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

Groups > sci.physics > #557764 > unrolled thread

Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum

Started byJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
First post2016-02-28 21:03 -0800
Last post2016-02-29 23:59 +0000
Articles 18 — 4 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 21:03 -0800
    Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 06:01 +0000
      Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 23:50 -0800
        Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 06:10 -0600
          Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:18 -0800
            Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:42 +0000
        Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 19:28 +0000
          Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:38 -0800
            Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:30 +0000
              Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:51 -0800
                Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 21:25 +0000
          Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:14 -0800
            Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 14:39 -0600
            Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:32 +0000
              Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 13:00 -0800
                Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 21:27 +0000
                  Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:58 -0800
                    Re: Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 23:59 +0000

#557764 — Suricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-28 21:03 -0800
SubjectSuricat: jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum
Message-ID<e7d9ebc0-c677-4056-85b5-e745a9179fb9@googlegroups.com>
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114201

suricat says: February 29, 2016 at 3:05:

Ray: I concur. The 'direction of understanding' must be 'forwards' to improve any possible 'model' that 'someone' may want to construct!

Jim: The .  The energy thereof is what pulls the rest of the atmosphere along, by way of storms, which are themselves the result of down-reaching extensions of the jet streams--vortices.  Moisture is intrinsic to the process because of H2O's high surface tension which becomes maximized along wind shear boundaries.  That is why storms are wet.  Convection plays no role at all.

Ray: Your 'sig' suggests that you have a presence on 'the web'. I'd appreciate a 'link' to this site for a better appreciation of your POV.

Jim: My website is currently dark until its grand re-opening in June.  I'm in negotiations with a documentary film company about all of this, currently working on the script.  However, you can view some of my recent web activity, and three videos, at the following site.  I think my friend Mike will appreciate the traffic.  Be sure to check out some of his other content:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39080

Cheers,

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#557777

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-02-29 06:01 +0000
Message-ID<7e3dqc-p01.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#557764
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm in negotiations with a documentary film company about all of this,

Money that would be far better spent on a mental health professional.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557809

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-28 23:50 -0800
Message-ID<64212ee0-a577-46bb-8513-0169ebcf7092@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#557777
On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'm in negotiations with a documentary film company about all of this,
> 
> Money that would be far better spent on a mental health professional.

Did you know anything about the subject matter before you came across it here on this forum?  

If the experts can't find anything wrong or mistaken about what I'm saying then what do you think that indicates?

What are the odds that I would just happen to write a paper that the experts and yourself are unable to dispute?

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

#557821

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-02-29 06:10 -0600
Message-ID<nb1cgu$11n8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#557809
On 2/29/2016 1:50 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:31:05 PM UTC-8,
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm in negotiations with a documentary film company about all of
>>> this,
>>
>> Money that would be far better spent on a mental health
>> professional.
>
> Did you know anything about the subject matter before you came across
> it here on this forum?

sure,  taught in high school, it is common knowledge

>
> If the experts can't find anything wrong or mistaken about what I'm
> saying then what do you think that indicates?


your "If" statement is wrong from the get-go,
experts find everything wrong with all of your stuff,
which indicates you are delusional.

>
> What are the odds that I would just happen to write a paper that the
> experts and yourself are unable to dispute?

it confirms  it is a delusion, (you cannot accept any discussion counter 
to your construct, not will not discuss it in a rational manor)

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

#558006

FromSolving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-29 12:18 -0800
Message-ID<7d2e3aee-91c6-4ea7-9080-377acdd87ba5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#557821
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 4:11:18 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 1:50 AM, James McGinn wrote:

> > If the experts can't find anything wrong or mistaken about what I'm
> > saying then what do you think that indicates?
> 
> 
> your "If" statement is wrong from the get-go,

Let me get this straight.  Are you saying that this is evidence that *I* am delusional?

> > What are the odds that I would just happen to write a paper that the
> > experts and yourself are unable to dispute?
> 
> it confirms  it is a delusion, (you cannot accept any discussion counter 
> to your construct, not will not discuss it in a rational manor)

Hmm.  Maybe you've said too much.

If it would make you feel any better I will allow you to make a retraction.

Fair enough?

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

#558031

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-02-29 20:42 +0000
Message-ID<83neqc-dd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#558006
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 4:11:18 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 2/29/2016 1:50 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> > If the experts can't find anything wrong or mistaken about what I'm
>> > saying then what do you think that indicates?
>> 
>> 
>> your "If" statement is wrong from the get-go,
> 
> Let me get this straight.  Are you saying that this is evidence that *I*
> am delusional?

For starters as it shows your delusions can not allow you to accept the
fact that what you are saying HAS been shown to be bat shit crazy nonsense.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557959

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-02-29 19:28 +0000
Message-ID<doieqc-bu5.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#557809
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > I'm in negotiations with a documentary film company about all of this,
>> 
>> Money that would be far better spent on a mental health professional.
> 
> Did you know anything about the subject matter before you came across
> it here on this forum?  

Since grade school.

> 
> If the experts can't find anything wrong or mistaken about what I'm
> saying then what do you think that indicates?

Every expert you have approached with your theories has basically said
you are bat shit crazy, in polite terms, of course.

> What are the odds that I would just happen to write a paper that the
> experts and yourself are unable to dispute?  

Zero.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557966

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-29 11:38 -0800
Message-ID<4ccad48f-e3e4-4aa1-ad00-03beb1e7eb8b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#557959
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > What are the odds that I would just happen to write a paper that the
> > experts and yourself are unable to dispute?  
> 
> Zero.

That is the point.

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

#558018

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-02-29 20:30 +0000
Message-ID<rcmeqc-dd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#557966
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> > What are the odds that I would just happen to write a paper that the
>> > experts and yourself are unable to dispute?  
>> 
>> Zero.
> 
> That is the point.

So you are admitting that you are a troll?

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558035

FromSolving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-29 12:51 -0800
Message-ID<214aea1f-03a0-4c37-a9f5-770793b273e4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#558018
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:31:13 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> >> > What are the odds that I would just happen to write a paper that the
> >> > experts and yourself are unable to dispute?  
> >> 
> >> Zero.
> > 
> > That is the point.
> 
> So you are admitting that you are a troll?

Nope.  Read it again.

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

#558064

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-02-29 21:25 +0000
Message-ID<rjpeqc-ao6.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#558035
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:31:13 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > 
>> >> > What are the odds that I would just happen to write a paper that the
>> >> > experts and yourself are unable to dispute?  
>> >> 
>> >> Zero.
>> > 
>> > That is the point.
>> 
>> So you are admitting that you are a troll?
> 
> Nope.  Read it again.

I did; it still parses to you admitting to being a troll.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558003

FromSolving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-29 12:14 -0800
Message-ID<4cf4d3d3-d51d-4ad4-a8aa-8009658f9864@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#557959
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > Did you know anything about the subject matter before you came across
> > it here on this forum?  
> 
> Since grade school.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

> > If the experts can't find anything wrong or mistaken about what I'm
> > saying then what do you think that indicates?
> 
> Every expert you have approached with your theories has basically said
> you are bat shit crazy, in polite terms, of course.

And none of them can offer a substantive dispute.  

What do you think that indicates?

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

#558021

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-02-29 14:39 -0600
Message-ID<nb2ac0$sar$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#558003
On 2/29/2016 2:14 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>> Did you know anything about the subject matter before you came across
>>> it here on this forum?
>>
>> Since grade school.
>
> Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

why?

>
>>> If the experts can't find anything wrong or mistaken about what I'm
>>> saying then what do you think that indicates?
>>
>> Every expert you have approached with your theories has basically said
>> you are bat shit crazy, in polite terms, of course.
>
> And none of them can offer a substantive dispute.

post your theory here.

>
> What do you think that indicates?
>

delusion.

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

#558027

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-02-29 20:32 +0000
Message-ID<5fmeqc-dd6.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#558003
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> > Did you know anything about the subject matter before you came across
>> > it here on this forum?  
>> 
>> Since grade school.
> 
> Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

Typical response of the delusional when their delusions are challenged.

>> > If the experts can't find anything wrong or mistaken about what I'm
>> > saying then what do you think that indicates?
>> 
>> Every expert you have approached with your theories has basically said
>> you are bat shit crazy, in polite terms, of course.
> 
> And none of them can offer a substantive dispute.  

Only in your delusions.

> What do you think that indicates?

That your delusions go very deep.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558045

FromSolving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-29 13:00 -0800
Message-ID<e202cb61-90ac-4d1a-ba64-53d05f27106e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#558027
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> >> > Did you know anything about the subject matter before you came across
> >> > it here on this forum?  
> >> 
> >> Since grade school.
> > 
> > Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> Typical response of the delusional when their delusions are challenged.
> 
> >> > If the experts can't find anything wrong or mistaken about what I'm
> >> > saying then what do you think that indicates?
> >> 
> >> Every expert you have approached with your theories has basically said
> >> you are bat shit crazy, in polite terms, of course.
> > 
> > And none of them can offer a substantive dispute.  
> 
> Only in your delusions.
> 
> > What do you think that indicates?
> 
> That your delusions go very deep.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

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

#558065

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-02-29 21:27 +0000
Message-ID<8npeqc-ao6.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#558045
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > 
>> >> > Did you know anything about the subject matter before you came across
>> >> > it here on this forum?  
>> >> 
>> >> Since grade school.
>> > 
>> > Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
>> 
>> Typical response of the delusional when their delusions are challenged.
>> 
>> >> > If the experts can't find anything wrong or mistaken about what I'm
>> >> > saying then what do you think that indicates?
>> >> 
>> >> Every expert you have approached with your theories has basically said
>> >> you are bat shit crazy, in polite terms, of course.
>> > 
>> > And none of them can offer a substantive dispute.  
>> 
>> Only in your delusions.
>> 
>> > What do you think that indicates?
>> 
>> That your delusions go very deep.
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

And here we have proof just how bat shit crazy you are.

Where is your proof, i.e. an experiment, that proves your bat shit crazy
theories?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558084

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-29 14:58 -0800
Message-ID<838ee725-58a3-46cb-ba17-ba99a4c6cc59@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#558065
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 1:31:14 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> > Did you know anything about the subject matter before you came across
> >> >> > it here on this forum?  
> >> >> 
> >> >> Since grade school.
> >> > 
> >> > Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
> >> 
> >> Typical response of the delusional when their delusions are challenged.
> >> 
> >> >> > If the experts can't find anything wrong or mistaken about what I'm
> >> >> > saying then what do you think that indicates?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Every expert you have approached with your theories has basically said
> >> >> you are bat shit crazy, in polite terms, of course.
> >> > 
> >> > And none of them can offer a substantive dispute.  
> >> 
> >> Only in your delusions.
> >> 
> >> > What do you think that indicates?
> >> 
> >> That your delusions go very deep.
> > 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> 
> And here we have proof just how bat shit crazy you are.
> 
> Where is your proof, i.e. an experiment, that proves your bat shit crazy
> theories?

So, you concede there is no experimental evidence that disputes my assertion?

Look at this:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39168
and this:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/weekend-open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-114156

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

#558117

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-02-29 23:59 +0000
Message-ID<rk2fqc-cl7.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#558084
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 1:31:14 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> > Did you know anything about the subject matter before you came across
>> >> >> > it here on this forum?  
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Since grade school.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
>> >> 
>> >> Typical response of the delusional when their delusions are challenged.
>> >> 
>> >> >> > If the experts can't find anything wrong or mistaken about what I'm
>> >> >> > saying then what do you think that indicates?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Every expert you have approached with your theories has basically said
>> >> >> you are bat shit crazy, in polite terms, of course.
>> >> > 
>> >> > And none of them can offer a substantive dispute.  
>> >> 
>> >> Only in your delusions.
>> >> 
>> >> > What do you think that indicates?
>> >> 
>> >> That your delusions go very deep.
>> > 
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
>> 
>> And here we have proof just how bat shit crazy you are.
>> 
>> Where is your proof, i.e. an experiment, that proves your bat shit crazy
>> theories?
> 
> So, you concede there is no experimental evidence that disputes my assertion?

Not at all, I just need not bother as the proof of your bat shit crazy
theories is all on you to prove, not for anyone else to disprove.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web