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

Groups > sci.physics > #563866 > unrolled thread

Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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

Contents

  Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 09:47 -0700
    Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 18:51 +0100
      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 11:18 -0700
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 21:40 +0100
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 14:21 -0700
            Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 06:24 +0100
      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-20 16:11 -0400
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 13:40 -0700
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-20 23:17 +0000
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity diblert@evil.megacorp (Diblert) - 2016-03-20 21:03 +0000
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-20 21:06 -0400
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 08:03 +0100
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-21 13:31 -0400
            Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:46 +0100
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-21 16:49 +0800
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-21 10:07 -0400
      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-20 14:39 -0600
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 05:47 +0100
      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:01 -0700
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:31 +0100
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:30 -0700
            Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:16 +0100
              Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 21:34 -0700
                Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:01 +0100
                  Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:40 -0600
                    Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-22 17:21 +0000
                  Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:59 -0700
                    Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:25 +0100
                      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 21:28 -0700
                        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 18:33 +0100
                          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:55 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#564219

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
> >> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
> >> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
> >> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.
> 
> > Which ones?
> 
> All of them. In addition, two of the authors believe you to be a
> "crackpot" and "nuts".

Feel free to quote them directly and in context.

> You've proven what I wrote above, James. You yet again evaded
> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from
> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions
> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

You don't have a substantive dispute, you have an emotional cry for help.  Unfortunately nobody is responding.  

I think maybe you have cried wolf too often.

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

#564368

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

James McGinn, in
<news:830a6c19-9b7a-484e-8e05-2736e4a41d51@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
>>>> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
>>>> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
>>>> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

>>> Which ones?

>> All of them. In addition, two of the authors believe you to be a
>> "crackpot" and "nuts".

> Feel free to quote them directly and in context.

Feel free to refute that which has already been quoted directly and in
context. You've thus far run from doing so, because you cannot.

>> You've proven what I wrote above, James. You yet again evaded
>> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from
>> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions
>> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

> You don't have a substantive dispute, you have an emotional cry for help.
> Unfortunately nobody is responding.  

Except the entire world, James. Everyone is laughing at your
psychosis.

> I think maybe you have cried wolf too often.

I think maybe you're too stupid and insane to realize what a
laughingstock you're making of yourself.

-- 

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]

#564372

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:26:36 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >>> Which ones?
> 
> >> All of them. In addition, two of the authors believe you to be a
> >> "crackpot" and "nuts".
> 
> > Feel free to quote them directly and in context.
> 
> Feel free to refute that which has already been quoted directly

I don't know what you are referring to.  So . . . sorry.

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

#564479

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

James McGinn, in
<news:7fc3e62a-30eb-4e7d-b035-8ed275af36e1@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:26:36 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> Which ones?

>>>> All of them. In addition, two of the authors believe you to be a
>>>> "crackpot" and "nuts".

>>> Feel free to quote them directly and in context.

>> Feel free to refute that which has already been quoted directly

> I don't know what you are referring to.  So . . . sorry.

Exactly, James. You snipped it out and ran away from it, because
facing reality is too painful for you. It'd shatter your little
smoke-and-mirrors world, in which you've convinced yourself there is a
far-reaching scientific conspiracy extending to the very basis by
which we know atoms to behave... which you've wholly manufactured
without any evidence whatsoever, so you could delusionally paint
yourself as smarter than every scientist over the past 250+ years.

You're psychotic, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA.

You're a scientific fraud, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA.

That is reality, James. Deal with it.

-- 

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]

#564495

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:01:04 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>Exactly, James. You snipped it out and ran away from it, because
>facing reality is too painful for you. It'd shatter your little
>smoke-and-mirrors world, in which you've convinced yourself there is a
>far-reaching scientific conspiracy extending to the very basis by
>which we know atoms to behave... which you've wholly manufactured
>without any evidence whatsoever, so you could delusionally paint
>yourself as smarter than every scientist over the past 250+ years.


So he mimics his opposer.

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

#564544

Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus 
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> (Snickerturd) wrote:
> 
> >Exactly, James. You snipped it out and ran away from it, because
> >facing reality is too painful for you. It'd shatter your little
> >smoke-and-mirrors world, in which you've convinced yourself there is a
> >far-reaching scientific conspiracy extending to the very basis by
> >which we know atoms to behave... which you've wholly manufactured
> >without any evidence whatsoever, so you could delusionally paint
> >yourself as smarter than every scientist over the past 250+ years.
> > 
> 
> So he mimics his opposer.
>

Has Fakey got anything worthwhile to say in this thread? I've 
been skipping it; so far it's just been repetition of highly
questionable assertions. Trying to get a sensible debate out 
of Fakey is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

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

My pet rock Gordon wants home rule for England.

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

#564507

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:11:37 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >> Feel free to refute that which has already been quoted directly
> 
> > I don't know what you are referring to.  So . . . sorry.
> 
> Exactly, James. You snipped it out and ran away from it,

You are wearing down our audience with repetitive hyperbole.  Nobody is going to read this so there is no motivation for me to respond.  

On usenet you have to stay on topic or you just become part of the background noise that nobody pays any attention to.  

You've made yourself irrelevant.

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

#564695

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

James McGinn, in
<news:3c54ca36-d9c0-4661-bb67-857283a63902@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:11:37 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> Feel free to refute that which has already been quoted directly

>>> I don't know what you are referring to.  So . . . sorry.

>> Exactly, James. You snipped it out and ran away from it,

> You are wearing down our audience with repetitive hyperbole.

I am reiterating scientific truth. You are attempting to evade that
scientific truth so you can continue deluding yourself that you're
smarter than every single scientist in the past 250+ years. But
there's no escape for you, Jim. You've been exposed as a scientific
fraud.

> Nobody is going to read this so there is no motivation for me
> to respond.  

Everyone who matters is reading it, Jim. Which is why your psychotic
ranting blather is doomed. Your "theory" is dead, Jim.

> On usenet you have to stay on topic or you just become part of
> the background noise that nobody pays any attention to.  
> 
> You've made yourself irrelevant.

No, Jim. Far from it. I've made myself *so* relevant that you're
constantly on the defensive. The problem for you is that your
slack-jawed moronity has no defense, it's the mad barking of a
psychopath off his meds. It'll never be accepted. Never.

It's dead, Jim. Find a new way of telling the world you're insane.

-- 

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]

#564712

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:35:40 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:3c54ca36-d9c0-4661-bb67-857283a63902@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:11:37 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >>>> Feel free to refute that which has already been quoted directly
> 
> >>> I don't know what you are referring to.  So . . . sorry.
> 
> >> Exactly, James. You snipped it out and ran away from it,
> 
> > You are wearing down our audience with repetitive hyperbole.
> 
> I am reiterating scientific truth. You are attempting to evade that
> scientific truth so you can continue deluding yourself that you're
> smarter than every single scientist in the past 250+ years. But
> there's no escape for you, Jim. You've been exposed as a scientific
> fraud.
> 
> > Nobody is going to read this so there is no motivation for me
> > to respond.  
> 
> Everyone who matters is reading it, Jim. Which is why your psychotic
> ranting blather is doomed. Your "theory" is dead, Jim.
> 
> > On usenet you have to stay on topic or you just become part of
> > the background noise that nobody pays any attention to.  
> > 
> > You've made yourself irrelevant.
> 
> No, Jim. Far from it. I've made myself *so* relevant that you're
> constantly on the defensive. The problem for you is that your
> slack-jawed moronity has no defense, it's the mad barking of a
> psychopath off his meds. It'll never be accepted. Never.
> 
> It's dead, Jim. Find a new way of telling the world you're insane.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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?

Obviously you have nothing substantive or you would show it and the discussion would be over.  

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

#564869

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

James McGinn, in
<news:93f53244-0b7c-4e8a-8fe0-cb917389c9fe@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:35:40 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:3c54ca36-d9c0-4661-bb67-857283a63902@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:11:37 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>> Feel free to refute that which has already been quoted directly

>>>>> I don't know what you are referring to.  So . . . sorry.

>>>> Exactly, James. You snipped it out and ran away from it,

>>> You are wearing down our audience with repetitive hyperbole.

>> I am reiterating scientific truth. You are attempting to evade that
>> scientific truth so you can continue deluding yourself that you're
>> smarter than every single scientist in the past 250+ years. But
>> there's no escape for you, Jim. You've been exposed as a scientific
>> fraud.

>>> Nobody is going to read this so there is no motivation for me
>>> to respond.  

>> Everyone who matters is reading it, Jim. Which is why your psychotic
>> ranting blather is doomed. Your "theory" is dead, Jim.

>>> On usenet you have to stay on topic or you just become part of
>>> the background noise that nobody pays any attention to.  
>>> 
>>> You've made yourself irrelevant.

>> No, Jim. Far from it. I've made myself *so* relevant that you're
>> constantly on the defensive. The problem for you is that your
>> slack-jawed moronity has no defense, it's the mad barking of a
>> psychopath off his meds. It'll never be accepted. Never.
>> 
>> It's dead, Jim. Find a new way of telling the world you're insane.

> Obviously you have nothing substantive or you would show it and
> the discussion would be over.

Obviously you continue to backpedal away from the reality that your
moronic 'theory', wholly unsupported by any data, research or
empirical observation, torn to utter shreds and exposed as the mad
ranting of an insane kooktard, is dead, Jim. Why do you even bother
anymore, Jim? Your theory is dead. Bury it. It stunk even before it
died, now it's fucking fetid. Stop fucking that corpse and bury it
already.

Have you done that experiment with the balloons yet, Jim? It's a very
simple experiment. All you have to do is meter the same volume of air
into each balloon.

So you'd have a 6 foot balance beam which you've balanced with the
empty balloons already affixed to it to account for balloon weight.
This can be as simple as a 6 foot dowel with a string holding it in
the center. It will still be quite sensitive.

You'd have a SCUBA tank with dry air (0.007% moisture). You'd have two
needle valves and two small metering gauges connected to the tank.

    /needle valve - metering gauge - hot pot copper coil
tank
    \needle valve - metering gauge - cold pot copper coil

You'll be doing two experiments... one with cold/hot air, one with
dry/humid air.

Downstream of the metering gauge and needle valve, you'll have two
containers. You'll run one coil of copper tube inside a pot on your
stove, the pot filled with boiling water. Another pot filled with ice
would have a copper tube of identical length to the first.

One copper tube would connect to a small check valve on the first
balloon via rubber hose.

The other copper tube would connect to a small check valve on the
second balloon via rubber hose.

Balance your beam with empty balloons, connect up your rubber tubing
from coils to check valves and from metering gauges to copper coils.

Open each needle valve the same amount at the same time to get the
same flow through the two metering gauges. Close both needle valves at
the same time.

Remove the rubber tubing from the check valves. You'll see that hot
air is less dense, thus though the two balloons have an identical
volume of air in them (note that they'll not be the same size), the
hot balloon is lighter, and thus the cold balloon end of the balance
beam tips downward.

If you want to get fancy, measure the temperature of the respective
air streams going into the balloons, and the angle of tilt of the
balance beam.

Leave the apparatus for six hours to allow temperature to equalize.
Measure the balloon diameters. They should be exactly the same size by
then, but the measurement will give you a feel for if you got the same
volume of air in each balloon.

If you want to test the setup another way, reset the experiment, move
the needle valves / metering gauges downstream of the copper coils in
the pots and test again.

Report back your results, Jim. Your scientific credibility hangs in
the balance. If you can't even do a simple experiment such as that,
you have no business trying to model the entire atmosphere.

For your second experiment, for which you'll need a pressure cooker or
other similar pressurizable pot, you'll be doing the dry air / humid
air experiment with a similar setup as above.

Get right on that experiment, James. Or run away from reality again
and thereby prove you're nothing more than a moronic uneducated
halfwit who prefers your delusion to reality.

-- 

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]

#564875

Well, uh.  I'm an expert on water structure.  I'm a physicist.  I actually wrote a paper on it.  What did you do?  You did a few Google searches.   

My paper outlines a sharp departure from the standard model of water structure.  Undoubtedly you have no idea what I mean by this or why it's significant.  Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are all at odds with each other.  They haven't figured out what I figured out.  They are arguing with each other as to why there is so much space between water molecules when their model--based on polarity being a constant--predicts there should be little or no space.  They are perplexed. The evidence is inconsistent with what Coulomb's Law predicts. 

I am not perplexed.  I figured it out.  I kind of figured it out by accident.  H2O polarity is a variable.  They overlooked the importance of asymmetry to polarity.  I didn't.  They also (or instead) overlooked the fact that H bonds achieve symmetry.  I didn't. Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are all carrying assumptions that were in existence before the importance of symmetry was realized.  (And the thing that really has them trapped is this notion that ice is a lattice.  They, most likely, will never overcome this mistaken notion.) 

Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are academics.  People in academia are very sheepish.  They are very good at following rules.  They are not very good at making discoveries.  They have done such a good job of writing papers that confirmed the validity of the standard model that it is incomprehensible to them that they missed something.  They missed something huge. 

I'm very good at making discoveries.  The trick is not to lie to yourself.  Most people pretend to understand complex things when they don't really quite understand.  They lie to themselves.  They pretend they have a full understanding when, in reality, they only have a partial understanding.   

Intellectual honesty is not something that can be taught.  You either have it or you do not.  You do not.  That is why you cry all the time.  That is why you act like a child. 

Your phony expertise with Coulomb's Law make you look ridiculous to me.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web