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

Groups > sci.physics > #560200 > unrolled thread

We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 16:20 -0800
    Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-08 00:42 +0000
      Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 16:51 -0800
        Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-08 01:12 +0000
    Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 18:56 -0600
      Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 17:21 -0800
        Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 19:29 -0600
    Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 19:27 -0600
    Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:45 +0100
      Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 22:04 -0800
        Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 08:21 +0100
          Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 23:46 -0800
            Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 17:19 +0100
              Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:46 -0800
                Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:17 -0600
                Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:20 +0100
                  Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:39 -0800
                    Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:46 -0600
                    Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 12:11 -0800
                      Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-09 15:03 -0600
                        Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 15:09 -0800
                  Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-09 05:45 -0700
                    Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 15:22 -0500
                      Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-11 18:47 -0700
                        Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 23:26 -0700
    Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:31 -0600
    Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 22:52 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#560200 — We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous

We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous. Most of us have at least enough education to realize the boiling point of water is much higher than that of our ambient environment. And most of us realize that boiling has to do with a phase change from a liquid state of matter to a gaseous state of matter. Most of us reconcile this dichotomy by just not thinking about it. Some of us come up with rationalization to explain it away. But if you are going to do science you can't fall back on these excuses. You have to see things for what they actually are.

There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.

Moist air is heavier than dry air.

Moist air convection is impossible.

Meteorology needs another way to explain the power of storms, why storms are wet, and how heavier moist air gets so high in earth's atmosphere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#560207

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous.

Nope, we learned that in grade school scince class.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#560208

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 4:46:24 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous.
> 
> Nope, we learned that in grade school scince class.
> 

Maybe it's time to grow up.

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

#560211

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 4:46:24 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous.
>> 
>> Nope, we learned that in grade school scince class.
>> 
> 
> Maybe it's time to grow up.

The rest of us did and took our grade school knowledge and expanded it
in high school and college where all the "mysteries" of water and
gases were reveled.

Too bad you are stuck with a 2nd grade education and a delusional blinding
flash of insight to a pile of nonsense.

But at least you provide comic relief.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#560209

On 3/7/2016 6:20 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> We ME all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous.


Wrong, most take science classes in grade school, High school, where 
they show experiments that prove Water Vapor is in Air.



> Most of ME have at least enough education to realize the boiling
> point of water is much higher than that of our ambient environment.


At what pressure, what altitude ?  You always leave that out.


> And most of ME realize that boiling has to do with a phase change
> from a liquid state of matter to a gaseous state of matter.

at what pressure and temperature ? use a phase diagram, fool.

> Most of
> ME reconcile this dichotomy by just not thinking about it.



no dichotomy at all, your brain is too small to think in more that 2 
dimentions.  That is the problem with you.



> Some of ME
> come up with rationalization to explain it away. But if ME are going
> to do science ME can't fall back on these excuses. ME have to see
> things for what they actually are.

you obviously do not have the mental tools to understand water.


> There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.

totally wrong.
prove it, you pinhead twit !


> Moist air is heavier than dry air.

you have that backwards.


>
> Moist air convection is impossible.

delusional moron troll



> ME needs another way to explain the power of storms, why
> storms are wet, and how heavier moist air gets so high in earth's
> atmosphere.


you need another way of explaining your stupid theory.

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

#560213

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 4:56:27 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> > There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.
> 
> totally wrong.

Too bad you can't prove it.

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

#560215

On 3/7/16 7:21 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> Too bad you can't prove it.
>

   Translation, "too bad I can't disprove it".

   Liquid water, suspended in air is in the form of fog, clouds,
   mist or other precipitation.

   Water vapour (H2O gas) is lighter than air.

   Evaporation from soil, oceans, plants and lakes results in a
   continuous supply of Water Vapor (gaseous H2O) in the earth's
   atmosphere.

   Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
   gas, so there is nothing to see.

 > Water vapour (H2O molecules)

 > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
 > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
 > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
 > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
 > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
 > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
 > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
 > lead to clouds.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#560214

On 3/7/16 6:20 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous.


   James, this is something you should have learned in school.

   Review | Evaporation
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation

 > Evaporation is a type of vaporization of a liquid that occurs from
 > the *surface of a liquid into a gaseous phase* that is not saturated
 > with the evaporating substance. The other type of vaporization is
 > boiling, which is characterized by bubbles of saturated vapor forming
 > in the liquid phase. Steam produced in a boiler is another example of
 > evaporation occurring in a saturated vapor phase. Evaporation that
 > occurs directly from the solid phase below the melting point, as
 > commonly observed with ice at or below freezing or moth crystals
 > (napthalene or paradichlorobenzene), is called sublimation.
 >
 > On average, a fraction of the molecules in a glass of water have
 > enough heat energy to escape from the liquid. Water molecules from
 > the air enter the water in the glass, but as long as the relative
 > humidity of the air in contact is less than 100% (saturation), the
 > net transfer of water molecules will be to the air. The water in the
 > glass will be cooled by the evaporation until an equilibrium is
 > reached where the air supplies the amount of heat removed by the
 > evaporating water. In an enclosed environment the water would
 > evaporate until the air is saturated.

 > Evaporation is an essential part of the water cycle. The sun (solar
 > energy) drives evaporation of water from oceans, lakes, moisture in
 > the soil, and other sources of water. In hydrology, evaporation and
 > transpiration (which involves evaporation within plant stomata) are
 > collectively termed evapotranspiration. *Evaporation of water*
 > *occurs when the surface of the liquid is exposed, allowing*
 > *molecules to escape and form water vapor* [gas]; this vapor can
 > then rise up and form clouds. The tracking of evaporation from its
 > source on the surface of the earth, through the atmosphere as vapor
 > or clouds, and to its fate as precipitation closes the atmospheric
 > water cycle, and embodies the concept of the precipitationshed.




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#560253

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

James McGinn, in
<news:2bbcc846-d870-46dc-a943-b3a54686ffea@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous. Most of us have at least enough education to realize the boiling point of water is much higher than that of our ambient environment. And most of us realize that boiling has to do with a phase change from a liquid state of matter to a gaseous state of matter. Most of us reconcile this dichotomy by just not thinking about it. Some of us come up with rationalization to explain it away. But if you are going to do science you can't fall back on these excuses. You have to see things for what they actually are.
> 
> There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Moist air is heavier than dry air.
> 
> Moist air convection is impossible.
> 
> Meteorology needs another way to explain the power of storms, why storms are wet, and how heavier moist air gets so high in earth's atmosphere.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
> 
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes

You're wrong, Jim. Your kooky theory has been utterly demolished, and
your only response has been to cowardly snip out that peer-reviewed
data proving you *and* your kooky theory wrong, to backpedal like mad,
to conflate, to divert attention away from your having been proven
wrong, and to continue to spam your stupid little disproved theory
while not providing any third-party corroborable evidence that you're
not anything other than a delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted moron.

Why can't you even get your kooky little theory through the
peer-review process, Jim? Might it be because it's *wrong* and
therefore does not reflect reality?

<snicker>

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]

#560257

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:55:04 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous. Most of us have at least enough education to realize the boiling point of water is much higher than that of our ambient environment. And most of us realize that boiling has to do with a phase change from a liquid state of matter to a gaseous state of matter. Most of us reconcile this dichotomy by just not thinking about it. Some of us come up with rationalization to explain it away. But if you are going to do science you can't fall back on these excuses. You have to see things for what they actually are.
> > 
> > There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.
> > 
> > Moist air is heavier than dry air.
> > 
> > Moist air convection is impossible.
> > 
> > Meteorology needs another way to explain the power of storms, why storms are wet, and how heavier moist air gets so high in earth's atmosphere.
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
> > 
> > James McGinn
> > Solving Tornadoes
> 
> You're wrong, Jim. 

It's regrettable you can't prove it.

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

#560274

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

James McGinn, in
<news:aabdb39d-fb05-44ac-a83e-5119b763332e@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:55:04 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous. Most of us have at least enough education to realize the boiling point of water is much higher than that of our ambient environment. And most of us realize that boiling has to do with a phase change from a liquid state of matter to a gaseous state of matter. Most of us reconcile this dichotomy by just not thinking about it. Some of us come up with rationalization to explain it away. But if you are going to do science you can't fall back on these excuses. You have to see things for what they actually are.
>>> 
>>> There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.
>>> 
>>> Moist air is heavier than dry air.
>>> 
>>> Moist air convection is impossible.
>>> 
>>> Meteorology needs another way to explain the power of storms, why storms are wet, and how heavier moist air gets so high in earth's atmosphere.
>>> 
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>>> 
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
>>> 
>>> James McGinn
>>> Solving Tornadoes

>> You're wrong, Jim. Your kooky theory has been utterly demolished, and
>> your only response has been to cowardly snip out that peer-reviewed
>> data proving you *and* your kooky theory wrong, to backpedal like mad,
>> to conflate, to divert attention away from your having been proven
>> wrong, and to continue to spam your stupid little disproved theory
>> while not providing any third-party corroborable evidence that you're
>> not anything other than a delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted moron.
>> 
>> Why can't you even get your kooky little theory through the
>> peer-review process, Jim? Might it be because it's *wrong* and
>> therefore does not reflect reality?
>> 
>> <snicker>

> It's regrettable you can't prove it.

I already have proved your kooky little theory is wrong, Jim. You've
cowardly snipped out all that peer-reviewed proof and run away from
it. Why can't you defend your kooky little theory, Jim?

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]

#560276

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:31:21 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > It's regrettable you can't prove it.
> 
> I already have 

Potatoes, no meat.

Sorry,

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

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

#560350

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

James McGinn, in
<news:6f6008fd-6891-4948-a1ec-7e33eae14e21@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:31:21 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> It's regrettable you can't prove it.

>> I already have proved your kooky little theory is wrong, Jim.
>> You've cowardly snipped out all that peer-reviewed proof and
>> run away from it. Why can't you defend your kooky little
>> theory, Jim?

> Potatoes, no meat.

Bullshit, Jim. I've provided peer-reviewed studies which you've
cowardly snipped out and ran away from because you know you can't
refute them.

Oh look, here it is again, Jim... your being forced to deny reality is
going to drive you insane, you know.

<snicker>
========================================================
Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are 
laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron 
in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL

Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is 
electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is 
the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you 
fucking *moron*?

Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma 
existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from 
that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well 
impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning 
strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never 
stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near 
clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who 
knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, 
apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled 
you.

Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, 
just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. 
That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.

For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. 
It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few 
microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no 
appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and 
updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface 
area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its 
radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is 
proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized 
water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet 
radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest 
average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they 
stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which 
is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting 
the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, 
thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous 
phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets 
grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface 
area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall 
to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different 
updraft speeds) cause different types of rain.

Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an 
environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); 
convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are 
associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second.

For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its 
fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air 
down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of 
sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as 
compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of 
air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further 
proves this fact.

Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is 
another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas 
where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating 
lightning... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the 
Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by 
rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a 
dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced 
tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle 
being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the 
P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and 
telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination 
signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their 
Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically 
the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, 
thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger.

So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which 
types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?

Your kooky contention has been demolished, the dictates of your 
challenge have not only been met but have been exceeded, utilizing 
scientific facts, figures, equations, diagrams and concepts long-known 
and admissible in a court of law. Hence, you will make good on your 
promise to pay $100,000 to the person who disproved your kooky 
theory... namely your Usenet Lord and Master... me.

Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong 
via several different avenues, and you'll be paying me the promised 
$100,000 for meeting (indeed, *exceeding*) your challenge.

Holy fuck, Jim. Seek immediate professional psychiatric help, and be 
sure to describe in detail your kooky theory that has led you to 
become so very delusional.

But meanwhile, how about you get right on refuting all that 
peer-reviewed scientific data I've provided proving your kooky theory 
*wrong*:
-------------------------
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.

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we,
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

Jim, 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?

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, 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]

#560358

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:29:22 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >> run away from it. Why can't you defend your kooky little
> >> theory, Jim?
> 
> > Potatoes, no meat.
> 
> Bullshit, Jim. I've provided peer-reviewed studies which you've
> cowardly snipped out and ran away from because you know you can't
> refute them.

Google searches are not a recognized scientific methodology.

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

#560368

On 3/8/16 10:46 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> Google searches are not a recognized scientific methodology.


   James, learn how to sort the wheat from the chaff while doing
   DuckDuckGo searches... Only modest effort is required to get to the
   original research papers.

   You should have learn this in school:

   Review | Evaporation
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation

 > Evaporation is a type of vaporization of a liquid that occurs from
 > the *surface of a liquid into a gaseous phase* that is not saturated
 > with the evaporating substance. The other type of vaporization is
 > boiling, which is characterized by bubbles of saturated vapor forming
 > in the liquid phase. Steam produced in a boiler is another example of
 > evaporation occurring in a saturated vapor phase. Evaporation that
 > occurs directly from the solid phase below the melting point, as
 > commonly observed with ice at or below freezing or moth crystals
 > (napthalene or paradichlorobenzene), is called sublimation.
 >
 > On average, a fraction of the molecules in a glass of water have
 > enough heat energy to escape from the liquid. Water molecules from
 > the air enter the water in the glass, but as long as the relative
 > humidity of the air in contact is less than 100% (saturation), the
 > net transfer of water molecules will be to the air. The water in the
 > glass will be cooled by the evaporation until an equilibrium is
 > reached where the air supplies the amount of heat removed by the
 > evaporating water. In an enclosed environment the water would
 > evaporate until the air is saturated.

 > Evaporation is an essential part of the water cycle. The sun (solar
 > energy) drives evaporation of water from oceans, lakes, moisture in
 > the soil, and other sources of water. In hydrology, evaporation and
 > transpiration (which involves evaporation within plant stomata) are
 > collectively termed evapotranspiration. *Evaporation of water*
 > *occurs when the surface of the liquid is exposed, allowing*
 > *molecules to escape and form water vapor* [gas]; this vapor can
 > then rise up and form clouds. The tracking of evaporation from its
 > source on the surface of the earth, through the atmosphere as vapor
 > or clouds, and to its fate as precipitation closes the atmospheric
 > water cycle, and embodies the concept of the precipitationshed.


> References
> a b Silberberg, Martin A. (2006). Chemistry (4th ed.). New York:
> McGraw-Hill. pp. 431–434. ISBN 0-07-296439-1.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#560692

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

James McGinn, in
<news:872ea190-d1ee-47a1-b1bc-6f8e5fa7a4fc@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:29:22 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> run away from it. Why can't you defend your kooky little
>>>> theory, Jim?

>>> Potatoes, no meat.

>> Bullshit, Jim. I've provided peer-reviewed studies which you've
>> cowardly snipped out and ran away from because you know you can't
>> refute them.

> Google searches are not a recognized scientific methodology.

Then it's a good thing I've not provided any links to Google searches,
Jim, instead providing links to and data from peer-reviewed studies
which utterly destroy your kooky little conspiracy theory.

Why can't you get your kooky theory through the peer-review process,
Jim? Stop dodging that question, you evasive twit.

Oh, here's all that data again, Jim... your continued cowardly running
away from it proves you know you're *wrong*, that you have no
refutation of the reality I present, and that your broken little brain
cannot cope with the cognitive dissonance of having been proven
*wrong*, Jim.

That's reality. Deal with it, Jim.

<snicker>

"Plasma in the atmosphere"
"thick air"
"tornadoes... jet stream... same thing"
"this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse
ears more relatively positive"

And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL

Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are
laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron
in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL

Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is
the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you
fucking *moron*?

Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma
existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from
that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well
impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning
strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never
stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near
clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who
knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor,
apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled
you.

Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere,
just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere.
That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.

For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy.
It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few
microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no
appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and
updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface
area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its
radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is
proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized
water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet
radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest
average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they
stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which
is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting
the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls,
thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous
phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets
grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface
area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall
to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different
updraft speeds) cause different types of rain.

Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an
environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s);
convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are
associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second.

For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its
fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air
down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of
sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as
compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of
air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further
proves this fact.

Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is
another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas
where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating
lightning... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the
Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by
rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a
dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced
tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle
being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the
P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and
telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination
signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their
Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically
the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster,
thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger.

So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which
types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?

Your kooky contention has been demolished, the dictates of your
challenge have not only been met but have been exceeded, utilizing
scientific facts, figures, equations, diagrams and concepts long-known
and admissible in a court of law. Hence, you will make good on your
promise to pay $100,000 to the person who disproved your kooky
theory... namely your Usenet Lord and Master... me.

Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong
via several different avenues, and you'll be paying me the promised
$100,000 for meeting (indeed, *exceeding*) your challenge.

Holy fuck, Jim. Seek immediate professional psychiatric help, and be
sure to describe in detail your kooky theory that has led you to
become so very delusional.

But meanwhile, how about you get right on refuting all that
peer-reviewed scientific data I've provided proving your kooky theory
*wrong*:
-------------------------
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.

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we,
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

Jim, 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?

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, 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]

#560697

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:30:05 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >>> Potatoes, no meat.
> 
> >> Bullshit, Jim. I've provided peer-reviewed studies which you've
> >> cowardly snipped out and ran away from because you know you can't
> >> refute them.
> 
> > Google searches are not a recognized scientific methodology.
> 
> Then it's a good thing I've not provided any links to Google searches,

Your cut and paste skills are exemplary.

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

#560747

On 3/9/16 12:39 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> Your cut and paste skills are exemplary.
>

   cut?



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#560903

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:00 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:30:05 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> > >>> Potatoes, no meat.
> > 
> > >> Bullshit, Jim. I've provided peer-reviewed studies which you've
> > >> cowardly snipped out and ran away from because you know you can't
> > >> refute them.
> > 
> > > Google searches are not a recognized scientific methodology.
> > 
> > Then it's a good thing I've not provided any links to Google searches,
> 
> Your cut and paste skills are exemplary.

Let a glass with ice in it stand and in  short time and it will get wet on the outside by taking the moisture out of the air its immersed in. WOW even a 4 year old with a logical mind knows this. TreBert

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

#560924

On 3/9/2016 2:11 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:00 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:30:05 PM UTC-8, Friendly
>> Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Potatoes, no meat.
>>>
>>>>> Bullshit, Jim. I've provided peer-reviewed studies which
>>>>> you've cowardly snipped out and ran away from because you
>>>>> know you can't refute them.

>>>> Google searches are not a recognized scientific methodology.
>>>
>>> Then it's a good thing I've not provided any links to Google
>>> searches,
>>
>> Your cut and paste skills are exemplary.
>
> Let a glass with ice in it stand and in  short time and it will get
> wet on the outside by taking the moisture out of the air its immersed
> in. WOW even a 4 year old with a logical mind knows this. TreBert
>

TreBert's always right.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web