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

Groups > sci.physics > #640111 > unrolled thread

Question for Ed Prochak

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Question for Ed Prochak Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 21:30 -0700
    Re: Question for Ed Prochak pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-11 21:55 -0700
      Re: Question for Ed Prochak James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 22:02 -0700
        Re: Question for Ed Prochak pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-11 22:15 -0700
          Re: Question for Ed Prochak James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 22:36 -0700
      Re: Question for Ed Prochak jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 05:46 +0000
        Re: Question for Ed Prochak James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 08:41 -0700
      Re: Question for Ed Prochak Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 11:57 -0700
        Re: Question for Ed Prochak James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 18:52 -0700
    Re: Question for Ed Prochak Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 06:37 -0700
      Re: Question for Ed Prochak Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-12 10:34 -0500
        Re: Question for Ed Prochak James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 08:55 -0700
      Re: Question for Ed Prochak James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 08:40 -0700
      Re: Question for Ed Prochak James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 18:45 -0700
    Re: Question for Ed Prochak Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 12:11 -0700
    Re: Question for Ed Prochak Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 14:25 -0500
      Re: Question for Ed Prochak Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 12:40 -0700
      Re: Question for Ed Prochak James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 13:09 -0700
      Re: Question for Ed Prochak James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 18:48 -0700
      Re: Question for Ed Prochak Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 18:56 -0700
        Re: Question for Ed Prochak James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 09:29 -0700
          Re: Question for Ed Prochak James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:52 -0700
    Re: Question for Ed Prochak James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 18:49 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#640111 — Question for Ed Prochak

If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.  

Isn't science suppose to be about evidence and not group beliefs?

It does appear McGinn is right.  You got nothing.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#640115

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:30:44 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:

> If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.

Sure, it's everywhere, on the internet and in every college and university library on the planet. Too bad you are too stupid to know where and how to look for it, Jim. Really, it is past time to just drop the whole 'Claudius Denk' ruse, it is beyond belief for anyone who can read... you are fooling no one at all.

On the other hand, if McGinn was right, wouldn't you expect that he could easily present experiments and observations to prove his own claims... because from where I'm sitting, his claims are just his vivid imagination mixed up with his really poor understanding of very basic science. 

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

#640119

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:30:44 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> 
> > If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.
> 
> Sure, it's everywhere, on the internet and in every college and university library on the planet. 

Who would believe that?

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

#640125

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 10:02:45 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> Who would believe that?

Anyone with an analytical brain knows that... kinda excludes you, methinks...

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

#640129

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 10:15:16 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 10:02:45 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > Who would believe that?
> 
> Anyone with an analytical brain knows that... kinda excludes you, methinks...

Is that what you call it.

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

#640155

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:30:44 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> 
>> If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.
> 
> Sure, it's everywhere, on the internet and in every college and university library on the planet. Too bad you are too stupid to know where and how to look for it, Jim. Really, it is past time to just drop the whole 'Claudius Denk' ruse, it is beyond belief for anyone who can read... you are fooling no one at all.
> 

Also in every high school, grade school and public library.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#640178

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 6:05:08 AM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:30:44 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > 
> >> If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.
> > 
> > Sure, it's everywhere, on the internet and in every college and university library on the planet. Too bad you are too stupid to know where and how to look for it, Jim. Really, it is past time to just drop the whole 'Claudius Denk' ruse, it is beyond belief for anyone who can read... you are fooling no one at all.
> > 
> 
> Also in every high school, grade school and public library.

It exists only in your imagination.

And I guess that is good enough for trolls.

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

#640219

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:30:44 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> 
> > If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.
> 
> Sure, it's everywhere, on the internet 

Why do you believe this if you can't find it?

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

#640566

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 11:57:59 AM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:30:44 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > 
> > > If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.
> > 
> > Sure, it's everywhere, on the internet 
> 
> Why do you believe this if you can't find it?

Trolls generally don't answer these kinds of questions.  They just want us to believe that somewhere out there the evidence exists.  It's kinda like the X files.  "The evidence is out there, somewhere, go find it."

Trolls never substantiate their active imagination. 

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

#640160

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.  
> 
> Isn't science suppose to be about evidence and not group beliefs?
> 
> It does appear McGinn is right.  You got nothing.

I posted various instances of evidence for about a year.
Several methods of proof, with experimental data in published
pear reviewed reports. I provided links to the reports
and to other educational material.

Your response to all of it was "You got nothing."
You are like the person claiming that the earth
rides on the back of a turtle. When asked where
does the turtle stand, the reply is: "It's turtles
all the way down."

Your reply seems to be "It's steam tables, all the way down."

You have only one argument: "I don't believe you."

I will continue to annoy you because you are a bully,
and I don't like bullies.

So there is your answer. Have a nice day.
ed  :)

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

#640175

On 7/12/2017 8:37 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
>> If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.
>>
>> Isn't science suppose to be about evidence and not group beliefs?
>>
>> It does appear McGinn is right.  You got nothing.
> 
> I posted various instances of evidence for about a year.
> Several methods of proof, with experimental data in published
> pear reviewed reports. I provided links to the reports
> and to other educational material.
> 
> Your response to all of it was "You got nothing."
> You are like the person claiming that the earth
> rides on the back of a turtle. When asked where
> does the turtle stand, the reply is: "It's turtles
> all the way down."
> 
> Your reply seems to be "It's steam tables, all the way down."
> 
> You have only one argument: "I don't believe you."
> 
> I will continue to annoy you because you are a bully,
> and I don't like bullies.
> 
> So there is your answer. Have a nice day.
> ed  :)
> 

notice the ONLY other person that says "McGinn is right" is Claudius 
Denk, who is James McGinn (McGinn stated such here 2 years ago)

so only one person believes "McGinn is right", that is McGinn.
*NO ONE ELSE ON PLANET EARTH* agrees with McGinn.

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

#640180

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:34:39 AM UTC-7, Serg io wrote:
> On 7/12/2017 8:37 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >> If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.
> >>
> >> Isn't science suppose to be about evidence and not group beliefs?
> >>
> >> It does appear McGinn is right.  You got nothing.
> > 
> > I posted various instances of evidence for about a year.
> > Several methods of proof, with experimental data in published
> > pear reviewed reports. I provided links to the reports
> > and to other educational material.
> > 
> > Your response to all of it was "You got nothing."
> > You are like the person claiming that the earth
> > rides on the back of a turtle. When asked where
> > does the turtle stand, the reply is: "It's turtles
> > all the way down."
> > 
> > Your reply seems to be "It's steam tables, all the way down."
> > 
> > You have only one argument: "I don't believe you."
> > 
> > I will continue to annoy you because you are a bully,
> > and I don't like bullies.
> > 
> > So there is your answer. Have a nice day.
> > ed  :)
> > 
> 
> notice the ONLY other person that says "McGinn is right" is Claudius 
> Denk, who is James McGinn (McGinn stated such here 2 years ago)
> 
> so only one person believes "McGinn is right", that is McGinn.
> *NO ONE ELSE ON PLANET EARTH* agrees with McGinn.

Maybe someday evidence of room temperature gaseous H2O will be found.  Then you won't have to be so desperate as to resort to consensus arguments.  

But that hasn't happened yet.  (And, I assure you, it never will.) And so, until then your only recourse is to continue with your blatantly desperate appeal to consensus--because that's all you got.

IOW, scientifically, you got nothing!!!

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

#640177

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 6:37:46 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.  
> > 
> > Isn't science suppose to be about evidence and not group beliefs?
> > 
> > It does appear McGinn is right.  You got nothing.
> 
> I posted various instances of evidence for about a year.

Your arguments were a big fail, as I recall.

> Several methods of proof, with experimental data in published
> pear reviewed reports. I provided links to the reports
> and to other educational material.

Yeah, it was a mess, as I recall.   You failed to provide any substantiation for the existence of monomollecular H2O at sub-boiling temperatures.  So, you failed to address the crux of the argument.  

> Your response to all of it was "You got nothing."

Exactly!!!  You got nothing. And you still got nothing.

> You are like the person claiming that the earth
> rides on the back of a turtle. When asked where
> does the turtle stand, the reply is: "It's turtles
> all the way down."
> 
> Your reply seems to be "It's steam tables, all the way down."
> 
> You have only one argument: "I don't believe you."

Science isn't a belief system.

> 
> I will continue to annoy you because you are a bully,
> and I don't like bullies.

You are a phoney.  I don't like phoneys.

> So there is your answer. Have a nice day.
> ed  :)

You got nothing!!!

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

#640563

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 6:37:46 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.  
> > 
> > Isn't science suppose to be about evidence and not group beliefs?
> > 
> > It does appear McGinn is right.  You got nothing.
> 
> I posted various instances of evidence for about a year.

If it had any value you would be more than happy to repost it.

> Several methods of proof, with experimental data in published
> pear reviewed reports. I provided links to the reports
> and to other educational material.

And yet, you are embarrassed to repost it.  What do you think that indicates to our audience?

> 
> Your response to all of it was "You got nothing."
> You are like the person claiming that the earth
> rides on the back of a turtle. When asked where
> does the turtle stand, the reply is: "It's turtles
> all the way down."

You have nothing specific.

To me people that believe water can so casually be turned to steam (genuine gaseous H2O) at temperatures/pressures below its known boiling temperature/pressure is like children believing in the tooth fairy.  

> Your reply seems to be "It's steam tables, all the way down."

And your only counter is a popularistic but dimwitted narrative based on intuition, anecdote, and blind faith in authority.  IOW, you got nothing!

> I will continue to annoy you because you are a bully,
> and I don't like bullies.

Well, I'm only pretending to be a bully for as long as you are pretending to be dumb enough to believe that H2O can become a gas at tempeatures below it's known boiling temperature/pressure.

Maybe if you stopped pretending to be dumb I might stop pretending to be a bully.

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

#640491

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:30:44 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.  
> 
> Isn't science suppose to be about evidence and not group beliefs?
> 
> It does appear McGinn is right.  You got nothing.

Yep.

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

#640497

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:30:40 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
<claudiusdenk@gmail.com> wrote:

>If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.

We have that.  It's called two centuries of scientific discovery in the
form of well-documented, reproducible experimental results.

BTW, proper English is "If McGinn were wrong...."

-- 
Goat

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

#640502

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 12:25:38 PM UTC-7, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:30:40 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
> <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.
> 
> We have that.

You do not.

> It's called two centuries of scientific discovery in the
> form of well-documented, reproducible experimental results.

All you have is anecdote of people who have made poor assumptions, like the assumption that moist air goes up because of convection.  You have zero empirical evidence that moist air contains gaseous H2O.

You are just a bunch of loons.

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

#640508

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 12:25:38 PM UTC-7, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:30:40 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
> <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.
> 
> We have that.  It's called two centuries of scientific discovery in the
> form of well-documented, reproducible experimental results.
> 
> BTW, proper English is "If McGinn were wrong...."
> 
> -- 
> Goat

Two centuries of evasiveness.

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

#640564

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 12:25:38 PM UTC-7, Lofty Goat wrote:

> We have that.  

Go ahead, then.  Provide it.



> It's called two centuries of scientific discovery in the
> form of well-documented, reproducible experimental results.

Have you been hiding it?  Go ahead. Produce it.

What are you waiting for?

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

#640567

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 12:25:38 PM UTC-7, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:30:40 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
> <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >If McGinn was wrong wouldn't you expect to be able to find at least some evidence to that effect.
> 
> We have that.  It's called two centuries of scientific discovery in the
> form of well-documented, reproducible experimental results.

That's just a bald-faced lie.  Anybody can see that you have nothing whatsoever.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web