Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #555283 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-21 11:25 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-01 15:42 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 11:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:41 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-21 19:55 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:04 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 15:05 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 21:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:00 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:18 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:34 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:37 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:48 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:05 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:39 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 06:53 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:25 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:32 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:57 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 23:19 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:41 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:39 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 09:31 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness dm <pippinese@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 08:14 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:30 -0800
moistly noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:30 -0800
Re: moistly James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:45 -0800
my assumptions are easy to explain noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:00 -0800
Re: moistly Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 14:01 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:38 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:54 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:12 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:21 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:05 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:19 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:49 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:56 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:59 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 22:44 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 23:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 08:27 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 12:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 17:27 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:55 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 17:09 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:04 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:26 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 21:59 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:15 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:46 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:59 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:51 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:36 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 17:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 10:41 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 11:31 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 16:39 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:34 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 17:25 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:24 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:54 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:40 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:47 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:10 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:35 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:56 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:03 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:33 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:06 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 01:05 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:01 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 22:45 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:19 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:43 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 17:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 19:43 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:02 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:18 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 21:12 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 03:11 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:07 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:09 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 19:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:27 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 17:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:30 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 19:41 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:07 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:23 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:23 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 20:38 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:36 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-26 13:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-26 21:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:09 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:23 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:26 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:22 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:48 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 23:25 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:18 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:35 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:50 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 17:22 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 02:14 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 21:03 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 03:33 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 20:21 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:14 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:24 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 13:11 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:10 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:56 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:36 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:46 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:38 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:56 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 22:58 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:28 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:36 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 00:13 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 03:50 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 23:55 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 18:01 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 15:28 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 14:50 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:50 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:38 -0800
haha, none noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:53 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 15:42 -0600
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 21:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naqh13$opr$1@odin.sdf-eu.org> |
| In reply to | #557025 |
pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:37:04 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 8:38:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> > Sure... I have scores of evidence on my side, but you have nothing at all! your guarantees are nothing but bluster. >> All you have is anecdote from people, like Sam and Sergio, who are too simple to realize that evaporate is a liquid that is often (usually) invisible. >> I guarantee you will lose. Are you willing to put the money in escrow? > Are you? Let me know if there gunna be any takers on side bets whether water vapor has a mol wt around 18 versus Dr Tonado's estimate of 1800 +- 1000... (For the purposes of betting I propose treating all nyms as distinct wallets). -- [Warm air]'s BELIEVED to be lighter, and therefore more buoyant. But this has never been measured/calculated. Convection is of moist air, therefore, is just an unverified belief. -- Jim McGinn, 2 Nov 2014 Below it's boiling point not only is H2O not an ideal gas it's not a gas at all. [...] When water evaporates it evaporates in little clusters/droplet that are suspended in air due to electrostatic forces. -- Jim McGinn aka jim mcginn aka jim mcginn, 17 Nov 2014 Specifically, I demonstrated -- definitively -- that the classical meteorological notion that warm, moist air is lighter than cool, dry air is false. Warm moist air is heavier, always. In my email to meteorologists I explained the methodologies of my experiment, which was not so much an experiment as much as it was simply the measurement something [sic] that, curiously, had never been measured before: the weight/volume of different bodies of air delineated by moisture content. The procedures involved capturing samples of different bodies of air in mason jars and measuring their difference in weight on highly sensitive scales. -- Jim McGinn, his book on alternative meteorology, 19 Nov 2014
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 14:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8bcf6acf-5fb3-45b9-b0ca-11dd9ce45c77@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #557033 |
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 1:55:58 PM UTC-8, Kym Horsell wrote: > pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:37:04 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > >> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 8:38:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > Sure... I have scores of evidence on my side, but you have nothing at all! your guarantees are nothing but bluster. > >> All you have is anecdote from people, like Sam and Sergio, who are too simple to realize that evaporate is a liquid that is often (usually) invisible. > >> I guarantee you will lose. Are you willing to put the money in escrow? > > Are you? > > > Let me know if there gunna be any takers on side bets whether water vapor has > a mol wt around 18 versus Dr Tornado's estimate of 1800 +- 1000... Don't be putting words in my mouth. My guess would be that it would be more like 180 (10 moles) to about 450 (25 moles) per particle. It is going to vary greatly with temperature and pressure. But even at 36 (2 moles) moist air will be heavier, and that is all that matters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 16:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8udnV8VcePhTU3LnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #557035 |
On 2/26/16 4:09 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 1:55:58 PM UTC-8, Kym Horsell wrote: >> pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:37:04 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >>>> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 8:38:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Sure... I have scores of evidence on my side, but you have nothing at all! your guarantees are nothing but bluster. >>>> All you have is anecdote from people, like Sam and Sergio, who are too simple to realize that evaporate is a liquid that is often (usually) invisible. >>>> I guarantee you will lose. Are you willing to put the money in escrow? >>> Are you? >> >> >> Let me know if there gunna be any takers on side bets whether water vapor has >> a mol wt around 18 versus Dr Tornado's estimate of 1800 +- 1000... > > Don't be putting words in my mouth. My guess would be that it would be more like 180 (10 moles) to about 450 (25 moles) per particle. It is going to vary greatly with temperature and pressure. But even at 36 (2 moles) moist air will be heavier, and that is all that matters. > You guess it would be... ! -- 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]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 18:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naqqg4$1cuo$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #557035 |
On 2/26/2016 4:09 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > . My guess would be that it would > be more like 180 (10 moles) to about 450 (25 moles) per particle. It > is going to vary greatly with temperature and pressure. But even at > 36 (2 moles) moist air will be heavier, and that is all that > matters. > only a moron of Physics would say that, which you are. you have no idea what a mole is. take a look at the links below James, proof and evidence you are missing. 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 | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 16:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3ea14b14-3605-4575-bb36-05e3d63ee506@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556688 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> I am saying it is possible to see the difference between gaseous H2O and > >> liquid H2O in air. > >> > >> One method to see this is using Schlieren imaging. > > > > Can you explain this? > > Yes, and I have several times now. > > To summarize; the density of air varies with temperature and humidity > and hence one is able to see things like convection and water evaporating. But you concede that it doesn't allow you to view individual molecules, right? Answer the question you evasive twit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upj4qc-gg2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556707 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >> I am saying it is possible to see the difference between gaseous H2O and >> >> liquid H2O in air. >> >> >> >> One method to see this is using Schlieren imaging. >> > >> > Can you explain this? >> >> Yes, and I have several times now. >> >> To summarize; the density of air varies with temperature and humidity >> and hence one is able to see things like convection and water evaporating. > > But you concede that it doesn't allow you to view individual molecules, right? Answered many times now. You can't see IR light or radio waves either, but you can detect their presence. > Answer the question you evasive twit. Answered many times, delusional half wit. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 14:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <434fcf9b-8031-4460-a5eb-213ef9644750@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555634 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > >> > The data that, supposedly, substantiates it doesn't involve direct > >> > measurement but derivations base on indirect data. > >> > >> Convection, evaporation, and sublimation can all be directly observed > >> with Schlieren imaging. > > > > Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? > > So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling > point True but irrelevant. We're discussing H2O in the atmosphere at ambient temperatures/pressures. Right? > and the relative densities of gaseous H2O and air at different > temperatures, which are different than your claims. Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? (Answer this question you fucking evasive jackass.) If not then I don't understand your point? Do you believe sublimation and evaporation are gaseous based on principle? (Answer this question you fucking evasive jackass.) If so, what is the basis of this belief? Is it because it is often invisible? (Answer this question you fucking evasive jackass.) If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think that indicates?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 23:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <70ispc-mt4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555662 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > The data that, supposedly, substantiates it doesn't involve direct >> >> > measurement but derivations base on indirect data. >> >> >> >> Convection, evaporation, and sublimation can all be directly observed >> >> with Schlieren imaging. >> > >> > Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? >> >> So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling >> point > > True but irrelevant. We're discussing H2O in the atmosphere at ambient > temperatures/pressures. Right? Right, and convection, evaporation, and sublimation can all be directly observed with Schlieren imaging at ambient temperatures and pressures. >> and the relative densities of gaseous H2O and air at different >> temperatures, which are different than your claims. > > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? (Answer this > question you fucking evasive jackass.) I have answered it many, many times; the moisture in the atmosphere is both gaseous and liquid. Humidity is the gaseous H2O and clouds, fog, and mist are the liquid H2O. > If not then I don't understand your point? Do you believe sublimation > and evaporation are gaseous based on principle? (Answer this question > you fucking evasive jackass.) If so, what is the basis of this belief? I know sublimation and evaporation are gaseous based on observation, you fucking delusional idiot. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 15:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7f4e0045-5be7-4d0a-ba3e-518807a6b498@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555673 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:31:10 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > I know sublimation and evaporation are gaseous based on observation, > you fucking delusional idiot. Gaseous H2O and moist air are both invisible, you mental retard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 00:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r2lspc-g65.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555678 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:31:10 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> I know sublimation and evaporation are gaseous based on observation, >> you fucking delusional idiot. > > Gaseous H2O and moist air are both invisible, you mental retard. They have different densitys, and thus different indices of refraction which means they can be observed by techniques such as Schlieren imaging. Delusional fuck wit. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 16:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73a3491c-0ed4-4c60-b97d-ded0777ced1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555687 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 4:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:31:10 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> I know sublimation and evaporation are gaseous based on observation, > >> you fucking delusional idiot. > > > > Gaseous H2O and moist air are both invisible, you mental retard. > > They have different densitys, and thus different indices of refraction > which means they can be observed by techniques such as Schlieren imaging. > > Delusional fuck wit. Your problems are more fundamental. Your problems have to do with the basic ability to communicate clearly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 00:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <b0nspc-of5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555690 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 4:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:31:10 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >> I know sublimation and evaporation are gaseous based on observation, >> >> you fucking delusional idiot. >> > >> > Gaseous H2O and moist air are both invisible, you mental retard. >> >> They have different densitys, and thus different indices of refraction >> which means they can be observed by techniques such as Schlieren imaging. >> >> Delusional fuck wit. > > Your problems are more fundamental. Your problems have to do with the > basic ability to communicate clearly. Hostility is a common response from delusionals when their delusions are challenged. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 17:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8dc698a9-2eba-4097-b82a-69c8bf791589@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555701 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 5:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Hostility is a common response from delusionals when their delusions > are challenged. Without conceding that it is right or wrong, do you now admit/concede/confirm (choose one) that you have been assuming that clear moist air must contain gaseous H2O? The problem isn't so much that you were assuming this it's that you were assuming this and not being explicit/honest/informative (choose one) about the fact that you are assuming this. Are you starting to understand that importance of being honest and explicit when discussing a scientific subject? These are simple questions. Don't be nervous. Just answer them honestly. Nobody is going to hurt you. I will try to be nice if you will try to be smart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 02:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7trspc-du5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555704 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 5:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Hostility is a common response from delusionals when their delusions >> are challenged. > > Without conceding that it is right or wrong, do you now > admit/concede/confirm (choose one) that you have been assuming that > clear moist air must contain gaseous H2O? We have been over this many, many times now. Air can contain gaseous H2O and liquid H2O. The gaseoous part is the humidity and the liquid part is clouds, fog, and mist. Clear air does not contain liquid H2O. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 18:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74025c66-cf44-4e4b-bbbb-a6919a158677@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555714 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Clear air does not contain liquid H2O. Actually it does. I'm a physicist. You are a dumbass that draws conclusion based on assumptions. There is zero gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 21:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nagi76$11du$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555720 |
On 2/22/2016 8:45 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Clear air does not contain liquid H2O. > > Actually it does. > > I'm a physicist. LIAR ! > You are a dumbass that draws conclusion based on assumptions. LIAR ! > There is zero gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. LIAR ! with 3 lies in a row, you graduate to a "Climate Researcher".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 03:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dg0tpc-gd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555720 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Clear air does not contain liquid H2O. > > Actually it does. Well, maybe a very tiny trace amount, otherwise it would be visible. > I'm a physicist. No, you are not. > You are a dumbass that draws conclusion based on assumptions. That is your delusions trying to protect you from reality. > There is zero gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. Thousands of people, millions of readings and every text on the physics of air on the planet say otherwise. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 20:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7a6d6012-a1c3-4a79-91df-9a36ad0dcac0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555738 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Thousands of people, millions of readings and every text on the physics > of air on the planet say otherwise. And you have demonstrated vividly why. You have demonstrated that humans have a deep, emotional and irrational belief that clear air contains gaseous H2O. For a real physicist it doesn't matter what "everybody" says. It matters what the evidence says. Anecdote doesn't count.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 07:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <redtpc-9i7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555746 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Thousands of people, millions of readings and every text on the physics >> of air on the planet say otherwise. > > And you have demonstrated vividly why. You have demonstrated that > humans have a deep, emotional and irrational belief that clear air > contains gaseous H2O. No one other than someone with mental problems would have any emotions what so ever about gaseous H2O. > For a real physicist it doesn't matter what "everybody" says. It matters > what the evidence says. Anecdote doesn't count. You haven't a clue what the words "evidence" and "anecdote" mean. The same experiment done by thousands of people with the exact same results is not an anecdote, it is evidence. All the data and all the experiments are in an untold number of books and it would be rather trivial for you to do the experiments yourself but you won't do that because the results would shatter your delusions. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 10:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8573a158-3b96-46e2-a0bc-9646287a189a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555833 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:05:07 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > The same experiment done by thousands of people with the exact same > results is not an anecdote, it is evidence. So, let me get this straight, all thousands of them never wrote a paper on this? > All the data and all the experiments are in an untold number of books And you can't find one?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web