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

Groups > sci.physics > #563654 > unrolled thread

Jim's backpedaling and lying...

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 18:19 +0100
    Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 10:45 -0700
      Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 20:59 +0100
        Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:10 -0700
          Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 06:36 +0100
            Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 23:27 -0700
              Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 19:49 +0100
                Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-20 14:45 -0600
                  Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-20 21:06 +0000
      Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 23:26 -0700
        Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 18:25 +0100
          Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 10:51 -0700
            Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 07:07 +0100
    Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-19 13:30 -0500
      pedaling and noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 18:23 -0700
        Re: pedaling and Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-19 21:54 -0500

#563654 — Jim's backpedaling and lying...

James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA screeched defensively:

> What is being measured here is, indirectly, the strength/distance
> of the H bonds. Right? Well, now think about that . . . if it was
> genuinely gas then . . . think about it . . . there would be no
> peak at all . . . BECAUSE IF IT WAS GENUINELY GASEOUS H2O THERE
> WOULD BE NO H BONDS! (Specifically, the data would not indicate
> a peak it would indicate a flat line because there would be no
> variation in bond strength/distance to cause a statistical
> distribution.)

It is quite apparent, James, that you lack fundamental understanding
of how photons are emitted and absorbed. Do you not know even the
basics of quantum mechanics?

Temperature affects photon energy, James. In gases, random collision
of the molecules transfers the thermal kinetic energy of one molecule
to the potential energy of another, i.e. raises an electron to a
higher level. The electron goes back to its ground state releasing a
specific photon, or a cascade of photons, depending on the energy. The
higher the thermal kinetic temperature the more energetic the kinetic
scattering and the higher the average photon energy. Hence there is a
spectral distribution due to this random collision process. Only
dilute gases emit a spectral line, as the density is too low to
produce any significant amount of random collision.

Your attempt to claim that water molecules in gaseous phase somehow
act differently than other gaseous-phase substances is just silly,
Jim... in fact, you deny that water even *has* a gaseous phase.
According to you, water evaporates in clusters, and thus remains
liquid, thus your claim that latent heat doesn't exist. And that's an
even sillier claim, James. Industry would not exist if the only heat
water carried off during evaporation was specific heat... evaporative
cooling towers would not work very well, for one.

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.

This is, after all, James, how humidity and liquid water (in the form
of droplets in clouds) is differentiated... we see this every time we
visit a weather website and look at their weather charts. Or do you
deny that the weather charts are legitimate now, too, Jim?

Hence, Anders Nilsson et. al. proved via x-ray spectroscopy that
gaseous phase water exists, and hence evaporation is a
molecule-at-a-time process, exactly as the two previous studies I've
posted (and you've run away from) prove, Jim.

Now, lest anyone forget, you claim that when evaporation takes place,
clusters of H-bonded water are leaping into the air, that no phase
change is taking place, which is your attempt to justify your further
claiming that latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist.

Your blather is indicative of how desperate you are to twist reality
to conform to your "theory" so you can proclaim yourself "not
wrong"... yeah, Jim, the option of you proclaiming yourself "right"
has been off the table for a very long time.

So the existence of two studies empirically observing evaporation
occurring on a per-molecule basis, combined with Anders Nilsson
measuring the spectral peak of gaseous-phase water, combined with the
everyday usage of that technology to differentiate between humidity
and clouds in predicting weather... why that destroys your claim of
there being no phase change on evaporation, which destroys your claim
of there being no latent heat of evaporation, which destroys your
claim of there being no gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, which
destroys your claim of water being a "plasma not-a-plasma" in the
atmosphere, which destroys your claim of your "plasma not-a-plasma"
being responsible for driving winds (and your circular fallacy of
claiming the wind creates the "plasma not-a-plasma"), which destroys
your claim that the jet stream is a "giant sentient plasma
not-a-plasma tornado in the sky", etc., etc... your whole fabrication
just came unwound, Jim.

You've been found to be a scientific fraud, Jim. You've twisted facts
to fit your agenda, you've refused to provide proof to back up your
claims, you've denigrated the hard work and intelligence of every
single scientist over the past 250+ years all so you could ego-trip
and claim you were better and smarter than them... but you're not,
Jim. You're merely a scientific fraud. Nothing more, and certainly a
great deal less.

That is reality, Jim. Deal with it.

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?

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#563659

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:30:05 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA screeched defensively:
> 
> > What is being measured here is, indirectly, the strength/distance
> > of the H bonds. Right? Well, now think about that . . . if it was
> > genuinely gas then . . . think about it . . . there would be no
> > peak at all . . . BECAUSE IF IT WAS GENUINELY GASEOUS H2O THERE
> > WOULD BE NO H BONDS! (Specifically, the data would not indicate
> > a peak it would indicate a flat line because there would be no
> > variation in bond strength/distance to cause a statistical
> > distribution.)
> 
> It is quite apparent, James, that you lack fundamental understanding
> of how photons are emitted and absorbed. Do you not know even the
> basics of quantum mechanics?

Address the issue, dumbass. If it's true that they were measuring H bonds then there would be nothing to measure if it was genuine gaseous H2O because there would be nothing to measure since there are none in gaseous H2O. 

Address the issue you evasive twit.

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

#563706

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

James McGinn, in
<news:25b4d469-3c6e-4cef-a3b6-cdd2a29062eb@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:30:05 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA screeched defensively:

>>> What is being measured here is, indirectly, the strength/distance
>>> of the H bonds. Right? Well, now think about that . . . if it was
>>> genuinely gas then . . . think about it . . . there would be no
>>> peak at all . . . BECAUSE IF IT WAS GENUINELY GASEOUS H2O THERE
>>> WOULD BE NO H BONDS! (Specifically, the data would not indicate
>>> a peak it would indicate a flat line because there would be no
>>> variation in bond strength/distance to cause a statistical
>>> distribution.)

>> It is quite apparent, James, that you lack fundamental understanding
>> of how photons are emitted and absorbed. Do you not know even the
>> basics of quantum mechanics?
>> 
>> Temperature affects photon energy, James. In gases, random collision
>> of the molecules transfers the thermal kinetic energy of one molecule
>> to the potential energy of another, i.e. raises an electron to a
>> higher level. The electron goes back to its ground state releasing a
>> specific photon, or a cascade of photons, depending on the energy. The
>> higher the thermal kinetic temperature the more energetic the kinetic
>> scattering and the higher the average photon energy. Hence there is a
>> spectral distribution due to this random collision process. Only
>> dilute gases emit a spectral line, as the density is too low to
>> produce any significant amount of random collision.
>> 
>> Your attempt to claim that water molecules in gaseous phase somehow
>> act differently than other gaseous-phase substances is just silly,
>> Jim... in fact, you deny that water even *has* a gaseous phase.
>> According to you, water evaporates in clusters, and thus remains
>> liquid, thus your claim that latent heat doesn't exist. And that's an
>> even sillier claim, James. Industry would not exist if the only heat
>> water carried off during evaporation was specific heat... evaporative
>> cooling towers would not work very well, for one.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> This is, after all, James, how humidity and liquid water (in the form
>> of droplets in clouds) is differentiated... we see this every time we
>> visit a weather website and look at their weather charts. Or do you
>> deny that the weather charts are legitimate now, too, Jim?
>> 
>> Hence, Anders Nilsson et. al. proved via x-ray spectroscopy that
>> gaseous phase water exists, and hence evaporation is a
>> molecule-at-a-time process, exactly as the two previous studies I've
>> posted (and you've run away from) prove, Jim.
>> 
>> Now, lest anyone forget, you claim that when evaporation takes place,
>> clusters of H-bonded water are leaping into the air, that no phase
>> change is taking place, which is your attempt to justify your further
>> claiming that latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist.
>> 
>> Your blather is indicative of how desperate you are to twist reality
>> to conform to your "theory" so you can proclaim yourself "not
>> wrong"... yeah, Jim, the option of you proclaiming yourself "right"
>> has been off the table for a very long time.
>> 
>> So the existence of two studies empirically observing evaporation
>> occurring on a per-molecule basis, combined with Anders Nilsson
>> measuring the spectral peak of gaseous-phase water, combined with the
>> everyday usage of that technology to differentiate between humidity
>> and clouds in predicting weather... why that destroys your claim of
>> there being no phase change on evaporation, which destroys your claim
>> of there being no latent heat of evaporation, which destroys your
>> claim of there being no gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, which
>> destroys your claim of water being a "plasma not-a-plasma" in the
>> atmosphere, which destroys your claim of your "plasma not-a-plasma"
>> being responsible for driving winds (and your circular fallacy of
>> claiming the wind creates the "plasma not-a-plasma"), which destroys
>> your claim that the jet stream is a "giant sentient plasma
>> not-a-plasma tornado in the sky", etc., etc... your whole fabrication
>> just came unwound, Jim.
>> 
>> You've been found to be a scientific fraud, Jim. You've twisted facts
>> to fit your agenda, you've refused to provide proof to back up your
>> claims, you've denigrated the hard work and intelligence of every
>> single scientist over the past 250+ years all so you could ego-trip
>> and claim you were better and smarter than them... but you're not,
>> Jim. You're merely a scientific fraud. Nothing more, and certainly a
>> great deal less.
>> 
>> That is reality, Jim. Deal with it.

> Address the issue, dumbass.

Stop backpedaling from the reality that you've gone insane, James.

That is reality, James. Deal with it.

> If it's true that they were measuring H bonds

They were measuring photon energy upon electron orbital descent,
James, which is affected by H bonding. You'll note as H bonds become
stronger, the photons emitted become weaker. You'll also note the
gaseous-phase photon energy was of a higher photon energy than liquid
water. Hence it was gaseous-phase, monomolecular, no H bonds, Jim.

Had it been liquid-phase water, no matter how small the droplets, the
spectra would have been identical to that of liquid water.

That scientifically rigorous and carefully controlled experiment
proves your retarded blather about there being no phase change upon
evaporation to be *wrong*, and that destroys the central premise for
your retarded blather, James.

That is reality, James. Deal with it.

> then there would be nothing to measure if it was genuine
> gaseous H2O because there would be nothing to measure since there
> are none in gaseous H2O. 
> 
> Address the issue you evasive twit.

Yeah, folks, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is *that*
fucking stupid.

Do you not understand what Anders Nilsson was measuring, Jim, even
after being told repeatedly? They were measuring photon energy upon
electron orbital descent of the three phases of water, Jim... the ice
has a lower photon spectra, the water has a dual photon spectra due to
the two spin isomers of water, and...

.... the gaseous-phase monomolecular water has a higher photon spectra.

Now remember, Jim, you claim that water doesn't change phase upon
evaporation, that it remains liquid water... which would mean that
liquid water, no matter how small the droplet, would have an identical
photon spectra as that of liquid water.

It didn't. It had a higher photon energy than that measured for liquid
water, thereby utterly *destroying* your premise that no phase change
takes place upon evaporation.

You've been trapped like a rat, Jim. One of the backbone claims in
your retarded "theory" has been proven wrong. No assumptions were made
by Nilsson et. al., those were *direct* *measurements* of photon
strength... if water didn't change phase upon evaporation and remained
liquid as you claim, the gaseous-phase spectra would have been
identical to liquid water, no matter how small the droplet size.

Now you get to desperately backpedaling, James... your sanity hangs in
the balance. Your Dunning-Kruger affliction and ever-encroaching
paranoid schizophrenia *compels* you to fight against the reality that
you are an insane idiotic halfwit, a scientific fraud, and a
laughingstock.

The whole world is pointing and laughing at your broken-brained
blathering, Jim. You'll never escape this. Your stupidity and insanity
will haunt you to your grave.

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]

#563729

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:09:59 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >> 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.

Maybe Nilsson will vouch for you.

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

#563810

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

James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
<news:5842bd47-4637-4b6f-a67f-dcc6d08f6edf@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:

>>>> It is quite apparent, James, that you lack fundamental understanding
>>>> of how photons are emitted and absorbed. Do you not know even the
>>>> basics of quantum mechanics?
>>>> 
>>>> Temperature affects photon energy, James. In gases, random collision
>>>> of the molecules transfers the thermal kinetic energy of one molecule
>>>> to the potential energy of another, i.e. raises an electron to a
>>>> higher level. The electron goes back to its ground state releasing a
>>>> specific photon, or a cascade of photons, depending on the energy. The
>>>> higher the thermal kinetic temperature the more energetic the kinetic
>>>> scattering and the higher the average photon energy. Hence there is a
>>>> spectral distribution due to this random collision process. Only
>>>> dilute gases emit a spectral line, as the density is too low to
>>>> produce any significant amount of random collision.
>>>> 
>>>> Your attempt to claim that water molecules in gaseous phase somehow
>>>> act differently than other gaseous-phase substances is just silly,
>>>> Jim... in fact, you deny that water even *has* a gaseous phase.
>>>> According to you, water evaporates in clusters, and thus remains
>>>> liquid, thus your claim that latent heat doesn't exist. And that's an
>>>> even sillier claim, James. Industry would not exist if the only heat
>>>> water carried off during evaporation was specific heat... evaporative
>>>> cooling towers would not work very well, for one.
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> This is, after all, James, how humidity and liquid water (in the form
>>>> of droplets in clouds) is differentiated... we see this every time we
>>>> visit a weather website and look at their weather charts. Or do you
>>>> deny that the weather charts are legitimate now, too, Jim?
>>>> 
>>>> Hence, Anders Nilsson et. al. proved via x-ray spectroscopy that
>>>> gaseous phase water exists, and hence evaporation is a
>>>> molecule-at-a-time process, exactly as the two previous studies I've
>>>> posted (and you've run away from) prove, Jim.
>>>> 
>>>> Now, lest anyone forget, you claim that when evaporation takes place,
>>>> clusters of H-bonded water are leaping into the air, that no phase
>>>> change is taking place, which is your attempt to justify your further
>>>> claiming that latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist.
>>>> 
>>>> Your blather is indicative of how desperate you are to twist reality
>>>> to conform to your "theory" so you can proclaim yourself "not
>>>> wrong"... yeah, Jim, the option of you proclaiming yourself "right"
>>>> has been off the table for a very long time.
>>>> 
>>>> So the existence of two studies empirically observing evaporation
>>>> occurring on a per-molecule basis, combined with Anders Nilsson
>>>> measuring the spectral peak of gaseous-phase water, combined with the
>>>> everyday usage of that technology to differentiate between humidity
>>>> and clouds in predicting weather... why that destroys your claim of
>>>> there being no phase change on evaporation, which destroys your claim
>>>> of there being no latent heat of evaporation, which destroys your
>>>> claim of there being no gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, which
>>>> destroys your claim of water being a "plasma not-a-plasma" in the
>>>> atmosphere, which destroys your claim of your "plasma not-a-plasma"
>>>> being responsible for driving winds (and your circular fallacy of
>>>> claiming the wind creates the "plasma not-a-plasma"), which destroys
>>>> your claim that the jet stream is a "giant sentient plasma
>>>> not-a-plasma tornado in the sky", etc., etc... your whole fabrication
>>>> just came unwound, Jim.
>>>> 
>>>> You've been found to be a scientific fraud, Jim. You've twisted facts
>>>> to fit your agenda, you've refused to provide proof to back up your
>>>> claims, you've denigrated the hard work and intelligence of every
>>>> single scientist over the past 250+ years all so you could ego-trip
>>>> and claim you were better and smarter than them... but you're not,
>>>> Jim. You're merely a scientific fraud. Nothing more, and certainly a
>>>> great deal less.
>>>> 
>>>> That is reality, Jim. Deal with it.

>>> Address the issue, dumbass.

>> Stop backpedaling from the reality that you've gone insane, James.
>> 
>> That is reality, James. Deal with it.

>>> If it's true that they were measuring H bonds

>> They were measuring photon energy upon electron orbital descent,
>> James, which is affected by H bonding. You'll note as H bonds become
>> stronger, the photons emitted become weaker. You'll also note the
>> gaseous-phase photon energy was of a higher photon energy than liquid
>> water. Hence it was gaseous-phase, monomolecular, no H bonds, Jim.
>> 
>> Had it been liquid-phase water, no matter how small the droplets, the
>> spectra would have been identical to that of liquid water.
>> 
>> That scientifically rigorous and carefully controlled experiment
>> proves your retarded blather about there being no phase change upon
>> evaporation to be *wrong*, and that destroys the central premise for
>> your retarded blather, James.
>> 
>> That is reality, James. Deal with it.

>>> then there would be nothing to measure if it was genuine
>>> gaseous H2O because there would be nothing to measure since there
>>> are none in gaseous H2O. 
>>> 
>>> Address the issue you evasive twit.

>> Yeah, folks, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is *that*
>> fucking stupid.
>> 
>> Do you not understand what Anders Nilsson was measuring, Jim, even
>> after being told repeatedly? They were measuring photon energy upon
>> electron orbital descent of the three phases of water, Jim... the ice
>> has a lower photon spectra, the water has a dual photon spectra due to
>> the two spin isomers of water, and...
>> 
>> .... the gaseous-phase monomolecular water has a higher photon spectra.
>> 
>> Now remember, Jim, you claim that water doesn't change phase upon
>> evaporation, that it remains liquid water... which would mean that
>> liquid water, no matter how small the droplet, would have an identical
>> photon spectra as that of liquid water.
>> 
>> It didn't. It had a higher photon energy than that measured for liquid
>> water, thereby utterly *destroying* your premise that no phase change
>> takes place upon evaporation.
>> 
>> You've been trapped like a rat, Jim. One of the backbone claims in
>> your retarded "theory" has been proven wrong. No assumptions were made
>> by Nilsson et. al., those were *direct* *measurements* of photon
>> strength... if water didn't change phase upon evaporation and remained
>> liquid as you claim, the gaseous-phase spectra would have been
>> identical to liquid water, no matter how small the droplet size.
>> 
>> Now you get to desperately backpedaling, James... your sanity hangs in
>> the balance. Your Dunning-Kruger affliction and ever-encroaching
>> paranoid schizophrenia *compels* you to fight against the reality that
>> you are an insane idiotic halfwit, a scientific fraud, and a
>> laughingstock.
>> 
>> The whole world is pointing and laughing at your broken-brained
>> blathering, Jim. You'll never escape this. Your stupidity and insanity
>> will haunt you to your grave.

> Maybe Nilsson will vouch for you.

Neither I nor the scientific knowledge gained over the past 250+ years
via carefully controlled experimentation require "vouching", James. We
are right. We have been proven right, time and again, by that rigorous
scientific experimentation and knowledge.

You are the moronic halfwit blathering wholly impossible fairy tales.
You are wrong. You have been proven wrong, time and again, by that
same rigorous scientific experimentation and knowledge.

And you've found yourself utterly unable to defend your imbecilic
dullardry, because you are the pea-brained uneducated batshit crazy
moron James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA... the laughingstock of
the entire world and a scientific fraud.

As proof of what I write above, you'll yet again run away from
defending your unhinged paranoid conspiracy theory, by way of running
away from addressing the many gaping logical contradictions 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]

#563818

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:46:29 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Maybe Nilsson will vouch for you.
> 
> Neither I nor the scientific knowledge gained over the past 250+ years
> via carefully controlled experimentation require "vouching", James. We
> are right. We have been proven right, time and again, by that rigorous
> scientific experimentation and knowledge.

If you had any substantive support for these assertions you wouldn't have to make the same tired claims over and over again.  

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

#563896

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

James McGinn, in
<news:59cc0ed7-5f1d-4973-b30a-c4a271ab411f@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:46:29 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Maybe Nilsson will vouch for you.

>> Neither I nor the scientific knowledge gained over the past 250+ years
>> via carefully controlled experimentation require "vouching", James. We
>> are right. We have been proven right, time and again, by that rigorous
>> scientific experimentation and knowledge.
>> 
>> You are the moronic halfwit blathering wholly impossible fairy tales.
>> You are wrong. You have been proven wrong, time and again, by that
>> same rigorous scientific experimentation and knowledge.
>> 
>> And you've found yourself utterly unable to defend your imbecilic
>> dullardry, because you are the pea-brained uneducated batshit crazy
>> moron James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA... the laughingstock of
>> the entire world and a scientific fraud.
>> 
>> As proof of what I write above, you'll yet again run away from
>> defending your unhinged paranoid conspiracy theory, by way of running
>> away from addressing the many gaping logical contradictions in your
>> "theory", as outlined in my .sig.

> If

And we see that what I wrote above was true. You've run away from
defending your unhinged paranoid conspiracy theory, by way of running
away from substantively addressing the many gaping logical
contradictions in your "theory", as outlined in my .sig, James.

> you had any substantive support for these assertions you wouldn't
> have to make the same tired claims over and over again.

They're not "tired claims", James. They're reality. Backed up with
scientific proof.

Now, I've caught you in a fatal logical flaw as regards the energy to
power your plasma coming from the wind, and the energy to move the
wind coming from the plasma, which means with no wind and no plasma,
you have nothing, James. That's a circulus in probando causality
dilemma, which utterly destroys your retarded "theory", James.

I've caught you desperately backpedaling and trying to claim that your
moronic tiny droplets in the atmosphere have a higher surface tension
so they act like ice and that explains the spectra Anders Nilsson
measured... except if it was ice as you claim, it'd have a *lower*
photon energy, not a higher photon energy than liquid water.

You've denied the Standard Model, which means you deny the
electromagnetic force and strong and weak nuclear forces; you've
denied molar volume and molar mass, which means you deny the Periodic
Table of the Elements; you've denied latent heat which means you deny
that water can enter gaseous phase; you've denied convection which
means you believe that gravity doesn't exist and that fire behaves as
it does in zero gravity... the air spreads out radially and the fire
goes out from lack of oxygen; your denying convection, molar volume
and molar mass also means you deny that hot air balloons can work.

You've attempted to paint yourself as smarter than every scientist in
the past 250 years, likening yourself to Einstein and Archimedes, yet
you demonstrate that you're so fucking clueless and stupid you should
by all rights go straight back to elementary school.

You've claimed you're a physicist, yet your scientific educational
background consists of the sum total of a single elective class in
Basic Meteorology.

You've provided not proof of your moronic claims, you've admitted
you're relying upon a hypothetical "plasma not-a-plasma" that cannot
exist in the troposphere because if the energy source existed to
plasmize water, the water would dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen
first, and that energy source would dissociate all water on the
planet, and that energy source cannot exist in the troposphere because
that much energy would ionize the air and be absorbed far above the
troposphere.

You've professed your belief in a "sentient sky tornado" with tendrils
stretching "hundreds and even thousands" of miles across the sky. Why
have they never been detected or experienced, Jim? You claim they're
made of and powered by your kooky "water plasma not-a-plasma", and we
can detect both gaseous-phase and liquid-phase water in the atmosphere
by the radiation it absorbs and emits, as is evidenced by looking at
any weather website's maps, so why can't we detect your sky monster's
tendrils, James?

You've claimed there exists a "sentient jet stream / giant vortex
monster in the sky" shooting its noodly appendages throughout the
troposphere, at all altitudes, to touch them down at the exact
locations that correspond to the rear portion of only cumulonimbus
clouds, avoiding all other clouds, avoiding aircraft, avoiding
creating tornadoes out of a clear blue sky, and somehow knowing that
it shouldn't create a tornado if the ground or water below is cooler
than the air above... so you admit you believe in a Flying Spaghetti
Monster in the sky, Jim... you have no evidence of it, you just made
it up, but you're just insane enough to believe in it.

You've proven via your running away from performing that simple
experiment to prove the existence of latent heat, in so doing ducking
the onus put upon you to prove your claim that it doesn't exist, that
you're running scared from proving yourself wrong and causing your
kooky little smoke-and-mirrors delusion to come crashing down.

You've failed at getting your insane moronic theory through the peer
review process, and have the sum total of *zero* corroborating
scientific studies to back up your retarded blather.

You are universally laughed at as a moronic brain-fried halfwit,
James. You're a scientific fraud and a laughingstock.

That is a reality which will haunt you to your grave, James. Deal with
it.

You've lost, Jim. Your dimwitted little fairy tale "theory" is dead.

Now, do get right on entertaining the sane folk with more of your
retarded blathering fairy tales, James... it's all you're good for.

-- 

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]

#563935

On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 19:49:36 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>as outlined in my .sig

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

#563956

Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 19:49:36 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> 
> >as outlined in my .sigh

Mmm-hmm.

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

My pet rock Gordon wants home rule for England.

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

#565035

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:46:42 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> 
Address the issue, dumbass. If it's true that they were measuring H bonds then there would be nothing to measure if it was genuine gaseous H2O because there would be nothing to measure since there are none in gaseous H2O. 
> 
> 
Address the issue you evasive twit.

Well?

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

#565172

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:e44ea70a-cf1e-4c76-83f6-240f390a575c@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:46:42 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> 
> Address the issue, dumbass. If it's true that they were measuring H bonds then there would be nothing to measure if it was genuine gaseous H2O because there would be nothing to measure since there are none in gaseous H2O. 
>> 
> Address the issue you evasive twit.
> 
> Well?

They were measuring photon energy from electron orbital descent, you
uneducated moronic halfwit. That photon energy is affected by H
bonding or the lack thereof. The more closely the H bonds are held,
the lower is the photon energy. The more loosely the H bonds are held,
the higher is the photon energy. No H bonds, as in gaseous phase water
in its monomolecular form, entail a higher photon energy than that of
even ortho spin isomer water in liquid phase.

Thus, they were measuring gaseous phase water. Monomolecular, no H
bonds because the measured energy was too great for the H bonds to
remain bonded, you ignorant uneducated psychotic halfwit.

-- 

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]

#565187

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:36:31 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Address the issue, dumbass. If it's true that they were measuring H bonds then there would be nothing to measure if it was genuine gaseous H2O because there would be nothing to measure since there are none in gaseous H2O. 
> >> 
> > Address the issue you evasive twit.
> > 
> > Well?
> 
> They were measuring photon energy from electron orbital descent,

Obviously, dumbass.  The peak was a statistical distribution, each data point and inference was made as to distance. 

So you are just confused.



 you
> uneducated moronic halfwit. That photon energy is affected by H
> bonding or the lack thereof. The more closely the H bonds are held,
> the lower is the photon energy. The more loosely the H bonds are held,

Right.  And in Gaseous H2O THERE IS NO H bonds.  So the distance would be constant.  

Duhr!

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

#565369

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

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:991b98ff-cb89-4990-a897-43751ed4068c@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:36:31 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Address the issue, dumbass.

Temper, temper, James. Your aggressive psychotic nature, if left
unchecked, will lead to you rampaging through a mall as you scream
about a giant tornado monster in the sky, and how people will
recognize your genius after you've sued photons and electrons and
science and reality for conspiring to hide the truth that only you
know. LOL

>>> If it's true that they were measuring H bonds then there would be
>>> nothing to measure if it was genuine gaseous H2O because there
>>> would be nothing to measure since there are none in gaseous H2O. 
>>> 
>>> Address the issue you evasive twit.

Now, James, calm yourself. Count to 10. Whatever you do, don't pick up
that AR-15 you ordered over the internet and force your mommy whom you
live with to dress you, wipe the drool from your chin, then drive you
to the mall for a psychotic rampage. LOL

>>> Well?

Where's that "class-action" kooksoot you've been scribbling up in
crayon, to sue *science*, Tardnado? Did you add *reality*, *photons*
and *electrons* as co-defendants, James? They're all conspiring to
kick your moronic ass, you know. LOL

Well? Address the issue you evasive twit.

<snicker>

>> They were measuring photon energy from electron orbital descent, you
>> uneducated moronic halfwit. That photon energy is affected by H
>> bonding or the lack thereof. The more closely the H bonds are held,
>> the lower is the photon energy. The more loosely the H bonds are held,
>> the higher is the photon energy. No H bonds, as in gaseous phase water
>> in its monomolecular form, entail a higher photon energy than that of
>> even ortho spin isomer water in liquid phase.
>> 
>> Thus, they were measuring gaseous phase water. Monomolecular, no H
>> bonds because the measured energy was too great for the H bonds to
>> remain bonded, you ignorant uneducated psychotic halfwit.> 

> Obviously, dumbass.

Then you admit you're wrong. That wasn't so hard for you to do, now
was it, Jim?

>  The peak was a statistical distribution, each data point and
> inference was made as to distance. 

Wrong. "distance" LOL

Are you retarded, James? Does your mommy have to brush your teeth and
dress you? Are you so brain damaged that you can't even understand a
concept that a retarded monkey would understand? Take your meds, Jim,
you babbling nutjob. LOL

> So you are just confused.

You're projecting, James. You are, after all James Bernard 'Tardnado'
McGinn, Jr. ... the thoroughly confused and utterly psychotic kooktard
who can't grasp simple concepts, so he has to make up fantastical
fairy tale physical processes with no basis in reality because the
world confuses you so. LOL

> Right.  And in Gaseous H2O THERE IS NO H bonds.

Which means an even higher photon energy, which is what they measured,
you lackwit.

> So the distance would be constant.  

What "distance", James? There are no H bonds, as you've just
admitted... so you've just admitted that gaseous phase water is
monomolecular.

Doh! Is that not what you wanted to admit to, James? Did you have a
brief, bright flash of sanity as you wrote that, James? Now your
insanity will compel you to backpedal away from your admission that
your entire theory is wrong, just as you were forced to backpedal
after your recent retraction of your claim of variable polarity of the
water molecule:

Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

And you've admitted that your moronic "plasma not-a-plasma" *depended* 
*upon* that claim you'd retracted. Yet you kept blathering on about 
your "plasma not-a-plasma"... until you realized that without your 
"variable polarity", your "plasma not-a-plasma could not exist per 
your own "theory not-a-theory", and thus your "plasma not-a-plasma" 
creating "structures and boundaries" which you claim causes the wind 
could not exist, and thus you'd just destroyed your own halfwitted 
"theory not-a-theory" in trying to writhe your way out of being proven 
wrong. Then you went right back to babbling about variable polarity. 
LOL

You're stuck on stupid, Tardnado. Trapped like a rat. Every change you 
try to make to your wholly impossible "theory not-a-theory" in 
attempting to squirm your way out of being proven wrong leads to its 
destruction.

Yer welcome, James.

<snicker>

> Duhr!

Now you're speaking your native tongue, Tardnado. I don't understand
Tardese, though. You'll have to get your mommy to translate for you.
Tell her to wipe the drool from your chin while she's there. Tardnado.
LOL

-- 

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]

#563679

On 3/19/2016 12:19 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA screeched defensively:
>
>> What is being measured here is, indirectly, the strength/distance
>> of the H bonds. Right? Well, now think about that . . . if it was
>> genuinely gas then . . . think about it . . . there would be no
>> peak at all . . . BECAUSE IF IT WAS GENUINELY GASEOUS H2O THERE
>> WOULD BE NO H BONDS! (Specifically, the data would not indicate
>> a peak it would indicate a flat line because there would be no
>> variation in bond strength/distance to cause a statistical
>> distribution.)
>
>

> 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?
>

there are reasons why he cannot.

James McGinn can not think in logical, or scientific ways.

Discussing science with him, is identical to discussing science with a 
parrot that makes utterances.

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

#563772 — pedaling and

is that what he calls para & ortho,
as I recall

> > 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?
> >
> 
> there are reasons why he cannot.
> 
> James McGinn can not think in logical, or scientific ways.
> 
> Discussing science with him, is identical to discussing science with a 
> parrot that makes utterances.

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

#563789 — Re: pedaling and

On 3/19/2016 8:23 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> is that what he calls para & ortho,
> as I recall
>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> there are reasons why he cannot.
>>
>> James McGinn can not think in logical, or scientific ways.
>>
>> Discussing science with him, is identical to discussing science with a
>> parrot that makes utterances.
>


found it in a german book;

para => Papagei, Vogelgehirn
ortho => Ornithologie, kleines Gehirn

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web