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 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 11:25 -0800 |
| Subject | Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness |
| Message-ID | <ea3f79f9-dc24-409b-b4c8-9f68167c0a43@googlegroups.com> |
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-113932 Ultimately history will look on this notion of moist air convection as an example of human intellectual sheepishness, not unlike that that preceded the Copernican model of planetary motion. People forget that Galileo introduced evidence that plainly refuted the notion that the earth is the center of the universe. But it took hundreds of years to overcome the momentum of belief. That is the same thing with moist air convection. It's plainly nonsensical. The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O is common knowledge and it plainly refutes the notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O. The evidence that supports the notion of moist air convection is anecdotal, vague, and inconsistent. The professionals that, supposedly, maintain this notion refuse to discuss in publicly--not unlike climatology's notion of CO2 forcing. Amateurs that do support it won't discuss details--again, not unlike climatology's notion of CO2 forcing. The data that, supposedly, substantiates it doesn't involve direct measurement but derivations base on indirect data. Most everybody is fooled by this. Most everybody thinks its data is directly measured. It's not. The derivations include (hide) the assumption that clear, moist air contains gaseous H2O. That is the card up the sleeve. This is the smoke and mirrors. Once you understand this trick you understand that, in reality, moist air is heavier than dry air at ambient temps, always (all other factors being the same). There is no gaseous H2O in our atmosphere. The convection model has always been rather dubious speculation. It's never been tested. It is just believed, like a passage in the bible. It is just a story told by meteorologists. It isn't really science. It's just what they've been trained to tell the public.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 13:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <9aGdneJ5G5Fuj1fLnZ2dnUU7-fudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #555283 |
On 2/21/16 1:25 PM, James McGinn wrote: > The convection model has always been rather dubious speculation. It's never been tested. Observed around the world, James, pretty much on a daily basis. You need to understand that: Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible gas. There is nothing to see. > Water vapour (H2O molecules) > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation. > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can > lead to clouds. -- 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 | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 19:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dahppc-d6o.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555283 |
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. This is so simple to do that it is commonly a science fair project for children. Also, do learn to format a line to about 68 characters as is the USENET standard. --- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 12:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ac3c74c6-5203-43e9-a5ef-0d13bcf68fab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555297 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 15:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naft8d$65k$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555300 |
On 2/21/2016 2:04 PM, James McGinn 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? > 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 | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 21:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <84cspc-9c4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555300 |
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 and the relative densities of gaseous H2O and air at different temperatures, which are different than your claims. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 14:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ca302cf-d3ca-455a-b827-5d52be497d7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555634 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? > > So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling > point That is your believe that you haven't substantiated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 16:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <McydnfVit_anFFbLnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #555638 |
On 2/22/16 4:00 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? >> >> So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling >> point > > That is your believe that you haven't substantiated. > It's in the steam tables, James. Methinks you don't know how to read steam tables. You appear to be hung up on the word, "steam". Water vapour (gas) exists well below freezing and well about boiling. Even found in the solar atmosphere (hot) and interstellar space (cold). Water vapour (gas) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the gaseous phase of > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor > can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or > from the sublimation of ice. Unlike other forms of water, water vapor > is invisible.[4] Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor is > continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation. It > is lighter than air and triggers convection currents that can lead to > clouds. > > Being a component of Earth's hydrosphere and hydrologic cycle, it is > particularly abundant in Earth's atmosphere where it is also a potent > greenhouse gas along with other gases such as carbon dioxide and > methane. Use of water vapor, as steam, has been important to humans > for cooking and as a major component in energy production and > transport systems since the industrial revolution. > > Water vapor is a relatively common atmospheric constituent, present > even in the solar atmosphere as well as every planet in the Solar > System and many astronomical objects including natural satellites, > comets and even large asteroids. -- 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 | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 14:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ecb1712d-f4e6-4310-8ef6-a72f8790f3ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555644 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:18:38 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 2/22/16 4:00 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >>> Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? > >> > >> So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling > >> point > > > > That is your believe that you haven't substantiated. > > > > It's in the steam tables, James. Methinks you don't know how to read > steam tables. You appear to be hung up on the word, "steam". > > Water vapour (gas) exists well below freezing and well about boiling. > Even found in the solar atmosphere (hot) and interstellar space > (cold). You obviously are too dumb to follow a mildly complex conversation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 16:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <McydnfFit_YQEFbLnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #555653 |
On 2/22/16 4:34 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > You obviously are too dumb to follow a mildly complex conversation. > Nevertheless -- Water vapour (gas) exists well below freezing and well about boiling. Even found in the solar atmosphere (hot) and interstellar space (cold). Water vapour (gas) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the gaseous phase of > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor > can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or > from the sublimation of ice. Unlike other forms of water, water vapor > is invisible.[4] Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor is > continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation. It > is lighter than air and triggers convection currents that can lead to > clouds. > > Being a component of Earth's hydrosphere and hydrologic cycle, it is > particularly abundant in Earth's atmosphere where it is also a potent > greenhouse gas along with other gases such as carbon dioxide and > methane. Use of water vapor, as steam, has been important to humans > for cooking and as a major component in energy production and > transport systems since the industrial revolution. > > Water vapor is a relatively common atmospheric constituent, present > even in the solar atmosphere as well as every planet in the Solar > System and many astronomical objects including natural satellites, > comets and even large asteroids. -- 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 | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrfspc-eo4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555653 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:18:38 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 2/22/16 4:00 PM, James McGinn wrote: >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >>> Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? >> >> >> >> So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling >> >> point >> > >> > That is your believe that you haven't substantiated. >> > >> >> It's in the steam tables, James. Methinks you don't know how to read >> steam tables. You appear to be hung up on the word, "steam". >> >> Water vapour (gas) exists well below freezing and well about boiling. >> Even found in the solar atmosphere (hot) and interstellar space >> (cold). > > You obviously are too dumb to follow a mildly complex conversation. Responding with hostility is a common trait of the delusional when their delusions are challenged. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 15:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d11f1f92-3071-4352-a64f-8b3653f50120@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555664 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:18:38 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 2/22/16 4:00 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > > >> >>> Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? > >> >> > >> >> So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling > >> >> point > >> > > >> > That is your believe that you haven't substantiated. > >> > > >> > >> It's in the steam tables, James. Methinks you don't know how to read > >> steam tables. You appear to be hung up on the word, "steam". > >> > >> Water vapour (gas) exists well below freezing and well about boiling. > >> Even found in the solar atmosphere (hot) and interstellar space > >> (cold). > > > > You obviously are too dumb to follow a mildly complex conversation. > > Responding with hostility is a common trait of the delusional when > their delusions are challenged. 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.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 15:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <75b0e750-5e1a-4281-9654-c9ca4b855959@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555653 |
yes, but 62 is not really a bad score > You obviously are too dumb to follow a mildly complex conversation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 06:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4380beb8-664f-4ebc-9130-747ec6fa85c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555653 |
McFly said: You obviously are too dumb to follow a mildly complex conversation. ---------- McFly, here's a question for you. Someone told me long ago there's a calm before the storm. I know, it's been comin' for some time. When it's over so they say, it'll rain a sunny day. I know, shining down like water. I wanna know, have you ever seen the rain? I wanna know, have you ever seen the rain? Comin' down on a sunny day? Your answer please
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 16:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <McydnfRit_ZUF1bLnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #555638 |
James, read the first of the Feynman lectures: Atoms in Motion > http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html You'll just love it. -- 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 | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1sespc-nk4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555638 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? >> >> So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling >> point > > That is your believe that you haven't substantiated. I have seen it done and the experiment is so simple that it is commonly a subject for science fair projects by children. As you refuse to acknowledge the work of others, do the experiment yourself. Continuing to refuse to look at evidence is a common trait of the delusional. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 14:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7aa1ca72-2063-46fe-92fb-43f526a68e5a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555660 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:46:04 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> > Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? > >> > >> So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling > >> point > > > > That is your believe that you haven't substantiated. > > I have seen it done and the experiment is so simple that it is commonly > a subject for science fair projects by children. I am a physicist. I assure you that Schierlein imaging doesn't confirm the existence of gaseous H2O. It actually confirms the existence of liquid H2O that is suspended in the atmosphere, not unlike cloud droplets, but smaller, so they are invisible to normal eyesight. Now do you get it? I honestly don't know how I can describe it any simpler. Possibly you suffer from a delusion that moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? Is this the case? If not then I don't think I can help you. I don't think anybody can.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 23:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <flhspc-mt4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555663 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:46:04 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >> > Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? >> >> >> >> So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling >> >> point >> > >> > That is your believe that you haven't substantiated. >> >> I have seen it done and the experiment is so simple that it is commonly >> a subject for science fair projects by children. > > I am a physicist. A real physicist wouldn't say the boneheaded and obviously false things you say nor use the language you use to describe things unless he had gone quite insane. > I assure you that Schierlein imaging doesn't confirm the existence of > gaseous H2O. It actually confirms the existence of liquid H2O that is > suspended in the atmosphere, not unlike cloud droplets, but smaller, so > they are invisible to normal eyesight. Now do you get it? Absolutely wrong; it shows the difference in density for hot air, cold air, and gaseous H2O. Liquid H2O shows up very differently than gaseous H2O. > I honestly don't know how I can describe it any simpler. That is because you are clueless and refuse to look at what actually happens and the optical basis for Schierlein imaging. > Possibly you suffer from a delusion that moisture in the atmosphere > must be gaseous? Is this the case? If not then I don't think I can > help you. I don't think anybody can. Moisture in the atmosphere is both gaseous and liquid; the gaseous H2O is humidity and the liquid is clouds, fog, and mist. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 15:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de1254d4-c9f8-47ac-91ab-f0620fe1639c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555663 |
a-hem water is heavier than air, but water vapor is lighter than air; OCO is heavier than air > existence of gaseous H2O. It actually confirms the existence of liquid H2O that is suspended in the atmosphere, not unlike cloud droplets, but smaller, so they are invisible to normal eyesight. Now do you get it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 16:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b4766066-816e-4268-99ee-b542df091c19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555676 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:41:44 PM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote: > a-hem water is heavier than air, but > water vapor is lighter than air; > OCO is heavier than air Another moron chimes in. H2O molecules are lighter than N2 or O2. But H2O molecules are not gaseous in earth's atmsophere. They are in little clumps. Please tell me you at least understand what I'm saying. Really, this isn't that hard to grasp, folks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web