > > You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of > derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire > world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who > believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster. > > As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade > substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from > those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions > inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig. > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly > appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / > giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? You've become so repetitive and scattered that most people are going to tune you out. And I don't want that. So I suggest writing smaller posts that focus on substance. Everybody knows usenet is filled with trolls, so people will just tune you out. Good luck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 22:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <1e42510151d05df18189ab24b246ea30@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #563908 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:7070edfe-4b1e-4ce2-a3e3-56373e641908@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:26:47 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James McGinn, in >> <news:63f94294-1e5a-4172-b9bf-823696926eb2@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 10:40:04 AM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>> You didn't answer my question. >>>>>> I most certainly did, and in the process, I proved your moronic >>>>>> "theory" is a sham, a fraud, a fabrication told by a deluded moron too >>>>>> stupid to make up a plausible lie. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now before you go, do take a gander at my .sig and do your dead level >>>>>> best to embarrass yourself one last time... either by spewing more of >>>>>> your moronic blather in trying to explain away the gaping logic holes >>>>>> in your moronic "theory", or by running away from those tough >>>>>> questions again. Your choice. >>>>> You seem to not have a relevant point. >>>> You've just made my point, James. >>>> >>>> And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA >>>> can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'. >>>> >>>> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. >>>> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you >>>> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic >>>> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more >>>> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of >>>> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass. >>>> >>>> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of >>>> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire >>>> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who >>>> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster. >>>> >>>> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade >>>> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from >>>> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions >>>> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig. >>> Maybe you should find a simpler hobby. You know, one that >>> doesn't involve facts. >> You've just proven my point again, James. And you're projecting. >> >> And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA >> can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'. >> >> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. >> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you >> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic >> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more >> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of >> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass. >> >> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of >> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire >> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who >> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster. >> >> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade >> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from >> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions >> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig. > You've Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant vortex monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > become so repetitive and scattered that most people are > going to tune you out. And I don't want that. So I suggest > writing smaller posts that focus on substance. Everybody knows > usenet is filled with trolls, so people will just tune you out. > Good luck. Translation: "Stop kicking my ass so hard. Your truth and reality hurts my broken brain." Yet again you have no substantive rebuttal of scientific fact, James... your 'theory' is dead, Jim. You've been exposed as a scientific fraud and a psychotic halfwit. The world laughs at you and your broken brained blathering. That's reality, Jim. Deal with it. As proof that what I write is truth, you will yet again run away from addressing those gaping logical contradiction in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 14:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <9d9a702c-7396-43fe-9a84-a9816862ba79@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #563958 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 2:11:43 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... Have you tried Wikipedia?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 05:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <26c79b0ccd40eb509fb6961ebb80f4f3@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #563966 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:9d9a702c-7396-43fe-9a84-a9816862ba79@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 2:11:43 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* is there a "boundary" between the >> troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... > Have you tried Wikipedia? No, Jim. Let's hear *your* explanation. Remember, you deny all of reality, so I'm sure your take on why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere will be quite entertaining. Unless you don't know... do you not know why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere, James? Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 21:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <df46db3a-f56d-49c9-a422-d3344dcde57d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564039 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 9:16:39 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > Have you tried Wikipedia? > > No, Jim. Let's hear *your* explanation. Google it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 17:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <bba62bbb04c132b59843552c45683360@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564044 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:df46db3a-f56d-49c9-a422-d3344dcde57d@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 9:16:39 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* is there a "boundary" between the >>>> troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... >>>> >>>> No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / >>>> giant vortex monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it >>>> that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? >>> Have you tried Wikipedia? >> No, Jim. Let's hear *your* explanation. >> >> Remember, you deny all of reality, so I'm sure your take on why there >> is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere will be >> quite entertaining. >> >> Unless you don't know... do you not know why there is a "boundary" >> between the troposphere and the stratosphere, James? >> >> Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* there is a "boundary" between the >> troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... >> >> No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / >> giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it >> that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > Google it. Stop evading the issue, you evasive twit. Let's hear *your* explanation, James. Remember, you deny all of reality, so I'm sure your take on why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere will be quite entertaining. Unless you don't know... do you not know why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere, James? Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 11:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <56686238-1706-4fdf-8c94-7c8bc14d4b8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564176 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:40:05 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > >> No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / > >> giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it > >> that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > > Google it. > > Stop evading the issue, you evasive twit. > > Let's hear *your* explanation, James. Google.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 05:56 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <30f2aa2c88913ce56659695ac4b78a29@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564212 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:56686238-1706-4fdf-8c94-7c8bc14d4b8e@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:40:05 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / >>>> giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it >>>> that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? >>> Google it. >> Stop evading the issue, you evasive twit. >> >> Let's hear *your* explanation, James. > Google. Stop evading the issue, you evasive twit. Let's hear *your* explanation, James. Remember, you deny all of reality, so I'm sure your take on why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere will be quite entertaining. Unless you don't know... do you not know why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere, James? Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? You can't explain why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere an the stratosphere, can you, Jim? You're far too stupid to have realized that it has to do with air density and thus convection... that's why you're cowardly evading answering the question... because you *can't*. That tears your psychosis to shreds, Jim. Again. You're a scientific fraud, James McGinn. And a sad pathetic psychotic loser. You should just STFU, take your meds, educate yourself and stop being such a fucking moron. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 22:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <3d7ff557-8f82-48cb-b0dd-9ac6b945921a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564384 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 10:07:25 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Let's hear *your* explanation, James. > > Remember, you deny all of reality, so I'm sure your take on why there > is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere will be > quite entertaining. > > Unless you don't know... do you not know why there is a "boundary" > between the troposphere and the stratosphere, James? > > Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* there is a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... > > No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / > giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it > that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > You can't explain why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere an > the stratosphere, can you, Jim? You're far too stupid to have realized > that it has to do with air density and thus convection... that's why > you're cowardly evading answering the question... because you *can't*. Uh, "air density and thus convection?" Gibberish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 16:16 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <94b6a929662c285fb820d01980ccf219@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564397 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:3d7ff557-8f82-48cb-b0dd-9ac6b945921a@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 10:07:25 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> Let's hear *your* explanation, James. >> >> Remember, you deny all of reality, so I'm sure your take on why there >> is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere will be >> quite entertaining. >> >> Unless you don't know... do you not know why there is a "boundary" >> between the troposphere and the stratosphere, James? >> >> Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* there is a "boundary" between the >> troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... >> >> No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / >> giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it >> that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? >> >> You can't explain why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere an >> the stratosphere, can you, Jim? You're far too stupid to have realized >> that it has to do with air density and thus convection... that's why >> you're cowardly evading answering the question... because you *can't*. > Uh, "air density and thus convection?" Gibberish. Ok, then let's hear your explanation, Jim. Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? You can't explain why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere an the stratosphere, can you, Jim? You're far too stupid to have realized that it has to do with air density and thus convection... that's why you're cowardly evading answering the question... because you *can't*. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web