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

Groups > sci.physics > #556958 > unrolled thread

If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:47 -0800
    Re: If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:59 -0600
      Re: If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:02 -0800
        Re: If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:05 -0600
          Re: If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:20 -0800
            Re: If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 19:24 -0600
              Re: If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:33 -0800
                Re: If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 03:52 +0000
    if Galileo were not as stupid as noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:11 -0800
    Re: If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:28 -0600
    Re: If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:42 -0800
      Re: If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 17:59 -0600
      Re: If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 19:26 -0600

#556958 — If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-7/#comment-114103

If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow you are going to spend all your energy trying to model it.  Once you have a model you will have something that will appear to have predictive power.  And, thus, you will have created an obstacle that you will never be able to overcome. Never.

For example, if you build a model of planetary motion starting with the assumptions that the earth is the center of the universe . . . 

. . . it won't be until a guy like Copernicus or Galileo comes along . . . 

I am that guy.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn at gmail dot com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#556964

On 2/26/16 1:47 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow you are going to spend all your energy trying to model it.


   Meteorologist and climatologist don't make that mistake, James. They
   build on a body of scientific knowledge and observations.


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

 > Water vapour (H2O molecules)

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



-- 

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

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

#557057

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:59:18 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/26/16 1:47 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow you are going to spend all your energy trying to model it.
> 
> 
>    Meteorologist and climatologist don't make that mistake, 

If your theory is vague you can always pretend to understand it and it will appear you are not making mistakes.  

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

#557061

On 2/26/16 5:02 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> If your theory is vague you can always pretend to understand it and it will appear you are not making mistakes.
>

   Observable facts, James:

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

 > Water vapour (H2O molecules)

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


-- 

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

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

#557071

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:06:06 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/26/16 5:02 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > If your theory is vague you can always pretend to understand it and it will appear you are not making mistakes.
> >
> 
>    Observable facts, James:

Everything is simple when you are simple.

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

#557105

  <snip crap>

STFU Troll

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

#557115

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 5:25:46 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> <snip crap>
> 
> STFU Troll

Are your pants wet too?

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

#557126

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 5:25:46 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> <snip crap>
>> 
>> STFU Troll
> 
> Are your pants wet too?

Are you saying yours are?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556975 — if Galileo were not as stupid as

Galileo is overbilled;
see httP://larouchepub.com

> or Galileo comes along . . . 
> 
> I am that guy.
> 
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
> jimmcginn at gmail dot com

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

#557096

On 2/26/2016 1:47 PM, James McGinn wrote:
take a look at the links below James, proof and evidence you are missing.

James McGinn Book Review

Customer Reviews;
1.0 out of 5 stars
insane rambling
*By K. Parker* on July 3, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to 
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many 
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also 
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective 
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that 
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on 
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense 
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even 
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.


1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of time, a non-funny joke
*By hunter* on July 16, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density, 
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses 
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves 
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading 
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive 
self publishing by a moron.


*direct film evidence of convection*;

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSFwH0BVd3Q


*direct film evidence of Water Vapor*,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQX6c_Ln2To

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g74X2nnBTw



*COLD STEAM direct evidence on film*;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMNSvpB9dY



*Water Vapor explained to little James by Mr. Wizard*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTKmWp7ek2A

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

#558098

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-7/#comment-114103
> 
> If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric flow you are going to spend all your energy trying to model it.  Once you have a model you will have something that will appear to have predictive power.  And, thus, you will have created an obstacle that you will never be able to overcome. Never.
> 
> 
For example, if you build a model of planetary motion starting with the assumptions that the earth is the center of the universe . . . 
> 
> . . . it won't be until a guy like Copernicus or Galileo comes along . . . 
> 
> I am that guy.
> 
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
> jimmcginn at gmail dot com

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

#558112

On 2/29/16 5:42 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> For example, if you build a model of planetary motion starting with the assumptions that the earth is the center of the universe . . .


   As Copernicus found, there are better assumptions that simplify the
   calculations of orbits.


-- 

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]

#558155

On 2/29/2016 5:42 PM, James McGinn wrote:

>> I am that guy.
>>
>

no, you are troll.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web