Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #555614 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-22 12:37 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-22 21:48 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 64 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:37 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 15:03 -0600
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 13:38 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:07 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:35 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:03 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:12 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:32 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:54 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 17:22 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 02:21 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:48 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 03:36 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 20:26 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:19 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:39 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 13:05 -0600
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:12 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 15:56 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:13 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:17 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:05 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 21:56 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:21 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:46 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:14 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 08:34 -0600
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-23 06:05 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:14 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:23 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:50 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:25 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:46 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 13:06 -0600
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:15 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:19 -0600
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-23 18:01 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:03 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:19 +0000
he gave the limit of a stage of suction pumping of water, at sea level noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 17:02 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-23 06:16 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:52 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:34 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 19:46 -0500
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 08:04 -0600
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:34 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:21 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:52 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 15:31 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 15:57 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 00:42 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 16:57 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 00:38 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 16:53 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 01:15 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:09 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:20 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:38 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:51 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:30 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 03:50 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 16:04 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 00:53 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 21:48 +0000
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 12:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging |
| Message-ID | <e494eeee-7a8f-4494-99ca-09bab390696e@googlegroups.com> |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > > Water vapour (gas state of H2O) is invisible. > > Well that is true, To be clear, this is Sam you are quoting, not me. > but what is also true is that it has a different > density than air and a different refractive index than air. Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O. Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains gaseous H2O. Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction. Strangely you seem to be emotionally incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O. Possibly you are emotionally incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O. I don't know. And I don't care. Why don't you see if you can find a professional that can help you with that distinction. > What that means is that if you have a system, such as Schlieren imaging, > that makes the different densities viewable, one can see things like > convection currents and water evaporating. Right, and the reason you can see something is because microdroplets produce refraction. Gaseous H2O does not. So, not only does this not substantiate your strange belief that moisture in the atmosphere is gaseous H2O but it proves exactly the opposite, that it is not gaseous H2O. It is evaporate. It is microdroplets. It's not my responsibility to educate you on how to think rationally. Go on, continue being a loon.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 15:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naft4t$65k$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555614 |
On 2/22/2016 2:37 PM, James McGoon wrote: On 2/20/2018 3:27 PM, Soilent Potatoes wrote: James McGinn Book Review Customer Reviews; 1.0 out of 5 stars insane rambling *By K. Parker* on July 3, 2014 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit. 1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of time, a non-funny joke *By hunter* on July 16, 2014 Format: Kindle Edition This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive self publishing by a moron. *direct film evidence of convection*; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLp_rSBzteI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSFwH0BVd3Q *direct film evidence of Water Vapor*, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQX6c_Ln2To https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgdoGPXOwGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g74X2nnBTw *COLD STEAM direct evidence on film*; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMNSvpB9dY *Water Vapor explained to little James by Mr. Wizard* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTKmWp7ek2A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 13:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3d10a445-ffec-49f6-ab16-42cb5008e1e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555614 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Water vapour (gas state of H2O) is invisible. > > > > Well that is true, > > To be clear, this is Sam you are quoting, not me. > > > but what is also true is that it has a different > > density than air and a different refractive index than air. > > Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O. Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains gaseous H2O. Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction. Strangely you seem to be emotionally incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O. Possibly you are emotionally incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O. I don't know. And I don't care. Why don't you see if you can find a professional that can help you with that distinction. You don't really know much physics at all, this is clear to anyone who has ever taken even a freshman physics class. To claim that gases have no index of refraction is beyond belief. Have you never seen a red sunset? This first link blows you completely out of the water... http://web.mit.edu/ytc/www/HLMA/Ref/opticsPaper02.pdf ... but there are literally thousands and thousands more... https://www.google.com/search?q=index+of+refraction+for+gases&oq=index+of+refraction+for+gases&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 14:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <da57fe47-55dc-4bc6-8616-605de9f10f6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555630 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Water vapour (gas state of H2O) is invisible. > > > > > > Well that is true, > > > > To be clear, this is Sam you are quoting, not me. > > > > > but what is also true is that it has a different > > > density than air and a different refractive index than air. > > > > Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O. Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains gaseous H2O. Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction. Strangely you seem to be emotionally incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O. Possibly you are emotionally incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O. I don't know. And I don't care. Why don't you see if you can find a professional that can help you with that distinction. > > You don't really know much physics at all, I am a physicist. this is clear to anyone who has ever taken even a freshman physics class. > > To claim that gases have no index of refraction is beyond belief. Explain why you think it proves gas. Do you think clouds are gaseous H2O? Why do you think you can see them? Can you see gaseous H2O? Have you never seen a red sunset? This first link blows you completely out of the water... You say it's not caused by liquid water? How do you know? > > http://web.mit.edu/ytc/www/HLMA/Ref/opticsPaper02.pdf > > ... but there are literally thousands and thousands more... > > https://www.google.com/search?q=index+of+refraction+for+gases&oq=index+of+refraction+for+gases&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8 So, you have all these references, yet you can't formulate a coherent argument. What do you think that indicates?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <23fspc-nk4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555642 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > > Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > Water vapour (gas state of H2O) is invisible. >> > > >> > > Well that is true, >> > >> > To be clear, this is Sam you are quoting, not me. >> > >> > > but what is also true is that it has a different >> > > density than air and a different refractive index than air. >> > >> > Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O. Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains gaseous H2O. Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction. Strangely you seem to be emotionally incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O. Possibly you are emotionally incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O. I don't know. And I don't care. Why don't you see if you can find a professional that can help you with that distinction. >> >> You don't really know much physics at all, > > I am a physicist. Yeah, sure, and I'm next in line for Pope. > So, you have all these references, yet you can't formulate a coherent argument. What do you think that indicates? That no one is going to bother to copy in all the refereneces which you will refuse to look at. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 15:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4af07604-ad93-4631-8fcc-70bed65fed0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555661 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > > Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > Water vapour (gas state of H2O) is invisible. > >> > > > >> > > Well that is true, > >> > > >> > To be clear, this is Sam you are quoting, not me. > >> > > >> > > but what is also true is that it has a different > >> > > density than air and a different refractive index than air. > >> > > >> > Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O. Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains gaseous H2O. Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction. Strangely you seem to be emotionally incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O. Possibly you are emotionally incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O. I don't know. And I don't care. Why don't you see if you can find a professional that can help you with that distinction. > >> > >> You don't really know much physics at all, > > > > I am a physicist. > > Yeah, sure, and I'm next in line for Pope. > > > So, you have all these references, yet you can't formulate a coherent argument. What do you think that indicates? > > That no one is going to bother to copy in all the refereneces which you > will refuse to look at. A fool and a wiseman can see the same thing and come to different conclusions. You see Schlierlen imaging as evidence of gaseous H2O. Why you assume this is something you will never be able to explain. I see it as evidence of liquid. The fact that it involves refraction proves I am right and you are wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 00:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mokspc-g65.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555666 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> > > Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > Water vapour (gas state of H2O) is invisible. >> >> > > >> >> > > Well that is true, >> >> > >> >> > To be clear, this is Sam you are quoting, not me. >> >> > >> >> > > but what is also true is that it has a different >> >> > > density than air and a different refractive index than air. >> >> > >> >> > Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O. Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains gaseous H2O. Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction. Strangely you seem to be emotionally incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O. Possibly you are emotionally incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O. I don't know. And I don't care. Why don't you see if you can find a professional that can help you with that distinction. >> >> >> >> You don't really know much physics at all, >> > >> > I am a physicist. >> >> Yeah, sure, and I'm next in line for Pope. >> >> > So, you have all these references, yet you can't formulate a coherent argument. What do you think that indicates? >> >> That no one is going to bother to copy in all the refereneces which you >> will refuse to look at. > > A fool and a wiseman can see the same thing and come to different > conclusions. You see Schlierlen imaging as evidence of gaseous H2O. > Why you assume this is something you will never be able to explain. Quite simply one can see a column of gaseous H2O that diffuses as it rises and the defined edges from where it starts begin to expand and thin as the gaseous H2O mixes with the air, which means there denisity differences go away. > The fact that it involves refraction proves I am right and you are wrong. The fact that it involves refraction proves you don't know what refraction is and we can add the word "refraction" to the growing list of words you do not understand. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 16:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <967664e9-dd1a-4e16-809d-7bbb6438df76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555683 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > A fool and a wiseman can see the same thing and come to different > > conclusions. You see Schlierlen imaging as evidence of gaseous H2O. > > Why you assume this is something you will never be able to explain. > > Quite simply one can see a column of gaseous H2O that diffuses The point, you retard, is that the "gaseous" part of your statement is assumed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 00:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p6nspc-of5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555688 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > A fool and a wiseman can see the same thing and come to different >> > conclusions. You see Schlierlen imaging as evidence of gaseous H2O. >> > Why you assume this is something you will never be able to explain. >> >> Quite simply one can see a column of gaseous H2O that diffuses > > The point, you retard, is that the "gaseous" part of your statement is assumed. That it is gaseous is obvious from observation and an understanding of how Schlierlen imaging works. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 17:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <109e2d49-5e83-4ee6-99ab-0cd6bc84d8cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555702 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 5:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> > A fool and a wiseman can see the same thing and come to different > >> > conclusions. You see Schlierlen imaging as evidence of gaseous H2O. > >> > Why you assume this is something you will never be able to explain. > >> > >> Quite simply one can see a column of gaseous H2O that diffuses > > > > The point, you retard, is that the "gaseous" part of your statement is assumed. > > That it is gaseous is obvious from observation and an understanding of > how Schlierlen imaging works. You are hopeless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 02:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7asspc-du5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555705 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 5:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >> > A fool and a wiseman can see the same thing and come to different >> >> > conclusions. You see Schlierlen imaging as evidence of gaseous H2O. >> >> > Why you assume this is something you will never be able to explain. >> >> >> >> Quite simply one can see a column of gaseous H2O that diffuses >> > >> > The point, you retard, is that the "gaseous" part of your statement is assumed. >> >> That it is gaseous is obvious from observation and an understanding of >> how Schlierlen imaging works. > > You are hopeless. And you refuse to look at all the theory and data that says you are delusional. As the experiments are simple enough for children to do, it would be easy to prove to yourself you are wrong, but your delusions would never allow you to do the experiments. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 18:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c81817fc-2f13-4209-86f2-0996a5d22a12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555716 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:31:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 5:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> > A fool and a wiseman can see the same thing and come to different > >> >> > conclusions. You see Schlierlen imaging as evidence of gaseous H2O. > >> >> > Why you assume this is something you will never be able to explain. > >> >> > >> >> Quite simply one can see a column of gaseous H2O that diffuses > >> > > >> > The point, you retard, is that the "gaseous" part of your statement is assumed. > >> > >> That it is gaseous is obvious from observation and an understanding of > >> how Schlierlen imaging works. > > > > You are hopeless. > > And you refuse to look at all the theory and data that says you are > delusional. If you start with false assumptions all of your evidence will just confirm your bias. The difference here is the difference between a scientist and simple believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 03:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <an0tpc-gd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555724 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:31:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 5:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > A fool and a wiseman can see the same thing and come to different >> >> >> > conclusions. You see Schlierlen imaging as evidence of gaseous H2O. >> >> >> > Why you assume this is something you will never be able to explain. >> >> >> >> >> >> Quite simply one can see a column of gaseous H2O that diffuses >> >> > >> >> > The point, you retard, is that the "gaseous" part of your statement is assumed. >> >> >> >> That it is gaseous is obvious from observation and an understanding of >> >> how Schlierlen imaging works. >> > >> > You are hopeless. >> >> And you refuse to look at all the theory and data that says you are >> delusional. > > If you start with false assumptions all of your evidence will just > confirm your bias. The difference here is the difference between a > scientist and simple believer. Once more you refuse to look at all the theory and data that says you are delusional or do the experiments yourself and prove yourself wrong. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 20:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8dbe361f-8ee4-45dd-8013-a54bf695415f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555739 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 8:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Once more you refuse to look at all the theory and data that says you are > delusional or do the experiments yourself and prove yourself wrong. Since you can't see water molecules, even with a microscope, you would have to use some other method. Methods do exist, but the experiment has never been done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 07:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <aodtpc-9i7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555747 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 8:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Once more you refuse to look at all the theory and data that says you are >> delusional or do the experiments yourself and prove yourself wrong. > > Since you can't see water molecules, even with a microscope, you would > have to use some other method. Methods do exist, but the experiment > has never been done. So you say, but you might take notice of the fact that you are the only person on the planet saying it. If such were true and you did the necessary experiments and the results were as you say, you would be famous. But we all know that is never going to happen. As it is you are infamous as a raving, delusional kook. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 10:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d63dec4-da35-44ad-8dea-632ab5bf34a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555834 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:05:08 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 8:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> Once more you refuse to look at all the theory and data that says you are > >> delusional or do the experiments yourself and prove yourself wrong. > > > > Since you can't see water molecules, even with a microscope, you would > > have to use some other method. Methods do exist, but the experiment > > has never been done. > > So you say, but you might take notice of the fact that you are the only > person on the planet saying it. Right. And there are thousands, if not millions, that believe as you do . . . and not one that can substantiate it. What does that tell us?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 13:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naiaiq$1vqn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555924 |
On 2/23/2016 12:39 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:05:08 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 8:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> Once more you refuse to look at all the theory and data that says you are >>>> delusional or do the experiments yourself and prove yourself wrong. >>> >>> Since you can't see water molecules, even with a microscope, you would >>> have to use some other method. Methods do exist, but the experiment >>> has never been done. >> >> So you say, but you might take notice of the fact that you are the only >> person on the planet saying it. > > Right. And there are thousands, if not millions, that believe as you do . . . and not one that can substantiate it. > > What does that tell us? > that your delusion is self contained.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 20:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <62rupc-v6c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555924 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:05:08 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 8:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >> Once more you refuse to look at all the theory and data that says you are >> >> delusional or do the experiments yourself and prove yourself wrong. >> > >> > Since you can't see water molecules, even with a microscope, you would >> > have to use some other method. Methods do exist, but the experiment >> > has never been done. >> >> So you say, but you might take notice of the fact that you are the only >> person on the planet saying it. > > Right. And there are thousands, if not millions, that believe as you do > . . . and not one that can substantiate it. > > What does that tell us? That you are delusional. Trivially shown by reproducable experiments and I have now given you two that can be done at home. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 15:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <63c5c29b-e69a-44c2-a3ce-3573073c3025@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555642 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > > Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Water vapour (gas state of H2O) is invisible. > > > > > > > > Well that is true, > > > > > > To be clear, this is Sam you are quoting, not me. > > > > > > > but what is also true is that it has a different > > > > density than air and a different refractive index than air. > > > > > > Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O. Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains gaseous H2O. Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction. Strangely you seem to be emotionally incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O. Possibly you are emotionally incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O. I don't know. And I don't care. Why don't you see if you can find a professional that can help you with that distinction. > > > > You don't really know much physics at all, > > I am a physicist. Bullshit. This is virtually impossible! > this is clear to anyone who has ever taken even a freshman physics class. > > > > To claim that gases have no index of refraction is beyond belief. > > Explain why you think it proves gas. > > Do you think clouds are gaseous H2O? Why do you think you can see them? Can you see gaseous H2O? > > > > Have you never seen a red sunset? This first link blows you completely out of the water... > > You say it's not caused by liquid water? > > How do you know? > > > > > > http://web.mit.edu/ytc/www/HLMA/Ref/opticsPaper02.pdf > > > > ... but there are literally thousands and thousands more... > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=index+of+refraction+for+gases&oq=index+of+refraction+for+gases&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8 > > So, you have all these references, yet you can't formulate a coherent argument. What do you think that indicates? I have provided plenty of coherent arguments, as have many others here. You're an idiot, and in no way are you an actual physicist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 00:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kqkspc-g65.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555680 |
pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > > > Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > Water vapour (gas state of H2O) is invisible. >> > > > >> > > > Well that is true, >> > > >> > > To be clear, this is Sam you are quoting, not me. >> > > >> > > > but what is also true is that it has a different >> > > > density than air and a different refractive index than air. >> > > >> > > Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O. Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains gaseous H2O. Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction. Strangely you seem to be emotionally incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O. Possibly you are emotionally incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O. I don't know. And I don't care. Why don't you see if you can find a professional that can help you with that distinction. >> > >> > You don't really know much physics at all, >> >> I am a physicist. > > Bullshit. This is virtually impossible! > >> this is clear to anyone who has ever taken even a freshman physics class. >> > >> > To claim that gases have no index of refraction is beyond belief. >> >> Explain why you think it proves gas. >> >> Do you think clouds are gaseous H2O? Why do you think you can see them? Can you see gaseous H2O? >> >> >> >> Have you never seen a red sunset? This first link blows you completely out of the water... >> >> You say it's not caused by liquid water? >> >> How do you know? >> >> >> > >> > http://web.mit.edu/ytc/www/HLMA/Ref/opticsPaper02.pdf >> > >> > ... but there are literally thousands and thousands more... >> > >> > https://www.google.com/search?q=index+of+refraction+for+gases&oq=index+of+refraction+for+gases&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8 >> >> So, you have all these references, yet you can't formulate a coherent argument. What do you think that indicates? > > I have provided plenty of coherent arguments, as have many others here. > > You're an idiot, and in no way are you an actual physicist. He may have been once and then gone totally insane. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web