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

Groups > sci.physics > #717358 > unrolled thread

Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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

Contents

  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:22 -0800
    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-12-08 22:42 +0000
    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 04:04 -0800
      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 07:12 -0800
        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:53 -0800
          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 13:50 -0800
            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 13:56 -0800
              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo % <%> - 2018-12-11 15:05 -0700
                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 14:19 -0800
                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-11 23:43 +0100
                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-12 00:06 -0600
              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 14:29 -0800
                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 15:41 -0800
                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:14 -0800
                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:18 -0800
                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:24 -0800
                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 17:02 -0800
                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:45 -0800
                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-12 00:09 -0600
                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 22:19 -0800
                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 22:44 -0800
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:46 -0800
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 22:47 -0800
                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 08:58 -0800
                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 16:40 -0800
                                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 16:59 -0800
                                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 18:04 -0800
                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 22:38 -0800
                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-12 08:44 +0100
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 01:31 -0800
                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 16:07 +0100
                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 07:39 -0800
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 09:50 -0800
                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 15:40 +0100
                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-15 09:51 -0500
                                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-15 10:37 -0600
                                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-15 11:56 -0500
                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 07:23 -0800
                                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 20:16 +0100
                                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 12:12 -0800
                                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 00:09 +0100
                                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 15:17 -0800
                                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 17:54 +0100
                                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 08:56 -0800
                                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 19:40 +0100
                                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-16 13:05 -0600
                                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 11:32 -0800
                                                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 22:12 +0100
                                                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 13:32 -0800
                                                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 15:24 -0800
                                                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 03:13 +0100
                                                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 19:12 -0800
                                                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:46 +0100
                                                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 19:15 -0800
                                                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 20:05 -0800
                                                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:16 +0100
                                                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 02:04 +0100
                                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-16 13:30 -0600
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-14 09:02 -0600
                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 07:33 -0800

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#718632

James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 11:16:57 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> James McGinn wrote:
>>>> It is an ensemble that is leaving, not just one molecule. 
>>>
>>> There is no evidence that (water) molecules are leaving the surface in 
>>> pairs, triplets aso. 
>>>
>>> There is no evidence either way
>>
>> (Learn to quote.)
>>
>> Not true.
> 
> I'm an expert on this subject.  There is no evidence of evaporation being gaseous.
> […]
>> The first law of thermodynamics is usually written as
>>
>>   dU = δQ + δW = δQ − p dV.
> 
> Yeah so?  What's your point?
> […]
> I am an expert on H bonding in water.  See my videos.
> […]
> Moreover, you model fails to explain the other anomalies of water.  So, your explanation is worthless.
> […]
>> I dare you to do the calculation and the measurement properly.
> 
> Do it yourself, asshole.
> [
>> I do.  I am *actually* studying physics.
> 
> LOL.  I'm a physicist.  You are an amateur.
> […]
> You got nothing!!!

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#Common_characteristics>

| "Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable
| belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1]
| A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held that it
| is considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or
| arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any
| rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts,
| evidence, and rational inference.
|
| Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. […]
|
| Although experts in the field find a crank's beliefs ridiculous, cranks
| are sometimes very successful in convincing non-experts of their views.
| […]
|
| Common characteristics
|
| […]
| 1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate
|    that of acknowledged experts.
|
| 2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
|
| 3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
|
| 4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate
|    social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being
|    uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Recognize yourself?

I doubt that you are willing and able to:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect>

| In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias
| in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly
| assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias
| of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to
| recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of
| metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual
| competence or incompetence.[1]

You are a hopeless (nut)case.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#718634

LOL.  You got nothing you pointy eared retard.

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

#718783

James McGinn wrote:
> LOL.  You got nothing you pointy eared retard.

Very eloquent :->

You claim elsewhere that you would be “a physicist”.  I find it hard to
believe that a physicist would be so completely ignorant about basic
concepts of thermodynamics as taught in freshman physics courses as you have
demonstrated here so far.

I also find it hard to believe that a physicist would ignore all rational
arguments they encounter and throw insults like the one above in a public,
scientific newsgroup instead.

So, for me, your claim is an extraordinary claim.

  “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    –Carl Sagan

Cite evidence.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#718784

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 8:54:45 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
> > LOL.  You got nothing you pointy eared retard.
> 
> Very eloquent :->
> 
> You claim elsewhere that you would be “a physicist”.  I find it hard to
> believe that a physicist would be so completely ignorant about basic
> concepts of thermodynamics as taught in freshman physics courses as you have
> demonstrated here so far.
> 
> I also find it hard to believe that a physicist would ignore all rational
> arguments they encounter and throw insults like the one above in a public,
> scientific newsgroup instead.
> 
> So, for me, your claim is an extraordinary claim.
> 
>   “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
> 
>     –Carl Sagan
> 
> Cite evidence.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Do you believe there is a triple point for air, asshole?

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

#718791

James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 8:54:45 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> James McGinn wrote:
>>> LOL.  You got nothing you pointy eared retard.
>>
>> Very eloquent :->
>>
>> You claim elsewhere that you would be “a physicist”.  I find it hard to
>> believe that a physicist would be so completely ignorant about basic
>> concepts of thermodynamics as taught in freshman physics courses as you have
>> demonstrated here so far.
>>
>> I also find it hard to believe that a physicist would ignore all rational
>> arguments they encounter and throw insults like the one above in a public,
>> scientific newsgroup instead.
>>
>> So, for me, your claim is an extraordinary claim.
>>
>>   “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
>>
>>     –Carl Sagan
>>
>> Cite evidence.

So, where is it?

> Do you believe there is a triple point for air,

No, because air is a mixture of substances.  Each substance in it has its
own triple point.  That is good so because clouds of water ice from which
water rains are good, but clouds of frozen nitrogen and oxygen would not be.

However, this is not a question of belief, but of scientific *knowledge*:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition>

The *rational* reader will notice the headings,

|          Gas                         Volume(A)
| Name              Formula    in ppmv(B)      in %

the section

| […]
|
| Not included in above dry atmosphere:
|
| Water vapor(C)    H₂O        10–50,000(D)    0.001%–5%(D)

and the footnotes

| […]
| (C) Water vapor is about 0.25% by mass over full atmosphere
| (D) Water vapor strongly varies locally[5]
|
| [5] Wallace, John M. and Peter V. Hobbs. Atmospheric Science: An
|     Introductory Survey. Elsevier. Second Edition, 2006.
|     ISBN 978-0-12-732951-2. Chapter 1.
|
<http://cup.aos.wisc.edu/453/2016/readings/Atmospheric_Science-Wallace_Hobbs.pdf>

> asshole?

You just can’t help yourself, right?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#718794

On 12/16/2018 12:40 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 8:54:45 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> James McGinn wrote:
>>>> LOL.  You got nothing you pointy eared retard.
>>>
>>> Very eloquent :->
>>>
>>> You claim elsewhere that you would be “a physicist”.  I find it hard to
>>> believe that a physicist would be so completely ignorant about basic
>>> concepts of thermodynamics as taught in freshman physics courses as you have
>>> demonstrated here so far.
>>>
>>> I also find it hard to believe that a physicist would ignore all rational
>>> arguments they encounter and throw insults like the one above in a public,
>>> scientific newsgroup instead.
>>>
>>> So, for me, your claim is an extraordinary claim.
>>>
>>>   “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
>>>
>>>     –Carl Sagan
>>>
>>> Cite evidence.
> 
> So, where is it?
> 
>> Do you believe there is a triple point for air,
> 
> No, because air is a mixture of substances.  Each substance in it has its
> own triple point.  That is good so because clouds of water ice from which
> water rains are good, but clouds of frozen nitrogen and oxygen would not be.
> 
> However, this is not a question of belief, but of scientific *knowledge*:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition>
> 
> The *rational* reader will notice the headings,
> 
> |          Gas                         Volume(A)
> | Name              Formula    in ppmv(B)      in %
> 
> the section
> 
> | […]
> |
> | Not included in above dry atmosphere:
> |
> | Water vapor(C)    H₂O        10–50,000(D)    0.001%–5%(D)
> 
> and the footnotes
> 
> | […]
> | (C) Water vapor is about 0.25% by mass over full atmosphere
> | (D) Water vapor strongly varies locally[5]
> |
> | [5] Wallace, John M. and Peter V. Hobbs. Atmospheric Science: An
> |     Introductory Survey. Elsevier. Second Edition, 2006.
> |     ISBN 978-0-12-732951-2. Chapter 1.
> |
> <http://cup.aos.wisc.edu/453/2016/readings/Atmospheric_Science-Wallace_Hobbs.pdf>
> 
>> asshole?
> 
> You just can’t help yourself, right?
> 

McGinn held a conference in Calif on his "theory", one person showed up
he said, and that person probably left after a few min...

Bet if McGinn drove through fog, he would find his  missing "COLD STEAM"
 (oh yea!)

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

#718798

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 8:54:45 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> James McGinn wrote:
> >>> LOL.  You got nothing you pointy eared retard.
> >>
> >> Very eloquent :->
> >>
> >> You claim elsewhere that you would be “a physicist”.  I find it hard to
> >> believe that a physicist would be so completely ignorant about basic
> >> concepts of thermodynamics as taught in freshman physics courses as you have
> >> demonstrated here so far.
> >>
> >> I also find it hard to believe that a physicist would ignore all rational
> >> arguments they encounter and throw insults like the one above in a public,
> >> scientific newsgroup instead.
> >>
> >> So, for me, your claim is an extraordinary claim.
> >>
> >>   “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
> >>
> >>     –Carl Sagan
> >>
> >> Cite evidence.
> 
> So, where is it?

Read upthread.

> 
> > Do you believe there is a triple point for air,
> 
> No, because air is a mixture of substances.  Each substance in it has its
> own triple point.  That is good so because clouds of water ice from which
> water rains are good, but clouds of frozen nitrogen and oxygen would not be.

Well, of course.  Why did you not chime in when that troll Pnal was revealing his belief in triple point of air?

I know why.  Because you are a goof who caught up in the politics and you barely understand the substantive issues.

> However, this is not a question of belief, but of scientific *knowledge*:

Obviously.  



> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition>
> 
> The *rational* reader will notice the headings,
> 
> |          Gas                         Volume(A)
> | Name              Formula    in ppmv(B)      in %
> 
> the section
> 
> | […]
> |
> | Not included in above dry atmosphere:
> |
> | Water vapor(C)    H₂O        10–50,000(D)    0.001%–5%(D)
> 
> and the footnotes
> 
> | […]
> | (C) Water vapor is about 0.25% by mass over full atmosphere
> | (D) Water vapor strongly varies locally[5]

Right.  And much of this variance is temporal.  Also there tends to be a general correlation with wind.  

Why do you think that is?

> | [5] Wallace, John M. and Peter V. Hobbs. Atmospheric Science: An
> |     Introductory Survey. Elsevier. Second Edition, 2006.
> |     ISBN 978-0-12-732951-2. Chapter 1.
> |
> <http://cup.aos.wisc.edu/453/2016/readings/Atmospheric_Science-Wallace_Hobbs.pdf>
> 
> > asshole?
> 
> You just can’t help yourself, right?

I will give you credit for having answered honestly about the triple point of air.  By the way, Moroney failed this test. 

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

#718829

James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 8:54:45 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> You claim elsewhere that you would be “a physicist”.  I find it hard to
>>>> believe that a physicist would be so completely ignorant about basic
>>>> concepts of thermodynamics as taught in freshman physics courses as you have
>>>> demonstrated here so far.
>>>>
>>>> I also find it hard to believe that a physicist would ignore all rational
>>>> arguments they encounter and throw insults like the one above in a public,
>>>> scientific newsgroup instead.
>>>>
>>>> So, for me, your claim is an extraordinary claim.
>>>>
>>>>   “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
>>>>
>>>>     –Carl Sagan
>>>>
>>>> Cite evidence.
>>
>> So, where is it?
> 
> Read upthread.

Forget it.  This is not how it works.  You claim, you provide the evidence,
at least a reference, to back up your claims.

>>> Do you believe there is a triple point for air,
>>
>> No, because air is a mixture of substances.  Each substance in it has its
>> own triple point.  That is good so because clouds of water ice from which
>> water rains are good, but clouds of frozen nitrogen and oxygen would not be.
> 
> Well, of course.  Why did you not chime in when that troll Pnal was revealing his belief in triple point of air?

Because you are not that important?
Because there is no obligation for me to comment of everything?
Because *I* have a life?

> I know why.  Because you are a goof who caught up in the politics and you barely understand the substantive issues.

You are projecting.

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition>
>>
>> The *rational* reader will notice the headings,
>>
>> |          Gas                         Volume(A)
>> | Name              Formula    in ppmv(B)      in %
>>
>> the section
>>
>> | […]
>> |
>> | Not included in above dry atmosphere:
>> |
>> | Water vapor(C)    H₂O        10–50,000(D)    0.001%–5%(D)
>>
>> and the footnotes
>>
>> | […]
>> | (C) Water vapor is about 0.25% by mass over full atmosphere
>> | (D) Water vapor strongly varies locally[5]
> 
> Right.  And much of this variance is temporal.  Also there tends to be a general correlation with wind.  
> 
> Why do you think that is?

(Do you not know, or are you trying to test me?)

1. Again, it is just the first law of thermodynamics:

     dU = δQ + δW = m c_X dT − p dV − V dp

   So evaporation is supported by higher surface air temperatures (T):
   The environment (here: air) provides more heat (Q) to the liquid water
   system to increase its inner energy (U) to break hydrogen bonds apart
   on its surface, than if the former’s temperature would be lower.

   IOW, ignoring precipitation, *obviously* ponds and rivers dry out
   faster in summer than in winter.

2. Wind changes the equilibrium of phases above water surfaces as it
   blows water molecules (now in the form of water vapor) away.

   Lower pressure in streaming fluids (Bernoulli’s principle) could
   also be a factor if it sucks more water molecules into the air.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S3>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#718839

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:12:15 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>> Cite evidence.
> >>
> >> So, where is it?
> > 
> > Read upthread.
> 
> Forget it.  This is not how it works.

Bad attitude.

ThatYou claim, you provide the evidence,
> at least a reference, to back up your claims.

Read upthread.

> >>> Do you believe there is a triple point for air,
> >>
> >> No, because air is a mixture of substances.  Each substance in it has its
> >> own triple point.  That is good so because clouds of water ice from which
> >> water rains are good, but clouds of frozen nitrogen and oxygen would not be.
> > 
> > Well, of course.  Why did you not chime in when that troll Pnal was revealing his belief in triple point of air?
> 
> Because you are not that important?

It's because you lack integrity.

> > Right.  And much of this variance is temporal.  Also there tends to be a general correlation with wind.  
> > 
> > Why do you think that is?
> 
> (Do you not know, or are you trying to test me?)

I'm testing you.  (And you are failing.)


> 
> 1. Again, it is just the first law of thermodynamics:
> 
>      dU = δQ + δW = m c_X dT − p dV − V dp
> 
>    So evaporation is supported by higher surface air temperatures (T):
>    The environment (here: air) provides more heat (Q) to the liquid water
>    system to increase its inner energy (U) to break hydrogen bonds apart
>    on its surface, than if the former’s temperature would be lower.
> 
>    IOW, ignoring precipitation, *obviously* ponds and rivers dry out
>    faster in summer than in winter.
> 
> 2. Wind changes the equilibrium of phases above water surfaces as it
>    blows water molecules (now in the form of water vapor) away.
> 
>    Lower pressure in streaming fluids (Bernoulli’s principle) could
>    also be a factor if it sucks more water molecules into the air.
> 
> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S3>

Irrelevant.

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

#718875

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:33:00 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> ThatYou claim, you provide the evidence...

Exactly what  I've been telling you for years, Jim, I'm glad you finally understand!

So, about that evidence of yours?

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

#718901

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:33:00 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> ThatYou claim, you provide the evidence...
> 
> Exactly what  I've been telling you for years, Jim, I'm glad you finally understand!

This was horribly misquoted.  *I* wrote that, but without the “That” and the
pseudo-ellipsis.

Do not use Google Groups for posting to Usrnet if you are not working around
its bugs.  *Both* of you.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#718909

> 
> You've already presented this absurd theory and ive already replied. 

I was referring to your point relating to sublimation. 
> 
> Now tell us how this one hot h2o molecule and many others stay gaseous in earths atmosphere. 

They stay as per the kinetic theory of gases. 

Bullshit. 

As the water vapour is a gas it acts like any gas, no matter what some opine about this. I will allow that water vapour unlike other gases does liquefy in the 0-100degC range, provided it gets proximity to other vapour molecules. Adhesive forces come into play, then, and we get fog, mist, clouds, ice, etc. 

So they remain gaseous so long as they can remain single. 
I hope this is not too hard to understand. 


Pure nonsense

> 
> Does this not require more if you magical hot molecules as a regular part of ambient air? 


Nothing magical about high velocity molecules you call hot molecules.

Bullshit. 

 That is a part of the normal distribution of molecular velocities in the gas. 

Pure nonsense

Given the mean velocity, one can find how much percent of the gas is hot, or cold. Just see any normal distribution, the bell-shaped curcem, brush up on statistics. 

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

#719056

James McGinn wrote:
> [something]

You have posted a follow-up to my posting
without referring to a single word that I wrote.

Please do not do that again.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_threading>
<https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#718911

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 6:13:22 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Do not use Google Groups for posting to Usrnet if you are not working around
> its bugs.  *Both* of you.

Who died and made you king? 

For a king, you don't spell so well... spellcheck is your friend...

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

#718920

Dont cry pointy. 

Mr. "I don't like to call it cold Steam" is mad that you didnt go along with his tactic regarding there being a triple point for air. 

I'm confused. Do you or do you not believe in cold steam? 

A simple yes no will suffice.

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

#719041

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 6:13:22 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Do not use Google Groups for posting to Usrnet if you are not working around
>> its bugs.  *Both* of you.
> 
> Who died and made you king? 

Googlodytes, I am telling you what is acceptable in Usenet by consensus
because you are apparently too stupid to get yourself informed about where
you are posting to first.  You should be grateful for the hint.

See also: <http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/>

> For a king, you don't spell so well... spellcheck is your friend...

Spelling flame,
how lame.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#718886

James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:12:15 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>> Cite evidence.
>>>> So, where is it?
>>> Read upthread.
>> Forget it.  This is not how it works.
> 
> Bad attitude.

No, the burden of proof is on you:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shifting_the_burden_of_proof>

Why you are so reluctant to prove your claim that you are a physicist is
anyone’s guess.

My guess is that you are simply a delusional liar, but you are also too much
of a coward to concede that.  The record shows.

> ThatYou claim, you provide the evidence,
>> at least a reference, to back up your claims.
> 
> Read upthread.

No, I am definitely not going to dig through all those postings.

*You* want to be taken seriously; *your* turn.

>>>>> Do you believe there is a triple point for air,
>>>> No, because air is a mixture of substances.  Each substance in it has its
>>>> own triple point.  That is good so because clouds of water ice from which
>>>> water rains are good, but clouds of frozen nitrogen and oxygen would not be.
>>> Well, of course.  Why did you not chime in when that troll Pnal was revealing his belief in triple point of air?
>> Because you are not that important?
> 
> It's because you lack integrity.

LOL

>>> Right.  And much of this variance is temporal.  Also there tends to be a general correlation with wind.  
>>>
>>> Why do you think that is?
>> (Do you not know, or are you trying to test me?)
> 
> I'm testing you.  (And you are failing.)

Oh the hubris.

>> 1. Again, it is just the first law of thermodynamics:
>>
>>      dU = δQ + δW = m c_X dT − p dV − V dp
>>
>>    So evaporation is supported by higher surface air temperatures (T):
>>    The environment (here: air) provides more heat (Q) to the liquid water
>>    system to increase its inner energy (U) to break hydrogen bonds apart
>>    on its surface, than if the former’s temperature would be lower.
>>
>>    IOW, ignoring precipitation, *obviously* ponds and rivers dry out
>>    faster in summer than in winter.
>>
>> 2. Wind changes the equilibrium of phases above water surfaces as it
>>    blows water molecules (now in the form of water vapor) away.
>>
>>    Lower pressure in streaming fluids (Bernoulli’s principle) could
>>    also be a factor if it sucks more water molecules into the air.
>>
>> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S3>
> 
> Irrelevant.

No, it is not.

Or, in terms that you are able to understand:

  You got nothing!

    [See, I can do that, too.  The only difference between us is that
     *I* know what I am talking about because *I* have *actually* studied
     this *at a university*.  Therefore *I* am right about you there.]

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#718797

On 12/15/2018 5:09 PM,



> James McGinn wrote:

>> I'm an expert on this subject.  There is no evidence of evaporation being gaseous.


                 TWO (2)  blatant  lies  from  James McGinn.


  James McGinn, you have been called out as a liar in this newsgroup.








Evaporation happens when a liquid substance becomes a gas. When water is
heated, it evaporates. The molecules move and vibrate so quickly that
they escape into the atmosphere as molecules of water vapor.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/evaporation/

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

#718329

On 12/12/2018 1:44 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:09:09 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>> that is where McGinn gets lost,
>>> the transition from lots of liquid droplets (hot or cold steam) into
>>> single molecules of water, which is invisable gas.
>>
>> It's called "boiling."
> 
> Not only.  Water (like other substances) evoporates at temperatures much
> lower than its boiling point.
> 
> This is why you sweat: the sweat (basically warm salty water) carries heat
> from inside the body to the surface of the skin and evoporates there.
> Evaporation, the ability to leave the ensemble of water molecules held
> together by hydrogen bond, requires greater inner energy U for each water
> molecule in the sweat; this energy is taken from other water molecules, so
> that the temperature of the remaining sweat is reduced – it is cooled [first
> law of thermodynamics: dU = δQ + δW = c dT + δW; cₚ(H₂O) = 4184 J/(kg K)].
> Since heat always flows from the hotter to the colder substance [a
> consequence of the second law of thermodynamics: dS ≥ 0], this cools the
> body.  Then the evaporated molecules diffuse into the surrounding air, so
> that this heat is finally transported away from the body.
> 
> You can also observe this if you have a shower or a bath or go swimming and
> do not dry your body quickly afterwards.  As the water on your skin
> evaporates, you will feel colder because you *actually* become colder.
> 
>> Guess what temperature water boils at sea level?
> 
> 100 °C, because that is how the Celsius scale is defined.
> 
>> Guess what is the temperature of the atmosphere.
> 
> I do not have to guess, it is known: It varies from ca. −90 °C to 270 °C.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#/media/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg>
> 
> But that does not matter.  A glass half full with liquid water does not only
> contain liquid water.
> 
> You can easily see this if you put something on top of it and wait a bit:
> the bottom of the cover becomes wet because some water molecules have been
> ejected or have ejected themselves from the water surface (evaporation), and
> some found themselves on the bottom surface of the cover (condensation).
> This process is supported by high kinetic energy of the molecules, i.e. high
> temperatures.  So compare the result with that of a glass/cup of hot tea
> (basically flavoured water).  Note that the tea at the bottom of the
> glass/cup is still liquid; it is NOT boiling.
> 
> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S3>
> 
>> What grade are you in.
> 
> A higher grade than you, obviously.  I am not entirely sure, but I think
> I learned evaporation and condensation in the 7th form at the latest
> (several decades ago).
> 

McGinn previously explains the disappearance of the water when boiling
as the water turns into "plasmas"  and goes up into the air.

not water turning into gas, not as water vapor.



Is James McGinn a nutcase ?
Is James McGinn high on water vapor ?
Is James McGinn the most brillent unknown scientist on the Earth ?
Is James McGinn an attention junky ?
Why did Amazon allow James McGinn to sell a science fiction book as
science ?
(James McGinn did admit it was crap in this newsgroup)

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

#718333

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:02:25 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 12/12/2018 1:44 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:09:09 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >>> that is where McGinn gets lost,
> >>> the transition from lots of liquid droplets (hot or cold steam) into
> >>> single molecules of water, which is invisable gas.
> >>
> >> It's called "boiling."
> > 
> > Not only.  Water (like other substances) evoporates at temperatures much
> > lower than its boiling point.
> > 
> > This is why you sweat: the sweat (basically warm salty water) carries heat
> > from inside the body to the surface of the skin and evoporates there.
> > Evaporation, the ability to leave the ensemble of water molecules held
> > together by hydrogen bond, requires greater inner energy U for each water
> > molecule in the sweat; this energy is taken from other water molecules, so
> > that the temperature of the remaining sweat is reduced – it is cooled [first
> > law of thermodynamics: dU = δQ + δW = c dT + δW; cₚ(H₂O) = 4184 J/(kg K)].
> > Since heat always flows from the hotter to the colder substance [a
> > consequence of the second law of thermodynamics: dS ≥ 0], this cools the
> > body.  Then the evaporated molecules diffuse into the surrounding air, so
> > that this heat is finally transported away from the body.
> > 
> > You can also observe this if you have a shower or a bath or go swimming and
> > do not dry your body quickly afterwards.  As the water on your skin
> > evaporates, you will feel colder because you *actually* become colder.
> > 
> >> Guess what temperature water boils at sea level?
> > 
> > 100 °C, because that is how the Celsius scale is defined.
> > 
> >> Guess what is the temperature of the atmosphere.
> > 
> > I do not have to guess, it is known: It varies from ca. −90 °C to 270 °C.
> > 
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#/media/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg>
> > 
> > But that does not matter.  A glass half full with liquid water does not only
> > contain liquid water.
> > 
> > You can easily see this if you put something on top of it and wait a bit:
> > the bottom of the cover becomes wet because some water molecules have been
> > ejected or have ejected themselves from the water surface (evaporation), and
> > some found themselves on the bottom surface of the cover (condensation).
> > This process is supported by high kinetic energy of the molecules, i.e. high
> > temperatures.  So compare the result with that of a glass/cup of hot tea
> > (basically flavoured water).  Note that the tea at the bottom of the
> > glass/cup is still liquid; it is NOT boiling.
> > 
> > <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S3>
> > 
> >> What grade are you in.
> > 
> > A higher grade than you, obviously.  I am not entirely sure, but I think
> > I learned evaporation and condensation in the 7th form at the latest
> > (several decades ago).
> > 
> 
> McGinn previously explains the disappearance of the water when boiling
> as the water turns into "plasmas"  and goes up into the air.
> 
> not water turning into gas, not as water vapor.
> 
> 
> 
> Is James McGinn a nutcase ?
> Is James McGinn high on water vapor ?
> Is James McGinn the most brillent unknown scientist on the Earth ?
> Is James McGinn an attention junky ?
> Why did Amazon allow James McGinn to sell a science fiction book as
> science ?
> (James McGinn did admit it was crap in this newsgroup)

Sergio, why don't you hole yourself up in whatever rat's nest you call a home, slip into a Hazmat suit and fuck right off?"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web