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

Groups > sci.physics > #563804 > unrolled thread

I will take implausible over impossible any day

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 21:10 -0700
    Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 07:59 +0100
      Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 00:41 -0700
        Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 09:55 +0100
          Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 02:15 -0700
            Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 14:16 +0100
              Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 09:10 -0700
        Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 19:22 +0100
          Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 11:38 -0700
          Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 18:59 -0700
            Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 10:22 +0200
              Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 07:11 -0700
                Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 18:15 +0200
                  Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 10:56 -0700
                    Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 08:00 +0200
                    Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 08:15 +0200
      Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 19:00 -0700
        Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 11:21 +0200
    Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 14:30 -0500
    Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 08:19 -0700
      Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-30 05:26 +0200
        Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 16:50 -0700
          Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-01 07:24 +0200
            Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 23:08 -0700
              Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-01 19:29 +0200
                Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 13:00 -0700
                  Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 07:44 +0200
                    Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 23:01 -0700
                      Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 18:08 +0200
                        Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-02 10:23 -0600
            Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 22:27 -0700
              Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 17:58 +0200
                Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 10:27 -0700
                  Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-03 07:29 +0200
                    Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 00:38 -0700
                      Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-04 07:48 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#563804 — I will take implausible over impossible any day

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:30:32 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > What do you think it indicates when the proponents of an established
> > theory refuse to discuss its details?
> 
> Like you refuse to discuss the gaping logic holes in your insane
> "theory", James? Like your refusal to fulfill the onus of providing
> proof to your insane claims, running away from doing that latent heat
> experiment which would definitively null your moronic claims and force
> you to retract?

The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear conditions is implausible.  The notion that moist air contains steam that converts to latent heat in quantities 1000 times greater than has ever been detected is impossible.  I will take implausible over impossible any day.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#563831

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

James McGinn, in
<news:40163cf1-f624-49ca-a1d1-03fa11028b33@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:30:32 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> What do you think it indicates when the proponents of an established
>>> theory refuse to discuss its details?

>> Like you refuse to discuss the gaping logic holes in your insane
>> "theory", James? Like your refusal to fulfill the onus of providing
>> proof to your insane claims, running away from doing that latent heat
>> experiment which would definitively null your moronic claims and force
>> you to retract?

> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
> conditions is implausible.

It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
happens. You have no evidence that it happens. All you have is your
suppositions, pulled straight from your ass. You're a deluded moron
with an inadequate education trying to make sense of a world that
thoroughly confuses you, and you're failing badly at it.

> The notion that moist air contains steam that converts to latent
> heat in quantities 1000 times greater than has ever been
> detected is impossible. I will take implausible over impossible any day.

Awww, look at the insane kooktard denying reality. Does your stupidity
cause you physical pain, Jim? Because I believe stupidity of your
magnitude should be intensely painful as a lesson to the stupid to not
be stupid.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljdv-am0Sis>

What's that, James? Why, that's a real-time demonstration of latent
heat.

You've never actually done any experiments, have you, James? Why are
you avoiding doing that experiment which would definitively null your
kooky theory by proving the existence of latent heat of evaporation,
James? Are you afraid, or just too stupid to do it?

Now, you'll get right on providing explanations for those gaping
logical inconsistencies in your moronic "theory", James.

They're directly below, in my .sig.

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

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

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, 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 "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "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 (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), 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
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#563835

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
> > conditions is implausible.
> 
> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
> happens. 

You have no proof that it doesn't. 

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

#563839

Dne 20/03/2016 v 08:41 James McGinn napsal(a):
> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
>>> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
>>> conditions is implausible.
>>
>> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
>> happens. 
> 
> You have no proof that it doesn't. 
> 

You have skipped the first step
of proofing to yourself it should happen.
You just think it should, what is not sufficient.

What you have proven is  your misunderstanding
of physics of gases,
making funny statements about the convection.

Thermal collisions of air molecules are much more energetic
than collisions via macro air movement. Random speed of molecules
is frequently 5-20times higher than organized speed
of air masses within tornadoes.

Yet not even thermal collisions produce plasma.

Ions in air are produced by radioactive decay of radon
and collisions with showers of secondary particles
of Solar wind and cosmic rays.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#563841

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:55:12 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 20/03/2016 v 08:41 James McGinn napsal(a):
> > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > 
> >>> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
> >>> conditions is implausible.
> >>
> >> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
> >> happens. 
> > 
> > You have no proof that it doesn't. 
> > 
> 
> You have skipped the first step
> of proofing to yourself it should happen.
> You just think it should, what is not sufficient.
> 
> What you have proven is  your misunderstanding
> of physics of gases,
> making funny statements about the convection.
> 
> Thermal collisions of air molecules are much more energetic
> than collisions via macro air movement. Random speed of molecules
> is frequently 5-20times higher than organized speed
> of air masses within tornadoes.
> 
> Yet not even thermal collisions produce plasma.
> 
> Ions in air are produced by radioactive decay of radon
> and collisions with showers of secondary particles
> of Solar wind and cosmic rays.

The plasma of my scenario requires you to have a sophisticated understanding of hydrogen bonding.  Do a search for Hydrogen Bonding Neutralized H2O Polarity James McGinn

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

#563847

Dne 20/03/2016 v 10:15 James McGinn napsal(a):
> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:55:12 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 20/03/2016 v 08:41 James McGinn napsal(a):
>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
>>>>> conditions is implausible.
>>>>
>>>> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
>>>> happens. 
>>>
>>> You have no proof that it doesn't. 
>>>
>>
>> You have skipped the first step
>> of proofing to yourself it should happen.
>> You just think it should, what is not sufficient.
>>
>> What you have proven is  your misunderstanding
>> of physics of gases,
>> making funny statements about the convection.
>>
>> Thermal collisions of air molecules are much more energetic
>> than collisions via macro air movement. Random speed of molecules
>> is frequently 5-20times higher than organized speed
>> of air masses within tornadoes.
>>
>> Yet not even thermal collisions produce plasma.
>>
>> Ions in air are produced by radioactive decay of radon
>> and collisions with showers of secondary particles
>> of Solar wind and cosmic rays.
> 
> The plasma of my scenario requires you to have a sophisticated understanding of hydrogen bonding.  Do a search for Hydrogen Bonding Neutralized H2O Polarity James McGinn
> 
Hydrogen Bonding Neutralized H2O Polarity
has nothing to do with
sophisticated understanding of hydrogen bonding.

It is just your systematic ignoring of physics and evidences
in all of your hypothesis,
being nothing but floating air castles of your fantasies.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#563863

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 6:16:15 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:

> > The plasma of my scenario requires you to have a sophisticated understanding of hydrogen bonding.  Do a search for Hydrogen Bonding Neutralized H2O Polarity James McGinn
> > 
> Hydrogen Bonding Neutralized H2O Polarity
> has nothing to do with
> sophisticated understanding of hydrogen bonding.

Feel free to make an argument to that effect.

> It is just your systematic ignoring of physics and evidences

Uh, er, uh, . . . did I mention that I am a physicist.  

> in all of your hypothesis,
> being nothing but floating air castles of your fantasies.

You know what they say.  Opinions are like a$$holes.  Everybody has got one.
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Ignorance makes small men think they are great men.

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

#563883

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

James McGinn, in
<news:c61aa670-7cca-4398-a3d4-82b74d32e899@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
>>> conditions is implausible.

>> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
>> happens. You have no evidence that it happens. All you have is your
>> suppositions, pulled straight from your ass. You're a deluded moron
>> with an inadequate education trying to make sense of a world that
>> thoroughly confuses you, and you're failing badly at it.

> You have no proof that it doesn't.

Except for my having proven that any energy source energetic enough to
create plasma from water in the troposphere would dissociate all water
on the planet and destroy all life on the planet, James.

IOW, your retarded blathering is a combinatorial result of your
ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia, your lack of education, and
your lifelong stupidity.

And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA 
can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'.

You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.

You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.

As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

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

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, 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 "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "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 (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), 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
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#563885

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > You have no proof that it doesn't.
> 
> Except for my having proven 


Contact the media.

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

#568780

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:c61aa670-7cca-4398-a3d4-82b74d32e899@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >>> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
> >>> conditions is implausible.
> 
> >> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
> >> happens. You have no evidence that it happens. All you have is your
> >> suppositions, pulled straight from your ass. You're a deluded moron
> >> with an inadequate education trying to make sense of a world that
> >> thoroughly confuses you, and you're failing badly at it.
> 
> > You have no proof that it doesn't.
> 
> Except for my having proven that any energy source energetic enough to
> create plasma from water in the troposphere would dissociate all water
> on the planet and destroy all life on the planet, James.

Reference?

> 
> IOW, your retarded blathering is a combinatorial result of your
> ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia, your lack of education, and
> your lifelong stupidity.
> 
> And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA 
> can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'.
> 
> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.
> 
> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.
> 
> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
> which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
> inherent in your "theory":
> 
> ============================================================
> Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
> spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
> You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
> Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
> water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
> thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
> *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
> 
> You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
> water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
> atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
> from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
> if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
> energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
> your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
> with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
> created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
> destroys your theory, James.
> 
> If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
> inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
> airplane inside a jet stream, James?
> 
> Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
> tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
> mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
> which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
> ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
> claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
> hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
> which would make air travel deadly.
> 
> Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
> the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
> being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
> 
> How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
> away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
> detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
> touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
> appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
> giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?
> 
> Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
> That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
> it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
> James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
> to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
> means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
> cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
> oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
> phenomenon due to density differential, James?
> 
> How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
> Jim?
> 
> Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
> 
> How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
> hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
> semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
> dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
> extremely energetic laser, 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 "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
> 
> How is the energy to plasmize your "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 (which would have side effects such as random changes
> in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
> not randomly change, Jim), 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
> implausible claims are workable, Jim?
> ============================================================
> 
> Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#568878

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

James McGinn, in
<news:3b517fab-7c61-48cc-ba1a-b14866d78227@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:c61aa670-7cca-4398-a3d4-82b74d32e899@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
>>>>> conditions is implausible.

>>>> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
>>>> happens. You have no evidence that it happens. All you have is your
>>>> suppositions, pulled straight from your ass. You're a deluded moron
>>>> with an inadequate education trying to make sense of a world that
>>>> thoroughly confuses you, and you're failing badly at it.

>>> You have no proof that it doesn't.

>> Except for my having proven that any energy source energetic enough to
>> create plasma from water in the troposphere would dissociate all water
>> on the planet and destroy all life on the planet, James.

> Reference?

Message-ID: <ffa40135c12c11a7a50398d8686161fb@dizum.com>

You ran away from it, James, so I'll repost it:

Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky 
conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is 
a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm 
wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the 
atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well 
impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even 
*begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in 
the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic 
photons reaching throughout the troposphere.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
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 Triboelectric 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?

As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the 
atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, 
given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, 
wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):

<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
=========================================================
It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only 
you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of 
energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water 
molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about 
this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation 
energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. 
So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to 
make such a plasma.
=========================================================

Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 
nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet 
light, nearly in the x-ray range.

And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of 
plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere 
is plasma.

Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through 
the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less 
energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.

In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so 
strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water 
plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming 
majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are 
except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.

Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the 
troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting 
of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because 
he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're 
just a delusional kooktard?

Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for 
themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead 
run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your 
delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll 
avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world 
you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim.

So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky 
conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.

<snicker>
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

>> IOW, your retarded blathering is a combinatorial result of your
>> ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia, your lack of education, and
>> your lifelong stupidity.
>> 
>> And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA 
>> can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'.
>> 
>> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
>> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
>> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
>> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
>> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
>> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.
>> 
>> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
>> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
>> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
>> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.
>> 
>> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
>> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
>> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
>> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

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

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, 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 "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "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 (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), 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
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#568932

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:34:01 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:3b517fab-7c61-48cc-ba1a-b14866d78227@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >> James McGinn, in
> >> <news:c61aa670-7cca-4398-a3d4-82b74d32e899@googlegroups.com> did
> >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> >>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7,
> >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >>>>> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
> >>>>> conditions is implausible.
> 
> >>>> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
> >>>> happens. You have no evidence that it happens. All you have is your
> >>>> suppositions, pulled straight from your ass. You're a deluded moron
> >>>> with an inadequate education trying to make sense of a world that
> >>>> thoroughly confuses you, and you're failing badly at it.
> 
> >>> You have no proof that it doesn't.
> 
> >> Except for my having proven that any energy source energetic enough to
> >> create plasma from water in the troposphere would dissociate all water
> >> on the planet and destroy all life on the planet, James.
> 
> > Reference?
> 
> Message-ID: <ffa40135c12c11a7a50398d8686161fb@dizum.com>
> 
> You ran away from it, James, so I'll repost it:
> 
> Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky 
> conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is 
> a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm 
> wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the 
> atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well 
> impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even 
> *begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in 
> the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic 
> photons reaching throughout the troposphere.

Relevance?

> 
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> 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 Triboelectric 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?
> 
> As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the 
> atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, 
> given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, 
> wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):
> 
> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
> =========================================================
> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only 
> you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of 
> energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water 
> molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about 
> this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation 
> energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. 
> So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to 
> make such a plasma.
> =========================================================
> 
> Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 
> nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet 
> light, nearly in the x-ray range.
> 
> And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of 
> plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere 
> is plasma.
> 
> Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through 
> the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less 
> energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.
> 
> In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so 
> strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water 
> plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming 
> majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are 
> except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.
> 
> Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the 
> troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting 
> of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because 
> he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're 
> just a delusional kooktard?
> 
> Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for 
> themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead 
> run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your 
> delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll 
> avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world 
> you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim.
> 
> So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky 
> conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.
> 
> <snicker>
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
> 
> >> IOW, your retarded blathering is a combinatorial result of your
> >> ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia, your lack of education, and
> >> your lifelong stupidity.
> >> 
> >> And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA 
> >> can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'.
> >> 
> >> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
> >> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
> >> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
> >> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
> >> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
> >> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.
> >> 
> >> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
> >> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
> >> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
> >> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.
> >> 
> >> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
> >> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
> >> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
> >> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.
> 
> Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
> 
> -- 
> 
> Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
> which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
> inherent in your "theory":
> 
> ============================================================
> Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
> uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?
> 
> Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
> lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
> that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
> if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
> Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
> help you to not piss all over yourself?
> 
> And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
> pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.
> 
> Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
> spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
> You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
> Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
> water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
> thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
> *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
> 
> You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
> water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
> atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
> from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
> if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
> energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
> your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
> with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
> created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
> destroys your theory, James.
> 
> You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
> Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
> increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
> electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
> cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?
> 
> According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
> distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
> electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
> energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
> attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
> electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
> that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
> attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
> violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
> 
> How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
> you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
> Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
> and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
> that not dissociating the water?
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
> point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
> hydrides, KookTard?
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
> cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
> splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
> such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
> H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
> that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
> vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
> your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
> that's just retarded.
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
> become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?
> 
> How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
> away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
> detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
> touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
> tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
> types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
> sky" sentient, James?
> 
> Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
> troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
> Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
> tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
> way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
> 
> How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
> tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
> you explain that, James?
> 
> Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
> *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
> not-a-theory" can't answer.
> 
> Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
> claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
> 
> Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
> delusions, James?
> 
> Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
> James?
> 
> Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?
> 
> Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
> James?
> 
> Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?
> 
> Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
> *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?
> 
> Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
> "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
> 
> Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
> which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
> education about now, James?
> 
> Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
> of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
> deemed mentally incompetent, James?
> 
> Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
> as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
> James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
> whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?
> 
> What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
> the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
> you're not a physicist, James. LOL
> 
> If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
> inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
> airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
> jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
> back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
> shreds, Jim?
> 
> Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
> tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
> mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
> which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
> ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
> claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
> thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
> which would make air travel deadly.
> 
> Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
> the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
> being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
> 
> Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
> That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
> it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
> James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
> to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
> means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
> cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
> oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
> phenomenon due to density differential, James?
> 
> How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
> Jim?
> 
> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
> How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
> surface area as you claim?
> 
> Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
> 
> How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
> hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
> semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
> dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
> extremely energetic laser, 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 "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
> 
> How is the energy to plasmize your "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 (which would have side effects such as random changes
> in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
> not randomly change, Jim), 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
> implausible claims are workable, Jim?
> 
> Why are you not taking your meds, James?
> ============================================================
> 
> Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#568967

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:58c2f2ad-b288-4e1f-af44-7ed060ba8205@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:34:01 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:3b517fab-7c61-48cc-ba1a-b14866d78227@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> James McGinn, in
>>>> <news:c61aa670-7cca-4398-a3d4-82b74d32e899@googlegroups.com> did
>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7,
>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>>> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
>>>>>>> conditions is implausible.

>>>>>> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
>>>>>> happens. You have no evidence that it happens. All you have is your
>>>>>> suppositions, pulled straight from your ass. You're a deluded moron
>>>>>> with an inadequate education trying to make sense of a world that
>>>>>> thoroughly confuses you, and you're failing badly at it.

>>>>> You have no proof that it doesn't.

>>>> Except for my having proven that any energy source energetic enough to
>>>> create plasma from water in the troposphere would dissociate all water
>>>> on the planet and destroy all life on the planet, James.

>>> Reference?

>> Message-ID: <ffa40135c12c11a7a50398d8686161fb@dizum.com>
>> 
>> You ran away from it, James, so I'll repost it:
>> 
>> Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky 
>> conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is 
>> a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm 
>> wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the 
>> atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well 
>> impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even 
>> *begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in 
>> the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic 
>> photons reaching throughout the troposphere.

> Relevance?

It proves you're delusional, James. Present your proof to the
contrary, empirical or experimental will suffice. Your inability to do
so will stand as your tacit support for my position. Get to work,
James.

>> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> 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 Triboelectric 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?
>> 
>> As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the 
>> atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, 
>> given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, 
>> wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):
>> 
>> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
>> =========================================================
>> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
>> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
>> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
>> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only 
>> you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of 
>> energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water 
>> molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about 
>> this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation 
>> energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. 
>> So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to 
>> make such a plasma.
>> =========================================================
>> 
>> Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 
>> nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet 
>> light, nearly in the x-ray range.
>> 
>> And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of 
>> plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere 
>> is plasma.
>> 
>> Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through 
>> the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less 
>> energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.
>> 
>> In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so 
>> strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water 
>> plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming 
>> majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are 
>> except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.
>> 
>> Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the 
>> troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting 
>> of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because 
>> he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're 
>> just a delusional kooktard?
>> 
>> Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for 
>> themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead 
>> run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your 
>> delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll 
>> avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world 
>> you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim.
>> 
>> So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky 
>> conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.
>> 
>> <snicker>
>> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

No reply, James? Your inability to refute that reality stands as your
tacit support of my position. You've just proven yourself wrong,
James. You're doing all my work for me.

>>>> IOW, your retarded blathering is a combinatorial result of your
>>>> ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia, your lack of education, and
>>>> your lifelong stupidity.
>>>> 
>>>> And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA 
>>>> can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'.
>>>> 
>>>> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
>>>> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
>>>> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
>>>> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
>>>> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
>>>> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.
>>>> 
>>>> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
>>>> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
>>>> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
>>>> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.
>>>> 
>>>> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
>>>> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
>>>> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
>>>> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

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

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, 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 "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "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 (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), 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
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#569005

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 9:26:59 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:58c2f2ad-b288-4e1f-af44-7ed060ba8205@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:34:01 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >> James McGinn, in
> >> <news:3b517fab-7c61-48cc-ba1a-b14866d78227@googlegroups.com> did
> >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> >>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-7,
> >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >>>> James McGinn, in
> >>>> <news:c61aa670-7cca-4398-a3d4-82b74d32e899@googlegroups.com> did
> >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> >>>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7,
> >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >>>>>>> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
> >>>>>>> conditions is implausible.
> 
> >>>>>> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
> >>>>>> happens. You have no evidence that it happens. All you have is your
> >>>>>> suppositions, pulled straight from your ass. You're a deluded moron
> >>>>>> with an inadequate education trying to make sense of a world that
> >>>>>> thoroughly confuses you, and you're failing badly at it.
> 
> >>>>> You have no proof that it doesn't.
> 
> >>>> Except for my having proven that any energy source energetic enough to
> >>>> create plasma from water in the troposphere would dissociate all water
> >>>> on the planet and destroy all life on the planet, James.
> 
> >>> Reference?
> 
> >> Message-ID: <ffa40135c12c11a7a50398d8686161fb@dizum.com>
> >> 
> >> You ran away from it, James, so I'll repost it:
> >> 
> >> Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky 
> >> conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is 
> >> a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm 
> >> wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the 
> >> atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well 
> >> impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even 
> >> *begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in 
> >> the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic 
> >> photons reaching throughout the troposphere.
> 
> > Relevance?
> 
> It proves you're delusional, James. Present your proof to the
> contrary, empirical or experimental will suffice. Your inability to do
> so will stand as your tacit support for my position. Get to work,
> James.
> 
> >> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
> >> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >> 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 Triboelectric 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?
> >> 
> >> As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the 
> >> atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, 
> >> given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, 
> >> wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):
> >> 
> >> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
> >> =========================================================
> >> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
> >> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
> >> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
> >> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only 
> >> you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of 
> >> energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water 
> >> molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about 
> >> this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation 
> >> energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. 
> >> So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to 
> >> make such a plasma.
> >> =========================================================
> >> 
> >> Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 
> >> nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet 
> >> light, nearly in the x-ray range.
> >> 
> >> And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of 
> >> plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere 
> >> is plasma.
> >> 
> >> Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through 
> >> the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less 
> >> energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.
> >> 
> >> In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so 
> >> strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water 
> >> plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming 
> >> majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are 
> >> except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.
> >> 
> >> Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the 
> >> troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting 
> >> of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because 
> >> he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're 
> >> just a delusional kooktard?
> >> 
> >> Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for 
> >> themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead 
> >> run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your 
> >> delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll 
> >> avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world 
> >> you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim.
> >> 
> >> So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky 
> >> conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.
> >> 
> >> <snicker>
> >> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
> 
> No reply, James? Your inability to refute that reality stands as your
> tacit support of my position. You've just proven yourself wrong,
> James. You're doing all my work for me.

I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of 
meteorology's storm theory.  In the future, when people ask me to present an 
aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of 
meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts.  Because 
here's the thing.  Meteorologists won't do what you did.  They know it's 
futile.  They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their 
understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of 
the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.

I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical 
thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate.  But people will 
see through that and realize that you actually made some effort.  Again, and 
for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.

Thank you for your participation.  You've been a big help.

> >>>> IOW, your retarded blathering is a combinatorial result of your
> >>>> ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia, your lack of education, and
> >>>> your lifelong stupidity.
> >>>> 
> >>>> And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA 
> >>>> can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'.
> >>>> 
> >>>> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
> >>>> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
> >>>> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
> >>>> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
> >>>> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
> >>>> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.
> >>>> 
> >>>> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
> >>>> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
> >>>> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
> >>>> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.
> >>>> 
> >>>> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
> >>>> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
> >>>> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
> >>>> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.
> 
> Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
> 
> -- 
> 
> Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
> which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
> inherent in your "theory":
> 
> ============================================================
> Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
> uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?
> 
> Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
> lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
> that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
> if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
> Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
> help you to not piss all over yourself?
> 
> And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
> pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.
> 
> Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
> spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
> You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
> Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
> water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
> thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
> *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
> 
> You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
> water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
> atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
> from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
> if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
> energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
> your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
> with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
> created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
> destroys your theory, James.
> 
> You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
> Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
> increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
> electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
> cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?
> 
> According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
> distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
> electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
> energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
> attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
> electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
> that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
> attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
> violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
> 
> How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
> you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
> Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
> and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
> that not dissociating the water?
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
> point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
> hydrides, KookTard?
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
> cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
> splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
> such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
> H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
> that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
> vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
> your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
> that's just retarded.
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
> become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?
> 
> How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
> away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
> detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
> touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
> tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
> types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
> sky" sentient, James?
> 
> Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
> troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
> Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
> tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
> way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
> 
> How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
> tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
> you explain that, James?
> 
> Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
> *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
> not-a-theory" can't answer.
> 
> Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
> claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
> 
> Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
> delusions, James?
> 
> Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
> James?
> 
> Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?
> 
> Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
> James?
> 
> Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?
> 
> Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
> *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?
> 
> Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
> "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
> 
> Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
> which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
> education about now, James?
> 
> Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
> of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
> deemed mentally incompetent, James?
> 
> Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
> as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
> James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
> whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?
> 
> What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
> the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
> you're not a physicist, James. LOL
> 
> If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
> inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
> airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
> jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
> back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
> shreds, Jim?
> 
> Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
> tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
> mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
> which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
> ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
> claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
> thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
> which would make air travel deadly.
> 
> Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
> the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
> being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
> 
> Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
> That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
> it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
> James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
> to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
> means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
> cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
> oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
> phenomenon due to density differential, James?
> 
> How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
> Jim?
> 
> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
> How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
> surface area as you claim?
> 
> Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
> 
> How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
> hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
> semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
> dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
> extremely energetic laser, 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 "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
> 
> How is the energy to plasmize your "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 (which would have side effects such as random changes
> in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
> not randomly change, Jim), 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
> implausible claims are workable, Jim?
> 
> Why are you not taking your meds, James?
> ============================================================
> 
> Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#569158

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in 
<news:3a1ddace-2c5e-4a4b-ac8f-738d044383da@googlegroups.com> did 
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 9:26:59 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:58c2f2ad-b288-4e1f-af44-7ed060ba8205@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:34:01 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>>>> <news:3b517fab-7c61-48cc-ba1a-b14866d78227@googlegroups.com> did
>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-7,
>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>>>>>> <news:c61aa670-7cca-4398-a3d4-82b74d32e899@googlegroups.com> did
>>>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>>>>> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
>>>>>>>>> conditions is implausible.

>>>>>>>> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
>>>>>>>> happens. You have no evidence that it happens. All you have is your
>>>>>>>> suppositions, pulled straight from your ass. You're a deluded moron
>>>>>>>> with an inadequate education trying to make sense of a world that
>>>>>>>> thoroughly confuses you, and you're failing badly at it.

>>>>>>> You have no proof that it doesn't.

>>>>>> Except for my having proven that any energy source energetic enough to
>>>>>> create plasma from water in the troposphere would dissociate all water
>>>>>> on the planet and destroy all life on the planet, James.

>>>>> Reference?

>>>> Message-ID: <ffa40135c12c11a7a50398d8686161fb@dizum.com>
>>>> 
>>>> You ran away from it, James, so I'll repost it:
>>>> 
>>>> Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky 
>>>> conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is 
>>>> a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm 
>>>> wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the 
>>>> atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well 
>>>> impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even 
>>>> *begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in 
>>>> the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic 
>>>> photons reaching throughout the troposphere.

>>> Relevance?

>> It proves you're delusional, James. Present your proof to the
>> contrary, empirical or experimental will suffice. Your inability to do
>> so will stand as your tacit support for my position. Get to work,
>> James.

You've failed to defend your position, and thus you've ceded to the 
truth I promulgate, James. You've tacitly admitted your fairy tale 
delusions have no basis in reality, and thus no proof. You are now 
forced to face the reality that you are, indeed, too ignorant, 
uneducated and insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, 
let alone try to model it. You've lost, James.

>>>> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>>>> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>> 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 Triboelectric 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?
>>>> 
>>>> As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the 
>>>> atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, 
>>>> given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, 
>>>> wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):
>>>> 
>>>> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
>>>> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
>>>> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
>>>> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only 
>>>> you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of 
>>>> energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water 
>>>> molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about 
>>>> this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation 
>>>> energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. 
>>>> So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to 
>>>> make such a plasma.
>>>> =========================================================
>>>> 
>>>> Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 
>>>> nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet 
>>>> light, nearly in the x-ray range.
>>>> 
>>>> And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of 
>>>> plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere 
>>>> is plasma.
>>>> 
>>>> Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through 
>>>> the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less 
>>>> energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.
>>>> 
>>>> In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so 
>>>> strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water 
>>>> plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming 
>>>> majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are 
>>>> except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the 
>>>> troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting 
>>>> of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because 
>>>> he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're 
>>>> just a delusional kooktard?
>>>> 
>>>> Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for 
>>>> themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead 
>>>> run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your 
>>>> delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll 
>>>> avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world 
>>>> you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim.
>>>> 
>>>> So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky 
>>>> conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.
>>>> 
>>>> <snicker>
>>>> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

>> No reply, James? Your inability to refute that reality stands as your
>> tacit support of my position. You've just proven yourself wrong,
>> James. You're doing all my work for me.

> I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of 
> meteorology's storm theory.  In the future, when people ask me to present an 
> aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of 
> meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts.  Because 
> here's the thing.  Meteorologists won't do what you did.  They know it's 
> futile.  They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their 
> understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of 
> the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.
> 
> I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical 
> thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate.  But people will 
> see through that and realize that you actually made some effort.  Again, and 
> for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.
> 
> Thank you for your participation.  You've been a big help.

Your scrambling away from providing any proof to support your 
delusion, along with your inability to refute the truth that you've 
been deemed by the legal system to be a mental incompetent because 
your schizo-brain is beyond repair, is noted, James. That stands as 
your tacit admission that everything I've written has been truth, 
whereas everything you've blathered has been lies spewed by an 
uneducated, ineducable, ignorant and insane moron.

You've lost, James. That is reality. Deal with it.

>>>>>> IOW, your retarded blathering is a combinatorial result of your
>>>>>> ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia, your lack of education, and
>>>>>> your lifelong stupidity.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA 
>>>>>> can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
>>>>>> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
>>>>>> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
>>>>>> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
>>>>>> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
>>>>>> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
>>>>>> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
>>>>>> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
>>>>>> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
>>>>>> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
>>>>>> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
>>>>>> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, 
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions 
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions 
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant 
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a 
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating 
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself 
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? 
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and 
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a 
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a 
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. 
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was 
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase 
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, 
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby 
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from 
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the 
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come 
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" 
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport 
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates 
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin 
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've 
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly 
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's 
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction 
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and 
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually 
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with 
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an 
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher 
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic 
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the 
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, 
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic 
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just 
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even 
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli 
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, 
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is 
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling 
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded 
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's 
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* 
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have 
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same 
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron 
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of 
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that 
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and 
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not 
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles 
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without 
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to 
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than 
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other 
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the 
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the 
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, 
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant 
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that 
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient 
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't 
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is 
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory 
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your 
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your 
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, 
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, 
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being 
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as 
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in 
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of 
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out 
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been 
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class 
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", 
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, 
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was 
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then 
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while 
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an 
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient 
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its 
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to 
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the 
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the 
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon 
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the 
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you 
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially 
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, 
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if 
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado 
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? 
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is 
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, 
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due 
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist 
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire 
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of 
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced 
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

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

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? 
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their 
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a 
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a 
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and 
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will 
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an 
extremely energetic laser, 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 "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "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 (which would have side effects such as random changes 
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do 
not randomly change, Jim), 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 
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#569163

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:3a1ddace-2c5e-4a4b-ac8f-738d044383da@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 9:26:59 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:58c2f2ad-b288-4e1f-af44-7ed060ba8205@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:34:01 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>>>> <news:3b517fab-7c61-48cc-ba1a-b14866d78227@googlegroups.com> did
>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-7,
>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>>>>>> <news:c61aa670-7cca-4398-a3d4-82b74d32e899@googlegroups.com> did
>>>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>>>>> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
>>>>>>>>> conditions is implausible.

>>>>>>>> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen. You have no proof that it
>>>>>>>> happens. You have no evidence that it happens. All you have is your
>>>>>>>> suppositions, pulled straight from your ass. You're a deluded moron
>>>>>>>> with an inadequate education trying to make sense of a world that
>>>>>>>> thoroughly confuses you, and you're failing badly at it.

>>>>>>> You have no proof that it doesn't.

>>>>>> Except for my having proven that any energy source energetic enough to
>>>>>> create plasma from water in the troposphere would dissociate all water
>>>>>> on the planet and destroy all life on the planet, James.

>>>>> Reference?

>>>> Message-ID: <ffa40135c12c11a7a50398d8686161fb@dizum.com>
>>>> 
>>>> You ran away from it, James, so I'll repost it:
>>>> 
>>>> Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky 
>>>> conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is 
>>>> a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm 
>>>> wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the 
>>>> atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well 
>>>> impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even 
>>>> *begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in 
>>>> the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic 
>>>> photons reaching throughout the troposphere.

>>> Relevance?

>> It proves you're delusional, James. Present your proof to the
>> contrary, empirical or experimental will suffice. Your inability to do
>> so will stand as your tacit support for my position. Get to work,
>> James.

You've failed to defend your position, and thus you've ceded to the
truth I promulgate, James. You've tacitly admitted your fairy tale
delusions have no basis in reality, and thus no proof. You are now
forced to face the reality that you are, indeed, too ignorant,
uneducated and insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it,
let alone try to model it. You've lost, James.

>>>> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>>>> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>> 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 Triboelectric 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?
>>>> 
>>>> As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the 
>>>> atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, 
>>>> given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, 
>>>> wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):
>>>> 
>>>> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
>>>> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
>>>> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
>>>> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only 
>>>> you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of 
>>>> energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water 
>>>> molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about 
>>>> this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation 
>>>> energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. 
>>>> So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to 
>>>> make such a plasma.
>>>> =========================================================
>>>> 
>>>> Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 
>>>> nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet 
>>>> light, nearly in the x-ray range.
>>>> 
>>>> And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of 
>>>> plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere 
>>>> is plasma.
>>>> 
>>>> Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through 
>>>> the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less 
>>>> energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.
>>>> 
>>>> In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so 
>>>> strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water 
>>>> plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming 
>>>> majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are 
>>>> except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the 
>>>> troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting 
>>>> of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because 
>>>> he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're 
>>>> just a delusional kooktard?
>>>> 
>>>> Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for 
>>>> themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead 
>>>> run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your 
>>>> delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll 
>>>> avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world 
>>>> you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim.
>>>> 
>>>> So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky 
>>>> conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.
>>>> 
>>>> <snicker>
>>>> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

>> No reply, James? Your inability to refute that reality stands as your
>> tacit support of my position. You've just proven yourself wrong,
>> James. You're doing all my work for me.

> I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of 
> meteorology's storm theory.  In the future, when people ask me to present an 
> aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of 
> meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts.  Because 
> here's the thing.  Meteorologists won't do what you did.  They know it's 
> futile.  They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their 
> understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of 
> the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.
> 
> I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical 
> thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate.  But people will 
> see through that and realize that you actually made some effort.  Again, and 
> for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.
> 
> Thank you for your participation.  You've been a big help.

Your scrambling away from providing any proof to support your
delusion, along with your inability to refute the truth that you've
been deemed by the legal system to be a mental incompetent because
your schizo-brain is beyond repair, is noted, James. That stands as
your tacit admission that everything I've written has been truth,
whereas everything you've blathered has been lies spewed by an
uneducated, ineducable, ignorant and insane moron.

You've lost, James. That is reality. Deal with it.

>>>>>> IOW, your retarded blathering is a combinatorial result of your
>>>>>> ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia, your lack of education, and
>>>>>> your lifelong stupidity.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And yet again we find that James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA 
>>>>>> can mount no substantive defense of his psychotic 'theory'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You've been exposed as a moronic psychotic scientific fraud, James. 
>>>>>> Your theory has been torn to shreds using scientific fact and you 
>>>>>> cannot defend it. Each time you try, you blather out more moronic 
>>>>>> tripe that proves how badly broken your brain is, exposing more 
>>>>>> logical contradictions in your patchwork 'theory' made wholly of 
>>>>>> suppositions you pulled straight from your ass.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You've become a laughingstock, James. Can you not hear the howls of 
>>>>>> derisive laughter when you step outside your front door? The entire 
>>>>>> world is pointing and laughing at you, James McGinn, the moron who 
>>>>>> believes in a giant sentient sky tornado monster.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As proof that what I write above is truth, you will yet again evade 
>>>>>> substantively defending your moronic blather by running away from 
>>>>>> those tough questions that expose the gaping logical contradictions 
>>>>>> inherent in your 'theory', as outlined in my .sig.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

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

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, 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 "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "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 (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), 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
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#568781

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:40163cf1-f624-49ca-a1d1-03fa11028b33@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:30:32 PM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >>> What do you think it indicates when the proponents of an established
> >>> theory refuse to discuss its details?
> 
> >> Like you refuse to discuss the gaping logic holes in your insane
> >> "theory", James? Like your refusal to fulfill the onus of providing
> >> proof to your insane claims, running away from doing that latent heat
> >> experiment which would definitively null your moronic claims and force
> >> you to retract?
> 
> > The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
> > conditions is implausible.
> 
> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen.

Reference?

 You have no proof that it
> happens. You have no evidence that it happens. All you have is your
> suppositions, pulled straight from your ass. You're a deluded moron
> with an inadequate education trying to make sense of a world that
> thoroughly confuses you, and you're failing badly at it.
> 
> > The notion that moist air contains steam that converts to latent
> > heat in quantities 1000 times greater than has ever been
> > detected is impossible. I will take implausible over impossible any day.
> 
> Awww, look at the insane kooktard denying reality. Does your stupidity
> cause you physical pain, Jim? Because I believe stupidity of your
> magnitude should be intensely painful as a lesson to the stupid to not
> be stupid.
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljdv-am0Sis>
> 
> What's that, James? Why, that's a real-time demonstration of latent
> heat.
> 
> You've never actually done any experiments, have you, James? Why are
> you avoiding doing that experiment which would definitively null your
> kooky theory by proving the existence of latent heat of evaporation,
> James? Are you afraid, or just too stupid to do it?
> 
> Now, you'll get right on providing explanations for those gaping
> logical inconsistencies in your moronic "theory", James.
> 
> They're directly below, in my .sig.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
> which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
> inherent in your "theory":
> 
> ============================================================
> Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
> spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
> You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
> Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
> water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
> thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
> *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
> 
> You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
> water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
> atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
> from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
> if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
> energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
> your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
> with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
> created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
> destroys your theory, James.
> 
> If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
> inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
> airplane inside a jet stream, James?
> 
> Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
> tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
> mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
> which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
> ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
> claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
> hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
> which would make air travel deadly.
> 
> Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
> the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
> being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
> 
> How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
> away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
> detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
> touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
> appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
> giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?
> 
> Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
> That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
> it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
> James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
> to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
> means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
> cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
> oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
> phenomenon due to density differential, James?
> 
> How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
> Jim?
> 
> Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
> 
> How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
> hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
> semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
> dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
> extremely energetic laser, 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 "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
> 
> How is the energy to plasmize your "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 (which would have side effects such as random changes
> in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
> not randomly change, Jim), 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
> implausible claims are workable, Jim?
> ============================================================
> 
> Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#568886

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:61c89359-4e4f-421e-be3c-1a334694a574@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:40163cf1-f624-49ca-a1d1-03fa11028b33@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:30:32 PM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> What do you think it indicates when the proponents of an established
>>>>> theory refuse to discuss its details?

>>>> Like you refuse to discuss the gaping logic holes in your insane
>>>> "theory", James? Like your refusal to fulfill the onus of providing
>>>> proof to your insane claims, running away from doing that latent heat
>>>> experiment which would definitively null your moronic claims and force
>>>> you to retract?

>>> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear
>>> conditions is implausible.

>> It is impossible, Jim. It doesn't happen.

> Reference?

The fact that you cannot provide proof of it happening is all the
reference anyone needs. If you had proof, you'd bleat about it all
day, every day. That you do not proves you have no proof, thus that
your "plasma not-a-plasma" doesn't exist.

Besides, you've retracted that, remember?

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

>> You have no proof that it
>> happens. You have no evidence that it happens. All you have is your
>> suppositions, pulled straight from your ass. You're a deluded moron
>> with an inadequate education trying to make sense of a world that
>> thoroughly confuses you, and you're failing badly at it.

>>> The notion that moist air contains steam that converts to latent
>>> heat in quantities 1000 times greater than has ever been
>>> detected is impossible. I will take implausible over impossible any day.

>> Awww, look at the insane kooktard denying reality. Does your stupidity
>> cause you physical pain, Jim? Because I believe stupidity of your
>> magnitude should be intensely painful as a lesson to the stupid to not
>> be stupid.
>> 
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljdv-am0Sis>
>> 
>> What's that, James? Why, that's a real-time demonstration of latent
>> heat.
>> 
>> You've never actually done any experiments, have you, James? Why are
>> you avoiding doing that experiment which would definitively null your
>> kooky theory by proving the existence of latent heat of evaporation,
>> James? Are you afraid, or just too stupid to do it?
>> 
>> Now, you'll get right on providing explanations for those gaping
>> logical inconsistencies in your moronic "theory", James.
>> 
>> They're directly below, in my .sig.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

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

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, 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 "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "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 (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), 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
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#563905

On 3/19/16 11:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear conditions is implausible


   Takes more energy that wind can provide to break apart molecules and
   strip the electrons off the remaining atoms.

-- 

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]

#566464

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 9:10:16 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:30:32 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> > > What do you think it indicates when the proponents of an established
> > > theory refuse to discuss its details?
> > 
> > Like you refuse to discuss the gaping logic holes in your insane
> > "theory", James? Like your refusal to fulfill the onus of providing
> > proof to your insane claims, running away from doing that latent heat
> > experiment which would definitively null your moronic claims and force
> > you to retract?
> 
> 
The notion that a plasma can come into existence under wind shear conditions is implausible.  The notion that moist air contains steam that converts to latent heat in quantities 1000 times greater than has ever been detected is impossible.  I will take implausible over impossible any day.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web