Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #563399 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-18 09:33 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-03-20 01:28 -0600 |
| Articles | 19 on this page of 39 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 09:33 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 07:20 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 10:58 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 20:59 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 21:12 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 07:39 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 23:52 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 18:29 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 10:56 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 20:16 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 12:40 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 22:01 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 14:23 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 05:06 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 21:38 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 17:29 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:16 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:56 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 22:44 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:16 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:42 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 05:27 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:21 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 17:53 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:27 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 06:24 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 22:45 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 17:54 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 10:27 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 07:17 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:44 -0600
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:44 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:41 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-21 11:23 -0600
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-21 13:26 -0400
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:15 -0700
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:26 +0100
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-20 02:53 -0400
Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-20 01:28 -0600
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 08:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <de92bdfc-f154-4575-88ff-175323af4ba5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564485 |
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > >> it has to do with air density and thus convection... > > > Uh, "air density and thus convection?" Gibberish. > > Ok, then let's hear your explanation, Jim. It seems more interesting to let you provide the explanations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 05:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <84915451cf0e18d5364ef69a29c88632@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564499 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:de92bdfc-f154-4575-88ff-175323af4ba5@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> it has to do with air density and thus convection... >>> Uh, "air density and thus convection?" Gibberish. >> Ok, then let's hear your explanation, Jim. > It seems more interesting to let you provide the explanations. You're backpedaling, Jim. I'm calling it... James Bernard McGinn, Jr. has no idea why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and stratosphere because he's an uneducated moronic psychopathic moron. -- 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. 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 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? 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 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? 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? 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]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 22:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <8274f600-3981-46a8-a9dd-64d4866098f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564718 |
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9:38:10 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:de92bdfc-f154-4575-88ff-175323af4ba5@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>> it has to do with air density and thus convection... > > >>> Uh, "air density and thus convection?" Gibberish. > > >> Ok, then let's hear your explanation, Jim. > > > It seems more interesting to let you provide the explanations. > > You're backpedaling, Jim. I'm calling it... James Bernard McGinn, Jr. > has no idea why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and > stratosphere because he's an uneducated moronic psychopathic moron. > > -- > > 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. > > 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 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? > > 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 > 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? > > 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density > differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That > less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your > giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly > appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? > > 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? How about Wiki?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 17:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <e159eda7be1fc9978b61d8bef5384527@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564726 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:8274f600-3981-46a8-a9dd-64d4866098f9@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9:38:10 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James McGinn, in >> <news:de92bdfc-f154-4575-88ff-175323af4ba5@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>> it has to do with air density and thus convection... >>>>> Uh, "air density and thus convection?" Gibberish. >>>> Ok, then let's hear your explanation, Jim. >>> It seems more interesting to let you provide the explanations. >> You're backpedaling, Jim. I'm calling it... James Bernard McGinn, Jr. >> has no idea why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and >> stratosphere because he's an uneducated moronic psychopathic moron. > How about Wiki? How about you admit you can't explain why the "barrier" between troposphere and stratosphere exists without opening up another huge gaping hole in your moronic blather, James? -- 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. 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 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? 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 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? 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? 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]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 10:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <dfdd46f9-e4d7-497c-bc57-5546dda87ba1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564850 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:8274f600-3981-46a8-a9dd-64d4866098f9@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9:38:10 PM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> James McGinn, in > >> <news:de92bdfc-f154-4575-88ff-175323af4ba5@googlegroups.com> did > >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-7, > >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>> it has to do with air density and thus convection... > > >>>>> Uh, "air density and thus convection?" Gibberish. > > >>>> Ok, then let's hear your explanation, Jim. > > >>> It seems more interesting to let you provide the explanations. > > >> You're backpedaling, Jim. I'm calling it... James Bernard McGinn, Jr. > >> has no idea why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and > >> stratosphere because he's an uneducated moronic psychopathic moron. > > > How about Wiki? > > How about you admit you can't explain why the "barrier" between > troposphere and stratosphere exists without opening up another huge > gaping hole in your moronic blather, James? Uh, try the bookstore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 06:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <908822b3847e8d7348e86f127b060118@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564859 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:dfdd46f9-e4d7-497c-bc57-5546dda87ba1@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >> <news:8274f600-3981-46a8-a9dd-64d4866098f9@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9:38:10 PM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >>>> <news:de92bdfc-f154-4575-88ff-175323af4ba5@googlegroups.com> did >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-7, >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>>> it has to do with air density and thus convection... >>>>>>> Uh, "air density and thus convection?" Gibberish. >>>>>> Ok, then let's hear your explanation, Jim. >>>>> It seems more interesting to let you provide the explanations. >>>> You're backpedaling, Jim. I'm calling it... James Bernard McGinn, Jr. >>>> has no idea why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and >>>> stratosphere because he's an uneducated moronic psychopathic moron. >>> How about Wiki? >> How about you admit you can't explain why the "barrier" between >> troposphere and stratosphere exists without opening up another huge >> gaping hole in your moronic blather, James? > Uh, try the bookstore. No, Jim. We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you don't know. Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant? Jim can't even explain everyday phenomena. He's simply not smart or sane enough to model the atmosphere. He's uneducated and ignorant. -- 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. 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 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? 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 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? 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? 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]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 22:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <de752759-98a3-4138-a4d3-8bc1bdbacfcf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #565013 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:35:11 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > <news:dfdd46f9-e4d7-497c-bc57-5546dda87ba1@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > >> <news:8274f600-3981-46a8-a9dd-64d4866098f9@googlegroups.com> did > >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9:38:10 PM UTC-7, > >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > >>>> <news:de92bdfc-f154-4575-88ff-175323af4ba5@googlegroups.com> did > >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>>>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-7, > >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>>>> it has to do with air density and thus convection... > > >>>>>>> Uh, "air density and thus convection?" Gibberish. > > >>>>>> Ok, then let's hear your explanation, Jim. > > >>>>> It seems more interesting to let you provide the explanations. > > >>>> You're backpedaling, Jim. I'm calling it... James Bernard McGinn, Jr. > >>>> has no idea why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and > >>>> stratosphere because he's an uneducated moronic psychopathic moron. > > >>> How about Wiki? > > >> How about you admit you can't explain why the "barrier" between > >> troposphere and stratosphere exists without opening up another huge > >> gaping hole in your moronic blather, James? > > > Uh, try the bookstore. > > No, Jim. We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a > "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you > don't know. Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant? > > Jim can't even explain everyday phenomena. He's simply not smart or > sane enough to model the atmosphere. He's uneducated and ignorant. > > -- > > 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. > > 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 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? > > 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 > 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? > > 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density > differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That > less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your > giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly > appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? > > 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? What was the question again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 17:54 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <3cf8f57f89f1b8af6a72def978510590@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #565018 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:de752759-98a3-4138-a4d3-8bc1bdbacfcf@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:35:11 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> No, Jim. We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a >> "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you >> don't know. Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant? >> >> Jim can't even explain everyday phenomena. He's simply not smart or >> sane enough to model the atmosphere. He's uneducated and ignorant. > What was the question again? We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you don't know. Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant? Jim can't even explain everyday phenomena. He's simply not smart or sane enough to model the atmosphere. He's uneducated and ignorant. -- 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. 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 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? 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 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? 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? 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]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 10:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <a888f7c4-5d3a-40a0-983c-a245a2f89769@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #565159 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:05:31 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:de752759-98a3-4138-a4d3-8bc1bdbacfcf@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:35:11 PM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >> No, Jim. We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a
> >> "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you
> >> don't know. Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant?
> >>
> >> Jim can't even explain everyday phenomena. He's simply not smart or
> >> sane enough to model the atmosphere. He's uneducated and ignorant.
>
> > What was the question again?
>
> We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a "boundary"
> between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you don't know.
> Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant?
- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched
at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police
plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable
that they watched everybody all the time." -- George Orwell, "1984"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/TVKql-ReCQAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/0k78tLsACgAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/7mheNz66CwAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/7mheNz66CwAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 07:17 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <749f321ffb9e73832989af6901796886@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #565165 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:a888f7c4-5d3a-40a0-983c-a245a2f89769@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:05:31 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >> <news:de752759-98a3-4138-a4d3-8bc1bdbacfcf@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:35:11 PM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> No, Jim. We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a >>>> "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you >>>> don't know. Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant? >>>> >>>> Jim can't even explain everyday phenomena. He's simply not smart or >>>> sane enough to model the atmosphere. He's uneducated and ignorant. >>> What was the question again? >> We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a "boundary" >> between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you don't know. >> Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant? > - "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu> > Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA > "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched > at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police > plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable > that they watched everybody all the time." -- George Orwell, "1984" Is your paranoid schizophrenia rearing its ugly head again, James? You should know by now that you *are* being monitored. There's nothing you can do to stop that. Just one slip-up and its off to the loony bin with James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of 1824 Crater Peak Way, Antioch, CA. Does Constance know how far gone you are, James? Should she be called at (925) 756-0968 and informed that you require immediate and intense professional psychiatric intervention? Does your father James, Sr. know what an insane disappointment you've become, Jim? Should he be called at (925) 756-0968 and informed that you should have your computer privileges revoked until you take your meds? Why do you still live at home with Mommy and Daddy, Jim? Is it because you're *so* insane that you can't be trusted to take care of yourself? Does your mommy chew your food for you and wipe your ass for you, Jim? Are you *that* far gone yet? You've got to be close. <snicker> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/TVKql-ReCQAJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/0k78tLsACgAJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/7mheNz66CwAJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/7mheNz66CwAJ No, James, referring back to your own moronic blather doesn't prove anything nor does it say anything other than you're so busy babbling that you have to refer back to your own babble so you can keep on babbling rather than stop and answer a question which will destroy your moronic theory. State plainly and clearly in your own words why there is a "boundary" between the stratosphere and troposphere, James... it's all air, right? There are no "structures" up there... so *what* is causing this "boundary" and *why*, James? If you claim it is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", *why* did your "plasma not-a-plasma" choose that altitude to create this "boundary", James? You don't know, do you, James. Or you do know and you also know that answering it would destroy your "theory not-a-theory" blabbered by a "physicist not-a-physicist" in trying to explain his "reality not-reality" because he is "delusional, fully delusional". Go on, Tardnado, get to explaining, you fraud. -- 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. 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 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? 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 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? 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? 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]
| From | Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 09:44 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <32q2fbhih47m690tphgc1stacj5qn4h9cq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #564485 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:16:22 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > >James McGinn, in ><news:3d7ff557-8f82-48cb-b0dd-9ac6b945921a@googlegroups.com> did >thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 10:07:25 PM UTC-7, >> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > >>> Let's hear *your* explanation, James. >>> >>> Remember, you deny all of reality, so I'm sure your take on why there >>> is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere will be >>> quite entertaining. The troposphere begins at the Earth's surface and extends up to 4-12 miles (6-20 km) high. This is where we live. As the density of the gases in this layer decrease with height, the air becomes thinner. Therefore, the temperature in the troposphere also decreases with height. As you climb higher, the temperature drops from about 62°F (17°C) to -60°F (-51°C). Almost all weather occurs in this region. The height of the troposphere varies from the equator to the poles. At the equator it is around 11-12 miles (18-20 km) high, at 50°N and 50°S, 5½ miles and at the poles just under four miles high. The transition boundary between the troposphere and the layer above is called the tropopause. Together the tropopause and the troposphere are known as the lower atmosphere. Stratosphere The Stratosphere extends from the tropopause up to 31 miles above the Earth's surface. This layer holds 19 percent of the atmosphere's gases but very little water vapor. Temperature increases with height as radiation is increasingly absorbed by oxygen molecules leading to the formation of Ozone. The temperature rises from an average -76°F (-60°C) at tropopause to a maximum of about 5°F (-15°C) at the stratopause due to this absorption of ultraviolet radiation. This increase is temperature with height means no "convection" occurs since there is no vertical movement of the gases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 22:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <7efaad43-9942-4950-a26d-7c6210d9347e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #563904 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:26:47 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? Why is it you can't carry on a normal conversation, like a normal person?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 16:41 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <b41ef39b1982911f0ce6d5c112a855f6@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564063 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in <news:7efaad43-9942-4950-a26d-7c6210d9347e@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:26:47 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? > Why is it you can't carry on a normal conversation, like a normal person? That's not an answer to those questions, Jim. You've yet again failed to mount a substantive defense of your fairy tale fabrication of a 'theory'. You're nothing more than a scientific fraud, James. Your 'theory' is shot full of holes and is dead. Give up, take your meds, go educate yourself, and stop being such a fucking moron. -- 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. 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 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? 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? 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 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? 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? 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]
| From | Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 11:23 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <2fb0fbhj7qco3lsvjps3v1hhnmkrn9ttp4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #564160 |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:41:39 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> Why is it you can't carry on a normal conversation, like a normal person? > >That's not an answer to those questions, Jim. You've yet again failed >to mount a substantive defense of your fairy tale fabrication of a >'theory'. Irony meters explode across the globe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 13:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <op.yeoqp2c4tm21m2@benson.localhost> |
| In reply to | #564190 |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:23:19 -0400, Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:41:39 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>>> Why is it you can't carry on a normal conversation, like a normal
>>> person?
>>
>> That's not an answer to those questions, Jim. You've yet again failed
>> to mount a substantive defense of your fairy tale fabrication of a
>> 'theory'.
>
> Irony meters explode across the globe.
he's probably responsible for more irony meter damage than any single
person in history.
it's like it's his job or something...
--
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu
-
FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>
">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>> phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>> voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)
Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking
*moron*?
"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""
it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds. it says that you're in denial
about the inversion of your AC legs.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png
http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf
on page 2:
** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)
*COUGH*
SPNAK!!
-
i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII
art if you ask nicely.</GROUCHO MARX>
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>
-
snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:
- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:
http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html
place those files in a directory and save this file as
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.
compiles with:
gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++
run with:
./a.out
enjoy the LULZ ;)
*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>
using namespace std;
int main(){
//float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
//float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);
float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
float_precision t=float_precision(0); // time variable
float_precision sum=float_precision(0); // sum of SnickerTurd's
ridiculous sinewave mess
float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25); //
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
float_precision PI;
PI =_float_table(_PI,25);
// this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
while(sum < snickerPrediction){
// fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))
+
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));
// perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh
snickerTurds
if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
}
t = t+STEP;
}
/*
Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"
Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves
never reaches that. They never reach their max values at the same time.
That's how stupid you are.
Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"
Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when
summed.
the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages that are archived FOREVER.
*/
cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
-
Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>
-
Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
<snicker>
Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL
<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">
on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*
*hell doesn't exist. hope everybody is having a productive evening.
-
http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg
http://cafepress.com/kooktown
http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg
-
If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)
if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2
-
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd
-
Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:
$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!
(just as useful as the original!)
-
snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden
service. It's not rocket science.
_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._ (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a
kiddie pr0n network.)
That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 11:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <6cba9192-2a59-4fed-8a2e-3b4fd0f58c5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564160 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:52:10 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > >> Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? > > > Why is it you can't carry on a normal conversation, like a normal person? > > That's not an answer to those questions, Jim. You are just trying to divert attention from the fact that you lost the argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 05:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <13ca8c8bd1f8a19bee22d4f52b60ce46@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564211 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:6cba9192-2a59-4fed-8a2e-3b4fd0f58c5c@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:52:10 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? >>> Why is it you can't carry on a normal conversation, like a normal person? >> That's not an answer to those questions, Jim. > You are just trying to divert attention from the fact that you lost the argument. You're projecting, James. Don't do that. It proves you've lost the argument. Why can't you get your psychosis through the peer review process, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies to back your psychosis up, James? Why have you done *no* controlled experiments to back your psychosis up, James? Why is the entire world pointing and laughing at your psychosis, James? Why can't you substantively address those gaping logic holes I've kicked in your psychosis, James? -- 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. 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 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? 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? 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 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? 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? 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]
| From | "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 02:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <op.yel2rb15tm21m2@benson.localhost> |
| In reply to | #563826 |
On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 02:39:25 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> Time to make up a plausible lie by running away from those tough
> questions again.
--
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu
-
FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>
">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>> phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>> voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)
Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking
*moron*?
"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""
it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds. it says that you're in denial
about the inversion of your AC legs.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png
http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf
on page 2:
** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)
*COUGH*
SPNAK!!
-
i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII
art if you ask nicely.</GROUCHO MARX>
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>
-
snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:
- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:
http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html
place those files in a directory and save this file as
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.
compiles with:
gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++
run with:
./a.out
enjoy the LULZ ;)
*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>
using namespace std;
int main(){
//float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
//float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);
float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
float_precision t=float_precision(0); // time variable
float_precision sum=float_precision(0); // sum of SnickerTurd's
ridiculous sinewave mess
float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25); //
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
float_precision PI;
PI =_float_table(_PI,25);
// this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
while(sum < snickerPrediction){
// fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))
+
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));
// perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh
snickerTurds
if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
}
t = t+STEP;
}
/*
Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"
Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves
never reaches that. They never reach their max values at the same time.
That's how stupid you are.
Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"
Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when
summed.
the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages that are archived FOREVER.
*/
cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
-
Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>
-
Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
<snicker>
Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL
<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">
on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*
*hell doesn't exist. hope everybody is having a productive evening.
-
http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg
http://cafepress.com/kooktown
http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg
-
If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)
if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2
-
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd
-
Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:
$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!
(just as useful as the original!)
-
snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden
service. It's not rocket science.
_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._ (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a
kiddie pr0n network.)
That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 01:28 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- |
| Message-ID | <a8ksebdkb98os5pkjcvbvfttskvlhpk24m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #563826 |
On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 07:39:25 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> You didn't answer my question. > >I most certainly did, and in the process, I proved your moronic >"theory" is a sham, a fraud, a fabrication told by a deluded moron too >stupid to make up a plausible lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web