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

Groups > sci.physics > #560139 > unrolled thread

Earth to Nutcase dude

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Earth to Nutcase dude James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:45 -0800
    Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:40 +0100
      Re: Earth to Nutcase dude James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 21:56 -0800
        Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 08:58 +0100
      Re: Earth to Nutcase dude James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:52 -0800
        Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 08:29 +0100
          Re: Earth to Nutcase dude James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:45 -0800
            Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:00 +0100
              Re: Earth to Nutcase dude James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:28 -0800
                Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 08:52 +0100
                  Re: Earth to Nutcase dude James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 01:14 -0800
                    Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:17 +0100
                      Re: Earth to Nutcase dude James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 21:41 -0700
                        Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 06:21 +0100
                          Re: Earth to Nutcase dude James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:56 -0700
                            Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 07:07 +0100
                              Re: Earth to Nutcase dude James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 00:24 -0700
                                Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 17:32 +0100
                                  Re: Earth to Nutcase dude "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-14 12:44 -0400
                                    Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-15 05:54 +0100
        Re: Earth to Nutcase dude edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-14 10:18 -0700
    Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:10 -0600

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#560139 — Earth to Nutcase dude

Nutcase dude:
evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, Jim. 

James McGinn:
Impossible.  Full polarity of singular H2O molecules is too high.. 

Nutcase dude:
That makes absolutely no sense, Jim. 

James Mcginn:
Given the polarity neutralization implication indicated in my paper, it make perfect sense.

Nutcase dude:
If polarity were higher, 
evaporation would occur at an even faster rate. We're not talking 
about "singular H2O molecules", Jim, we're talking about bulk water, 
with those acceptor sites filled by H bonds. 

James McGinn:
You are so clueless.  What "acceptor sites" are you talking about?

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research 
<http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> 

Uh, this was a computer simulation, dumbass.  It's a model.  They didn't test anything.  Like yourselt they were working off standard assumptions, which are mistaken.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#560251

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:a26a0377-7d72-4667-bb6f-02bc9455c10a@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> Nutcase dude:
> evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, Jim. 
> 
> James McGinn:
> Impossible.  Full polarity of singular H2O molecules is too high.. 
> 
> Nutcase dude:
> That makes absolutely no sense, Jim. 
> 
> James Mcginn:
> Given the polarity neutralization implication indicated in my paper, it make perfect sense.
> 
> Nutcase dude:
> If polarity were higher, 
> evaporation would occur at an even faster rate. We're not talking 
> about "singular H2O molecules", Jim, we're talking about bulk water, 
> with those acceptor sites filled by H bonds. 
> 
> James McGinn:
> You are so clueless.  What "acceptor sites" are you talking about?
> 
> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research 
> <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> 
> 
> Uh, this was a computer simulation, dumbass.  It's a model.  They didn't test anything.  Like yourselt they were working off standard assumptions, which are mistaken.

Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules
of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less*
energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a
low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional
Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical
processes.

You further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when an
inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond
isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that
broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened:

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

Peer-reviewed evidence is evidence, Jim. Why do you continue cowardly 
snipping out and running away from that evidence that proves you're a 
moron who in actuality knows next to nothing about that which you're 
stupidly blathering about, Jim?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html>
<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz>

You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've 
destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving 
that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim.

That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions, 
combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be 
wrong. Take your meds, Jim.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
<http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
=================================================
A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in 
the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number 
is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least 
one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the 
obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain 
sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, 
the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, 
and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that 
an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise 
interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent 
collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the 
liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was 
interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the 
evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation 
process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's 
cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a 
well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.
=================================================

"one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule 
process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the 
atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, 
meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been 
provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been 
utterly destroyed, meaning you  owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, 
Jim.

<snicker>

Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous 
water exists in the atmosphere:
<http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/>
=========================================================
Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum 
absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains 
controversial.
=========================================================

That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, 
thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you 
promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding 
challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves 
you're a moronic kooktard, Jim.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

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

#560254

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Uh, this was a computer simulation, dumbass.  It's a model.  They didn't test anything.  Like yourselt they were working off standard assumptions, which are mistaken.
> 
> Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules
> of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less*
> energy than stripping away a single molecule

Correct.

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

#560279

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:d4ac54f2-58e0-4b99-bceb-1f4d17ee6041@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping
>> multiple molecules of water away from the surface
>> of water via evaporation takes *less* energy than
>> stripping away a single molecule because you're a
>> low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your
>> delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around
>> the reality of physical processes.

> Correct.

Well, good of you to admit you're a kooktard and a low-information
uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted
brain around the reality of physical processes, Jim. LOL

Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules
of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less*
energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a
low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional
Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical
processes.

You further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when an
inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond
isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that
broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened:

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

Peer-reviewed evidence is evidence, Jim. Why do you continue cowardly 
snipping out and running away from that evidence that proves you're a 
moron who in actuality knows next to nothing about that which you're 
stupidly blathering about, Jim?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html>
<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz>

You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've 
destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving 
that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim.

That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions, 
combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be 
wrong. Take your meds, Jim.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
<http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
=================================================
A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in 
the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number 
is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least 
one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the 
obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain 
sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, 
the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, 
and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that 
an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise 
interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent 
collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the 
liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was 
interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the 
evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation 
process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's 
cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a 
well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.
=================================================

"one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule 
process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the 
atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, 
meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been 
provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been 
utterly destroyed, meaning you  owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, 
Jim.

<snicker>

Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous 
water exists in the atmosphere:
<http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/>
=========================================================
Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum 
absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains 
controversial.
=========================================================

That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, 
thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you 
promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding 
challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves 
you're a moronic kooktard, Jim.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

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

#561400

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:


> > Uh, this was a computer simulation, dumbass.  It's a model.  They didn't test anything.  Like yourselt they were working off standard assumptions, which are mistaken.
> 
> Jim, you claim that stripping multiple molecules
> of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less*
> energy than stripping away a single molecule 

Yep.  Because you would have to break the strong H bond of full polarity.  Only when some H bonds are attached, neutralizing some polarity, is it possible to pull H2O molecules off a surface, and that requires multiple H2O molecules.  

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

#561449

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:927a4a9c-307c-4ce2-823e-792172d02cfa@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Jim, you claim that stripping multiple molecules
>> of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less*
>> energy than stripping away a single molecule 

> Yep.  Because you would have to break the strong H bond of full polarity.
> Only when some H bonds are attached, neutralizing some polarity, is it
> possible to pull H2O molecules off a surface, and that requires multiple
> H2O molecules.

Wrong. The energy required to pull a water molecule off the surface of
water is the hydrogen bond strength of 23 kJ/mol per H bond, Jim. The
energy required to break the covalent bond is 458.9 kJ/mol.

You're conflating to try to make your kooky conspiracy theory work,
Jim. But it doesn't work. At all. It's fantasy.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond-dissociation_energy>
========================================================
For example, an HO–H bond of a water molecule (H–O–H) has 493.4 kJ/mol 
of bond-dissociation energy, and 424.4 kJ/mol is needed to cleave the 
remaining O–H bond.

The bond energy of the covalent O–H bonds in water is 458.9 kJ/mol, 
which is the average of the values.

Hydrogen bond-dissociation energy in water is about 23 kJ/mol.
========================================================

493.4 + 424.4 + 23 = 940.8 kJ/mol
458.9 + 458.9 + 23 = 940.8 kJ/mol

Aww, Jim didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding 
energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, thus water will 
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize. 
That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.

How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's 
plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear 
binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying 
that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen... 
so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets", 
Jim?

-- 

Remember this, Sister Fister?

"I use a Sony Cybershot DSC-H2 model camera 6.0 Megapixels and 12x
zoom with an in-camera microphone along with a Velbon tripod."
So at least we know what equipment you used to take piccies of yer
sister's tits. Even went to the trouble of setting up a tripod, eh?
Professional. LOL

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.nerd.obsessive/K84e5-h4130/Fs1OgPJsbQcJ
"There is OBVIOUSLY something you want to tell us, cain. Someone
mentions the word "sister-fister" on this newsgroup and you just
couldn't keep yourself from responding and making an ass out of
yourself once again"

DinkleFail copyrights his last name, so he can get exclusive rights to
his sisterporn movies:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.sport.pro-wrestling/lYhkOsZCFLs/dG4igl8F81gJ
"This is to announce that heanceforth no one is allowed to use the
Cain family name in usenet except myself, Alex Cain, the one and
only."

Dinkle McSisterFister starts a poll:
Subject: [POLL] Ever see your sister naked?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.sport.pro-wrestling/a-zCK84hSFk/VkmjRYDmzikJ

https://web.archive.org/web/20040820191757/http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/dink/index.html
"IRL, Dink has two younger sisters. Some of his more disturbing
comments about them include his boasts to Richard Bullis (see #22) of
having seen both of them naked. While it would be overly critical to
suggest that children of a similar age in a family don't see each
other nude on occassion (most readers with close siblings will
probably have shared a few baths in their childhood), bragging about
it to an unquestionably proven pedophile certainly suggests a dramatic
lack of judgement, if nothing else."

Dink wasn't talking about seeing his sisters naked as a child... he
was talking about what happened that day. LOL

Durh-de-duuurrrrhhh!
http://i.imgur.com/N8LIJit.jpg
https://web.archive.org/web/20040820191757im_/http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/dink/images/logo.gif

Mama Cain always said "put the plastic sheets on the bed before you
pop your sister's cherry".

Dink fucks his sister:
Message-ID: <26bc2d8d67df0422e483bf33cfe503ef@dizum.com>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.pizza.delivery.drivers/QdqCP4jxadM/YEZmAbdIZF4J

Dink fucking his sister:
http://goo.gl/VsDhDm
Note the short strokes. LOL

And now, just to rub salt in the loser's wounds:
He is a fat ugly inbred racist piece of jobless redneck trash.
He is 5 foot 3.
He is 40 years old and *still* doesn't have a car or job.
He has been molested by every male member of his family, dog included.
He perpetually fails out of college, which his poor mother pays for.
He masturbates to pictures of Chad Bryant, Emmett Gulley and his
sister.

"My I.Q. is in the 170 + range. I am, for all intensive purposes, a
creative genius."
Alex Cain mistakes his weekly gay midget porn masturbation frequency
as his IQ: <1559b599.0203301828.27a683b@posting.google.com>

For all intents and purposes, DinkleTard is an idiot who can't even
properly use the term "for all intents and purposes".

Especially like this blurb:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.sport.pro-wrestling/lYhkOsZCFLs/dG4igl8F81gJ
"Since I know that one day I will be a millionaire, I want no one
claiming to be related to me so that they may atempt to use my good
family name for their profit and gain."

15 years on and Bwahahahaaaa!
How'd that work out for you, Dink The Indigent?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.sport.pro-wrestling/pqZB4HA1cUk/6Az2p0tUbcEJ
"I will be more successful than you could ever hope to be."

How'd that work out for ya, DinkleFailure? LOL

"I will have to go all the way to California, because that's where the
heart of the movie industry lies. I will be able to fully utilize my
creative abilities."

How'd *that* work out for ya, DinkleLoser? LOL

"Hopefully, I'll find this out within the next 2-3 years."

You never even left your momma's basement, let alone Georgia... poor
loserly Dink D. SisterFister will never make it to Hollywood, let
alone make it *in* Hollywood. LOL

"While it's currently on the sidelines, I still indeed have an
interest in entering the professional wrestling field"

Midget wrestling. LOL

> You have NO chance in the world.
"Yes, I do"

No. You don't. You're the failure known as Alex Cain. LOL
You're Emmett, with a mother who gives at least one shit about her
sprog. But when she's gone... you're Emmett. Mooch the money for a
tent off yer mama while you still can.

"When I think back
on all the tit photos in high school
It's a wonder
I could fap at all
Because my sister's tits are sagging, but
That don't stop me none
To get hard I punch myself in the balls.

JaaawwwwJuhhhChrome
They give us the nice fap photos
Sag-tits and herpes camel-toes
It makes me think all the girls
Are a wank away, oh yeah
I got a redneck sister
I love to take tit photographs
So mama, don't take my JaaawwwwJuhhhChrome away"

<snicker>

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

#561452

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:39:33 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > Only when some H bonds are attached, neutralizing some polarity, is it
> > possible to pull H2O molecules off a surface, and that requires multiple
> > H2O molecules.
> 
> Wrong. 

I am right.  Read my paper.  


The energy required to pull a water molecule off the surface of
> water is the hydrogen bond strength of 23 kJ/mol per H bond, Jim.

Not measurable, dumbass.  Speculative.


 The
> energy required to break the covalent bond is 458.9 kJ/mol.
> 
> You're conflating to try to make your kooky conspiracy theory work,
> Jim. But it doesn't work. At all. It's fantasy.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond-dissociation_energy>
> ========================================================
> For example, an HO-H bond of a water molecule (H-O-H) has 493.4 kJ/mol 
> of bond-dissociation energy, and 424.4 kJ/mol is needed to cleave the 
> remaining O-H bond.

So, you saw it on a website, and now your an expert.

> 
> The bond energy of the covalent O-H bonds in water is 458.9 kJ/mol, 
> which is the average of the values.
> 
> Hydrogen bond-dissociation energy in water is about 23 kJ/mol.
> ========================================================
> 
> 493.4 + 424.4 + 23 = 940.8 kJ/mol
> 458.9 + 458.9 + 23 = 940.8 kJ/mol
> 
> Aww, Jim didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding 
> energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, thus water will 
> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize. 
> That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.

Like you have a clue.  You saw this on a website, now you think you understand it.  Just like a global warming advocate.

> 
> How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's 
> plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear 
> binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying 
> that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen... 
> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets", 
> Jim?

You lost me. 

I don't know what you are talking about.

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

#562043

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:5aea41f8-2f8f-4658-87d2-1530b977ddb3@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:39:33 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Only when some H bonds are attached, neutralizing some polarity, is it
>>> possible to pull H2O molecules off a surface, and that requires multiple
>>> H2O molecules.

>> Wrong. 

> I am right.  Read my paper.  

Wrong, Jim. Referring to your own blather is just your attempt at
bolstering your growing insanity, brought about because you refuse to
go back and examine the underlying premise upon which your kooky
conspiracy theory was built, for fear you'll discover you're wrong and
you've wasted a quarter century proving yourself to be a moron.

>> The energy required to pull a water molecule off the surface of
>> water is the hydrogen bond strength of 23 kJ/mol per H bond, Jim.

> Not measurable, dumbass.  Speculative.

James McGinn denies that electrostatic attraction occurs between the
negatively charged water surface and the positively charged
atmosphere, yet he's stoooopid enough to believe that a magical
fictitious energy source exists in the troposphere which can break
covalent *and* electrostatic bonds... which if it existed in the
troposphere would dissociate all water on the planet and kill all
life.

>> The energy required to break the covalent bond is 458.9 kJ/mol.
>> 
>> You're conflating to try to make your kooky conspiracy theory work,
>> Jim. But it doesn't work. At all. It's fantasy.
>> 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond-dissociation_energy>
>> ========================================================
>> For example, an HO-H bond of a water molecule (H-O-H) has 493.4 kJ/mol 
>> of bond-dissociation energy, and 424.4 kJ/mol is needed to cleave the 
>> remaining O-H bond.

> So, you saw it on a website, and now your an expert.

Doesn't matter where the information came from, Jim. It still proves
you wrong, therefore your kooky conspiracy theory is wrong.

You're attempting to conflate the messenger with the message, Jim. And
given that I've utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy theory via
more than a half dozen different avenues, that won't work for you.

>> The bond energy of the covalent O-H bonds in water is 458.9 kJ/mol, 
>> which is the average of the values.
>> 
>> Hydrogen bond-dissociation energy in water is about 23 kJ/mol.
>> ========================================================
>> 
>> 493.4 + 424.4 + 23 = 940.8 kJ/mol
>> 458.9 + 458.9 + 23 = 940.8 kJ/mol
>> 
>> Aww, Jim didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding 
>> energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, thus water will 
>> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize. 
>> That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.

> Like you have a clue.  You saw this on a website, now you think you
> understand it.  Just like a global warming advocate.

Aww, look at James McGinn going all ad-hom because he knows he can't
refute that scientific reality which proves he's a kook and a moron
for believing that a magical energy source exists in the troposphere
which can magically plasmize atmospheric water (without dissociating
it), but it wouldn't do the same to all the water on the planet *and*
kill off all life.

How are your kooky "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim?

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

>> How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's 
>> plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear 
>> binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying 
>> that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen... 
>> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets", 
>> Jim?

> You lost me. 
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about.

Exactly, Jim. Therefore your kooky conspiracy theory is dead, Jim.

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#562051

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:10:29 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:5aea41f8-2f8f-4658-87d2-1530b977ddb3@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:39:33 PM UTC-8,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >>> Only when some H bonds are attached, neutralizing some polarity, is it
> >>> possible to pull H2O molecules off a surface, and that requires multiple
> >>> H2O molecules.
> 
> >> Wrong. 
> 
> > I am right.  Read my paper.  
> 
> Wrong, 

You don't have a coherent argument.  Just blather.

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

#562067

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:f8ba81a0-7289-4912-a6c5-1d3e13ddd120@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:10:29 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:5aea41f8-2f8f-4658-87d2-1530b977ddb3@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:39:33 PM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> Only when some H bonds are attached, neutralizing some polarity, is it
>>>>> possible to pull H2O molecules off a surface, and that requires multiple
>>>>> H2O molecules.

>>>> Wrong. 

>>> I am right.  Read my paper.  

>> Wrong, 

> You don't have a coherent argument.  Just blather.

Sure I do, Jim.

Message-ID: <248b979ce8b36a21b1cea21844e010d6@dizum.com>

You're projecting, James. It's *you* who has no coherent argument.

I've dismantled your kooky conspiracy theory via more than a
half-dozen different avenues, none of which you are able to refute.

Now you're blathering about some magical hypothetical "plasma
not-a-plasma" that cannot exist, plasmized via an energy source which
does not exist in the troposphere.

Get to answering those tough questions, Jim...

Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and 
a half, and *you*, the kooktard who cannot answer my tough questions, 
is right, Jim?

Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a 
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted schizophrenic paranoid kook who's 
concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review 
process, Jim?

Why are there *no* corroborating papers that back up your kooky 
contentions, Jim? The ones you've provided I've used to prove you and 
your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*.

How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're 
plasma, Jim?

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding 
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the 
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm, extremely 
strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons 
with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the 
troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the 
troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not 
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the 
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly 
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules
account for the different H bonding strengths which account for
evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does 
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will, 
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with 
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to 
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity. 
I note you are doing the same.

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#562083

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 12:02:12 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> I've dismantled your kooky conspiracy theory via more than a
> half-dozen different avenues, none of which you are able to refute.

I guess I just disagree.  Oh well.  

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

#562220

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:11784902-ffaa-4eb2-a5f9-0b42acee8793@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 12:02:12 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> I've dismantled your kooky conspiracy theory via more than a
>> half-dozen different avenues, none of which you are able to refute.

> I guess I just disagree.  Oh well.

There is no "agree" or "disagree", James.

You either accept long-established and well-founded scientific reality
or you reject it. In so rejecting it, you demonstrate that you are
insane, since rejection of reality due to being unable to distinguish
fantasy from reality is the textbook definition of insanity. You've
taken insanity one step further, though, in that you actively reject
reality.

You've already admitted you're operating on nothing more than hunches,
suppositions, with no proof whatsoever.

You've already seen that I've utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy
theory via more than a half-dozen different avenues using a mountain
of peer-reviewed and well-founded scientific fact that more simply
explains water phenomena than your kooky conspiracy theory without
offshoot side effects such as requiring the atmosphere to be
plasmized, or a variable water molecule polarity meaning variable
solvent properties of water, or a magical energy source which
plasmizes water in the troposphere without dissociating all water on
the planet and killing all life.

If you disagreed and had any rational basis for your disagreement,
you'd be presenting your proof, but you're not doing so.

You're essentially saying that you know you're delusional, but you
prefer your delusion to reality, Jim.

Now, get right on answering those questions, Jim... or run away from
them and in so doing shuffle yourself a yet another step down the road
to clinical insanity...

So you throw out 150+ years of substantive and in-depth research as 
means of attempting to salvage your kooky discredited conspiracy 
theory in order to maintain your delusion that you know something no 
one else, all of them smarter and saner than you, knows, Jim?

Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and 
a half, and *you*, the kooktard who cannot answer my tough questions, 
are right, Jim?

Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a 
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted paranoid-schizophrenic kook who's 
concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review 
process, Jim?

Why are there *no* corroborating peer-reviewed papers that back up 
your kooky contentions, Jim? The ones you've provided I've used to 
prove you and your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*.

How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're 
plasma, Jim?

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding 
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the 
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm, extremely 
strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons 
with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed far above the 
troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the 
troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not 
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the 
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly 
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change 
upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules 
account for the different H bonding strengths which account for 
evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky 
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does 
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will, 
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with 
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to 
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity. 
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#562227

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:27:50 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >> I've dismantled your kooky conspiracy theory via more than a
> >> half-dozen different avenues, none of which you are able to refute.
> 
> > I guess I just disagree.  Oh well.
> 
> There is no "agree" or "disagree", James.

I guess I just disagree with this also.

> You either accept long-established and well-founded scientific reality
> or 

I generally only agree with things that are supported by reproducible experimental evidence.  

You have your criteria I have mine.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

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

#562244

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:7d007f73-d5ad-4337-b7cc-7e803b9ebe6f@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:27:50 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> I've dismantled your kooky conspiracy theory via more than a
>>>> half-dozen different avenues, none of which you are able to refute.

>>> I guess I just disagree.  Oh well.

>> There is no "agree" or "disagree", James.
>> 
>> You either accept long-established and well-founded scientific reality
>> or you reject it. In so rejecting it, you demonstrate that you are
>> insane, since rejection of reality due to being unable to distinguish
>> fantasy from reality is the textbook definition of insanity. You've
>> taken insanity one step further, though, in that you actively reject
>> reality.
>> 
>> You've already admitted you're operating on nothing more than hunches,
>> suppositions, with no proof whatsoever.
>> 
>> You've already seen that I've utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy
>> theory via more than a half-dozen different avenues using a mountain
>> of peer-reviewed and well-founded scientific fact that more simply
>> explains water phenomena than your kooky conspiracy theory without
>> offshoot side effects such as requiring the atmosphere to be
>> plasmized, or a variable water molecule polarity meaning variable
>> solvent properties of water, or a magical energy source which
>> plasmizes water in the troposphere without dissociating all water on
>> the planet and killing all life.
>> 
>> If you disagreed and had any rational basis for your disagreement,
>> you'd be presenting your proof, but you're not doing so.
>> 
>> You're essentially saying that you know you're delusional, but you
>> prefer your delusion to reality, Jim.

> I guess I just disagree with this also.

You would, Jim. Part and parcel of your paranoid-schizophrenia and
Dunning-Kruger affliction is that you refuse to admit fault within
yourself... hence your running off the rails with your kooky little
theory, which does not and cannot reflect reality, as I've proven.

> I generally only agree with things that are supported by
> reproducible experimental evidence.  

Liar. You believe in all sorts of whacko shit that has absolutely no
basis in reality, and thus no experimental evidence to back it up. See
below.

> You have your criteria I have mine.

Your insanity is not a scientific criteria, James.

> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

No, you'll just have to reconcile yourself to getting your stupid
delusional ass drop-kicked across Usenet until the day you finally
have that bright, brief flash of realization that you are, indeed,
thoroughly insane, whereupon you'll close your garage door, start your
vehicle and breathe deeply, Jim.

Won't be long now, I'm betting.

<snicker>

Now, get right on answering those questions, Jim... or run away from
them and in so doing shuffle yourself a yet another step down the road
to clinical insanity...

So you throw out 150+ years of substantive and in-depth research as 
means of attempting to salvage your kooky discredited conspiracy 
theory in order to maintain your delusion that you know something no 
one else, all of them smarter and saner than you, knows, Jim?

Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and 
a half, and *you*, the kooktard who cannot answer my tough questions, 
are right, Jim?

Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a 
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted paranoid-schizophrenic kook who's 
concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review 
process, Jim?

Why are there *no* corroborating peer-reviewed papers that back up 
your kooky contentions, Jim? The ones you've provided I've used to 
prove you and your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*.

How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're 
plasma, Jim?

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding 
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the 
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm, extremely 
strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons 
with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed far above the 
troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the 
troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not 
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the 
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly 
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change 
upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules 
account for the different H bonding strengths which account for 
evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky 
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does 
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will, 
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with 
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to 
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity. 
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

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

#562249

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:31:50 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > I generally only agree with things that are supported by
> > reproducible experimental evidence.  
> 
> Liar. 

Believers believe.  

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

#562254

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:1e9318e8-45b5-44ae-9f24-84a6da6577a1@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:31:50 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> I generally only agree with things that are supported by
>>> reproducible experimental evidence.  

>> Liar. You believe in all sorts of whacko shit that has absolutely no
>> basis in reality, and thus no experimental evidence to back it up. See
>> below.

> Believers believe.

And that's *all* you have, James... belief. You're no better than the
AGW crowd. Conversely, I have more than two and half centuries of
rigorous scientific inquiry backing me up. You lose. Again.

==========================================================

Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous
phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully
explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has
been utterly demolished.

You postulate the following:

1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere,
which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can
continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.

2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source
that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without
dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water
will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely
energetic laser.

3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only
atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound
water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the
*minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be
equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just
3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the
problem inherent in your contention, James.

4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except
it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than
~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to
ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the
overwhelming majority of all water is.

5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which
direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why?
Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus
convects upward.

6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air,
except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and
molar volume...

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than
humidity.

The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.

Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for dry air

Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.

Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.

Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude
decreases.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water
partial pressure will have the same density.

At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous
water partial pressure will have higher density.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous
water partial pressure will have lower density.

For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure,
air at a higher altitude will have lower density.

(1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative
humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.

Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative
humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C,
the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.

Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to
increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the
air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the
air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or
the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater
than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.

Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas
relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that
temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather
systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.

IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which
requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air
itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of
monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of
higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).

It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is
"heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not
applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the
calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in
agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even
with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same
relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and
more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der
Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and
increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the
difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der
Waals equation... notice the converging trend?

Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with
gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error
to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't
understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf.

7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding...
which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties,
and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim.
You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there
are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths:

<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's
photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
phases.

<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304>
You'll note the double peak of liquid water.

Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
====================================================
Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.
====================================================

You betcha... para and ortho-form water.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html>
====================================================
Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated
with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2),
the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess
parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are
parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a
magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three
symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three
states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state
always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7
J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1)
H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a].

When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called
para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin
state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in
this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room
temperature.

Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but
ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden
for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular
species. They can change spin state on interaction with another
particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of
these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where
the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting
to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative
amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures
(>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish
itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It
is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much
closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076].
This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of
non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or
para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two
forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186],
which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water
clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due
to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835].

The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a
significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin
interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural
rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion
[1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O,
possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than
hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that
ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150]
with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally
coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density
clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated.
Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a
strong dc electric field [2156].
====================================================

The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when
water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water
clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily
broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be
ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is
very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray
spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration
temperature and phase.

Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than
the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated
removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm
thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable 
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just 
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less 
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the 
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and 
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a 
lower temperature).
=====================================================

As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in
which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer
of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is
happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with
other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving
off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially
condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note
above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same
properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the
difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and
phase.

For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater
water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the
condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O
gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of
ice is melted.

So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the
water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because
there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two
different hydrogen bonding strengths.

Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by
scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done
utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL

<http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html>
==============================================
A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable
to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the
nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined
in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric
wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called
para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called
ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is
"forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin
isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as
collisions.
==============================================

Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and
para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen
atoms, also has two spin isomers?

<https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e>
<http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif>

In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at
low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously
converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has
implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by
this spin isomer conversion.

In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to
para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via
partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which
would cause spin isomer conversion.

Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking,
Jim...

How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
plasma, Jim?

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules
account for the different H bonding strengths which account for
evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

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

#562267

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 11:18:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > Believers believe.
> 
> I have more than two and half centuries of
> rigorous scientific inquiry backing me up. 

If that were true you would have no need to make that claim. You also would have no need for the ad hominen and the gratuitous strawman tactics.  IOW, your desperation tell a story that is different from the one that is coming out of your mouth.

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

#562330

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:bb70f90c-6b5e-492f-9283-cf7821c713a1@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again on Date: Mon, 14
Mar 2016 00:24:47 -0700 (PDT):

Awww, did I perturb you, Jim? You spent all night hunched over your
keyboard, furiously thinking up backpedaling denials and pathetic
attempts to divert attention away from the fact that you've spent the
last quarter century proving you're a delusional moron, huh, Jim.

If your kooky conspiracy theory reflected reality, James Bernard
McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, you'd be able to sleep soundly at night
knowing you have a comprehensive and scientifically sound defense of
it. That I've got you up in the wee hours bleating out your pathetic
justifications for you inability to defend it is all the proof
necessary that even *you* know your kooky conspiracy theory is
indefensible.

<snicker>

> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 11:18:05 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Believers believe.

>> And that's *all* you have, James... belief. You're no better than the
>> AGW crowd. Conversely, I have more than two and half centuries of
>> rigorous scientific inquiry backing me up. You lose. Again.

> If that were true you would have no need to make that claim.

That claim happens to be fact, James. But for a moronic idiotic kook
like you who denies fact, I'm sure you find it completely normal to
deny things which were known before there was even a comprehensive
explanation of electricity.

You're a throwback to the age of mysticism and alchemy... your kooky
conspiracy theory is no better than AGW, it's merely a fairy tale, a
scientific impossibility, as I have amply proven using that long-known
scientific fact, James.

> You also would have no need for the ad hominen and the
> gratuitous strawman tactics.  IOW, your desperation tell
> a story that is different from the one that is coming
> out of your mouth.

Awww, look at the kook backpedal and attempt to divert the topic to
anything other than the fact that he has absolutely no defense of his
kooky conspiracy theory.

It really bothers you that I'm keeping you on point, doesn't it, Jim?
Because you know you cannot defend your kooky conspiracy theory.

Here, Jim... take another crack at refuting scientific reality... or
run away and prove yet again that you're merely a delusional retard
who cannot even back up your own blather...

==========================================================

Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous
phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully
explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has
been utterly demolished.

You postulate the following:

1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere,
which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can
continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.

2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source
that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without
dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water
will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely
energetic laser.

3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only
atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound
water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the
*minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be
equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just
3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the
problem inherent in your contention, James.

4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except
it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than
~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to
ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the
overwhelming majority of all water is.

5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which
direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why?
Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus
convects upward.

6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air,
except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and
molar volume...

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than
humidity.

The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.

Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for dry air

Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.

Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.

Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude
decreases.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water
partial pressure will have the same density.

At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous
water partial pressure will have higher density.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous
water partial pressure will have lower density.

For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure,
air at a higher altitude will have lower density.

(1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative
humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.

Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative
humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C,
the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.

Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to
increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the
air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the
air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or
the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater
than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.

Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas
relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that
temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather
systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.

IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which
requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air
itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of
monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of
higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).

It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is
"heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not
applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the
calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in
agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even
with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same
relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and
more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der
Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and
increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the
difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der
Waals equation... notice the converging trend?

Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with
gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error
to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't
understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf.

7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding...
which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties,
and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim.
You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there
are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths:

<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's
photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
phases.

<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304>
You'll note the double peak of liquid water.

Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
====================================================
Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.
====================================================

You betcha... para and ortho-form water.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html>
====================================================
Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated
with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2),
the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess
parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are
parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a
magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three
symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three
states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state
always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7
J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1)
H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a].

When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called
para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin
state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in
this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room
temperature.

Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but
ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden
for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular
species. They can change spin state on interaction with another
particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of
these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where
the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting
to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative
amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures
(>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish
itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It
is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much
closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076].
This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of
non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or
para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two
forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186],
which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water
clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due
to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835].

The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a
significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin
interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural
rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion
[1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O,
possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than
hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that
ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150]
with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally
coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density
clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated.
Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a
strong dc electric field [2156].
====================================================

The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when
water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water
clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily
broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be
ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is
very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray
spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration
temperature and phase.

Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than
the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated
removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm
thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable 
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just 
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less 
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the 
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and 
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a 
lower temperature).
=====================================================

As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in
which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer
of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is
happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with
other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving
off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially
condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note
above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same
properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the
difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and
phase.

For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater
water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the
condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O
gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of
ice is melted.

So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the
water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because
there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two
different hydrogen bonding strengths.

Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by
scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done
utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL

<http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html>
==============================================
A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable
to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the
nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined
in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric
wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called
para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called
ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is
"forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin
isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as
collisions.
==============================================

Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and
para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen
atoms, also has two spin isomers?

<https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e>
<http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif>

In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at
low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously
converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has
implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by
this spin isomer conversion.

In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to
para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via
partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which
would cause spin isomer conversion.

Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking,
Jim...

How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
plasma, Jim?

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules
account for the different H bonding strengths which account for
evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

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

#562332

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:32:20 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:bb70f90c-6b5e-492f-9283-cf7821c713a1@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again on Date: Mon, 14
> Mar 2016 00:24:47 -0700 (PDT):
>
> Awww, did I perturb you, Jim? You spent all night hunched over your
> keyboard, furiously thinking up backpedaling denials and pathetic
> attempts to divert attention away from the fact that you've spent the
> last quarter century proving you're a delusional moron, huh, Jim.
>
> If your kooky conspiracy theory reflected reality, James Bernard
> McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA,

have you checked out his gables on google yet?

> you'd be able to sleep soundly at night
> knowing you have a comprehensive and scientifically sound defense of
> it. That I've got you up in the wee hours bleating out your pathetic
> justifications for you inability to defend it is all the proof
> necessary that even *you* know your kooky conspiracy theory is
> indefensible.
>
> <snicker>
>
>> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 11:18:05 PM UTC-7,
>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>>>> Believers believe.
>
>>> And that's *all* you have, James... belief. You're no better than the
>>> AGW crowd. Conversely, I have more than two and half centuries of
>>> rigorous scientific inquiry backing me up. You lose. Again.
>
>> If that were true you would have no need to make that claim.
>
> That claim happens to be fact, James. But for a moronic idiotic kook
> like you who denies fact, I'm sure you find it completely normal to
> deny things which were known before there was even a comprehensive
> explanation of electricity.
>
> You're a throwback to the age of mysticism and alchemy... your kooky
> conspiracy theory is no better than AGW, it's merely a fairy tale, a
> scientific impossibility, as I have amply proven using that long-known
> scientific fact, James.
>
>> You also would have no need for the ad hominen and the
>> gratuitous strawman tactics.  IOW, your desperation tell
>> a story that is different from the one that is coming
>> out of your mouth.
>
> Awww, look at the kook backpedal and attempt to divert the topic to
> anything other than the fact that he has absolutely no defense of his
> kooky conspiracy theory.
>
> It really bothers you that I'm keeping you on point, doesn't it, Jim?
> Because you know you cannot defend your kooky conspiracy theory.
>
> Here, Jim... take another crack at refuting scientific reality... or
> run away and prove yet again that you're merely a delusional retard
> who cannot even back up your own blather...
>
> ==========================================================
>
> Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous
> phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully
> explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has
> been utterly demolished.
>
> You postulate the following:
>
> 1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere,
> which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can
> continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.
>
> 2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source
> that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without
> dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
> binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water
> will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely
> energetic laser.
>
> 3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only
> atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound
> water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the
> *minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be
> equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just
> 3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the
> problem inherent in your contention, James.
>
> 4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except
> it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than
> ~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to
> ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the
> overwhelming majority of all water is.
>
> 5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which
> direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why?
> Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus
> convects upward.
>
> 6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air,
> except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and
> molar volume...
>
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than
> humidity.
>
> The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
> the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.
>
> The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
> 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.
>
> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
> phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
> mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
> same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.
>
> The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
> the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.
>
> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
> 28.57 g for dry air
>
> Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
> air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.
>
> Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
> gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.
>
> Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude
> decreases.
>
> At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water
> partial pressure will have the same density.
>
> At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous
> water partial pressure will have higher density.
>
> At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous
> water partial pressure will have lower density.
>
> For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure,
> air at a higher altitude will have lower density.
>
> (1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative
> humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.
>
> Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative
> humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C,
> the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.
>
> Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to
> increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the
> air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the
> air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or
> the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater
> than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.
>
> Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas
> relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that
> temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather
> systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.
>
> IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which
> requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air
> itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of
> monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of
> higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).
>
> It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is
> "heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard.
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>
> And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not
> applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the
> calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in
> agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even
> with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same
> relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and
> more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der
> Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and
> increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the
> difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der
> Waals equation... notice the converging trend?
>
> Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with
> gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error
> to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't
> understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf.
>
> 7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding...
> which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties,
> and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim.
> You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there
> are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths:
>
> <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
> They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
> orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's
> photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
> due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
> phases.
>
> <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304>
> You'll note the double peak of liquid water.
>
> Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
> ====================================================
> Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
> water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
> peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
> the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.
> ====================================================
>
> You betcha... para and ortho-form water.
>
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html>
> ====================================================
> Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated
> with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2),
> the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess
> parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are
> parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a
> magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three
> symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three
> states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state
> always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7
> J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1)
> H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a].
>
> When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called
> para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin
> state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in
> this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room
> temperature.
>
> Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but
> ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden
> for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular
> species. They can change spin state on interaction with another
> particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of
> these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where
> the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting
> to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative
> amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures
> (>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish
> itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It
> is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much
> closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076].
> This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of
> non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or
> para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two
> forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186],
> which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water
> clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due
> to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835].
>
> The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a
> significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin
> interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural
> rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion
> [1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O,
> possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than
> hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that
> ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150]
> with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally
> coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density
> clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated.
> Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a
> strong dc electric field [2156].
> ====================================================
>
> The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when
> water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water
> clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily
> broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be
> ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is
> very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray
> spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration
> temperature and phase.
>
> Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than
> the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated
> removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm
> thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice.
>
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
> =====================================================
> Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
> structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
> under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
> with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
> water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
> more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
> lower temperature).
> =====================================================
>
> As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in
> which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer
> of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is
> happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with
> other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving
> off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially
> condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note
> above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same
> properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the
> difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and
> phase.
>
> For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater
> water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the
> condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O
> gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of
> ice is melted.
>
> So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the
> water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because
> there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two
> different hydrogen bonding strengths.
>
> Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by
> scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done
> utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL
>
> <http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html>
> ==============================================
> A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable
> to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the
> nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be  
> combined
> in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric
> wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called
> para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called
> ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is
> "forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin
> isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as
> collisions.
> ==============================================
>
> Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and
> para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen
> atoms, also has two spin isomers?
>
> <https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e>
> <http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif>
>
> In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at
> low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously
> converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has
> implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by
> this spin isomer conversion.
>
> In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to
> para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via
> partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which
> would cause spin isomer conversion.
>
> Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking,
> Jim...
>
> How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
> plasma, Jim?
>
> How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
> energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
> water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?
>
> Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
> extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
> photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
> the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
> troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
>
> How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not
> dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
> planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
> all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
>
> Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
> upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules
> account for the different H bonding strengths which account for
> evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky
> conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?
>
> Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
>
> Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
> not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
> Jim.
>
> Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
> the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
> protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
> I note you are doing the same.
>
> I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
> Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
> forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.
>
> <snicker>
>


-- 
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007

 

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

#562532

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1, in
<news:op.yebp4xr8tm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
into the wood chipper again:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:32:20 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:bb70f90c-6b5e-492f-9283-cf7821c713a1@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again on Date: Mon, 14
>> Mar 2016 00:24:47 -0700 (PDT):
>>
>> Awww, did I perturb you, Jim? You spent all night hunched over your
>> keyboard, furiously thinking up backpedaling denials and pathetic
>> attempts to divert attention away from the fact that you've spent the
>> last quarter century proving you're a delusional moron, huh, Jim.
>>
>> If your kooky conspiracy theory reflected reality, James Bernard
>> McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA,

> have you checked out his gables on google yet?

Says the moron who doesn't know what a gable is, and proved it by
taking a photo of the *top* of his roof. 150 IQ? LOL

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Obsessed Retard. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In Usenet History. LOL

-- 

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757

DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.

> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.

Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.

<snicker>
=================================================

DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================

DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f712515dedb738e450@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================

This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.

150 IQ? LOL

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web