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

Groups > sci.physics > #570660 > unrolled thread

Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging

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: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 23:05 -0700
    Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 23:15 -0700
      Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-15 07:57 -0700
        Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 08:21 -0700
          Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-15 10:08 -0700
            snell'S Law noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 12:15 -0700
      Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 02:46 -0700
        Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 07:16 -0700
    Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:58 +0000
      Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 17:34 -0700
        Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-15 18:32 -0700
          Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 19:00 -0700
          Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 01:53 +0000
            Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 00:55 -0700
              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-16 13:04 -0700
                Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 13:45 -0700
                  Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-16 16:41 -0700
                    Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 16:55 -0700
                      Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-16 17:22 -0700
                        Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 17:29 -0700
                          Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-16 20:19 -0700
                            Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 20:29 -0700
                            Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-17 00:08 -0500
                        Re: James McGinn isn't literate enough to start learning sublimation. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 20:27 -0700
                          Re: James McGinn isn't literate enough to start learning sublimation. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-16 21:39 -0700
                            Re: James McGinn isn't literate enough to start learning sublimation. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-17 00:02 -0500
                          Re: James McGinn isn't literate enough to start learning sublimation. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-16 21:42 -0700
                            Re: James McGinn isn't literate enough to start learning sublimation. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 22:12 -0700
                      Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-17 07:01 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#570660 — Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging

On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.

  Why do you say that?


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#570661

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:05:57 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.
> 
>   Why do you say that?

I'm just countering an unqualified, unsubstantiated claim.  Do you dispute it?

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

#570701

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:15:33 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:05:57 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.
> > 
> >   Why do you say that?
> 
> I'm just countering an unqualified, unsubstantiated claim.  Do you dispute it?

Anyone with half a brain would dispute it, it is one of your more laughable claims.

Never heard of 'atmospheric seeing'?

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40680729?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

How about 'boundary layer'?

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-equipment/beating-the-seeing/

Both are caused by the refraction of light by air.

You have less brainpower than a box of rocks.

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

#570704

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:57:21 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:15:33 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:05:57 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.
> > > 
> > >   Why do you say that?
> > 
> > I'm just countering an unqualified, unsubstantiated claim.  Do you dispute it?
> 
> Anyone with half a brain would dispute it, it is one of your more laughable claims.
> 
> Never heard of 'atmospheric seeing'?
> 
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/40680729?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
> 
> How about 'boundary layer'?
> 
> http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-equipment/beating-the-seeing/
> 
> Both are caused by the refraction of light by air.
> 
> You have less brainpower than a box of rocks.

Refraction only happens in droplets, dumbass.

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

#570733

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:21:47 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:57:21 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:15:33 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:05:57 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.
> > > > 
> > > >   Why do you say that?
> > > 
> > > I'm just countering an unqualified, unsubstantiated claim.  Do you dispute it?
> > 
> > Anyone with half a brain would dispute it, it is one of your more laughable claims.
> > 
> > Never heard of 'atmospheric seeing'?
> > 
> > http://www.jstor.org/stable/40680729?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
> > 
> > How about 'boundary layer'?
> > 
> > http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-equipment/beating-the-seeing/
> > 
> > Both are caused by the refraction of light by air.
> > 
> > You have less brainpower than a box of rocks.
> 
> Refraction only happens in droplets, dumbass.

There is no chance at all that you are correct, none.

http://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=other&book=air&page=Ciddor

Note that this index graph is specifically for dry air...

http://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Wavelength/Documentation.asp

Here you can read that, in the formulas presented, you can represent the humidity anywhere for 0% to 100% and that air is refractive at all degrees of humidity...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/indrf.html

Here you can see that air at STP has an index of refraction of 1.00029, whereas water has an index of 1.33.

If refraction only happened in water droplets, then it would clearly measured at 1.33 and not something much less.

It is pretty clear to all just who is the dumbass here...

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

#570762 — snell'S Law

standard ray-tracing works well with droplets, although
light is not just one "ray of the expanding wavefront;
the folks who believe in warmal globing,
that's one of the things they don't use,
to determine the actual albedo of open arctic wwaters
(Snell's god-am laW

> Here you can see that air at STP has an index of refraction of 1.00029, whereas water has an index of 1.33.
> 
> If refraction only happened in water droplets, then it would clearly measured at 1.33 and not something much less.
> 
> It is pretty clear to all just who is the dumbass here...

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

#570882

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:15:33 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:05:57 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.
> > 
> >   Why do you say that?
> 
> I'm just countering an unqualified, unsubstantiated claim.  Do you dispute it?

  I dispute your specific claim, that "refraction must involve microdroplets" in Schlieren photography. That technique relies specifically on refraction due to density differences in a transparent medium, usually air, though other media are often used in the technique, including water. The US Navy for instance did, and still does, extensive in-water work with Schlieren photography to minimize drag on torpedos.

  Do you assert that water microdroplets do the refracting in in-water Schlieren photography?


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#570907

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:46:10 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:15:33 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:05:57 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.
> > > 
> > >   Why do you say that?
> > 
> > I'm just countering an unqualified, unsubstantiated claim.  Do you dispute it?
> 
>   I dispute your specific claim, that "refraction must involve microdroplets" in Schlieren photography. That technique relies specifically on refraction due to density differences in a transparent medium, usually air, though other media are often used in the technique, including water. The US Navy for instance did, and still does, extensive in-water work with Schlieren photography to minimize drag on torpedos.
> 
>   Do you assert that water microdroplets do the refracting in in-water 
>   Schlieren photography?

Yes.

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

#570790

nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.
> 
>   Why do you say that?
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

Because he is blazingly stupid, totally insane and posts nothing worth
reading, which is why I kill filed him.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#570829

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 3:01:17 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.
> > 
> >   Why do you say that?
> > 
> > 
> >   Mark L. Fergerson
> 
> Because he is blazingly stupid, totally insane and posts nothing worth
> reading, which is why I kill filed him.

Uh, I think your killfile is broken.  Please fix it.

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

#570837

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 5:34:10 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 3:01:17 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > >> ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.
> > > 
> > >   Why do you say that?
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   Mark L. Fergerson
> > 
> > Because he is blazingly stupid, totally insane and posts nothing worth
> > reading, which is why I kill filed him.
> 
> Uh, I think your killfile is broken.  Please fix it.

No, James, he is not responding to your post, but rather to another contributor's response, Mark L. Fergerson.

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

#570842

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 6:32:39 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 5:34:10 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 3:01:17 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > > nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > >> ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.
> > > > 
> > > >   Why do you say that?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   Mark L. Fergerson
> > > 
> > > Because he is blazingly stupid, totally insane and posts nothing worth
> > > reading, which is why I kill filed him.
> > 
> > Uh, I think your killfile is broken.  Please fix it.
> 
> No, James, he is not responding to your post, but rather to another contributor's response, Mark L. Fergerson.

I love the smell of killfile in the morning.  It smells like . . . victory.

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

#570843

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 5:34:10 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 3:01:17 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> > >> ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.
>> > > 
>> > >   Why do you say that?
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > >   Mark L. Fergerson
>> > 
>> > Because he is blazingly stupid, totally insane and posts nothing worth
>> > reading, which is why I kill filed him.
>> 
>> Uh, I think your killfile is broken.  Please fix it.
> 
> No, James, he is not responding to your post, but rather to another
> contributor's response, Mark L. Fergerson.

Like I said, blazingly stupid...


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#570875

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:01:06 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 5:34:10 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 3:01:17 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> > nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> > >> ... refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.
> >> > > 
> >> > >   Why do you say that?
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > >   Mark L. Fergerson
> >> > 
> >> > Because he is blazingly stupid, totally insane and posts nothing worth
> >> > reading, which is why I kill filed him.
> >> 
> >> Uh, I think your killfile is broken.  Please fix it.
> > 
> > No, James, he is not responding to your post, but rather to another
> > contributor's response, Mark L. Fergerson.
> 
> Like I said, blazingly stupid...

It must be frustrating to have absolutely zero evidence supporting what you want to believe.

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

#571010

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:55:31 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:01:06 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > Like I said, blazingly stupid...
 
> It must be frustrating to have absolutely zero evidence supporting what you want to believe.

Look who's talking! Mr. 'no experiment, no observations' himself!

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

#571025

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:04:58 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:55:31 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:01:06 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
> > > Like I said, blazingly stupid...
>  
> > It must be frustrating to have absolutely zero evidence supporting what you want to believe.
> 
> Look who's talking! Mr. 'no experiment, no observations' himself!

Well, hmm, the boiling temperature of H2O at sea level is . . . hmm.

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

#571054

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:45:03 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> Well, hmm, the boiling temperature of H2O at sea level is . . . 

... not important! 

... has no bearing on the presence of water in the air in its gaseous state!

... has nothing whatsoever to do with dry air being heavier than humid air!

... has nothing to do with the jet stream!

... has nothing to do with the index of refraction of air!

... has nothing to do with the index of refraction of water!

... has nothing to do with convection in the atmosphere!

... has nothing to do with the fact that you are clearly not a physicist!

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

#571056

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:41:36 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:45:03 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > Well, hmm, the boiling temperature of H2O at sea level is . . . 
> 
> ... not important! 
> 
> ... has no bearing on the presence of water in the air in its gaseous state!
> 
> ... has nothing whatsoever to do with dry air being heavier than humid air!
> 
> ... has nothing to do with the jet stream!
> 
> ... has nothing to do with the index of refraction of air!
> 
> ... has nothing to do with the index of refraction of water!
> 
> ... has nothing to do with convection in the atmosphere!
> 
> ... has nothing to do with the fact that you are clearly not a physicist!

These are the kind of excuses non-physicist use to continue pretending 
they understand what they do not.  It is a fact--plain and simple--that you 
have no evidence that substantiates your goofy belief that gaseous H2O 
occurs at temperatures below its known boiling temperature/pressure.

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

#571059

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:55:48 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:41:36 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:45:03 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > 
> > > Well, hmm, the boiling temperature of H2O at sea level is . . . 
> > 
> > ... not important! 
> > 
> > ... has no bearing on the presence of water in the air in its gaseous state!
> > 
> > ... has nothing whatsoever to do with dry air being heavier than humid air!
> > 
> > ... has nothing to do with the jet stream!
> > 
> > ... has nothing to do with the index of refraction of air!
> > 
> > ... has nothing to do with the index of refraction of water!
> > 
> > ... has nothing to do with convection in the atmosphere!
> > 
> > ... has nothing to do with the fact that you are clearly not a physicist!
> 
> These are the kind of excuses non-physicist use to continue pretending 
> they understand what they do not.  It is a fact--plain and simple--that you 
> have no evidence that substantiates your goofy belief that gaseous H2O 
> occurs at temperatures below its known boiling temperature/pressure.

Excuses? EXCUSES? You've got to be kidding!

Unlike you, I actually HAVE a degree in physics. Well, OK, actually in astrophysics... OK, it's 47 years old, but still, it is a LOT more than you have!

YOU are the goofy guy with the wacky theory that flies in the face of hundreds of years of experimental science, and therefore it is YOU who needs to provide the proof of your theory. Science today has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that water in its gaseous state exists in the air and that it gets there either by boiling (fast method) or by evaporation (slow method) or even by sublimation, whereas frozen water passes right by the liquid state directly to the gaseous state. There is PLENTY of evidence to support this position, and it is out there for anyone to find. Google is your friend, so get busy, something you should have done to begin with, before heading down the rocky path you have chosen instead. I'm not going to do your homework for you, why should I? Perhaps you are too stupid to find it? 

For your theory, on the other hand, you have provided exactly NOTHING in the way of either experiments or observations. Besides, others here have provided ample links to valid experiments, which you have chosen to ignore. A real physicist would show his work, but apparently this is something that you are unable or unwilling to share.

Put up or shut up, those are your only options, either here or in the scientific community. Go big or go home. We all know you can't possibly go big, so... bye!

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

#571061

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 5:22:49 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:55:48 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:41:36 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:45:03 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Well, hmm, the boiling temperature of H2O at sea level is . . . 
> > > 
> > > ... not important! 
> > > 
> > > ... has no bearing on the presence of water in the air in its gaseous state!
> > > 
> > > ... has nothing whatsoever to do with dry air being heavier than humid air!
> > > 
> > > ... has nothing to do with the jet stream!
> > > 
> > > ... has nothing to do with the index of refraction of air!
> > > 
> > > ... has nothing to do with the index of refraction of water!
> > > 
> > > ... has nothing to do with convection in the atmosphere!
> > > 
> > > ... has nothing to do with the fact that you are clearly not a physicist!
> > 
> > These are the kind of excuses non-physicist use to continue pretending 
> > they understand what they do not.  It is a fact--plain and simple--that you 
> > have no evidence that substantiates your goofy belief that gaseous H2O 
> > occurs at temperatures below its known boiling temperature/pressure.
> 
> Excuses? EXCUSES? You've got to be kidding!
> 
> Unlike you, I actually HAVE a degree in physics. Well, OK, actually in 
> astrophysics... OK, it's 47 years old, but still, it is a LOT more than 
> you have!

It's funny how ogten people want to discuss education and credentials 
after they have failed to support their argument.

All you have is anecdote.

> YOU are the goofy guy with the wacky theory that flies in the face 
> of hundreds of years of experimental science,

If you can't find it what makes you think it will be any different for me?


 and therefore it is YOU who needs to provide the proof of your theory. Science today has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that water in its gaseous state exists in the air

Did somebodies dog eat the evidence?  Pity.

 and that it gets there either by boiling (fast method) or by evaporation (slow method) or even by sublimation, whereas frozen water passes right by the liquid state directly to the gaseous state. There is PLENTY of evidence to support this position, and it is out there for anyone to find. Google is your friend, so get busy, something you should have done to begin with, before heading down the rocky path you have chosen instead. I'm not going to do your homework for you, why should I? Perhaps you are too stupid to find it? 
> 
> For your theory, on the other hand, you have provided exactly NOTHING in the way of either experiments or observations. Besides, others here have provided ample links to valid experiments, which you have chosen to ignore. A real physicist would show his work, but apparently this is something that you are unable or unwilling to share.
> 
> Put up or shut up, those are your only options, either here or in the scientific community. Go big or go home. We all know you can't possibly go big, so... bye!

Do you dispute the steam tables?  Yes or No?

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web