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

Groups > sci.physics > #560550 > unrolled thread

Why do clouds not fall out of the sky?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 15:59 -0800
    Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-08 18:02 -0600
      Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 16:05 -0800
        Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-08 20:07 -0600
    Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 16:10 -0800
    Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-08 17:43 -0800
      Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 07:11 +0100
        Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:34 -0800
          Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:13 -0600
          sky ask why noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:18 -0800
        Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-09 16:36 -0800
          Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-11 11:40 -0800
            Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 20:51 +0100
              Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-11 22:07 +0100
              Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-11 15:56 -0800
                Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-03-12 01:52 +0100
              Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-03-12 09:35 -0500
                Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-12 09:24 -0800
                  Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-03-12 12:57 -0500
                    Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-12 13:23 -0800
            Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-11 21:05 -0800
              Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 07:52 -0600
                Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-12 09:17 -0800
                  Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-12 19:04 -0800
                    Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-12 22:17 -0800
                      Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-13 14:15 -0800
    Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 21:31 -0600
      Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 22:53 -0800
      Re: Why do clouds not fall out of the sky? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 12:16 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#560550 — Why do clouds not fall out of the sky?

Nutcase Dude says:
According to you, since you claim 
 all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air 
 and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its 
 downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft... 
thus 
 rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would 
 perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface 
 would be perpetually covered with a film of water. 

James McGinn:
We have an abundance of blatant and undisputed evidence that contradicts this claim: clouds. Right? Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of the sky like bricks.  Right?  But they don't. Why do you think that is? 

IOW, if what you are saying is true then clouds couldn't possibly stay suspended in the air.

So, what do we conclude from this observation?  How about this: weight does not have that much of an effect on the downward or upward movement of parcels of air.  Right?  Thus this observation contradicts one of the basic tenets of meteorology: IOW convection is ineffectual

Convection plays little or no role in atmospheric flow.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#560552

On 3/8/2016 5:59 PM, James McGinn wrote:


<snip crap>


According to you, since you claim
  all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air
  and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its
  downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...

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

#560553

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:02:51 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/8/2016 5:59 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> 
> <snip crap>
> 
> 
> According to you, since you claim
>   all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air
>   and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its
>   downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...

Birdbrain.

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

#560602

On 3/8/2016 6:05 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:02:51 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 3/8/2016 5:59 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip crap>
>>
>>
>> According to you, since you claim
>>    all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air
>>    and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its
>>    downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
>
> Birdbrain.
>

you don't even recognize your own words, idiot troll.

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

#560555

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Nutcase Dude says:
> According to you, since you claim 
>  all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air 
>  and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its 
>  downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft... 
> thus 
>  rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would 
>  perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface 
>  would be perpetually covered with a film of water. 
> 
> James McGinn:
> We have an abundance of blatant and undisputed evidence that contradicts this claim: clouds. Right? Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of the sky like bricks.  Right?  But they don't. Why do you think that is? 
> 
> IOW, if what you are saying is true then clouds couldn't possibly stay suspended in the air.
> 
> So, what do we conclude from this observation?  How about this: weight does not have that much of an effect on the downward or upward movement of parcels of air.  Right?  Thus this observation contradicts one of the basic tenets of meteorology: IOW convection is ineffectual
> 
> Convection plays little or no role in atmospheric flow.
> 
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes

When their moisture turns to ice they fall and melt,and thus it rains.If they do not melt it comes down as hail or snow. TreBert

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

#560595

James McGinn wrote:
> 
> Nutcase Dude says:
> According to you, since you claim
>  all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air
>  and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its
>  downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
> thus
>  rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would
>  perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface
>  would be perpetually covered with a film of water.
> 
> James McGinn:
> We have an abundance of blatant and undisputed evidence that contradicts this claim: clouds. Right? Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of the sky like bricks.  Right?  But they don't. Why do you think that is?
> 
> IOW, if what you are saying is true then clouds couldn't possibly stay suspended in the air.
> 
> So, what do we conclude from this observation?  How about this: weight does not have that much of an effect on the downward or upward movement of parcels of air.  Right?  Thus this observation contradicts one of the basic tenets of meteorology: IOW convection is ineffectual
> 
> Convection plays little or no role in atmospheric flow.
> 
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes



The reason why clouds "not fall out of the sky" is because...

the Moon catches it...and pulls it back up.


The Moon makes it rain..

the moon makes oceans.

You need to look at the Moon
like a particle..

this particle has it's function.

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

#560686

Dne 09/03/2016 v 02:43 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> James McGinn wrote:

>>
>> James McGinn:
>> We have an abundance of blatant and undisputed evidence that
>> contradicts this claim: clouds. Right? Based on meteorology's
>> assumptions clouds should drop out of the sky like bricks.  Right?
>> But they don't. Why do you think that is?
>>
Such conclusion is based
on James's funny understanding of meteorology.

Following conclusions are as usually based on false premises.

> 
> The reason why clouds "not fall out of the sky" is because...
> 
> the Moon catches it...and pulls it back up.

..and this is not better.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#560694

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:11:39 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 09/03/2016 v 02:43 The Starmaker napsal(a):

> >> James McGinn:
> >> We have an abundance of blatant and undisputed evidence that
> >> contradicts this claim: clouds. Right? Based on meteorology's
> >> assumptions clouds should drop out of the sky like bricks.  Right?
> >> But they don't. Why do you think that is?
> >>
> Such conclusion is based
> on James's funny understanding of meteorology.

If you can see a cloud then the droplets therein MUST be larger. Thus the parcel must be heavier than the surrounding clear air.  According to convection theory, heavier air should be trending down--constantly. 

Conclusion:  Convection theory is nonsense.

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

#560735

On 3/9/16 12:34 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> If you can see a cloud then the droplets therein MUST be larger.


   Have you a *calculation or data* for this claim, James, otherwise
   your speculation that airborne liquid water is invisible, like gas.



-- 

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

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

#561383 — sky ask why

clouds form uncer teh adiabatic lapse rate
of rising air "parcels ... highs & lows are onvolved, but
it could be depressing

> If you can see a cloud then the droplets therein MUST be larger. Thus the parcel must be heavier than the surrounding clear air.  According to convection theory, heavier air should be trending down--constantly. 
> 
> Conclusion:  Convection theory is nonsense.

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

#560979

Poutnik wrote:
> 
> Dne 09/03/2016 v 02:43 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> > James McGinn wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> James McGinn:
> >> We have an abundance of blatant and undisputed evidence that
> >> contradicts this claim: clouds. Right? Based on meteorology's
> >> assumptions clouds should drop out of the sky like bricks.  Right?
> >> But they don't. Why do you think that is?
> >>
> Such conclusion is based
> on James's funny understanding of meteorology.
> 
> Following conclusions are as usually based on false premises.
> 
> >
> > The reason why clouds "not fall out of the sky" is because...
> >
> > the Moon catches it...and pulls it back up.
> 
> ..and this is not better.


That is not a very informative or 'much of an answer'...


Let me explain very simply..

You remove the Moon, the Clouds fall down, right?

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

#561654

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Poutnik wrote:
> >
> > Dne 09/03/2016 v 02:43 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> > > James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> James McGinn:
> > >> We have an abundance of blatant and undisputed evidence that
> > >> contradicts this claim: clouds. Right? Based on meteorology's
> > >> assumptions clouds should drop out of the sky like bricks.  Right?
> > >> But they don't. Why do you think that is?
> > >>
> > Such conclusion is based
> > on James's funny understanding of meteorology.
> >
> > Following conclusions are as usually based on false premises.
> >
> > >
> > > The reason why clouds "not fall out of the sky" is because...
> > >
> > > the Moon catches it...and pulls it back up.
> >
> > ..and this is not better.
> 
> That is not a very informative or 'much of an answer'...
> 
> Let me explain very simply..
> 
> You remove the Moon, the Clouds fall down, right?


Okay, I get it...

you people don't understand what our Moon is, ...and it's funtions.


I'm going to have to start a new thread..

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

#561659

Dne 11/03/2016 v 20:40 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>

>>
>> That is not a very informative or 'much of an answer'...
>>
>> Let me explain very simply..
>>
>> You remove the Moon, the Clouds fall down, right?
> 

Of course not...


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#561679

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 11/03/2016 v 20:40 The Starmaker napsal(a):
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> That is not a very informative or 'much of an answer'...
>>>
>>> Let me explain very simply..
>>>
>>> You remove the Moon, the Clouds fall down, right?
> 
> Of course not...

ACK.  The misconceptions that some people have about the world that they 
live in are truly amazing.  You did not have to continue the amok-crosspost, 
though.


F'up2 sci.physics

PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#561737

Poutnik wrote:
> 
> Dne 11/03/2016 v 20:40 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Poutnik wrote:
> >>>
> 
> >>
> >> That is not a very informative or 'much of an answer'...
> >>
> >> Let me explain very simply..
> >>
> >> You remove the Moon, the Clouds fall down, right?
> >
> 
> Of course not...


That is not an answer...it means nothing.

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

#561755

On 12.03.16 0:56, The Starmaker wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> Dne 11/03/2016 v 20:40 The Starmaker napsal(a):
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not a very informative or 'much of an answer'...
>>>>
>>>> Let me explain very simply..
>>>>
>>>> You remove the Moon, the Clouds fall down, right?
>>>
>>
>> Of course not...
>
>
> That is not an answer...it means nothing.
>
So that one is using your approach to trolling .

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

#561861

Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/03/2016 v 20:40 The Starmaker napsal(a):
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>
>>> That is not a very informative or 'much of an answer'...
>>>
>>> Let me explain very simply..
>>>
>>> You remove the Moon, the Clouds fall down, right?
>>
>
> Of course not...





Sure they do.
What do you think FOG is 

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

#561894

Bast wrote:
> 
> Poutnik wrote:
> > Dne 11/03/2016 v 20:40 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Poutnik wrote:
> >>>>
> >
> >>>
> >>> That is not a very informative or 'much of an answer'...
> >>>
> >>> Let me explain very simply..
> >>>
> >>> You remove the Moon, the Clouds fall down, right?
> >>
> >
> > Of course not...
> 
> Sure they do.
> What do you think FOG is



probably caused by the sun gettin in the way of the moon at a different angle.

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

#561912

The Starmaker wrote:
> Bast wrote:
>>
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> Dne 11/03/2016 v 20:40 The Starmaker napsal(a):
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not a very informative or 'much of an answer'...
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me explain very simply..
>>>>>
>>>>> You remove the Moon, the Clouds fall down, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course not...
>>
>> Sure they do.
>> What do you think FOG is
>
>
>
> probably caused by the sun gettin in the way of the moon at a different
> angle.



Naaaaa,....Fog is clouds that fell down. 

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

#561940

Bast wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Bast wrote:
> >>
> >> Poutnik wrote:
> >>> Dne 11/03/2016 v 20:40 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Poutnik wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is not a very informative or 'much of an answer'...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let me explain very simply..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You remove the Moon, the Clouds fall down, right?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Of course not...
> >>
> >> Sure they do.
> >> What do you think FOG is
> >
> >
> >
> > probably caused by the sun gettin in the way of the moon at a different
> > angle.
> 
> Naaaaa,....Fog is clouds that fell down.


Yes, I agree with you...the fog fell down because the sun got in the way
from the pulling of the moon.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web