Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #564089 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-21 01:13 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-03-27 13:02 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 01:13 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:31 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:55 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:41 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 22:11 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:52 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:10 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:17 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:57 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 21:32 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 17:47 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:24 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 06:46 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 23:11 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 19:18 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 13:03 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 06:52 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 04:28 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 18:08 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 10:36 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-26 07:29 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 00:30 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-26 17:10 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 12:45 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 07:27 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 23:01 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 18:27 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 10:05 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:19 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:58 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 08:49 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:28 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:09 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 22:45 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 20:05 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-30 02:46 +0800
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-29 18:11 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-30 05:31 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-30 05:02 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 11:12 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 11:40 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 11:44 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-30 17:19 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 13:10 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:22 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 13:24 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:21 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 13:22 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:31 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 15:33 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 16:10 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 16:52 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 17:01 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-30 15:04 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 17:53 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 17:45 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 07:04 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-30 19:24 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-30 19:45 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-31 03:30 +0800
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 15:36 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 07:04 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:19 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 13:20 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-30 17:18 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-30 17:55 +0000
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 11:55 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-31 05:45 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 21:58 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-03-30 22:01 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-31 18:35 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-31 10:56 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-31 13:04 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-31 04:17 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:22 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 08:07 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:54 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:25 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 22:49 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 19:21 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:27 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-07 08:11 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 09:20 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 09:05 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 14:19 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 10:16 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 07:06 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 18:28 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 10:54 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 07:27 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 20:20 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 00:23 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 19:53 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-07 08:11 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 09:21 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 08:54 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 12:51 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 07:11 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 00:14 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 15:45 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:33 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:40 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:37 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-23 00:00 +0800
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 10:38 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 13:02 -0700
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 10:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd32b95f-7b28-4d09-a291-4d79345f1faf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #566497 |
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:32:46 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:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as > >> Solving Tornadoes, in > >> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did > >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, > >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>> Obviously not. > > >>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. > >>>> > >>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually > >>>> states > > >>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. > > >> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to > >> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually > >> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely > >> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to > >> Coulomb's Law... > > > You > > Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, > James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her > wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until > it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the > form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish > incest? LOL > > You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now > become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL > > "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they > changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" > > I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. > > <snicker> > > > still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me > > directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. > > That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist > scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift > around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, > only to expose even more holes. > > > You don't get it. > > > > You are a child. > > You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a > penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide > laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand > reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to > "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* > and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart > your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. > > Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and > mommy won't buy you any more? LOL > > You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the > sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for > yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden > slug. > > Why can't you answer those questions, James? > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant > uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? > > Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a > lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating > that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself > if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? > Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and > help you to not piss all over yourself? > > And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a > pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. > > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > 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. > > You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's > Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrstatic attraction > increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and > electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually > cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient > tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't > you explain that, James? > > Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is > *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory > not-a-theory" can't answer. > > Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your > claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? > > Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your > delusions, James? > > Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, > James? > > Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? > > Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, > James? > > Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? > > Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being > *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? > > Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as > "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? > > Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in > which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of > education about now, James? > > Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out > of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been > deemed mentally incompetent, James? > > Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class > as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", > James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, > whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? > > What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was > the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then > you're not a physicist, James. LOL > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? > How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their > surface area as you claim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > > Why are you not taking your meds, James? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with Coulomb's Law? Yes? No?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 08:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f8b847e85b09dec98cda706d8088b7b7@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #568331 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:dd32b95f-7b28-4d09-a291-4d79345f1faf@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:32:46 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >> <news:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as >>>> Solving Tornadoes, in >>>> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>> Obviously not. >>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. >>>>>> >>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually >>>>>> states >>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. >>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to >>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually >>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely >>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to >>>> Coulomb's Law... >>> You >> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, >> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her >> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until >> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the >> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish >> incest? LOL >> >> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now >> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL >> >> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they >> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" >> >> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. >> >> <snicker> James? No reply, James? >>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me >>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. >> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist >> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift >> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, >> only to expose even more holes. James? No reply, James? >>> You don't get it. >>> >>> You are a child. >> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a >> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide >> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand >> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to >> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* >> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart >> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. >> >> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and >> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL >> >> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the >> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for >> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden >> slug. James? No reply, James? > Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with > Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law and reality, James. You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the exact opposite of what it actually states, and when called on it, you gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model it. That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and make the nightly news. Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in that order. Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your head, such as it is. Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing a ghost who haunts only you. Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? James? Right, James? <snicker> -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 09:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa5862fa-84f2-4167-b48d-b4686e94c271@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568480 |
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 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:dd32b95f-7b28-4d09-a291-4d79345f1faf@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:32:46 AM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > >> <news:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did > >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, > >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as > >>>> Solving Tornadoes, in > >>>> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did > >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, > >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>>> Obviously not. > > >>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually > >>>>>> states > > >>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. > > >>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to > >>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually > >>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely > >>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to > >>>> Coulomb's Law... > > >>> You > > >> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, > >> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her > >> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until > >> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the > >> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish > >> incest? LOL > >> > >> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now > >> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL > >> > >> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they > >> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" > >> > >> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. > >> > >> <snicker> > > James? No reply, James? > > >>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me > >>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. > > >> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist > >> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift > >> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, > >> only to expose even more holes. > > James? No reply, James? > > >>> You don't get it. > >>> > >>> You are a child. > > >> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a > >> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide > >> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand > >> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to > >> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* > >> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart > >> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. > >> > >> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and > >> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL > >> > >> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the > >> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for > >> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden > >> slug. > > James? No reply, James? > > > Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with > > Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? > > Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law > and reality, James. You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the > exact opposite of what it actually states, and when called on it, you > gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" > straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not > realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water > immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of > Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too > insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model > it. > > That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's > basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you > lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and > make the nightly news. > > Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who > doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the > Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from > street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle > bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in > particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and > cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in > that order. > > Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a > happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you > do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your > head, such as it is. > > Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And > also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your > delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing > a ghost who haunts only you. > > Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have > no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing > drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? > > James? > > Right, James? > > <snicker> > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant > uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? > > Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a > lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating > that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself > if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? > Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and > help you to not piss all over yourself? > > And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a > pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. > > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's > Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction > increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and > electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually > cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? > > According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with > distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an > electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher > energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic > attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the > electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, > that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic > attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just > violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. > > How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel With every post you become more incoherent. if, as even > you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli > Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, > and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is > that not dissociating the water? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling > point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded > hydrides, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's > cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* > splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have > such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same > H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron > that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of > vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that > your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and > that's just retarded. > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not > become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient > tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't > you explain that, James? > > Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is > *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory > not-a-theory" can't answer. > > Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your > claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? > > Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your > delusions, James? > > Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, > James? > > Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? > > Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, > James? > > Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? > > Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being > *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? > > Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as > "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? > > Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in > which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of > education about now, James? > > Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out > of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been > deemed mentally incompetent, James? > > Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class > as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", > James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, > whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? > > What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was > the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then > you're not a physicist, James. LOL > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? > How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their > surface area as you claim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > > Why are you not taking your meds, James? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 09:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4f63a1e51f36684ba91e98455840786b@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #568592 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:fa5862fa-84f2-4167-b48d-b4686e94c271@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>>>> Obviously not. >>>>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually >>>>>>>> states >>>>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. >>>>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to >>>>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually >>>>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely >>>>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to >>>>>> Coulomb's Law... >>>>> You >>>> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, >>>> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her >>>> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until >>>> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the >>>> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish >>>> incest? LOL >>>> >>>> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now >>>> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL >>>> >>>> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they >>>> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" >>>> >>>> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. >>>> >>>> <snicker> >> James? No reply, James? >>>>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me >>>>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. >>>> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist >>>> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift >>>> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, >>>> only to expose even more holes. >> James? No reply, James? >>>>> You don't get it. >>>>> >>>>> You are a child. >>>> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a >>>> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide >>>> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand >>>> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to >>>> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* >>>> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart >>>> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. >>>> >>>> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and >>>> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL >>>> >>>> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the >>>> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for >>>> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden >>>> slug. >> James? No reply, James? >>> Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with >>> Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? >> Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law >> and reality, James. You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the >> exact opposite of what it actually states, and when called on it, you >> gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" >> straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not >> realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water >> immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of >> Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too >> insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model >> it. >> >> That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's >> basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you >> lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and >> make the nightly news. >> >> Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who >> doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the >> Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from >> street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle >> bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in >> particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and >> cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in >> that order. >> >> Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a >> happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you >> do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your >> head, such as it is. >> >> Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And >> also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your >> delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing >> a ghost who haunts only you. >> >> Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have >> no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing >> drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? >> >> James? >> >> Right, James? >> >> <snicker> >> >> -- >> >> How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel > With every post you become more incoherent. With every post you prove you're a delusional anti-science basement-dwelling moronic halfwit who was legally deemed to be mentally incompetent thus forcing you to live at home with mommy and daddy your entire life, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. Where's that "class-action" kooksoot, and who's going to be joining you to sue *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons*, the *universe* and your FVNWe for conspiring to thwart your attempts at remodeling all of reality to fit your delusion, James? >> if, as even >> you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli >> Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, >> and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is >> that not dissociating the water? Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c18fa68c-ca28-4532-b451-79912aeb2ca6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568480 |
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 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:dd32b95f-7b28-4d09-a291-4d79345f1faf@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:32:46 AM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > >> <news:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did > >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, > >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as > >>>> Solving Tornadoes, in > >>>> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did > >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, > >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>>> Obviously not. > > >>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually > >>>>>> states > > >>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. > > >>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to > >>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually > >>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely > >>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to > >>>> Coulomb's Law... > > >>> You > > >> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, > >> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her > >> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until > >> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the > >> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish > >> incest? LOL > >> > >> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now > >> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL > >> > >> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they > >> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" > >> > >> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. > >> > >> <snicker> > > James? No reply, James? > > >>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me > >>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. > > >> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist > >> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift > >> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, > >> only to expose even more holes. > > James? No reply, James? > > >>> You don't get it. > >>> > >>> You are a child. > > >> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a > >> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide > >> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand > >> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to > >> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* > >> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart > >> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. > >> > >> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and > >> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL > >> > >> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the > >> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for > >> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden > >> slug. > > James? No reply, James? > > > Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with > > Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? > > Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law > and reality, James. My model harbors no dispute with Coulomb's law. If you think I am mistaken then you should feel free to make a detailed argument to that effect. > You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the > exact opposite of what it actually states, Reference? > and when called on it, you > gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" > straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not > realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water > immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of > Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too > insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model > it. > > That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's > basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you > lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and > make the nightly news. > > Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who > doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the > Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from > street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle > bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in > particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and > cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in > that order. > > Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a > happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you > do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your > head, such as it is. > > Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And > also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your > delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing > a ghost who haunts only you. > > Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have > no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing > drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? > > James? > > Right, James? > > <snicker> > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant > uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? > > Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a > lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating > that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself > if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? > Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and > help you to not piss all over yourself? > > And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a > pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. > > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's > Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction > increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and > electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually > cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? > > According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with > distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an > electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher > energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic > attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the > electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, > that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic > attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just > violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. > > How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even > you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli > Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, > and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is > that not dissociating the water? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling > point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded > hydrides, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's > cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* > splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have > such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same > H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron > that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of > vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that > your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and > that's just retarded. > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not > become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient > tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't > you explain that, James? > > Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is > *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory > not-a-theory" can't answer. > > Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your > claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? > > Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your > delusions, James? > > Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, > James? > > Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? > > Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, > James? > > Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? > > Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being > *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? > > Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as > "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? > > Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in > which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of > education about now, James? > > Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out > of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been > deemed mentally incompetent, James? > > Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class > as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", > James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, > whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? > > What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was > the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then > you're not a physicist, James. LOL > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? > How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their > surface area as you claim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > > Why are you not taking your meds, James? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 10:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <56b73108ef7fe2487dca4a0236cfaec2@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #568709 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:c18fa68c-ca28-4532-b451-79912aeb2ca6@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >> <news:dd32b95f-7b28-4d09-a291-4d79345f1faf@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:32:46 AM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >>>> <news:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as >>>>>> Solving Tornadoes, in >>>>>> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did >>>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, >>>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>>>> Obviously not. >>>>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually >>>>>>>> states >>>>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. >>>>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to >>>>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually >>>>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely >>>>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to >>>>>> Coulomb's Law... >>>>> You >>>> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, >>>> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her >>>> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until >>>> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the >>>> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish >>>> incest? LOL >>>> >>>> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now >>>> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL >>>> >>>> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they >>>> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" >>>> >>>> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. >>>> >>>> <snicker> >> James? No reply, James? >>>>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me >>>>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. >>>> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist >>>> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift >>>> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, >>>> only to expose even more holes. >> James? No reply, James? >>>>> You don't get it. >>>>> >>>>> You are a child. >>>> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a >>>> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide >>>> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand >>>> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to >>>> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* >>>> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart >>>> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. >>>> >>>> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and >>>> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL >>>> >>>> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the >>>> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for >>>> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden >>>> slug. >> James? No reply, James? >>> Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with >>> Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? >> Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law >> and reality, James. > My model harbors no dispute with Coulomb's law. Liar. You've tried to twist Coulomb's Law to say the exact opposite of what it actually says, in order to try to twist reality to fit your delusion, James. When called on it, you invented an entirely new "mechanism" that's never been detected by hundreds of thousands of researchers, and which works oppositely to electrostatic attraction. But you're too stupid to realize that in so doing, all H bonding would be negated, and all water would become gaseous-phase... ironically, you deny that water has a gaseous-phase, as well because you deny latent heat... so you're a thoroughly confused moron who is far too uneducated to even know what you don't know. > If you think I am mistaken then you should feel free to make a > detailed argument to that effect. I just did, James. You'll yet again find yourself utterly unable to refute it, so you'll backpedal, evade, blurt a non sequitur, and run away... thereby allowing me to once again GoogleStack the fact that you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA are a broken-brained schizophrenic off your meds. >> You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the >> exact opposite of what it actually states, > Reference? Stop backpedaling, you spankard. You've been proven wrong. Again. Just admit it, fix your fucked up "theory not-a-theory" to reflect reality, and carry on. Your pathetic crying here doesn't lend scientific credence to your delusional blather. >> and when called on it, you >> gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" >> straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not >> realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water >> immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of >> Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too >> insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model >> it. >> >> That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's >> basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you >> lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and >> make the nightly news. >> >> Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who >> doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the >> Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from >> street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle >> bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in >> particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and >> cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in >> that order. >> >> Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a >> happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you >> do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your >> head, such as it is. >> >> Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And >> also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your >> delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing >> a ghost who haunts only you. >> >> Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have >> no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing >> drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? >> >> James? >> >> Right, James? >> >> <snicker> Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4de67ec3-5509-44d5-a5a0-90c8f5c236ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568877 |
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:28:01 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:c18fa68c-ca28-4532-b451-79912aeb2ca6@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 PM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > >> <news:dd32b95f-7b28-4d09-a291-4d79345f1faf@googlegroups.com> did > >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:32:46 AM UTC-7, > >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > >>>> <news:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did > >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, > >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as > >>>>>> Solving Tornadoes, in > >>>>>> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did > >>>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, > >>>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Obviously not. > > >>>>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually > >>>>>>>> states > > >>>>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. > > >>>>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to > >>>>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually > >>>>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely > >>>>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to > >>>>>> Coulomb's Law... > > >>>>> You > > >>>> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, > >>>> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her > >>>> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until > >>>> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the > >>>> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish > >>>> incest? LOL > >>>> > >>>> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now > >>>> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL > >>>> > >>>> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they > >>>> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" > >>>> > >>>> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. > >>>> > >>>> <snicker> > > >> James? No reply, James? > > >>>>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me > >>>>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. > > >>>> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist > >>>> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift > >>>> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, > >>>> only to expose even more holes. > > >> James? No reply, James? > > >>>>> You don't get it. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are a child. > > >>>> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a > >>>> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide > >>>> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand > >>>> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to > >>>> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* > >>>> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart > >>>> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. > >>>> > >>>> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and > >>>> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL > >>>> > >>>> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the > >>>> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for > >>>> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden > >>>> slug. > > >> James? No reply, James? > > >>> Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with > >>> Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? > > >> Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law > >> and reality, James. > > > My model harbors no dispute with Coulomb's law. > > Liar. You've tried to twist Coulomb's Law I embrace Coulomb's Law. to say the exact opposite of > what it actually says, in order to try to twist reality to fit your > delusion, James. When called on it, you invented an entirely new > "mechanism" that's never been detected by hundreds of thousands of > researchers, and which works oppositely to electrostatic attraction. > But you're too stupid to realize that in so doing, all H bonding would > be negated, and all water would become gaseous-phase... ironically, > you deny that water has a gaseous-phase, as well because you deny > latent heat... so you're a thoroughly confused moron who is far too > uneducated to even know what you don't know. > > > If you think I am mistaken then you should feel free to make a > > detailed argument to that effect. > > I just did, Reference? James. You'll yet again find yourself utterly unable to > refute it, so you'll backpedal, evade, blurt a non sequitur, and run > away... thereby allowing me to once again GoogleStack the fact that > you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA are a broken-brained > schizophrenic off your meds. > > >> You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the > >> exact opposite of what it actually states, > > > Reference? > > Stop backpedaling, you spankard. You've been proven wrong. Again. Just > admit it, fix your fucked up "theory not-a-theory" to reflect reality, > and carry on. Your pathetic crying here doesn't lend scientific > credence to your delusional blather. > > >> and when called on it, you > >> gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" > >> straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not > >> realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water > >> immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of > >> Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too > >> insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model > >> it. > >> > >> That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's > >> basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you > >> lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and > >> make the nightly news. > >> > >> Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who > >> doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the > >> Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from > >> street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle > >> bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in > >> particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and > >> cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in > >> that order. > >> > >> Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a > >> happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you > >> do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your > >> head, such as it is. > >> > >> Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And > >> also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your > >> delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing > >> a ghost who haunts only you. > >> > >> Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have > >> no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing > >> drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? > >> > >> James? > >> > >> Right, James? > >> > >> <snicker> > > Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, > James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant > uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? > > Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a > lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating > that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself > if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? > Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and > help you to not piss all over yourself? > > And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a > pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. > > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's > Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction > increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and > electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually > cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? > > According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with > distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an > electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher > energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic > attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the > electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, > that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic > attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just > violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. > > How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even > you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli > Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, > and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is > that not dissociating the water? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling > point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded > hydrides, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's > cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* > splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have > such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same > H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron > that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of > vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that > your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and > that's just retarded. > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not > become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient > tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't > you explain that, James? > > Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is > *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory > not-a-theory" can't answer. > > Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your > claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? > > Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your > delusions, James? > > Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, > James? > > Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? > > Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, > James? > > Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? > > Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being > *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? > > Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as > "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? > > Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in > which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of > education about now, James? > > Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out > of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been > deemed mentally incompetent, James? > > Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class > as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", > James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, > whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? > > What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was > the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then > you're not a physicist, James. LOL > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? > How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their > surface area as you claim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > > Why are you not taking your meds, James? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 18:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <fd1c2107fa3022615bd4c55d1ce9b7d1@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #568930 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:4de67ec3-5509-44d5-a5a0-90c8f5c236ac@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:28:01 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >> <news:c18fa68c-ca28-4532-b451-79912aeb2ca6@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 PM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >>>> <news:dd32b95f-7b28-4d09-a291-4d79345f1faf@googlegroups.com> did >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:32:46 AM UTC-7, >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >>>>>> <news:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did >>>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, >>>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as >>>>>>>> Solving Tornadoes, in >>>>>>>> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did >>>>>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Obviously not. >>>>>>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually >>>>>>>>>> states >>>>>>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. >>>>>>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to >>>>>>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually >>>>>>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely >>>>>>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to >>>>>>>> Coulomb's Law... >>>>>>> You >>>>>> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, >>>>>> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her >>>>>> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until >>>>>> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the >>>>>> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish >>>>>> incest? LOL >>>>>> >>>>>> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now >>>>>> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL >>>>>> >>>>>> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they >>>>>> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" >>>>>> >>>>>> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> <snicker> >>>> James? No reply, James? >>>>>>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me >>>>>>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. >>>>>> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist >>>>>> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift >>>>>> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, >>>>>> only to expose even more holes. >>>> James? No reply, James? >>>>>>> You don't get it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are a child. >>>>>> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a >>>>>> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide >>>>>> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand >>>>>> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to >>>>>> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* >>>>>> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart >>>>>> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and >>>>>> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL >>>>>> >>>>>> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the >>>>>> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for >>>>>> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden >>>>>> slug. >>>> James? No reply, James? >>>>> Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with >>>>> Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? >>>> Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law >>>> and reality, James. >>> My model harbors no dispute with Coulomb's law. >> Liar. You've tried to twist Coulomb's Law > I embrace Coulomb's Law. Liar. Prove it. >> to say the exact opposite of >> what it actually says, in order to try to twist reality to fit your >> delusion, James. When called on it, you invented an entirely new >> "mechanism" that's never been detected by hundreds of thousands of >> researchers, and which works oppositely to electrostatic attraction. >> But you're too stupid to realize that in so doing, all H bonding would >> be negated, and all water would become gaseous-phase... ironically, >> you deny that water has a gaseous-phase, as well because you deny >> latent heat... so you're a thoroughly confused moron who is far too >> uneducated to even know what you don't know. >>> If you think I am mistaken then you should feel free to make a >>> detailed argument to that effect. >> I just did, > Reference? In the quoted text. Where your response, James? A lack of response on your part indicates a support of my position, James. Is that what you wanted? >> James. You'll yet again find yourself utterly unable to >> refute it, so you'll backpedal, evade, blurt a non sequitur, and run >> away... thereby allowing me to once again GoogleStack the fact that >> you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA are a broken-brained >> schizophrenic off your meds. >>>> You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the >>>> exact opposite of what it actually states, >>> Reference? >> Stop backpedaling, you spankard. You've been proven wrong. Again. Just >> admit it, fix your fucked up "theory not-a-theory" to reflect reality, >> and carry on. Your pathetic crying here doesn't lend scientific >> credence to your delusional blather. >>>> and when called on it, you >>>> gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" >>>> straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not >>>> realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water >>>> immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of >>>> Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too >>>> insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model >>>> it. >>>> >>>> That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's >>>> basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you >>>> lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and >>>> make the nightly news. >>>> >>>> Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who >>>> doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the >>>> Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from >>>> street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle >>>> bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in >>>> particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and >>>> cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in >>>> that order. >>>> >>>> Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a >>>> happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you >>>> do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your >>>> head, such as it is. >>>> >>>> Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And >>>> also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your >>>> delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing >>>> a ghost who haunts only you. >>>> >>>> Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have >>>> no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing >>>> drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? >>>> >>>> James? >>>> >>>> Right, James? >>>> >>>> <snicker> Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e24262a-6d45-4b69-b0d1-3862f51f3dbf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568973 |
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 9:39:58 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:4de67ec3-5509-44d5-a5a0-90c8f5c236ac@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:28:01 AM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > >> <news:c18fa68c-ca28-4532-b451-79912aeb2ca6@googlegroups.com> did > >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 PM UTC-7, > >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > >>>> <news:dd32b95f-7b28-4d09-a291-4d79345f1faf@googlegroups.com> did > >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:32:46 AM UTC-7, > >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > >>>>>> <news:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did > >>>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, > >>>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>>>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as > >>>>>>>> Solving Tornadoes, in > >>>>>>>> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did > >>>>>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, > >>>>>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Obviously not. > > >>>>>>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually > >>>>>>>>>> states > > >>>>>>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. > > >>>>>>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to > >>>>>>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually > >>>>>>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely > >>>>>>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to > >>>>>>>> Coulomb's Law... > > >>>>>>> You > > >>>>>> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, > >>>>>> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her > >>>>>> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until > >>>>>> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the > >>>>>> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish > >>>>>> incest? LOL > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now > >>>>>> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they > >>>>>> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <snicker> > > >>>> James? No reply, James? > > >>>>>>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me > >>>>>>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. > > >>>>>> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist > >>>>>> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift > >>>>>> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, > >>>>>> only to expose even more holes. > > >>>> James? No reply, James? > > >>>>>>> You don't get it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are a child. > > >>>>>> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a > >>>>>> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide > >>>>>> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand > >>>>>> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to > >>>>>> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* > >>>>>> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart > >>>>>> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and > >>>>>> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the > >>>>>> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for > >>>>>> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden > >>>>>> slug. > > >>>> James? No reply, James? > > >>>>> Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with > >>>>> Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? > > >>>> Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law > >>>> and reality, James. > > >>> My model harbors no dispute with Coulomb's law. > > >> Liar. You've tried to twist Coulomb's Law > > > I embrace Coulomb's Law. > > Liar. Prove it. I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed. I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do. Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help. > >> to say the exact opposite of > >> what it actually says, in order to try to twist reality to fit your > >> delusion, James. When called on it, you invented an entirely new > >> "mechanism" that's never been detected by hundreds of thousands of > >> researchers, and which works oppositely to electrostatic attraction. > >> But you're too stupid to realize that in so doing, all H bonding would > >> be negated, and all water would become gaseous-phase... ironically, > >> you deny that water has a gaseous-phase, as well because you deny > >> latent heat... so you're a thoroughly confused moron who is far too > >> uneducated to even know what you don't know. > > >>> If you think I am mistaken then you should feel free to make a > >>> detailed argument to that effect. > > >> I just did, > > > Reference? > > In the quoted text. Where your response, James? A lack of response on > your part indicates a support of my position, James. Is that what you > wanted? > > >> James. You'll yet again find yourself utterly unable to > >> refute it, so you'll backpedal, evade, blurt a non sequitur, and run > >> away... thereby allowing me to once again GoogleStack the fact that > >> you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA are a broken-brained > >> schizophrenic off your meds. > > >>>> You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the > >>>> exact opposite of what it actually states, > > >>> Reference? > > >> Stop backpedaling, you spankard. You've been proven wrong. Again. Just > >> admit it, fix your fucked up "theory not-a-theory" to reflect reality, > >> and carry on. Your pathetic crying here doesn't lend scientific > >> credence to your delusional blather. > > >>>> and when called on it, you > >>>> gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" > >>>> straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not > >>>> realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water > >>>> immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of > >>>> Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too > >>>> insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model > >>>> it. > >>>> > >>>> That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's > >>>> basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you > >>>> lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and > >>>> make the nightly news. > >>>> > >>>> Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who > >>>> doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the > >>>> Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from > >>>> street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle > >>>> bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in > >>>> particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and > >>>> cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in > >>>> that order. > >>>> > >>>> Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a > >>>> happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you > >>>> do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your > >>>> head, such as it is. > >>>> > >>>> Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And > >>>> also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your > >>>> delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing > >>>> a ghost who haunts only you. > >>>> > >>>> Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have > >>>> no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing > >>>> drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? > >>>> > >>>> James? > >>>> > >>>> Right, James? > >>>> > >>>> <snicker> > > Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, > James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant > uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? > > Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a > lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating > that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself > if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? > Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and > help you to not piss all over yourself? > > And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a > pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. > > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's > Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction > increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and > electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually > cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? > > According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with > distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an > electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher > energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic > attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the > electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, > that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic > attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just > violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. > > How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even > you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli > Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, > and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is > that not dissociating the water? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling > point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded > hydrides, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's > cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* > splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have > such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same > H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron > that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of > vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that > your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and > that's just retarded. > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not > become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient > tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't > you explain that, James? > > Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is > *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory > not-a-theory" can't answer. > > Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your > claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? > > Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your > delusions, James? > > Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, > James? > > Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? > > Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, > James? > > Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? > > Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being > *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? > > Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as > "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? > > Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in > which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of > education about now, James? > > Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out > of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been > deemed mentally incompetent, James? > > Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class > as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", > James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, > whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? > > What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was > the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then > you're not a physicist, James. LOL > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? > How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their > surface area as you claim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > > Why are you not taking your meds, James? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 07:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9d6a0429c9cf1a959fcd93822a095ed8@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #569003 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:8e24262a-6d45-4b69-b0d1-3862f51f3dbf@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 9:39:58 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> Liar. You've tried to twist Coulomb's Law >>> I embrace Coulomb's Law. >> Liar. Prove it. > I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of > meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an > aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of > meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because > here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's > futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their > understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of > the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed. > > I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical > thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will > see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and > for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do. > > Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help. Your concession speech is noted, James. Did you think you would win against a far smarter and saner opponent backed up by centuries of scientific fact, while all you had was your delusional blather, your lies, your non sequiturs and your medical meth? Your inability to provide proof for you delusion, and your inability to explain away your multiple lies, is noted, James. Are you simply too retarded to convey the explanations? Are you too stupid to find them? Did you lose them? Answer the questions, you evasive shitbag. Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5bfcc74be4036b083e9cb1afeb36540b@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #568930 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:4de67ec3-5509-44d5-a5a0-90c8f5c236ac@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:28:01 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >> <news:c18fa68c-ca28-4532-b451-79912aeb2ca6@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 PM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >>>> <news:dd32b95f-7b28-4d09-a291-4d79345f1faf@googlegroups.com> did >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:32:46 AM UTC-7, >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >>>>>> <news:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did >>>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, >>>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as >>>>>>>> Solving Tornadoes, in >>>>>>>> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did >>>>>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Obviously not. >>>>>>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually >>>>>>>>>> states >>>>>>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. >>>>>>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to >>>>>>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually >>>>>>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely >>>>>>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to >>>>>>>> Coulomb's Law... >>>>>>> You >>>>>> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, >>>>>> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her >>>>>> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until >>>>>> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the >>>>>> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish >>>>>> incest? LOL >>>>>> >>>>>> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now >>>>>> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL >>>>>> >>>>>> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they >>>>>> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" >>>>>> >>>>>> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> <snicker> >>>> James? No reply, James? >>>>>>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me >>>>>>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. >>>>>> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist >>>>>> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift >>>>>> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, >>>>>> only to expose even more holes. >>>> James? No reply, James? >>>>>>> You don't get it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are a child. >>>>>> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a >>>>>> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide >>>>>> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand >>>>>> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to >>>>>> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* >>>>>> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart >>>>>> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and >>>>>> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL >>>>>> >>>>>> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the >>>>>> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for >>>>>> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden >>>>>> slug. >>>> James? No reply, James? >>>>> Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with >>>>> Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? >>>> Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law >>>> and reality, James. >>> My model harbors no dispute with Coulomb's law. >> Liar. You've tried to twist Coulomb's Law > I embrace Coulomb's Law. Liar. Prove it. >> to say the exact opposite of >> what it actually says, in order to try to twist reality to fit your >> delusion, James. When called on it, you invented an entirely new >> "mechanism" that's never been detected by hundreds of thousands of >> researchers, and which works oppositely to electrostatic attraction. >> But you're too stupid to realize that in so doing, all H bonding would >> be negated, and all water would become gaseous-phase... ironically, >> you deny that water has a gaseous-phase, as well because you deny >> latent heat... so you're a thoroughly confused moron who is far too >> uneducated to even know what you don't know. >>> If you think I am mistaken then you should feel free to make a >>> detailed argument to that effect. >> I just did, > Reference? In the quoted text. Where your response, James? A lack of response on your part indicates a support of my position, James. Is that what you wanted? >> James. You'll yet again find yourself utterly unable to >> refute it, so you'll backpedal, evade, blurt a non sequitur, and run >> away... thereby allowing me to once again GoogleStack the fact that >> you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA are a broken-brained >> schizophrenic off your meds. >>>> You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the >>>> exact opposite of what it actually states, >>> Reference? >> Stop backpedaling, you spankard. You've been proven wrong. Again. Just >> admit it, fix your fucked up "theory not-a-theory" to reflect reality, >> and carry on. Your pathetic crying here doesn't lend scientific >> credence to your delusional blather. >>>> and when called on it, you >>>> gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" >>>> straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not >>>> realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water >>>> immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of >>>> Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too >>>> insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model >>>> it. >>>> >>>> That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's >>>> basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you >>>> lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and >>>> make the nightly news. >>>> >>>> Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who >>>> doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the >>>> Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from >>>> street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle >>>> bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in >>>> particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and >>>> cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in >>>> that order. >>>> >>>> Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a >>>> happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you >>>> do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your >>>> head, such as it is. >>>> >>>> Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And >>>> also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your >>>> delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing >>>> a ghost who haunts only you. >>>> >>>> Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have >>>> no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing >>>> drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? >>>> >>>> James? >>>> >>>> Right, James? >>>> >>>> <snicker> Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 00:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ffc4b044-dbae-4f74-a0a2-f9fa59be2cab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568480 |
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 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:dd32b95f-7b28-4d09-a291-4d79345f1faf@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:32:46 AM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > >> <news:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did > >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, > >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as > >>>> Solving Tornadoes, in > >>>> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did > >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, > >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>>> Obviously not. > > >>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually > >>>>>> states > > >>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. > > >>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to > >>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually > >>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely > >>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to > >>>> Coulomb's Law... > > >>> You > > >> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, > >> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her > >> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until > >> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the > >> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish > >> incest? LOL > >> > >> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now > >> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL > >> > >> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they > >> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" > >> > >> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. > >> > >> <snicker> > > James? No reply, James? > > >>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me > >>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. > > >> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist > >> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift > >> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, > >> only to expose even more holes. > > James? No reply, James? > > >>> You don't get it. > >>> > >>> You are a child. > > >> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a > >> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide > >> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand > >> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to > >> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* > >> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart > >> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. > >> > >> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and > >> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL > >> > >> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the > >> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for > >> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden > >> slug. > > James? No reply, James? > > > Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with > > Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? > > Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law Reference? > and reality, James. You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the > exact opposite of what it actually states, Reference? and when called on it, you > gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" > straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, Reference? not > realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water > immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of > Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too > insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model > it. > > That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's > basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you > lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and > make the nightly news. > > Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who > doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the > Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from > street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle > bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in > particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and > cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in > that order. > > Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a > happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you > do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your > head, such as it is. > > Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And > also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your > delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing > a ghost who haunts only you. > > Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have > no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing > drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? > > James? > > Right, James? > > <snicker> > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant > uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? > > Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a > lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating > that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself > if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? > Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and > help you to not piss all over yourself? > > And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a > pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. > > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's > Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction > increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and > electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually > cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? > > According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with > distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an > electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher > energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic > attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the > electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, > that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic > attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just > violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. > > How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even > you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli > Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, > and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is > that not dissociating the water? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling > point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded > hydrides, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's > cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* > splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have > such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same > H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron > that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of > vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that > your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and > that's just retarded. > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not > become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient > tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't > you explain that, James? > > Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is > *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory > not-a-theory" can't answer. > > Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your > claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? > > Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your > delusions, James? > > Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, > James? > > Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? > > Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, > James? > > Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? > > Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being > *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? > > Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as > "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? > > Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in > which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of > education about now, James? > > Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out > of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been > deemed mentally incompetent, James? > > Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class > as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", > James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, > whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? > > What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was > the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then > you're not a physicist, James. LOL > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? > How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their > surface area as you claim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > > Why are you not taking your meds, James? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 19:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <59987e0f8ae906a4f0843626c74da6fd@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #568846 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:ffc4b044-dbae-4f74-a0a2-f9fa59be2cab@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>>>> Obviously not. >>>>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually >>>>>>>> states >>>>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. >>>>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to >>>>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually >>>>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely >>>>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to >>>>>> Coulomb's Law... >>>>> You >>>> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, >>>> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her >>>> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until >>>> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the >>>> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish >>>> incest? LOL >>>> >>>> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now >>>> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL >>>> >>>> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they >>>> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" >>>> >>>> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. >>>> >>>> <snicker> >> James? No reply, James? >>>>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me >>>>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. >>>> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist >>>> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift >>>> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, >>>> only to expose even more holes. >> James? No reply, James? >>>>> You don't get it. >>>>> >>>>> You are a child. >>>> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a >>>> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide >>>> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand >>>> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to >>>> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* >>>> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart >>>> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. >>>> >>>> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and >>>> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL >>>> >>>> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the >>>> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for >>>> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden >>>> slug. >> James? No reply, James? >>> Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with >>> Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? >> Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law > Reference? You've tried to twist Coulomb's Law to say the exact opposite of what it actually says, in order to try to twist reality to fit your delusion, James. When called on it, you invented an entirely new "mechanism" that's never been detected by hundreds of thousands of researchers, and which works oppositely to electrostatic attraction. But you're too stupid to realize that in so doing, all H bonding would be negated, and all water would become gaseous-phase... ironically, you deny that water has a gaseous-phase, as well because you deny latent heat... so you're a thoroughly confused moron who is far too uneducated to even know what you don't know. Are you now claiming your own words have no value, James? That your entire delusion is nothing but an elaborate lie to sustain your insanity? These are simple questions, James. Answer the questions, you evasive shitbag. >> and reality, James. You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the >> exact opposite of what it actually states, > Reference? Are you now claiming your own words have no value, James? That your entire delusion is nothing but an elaborate lie to sustain your insanity? These are simple questions, James. Answer the questions, you evasive shitbag. >> and when called on it, you >> gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" >> straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, > Reference? Are you now claiming your own words have no value, James? That your entire delusion is nothing but an elaborate lie to sustain your insanity? These are simple questions, James. Answer the questions, you evasive shitbag. >> not >> realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water >> immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of >> Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too >> insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model >> it. >> >> That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's >> basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you >> lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and >> make the nightly news. I note you've not even attempt to refute this truth, James... are you afraid of the Pandora's Box you'll open by attempting to deny your insanity directly, rather than by proxy via your delusion? These are simple questions, James. Answer the questions, you evasive shitbag. >> Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who >> doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the >> Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from >> street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle >> bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in >> particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and >> cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in >> that order. >> >> Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a >> happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you >> do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your >> head, such as it is. >> >> Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And >> also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your >> delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing >> a ghost who haunts only you. >> >> Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have >> no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing >> drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? >> >> James? >> >> Right, James? >> >> <snicker> Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 08:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <296c37938c4d286d70873a73cec33277@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #568331 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:dd32b95f-7b28-4d09-a291-4d79345f1faf@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:32:46 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >> <news:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as >>>> Solving Tornadoes, in >>>> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>> Obviously not. >>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. >>>>>> >>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually >>>>>> states >>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. >>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to >>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually >>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely >>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to >>>> Coulomb's Law... >>> You >> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, >> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her >> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until >> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the >> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish >> incest? LOL >> >> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now >> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL >> >> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they >> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" >> >> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. >> >> <snicker> James? No reply, James? >>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me >>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. >> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist >> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift >> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, >> only to expose even more holes. James? No reply, James? >>> You don't get it. >>> >>> You are a child. >> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a >> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide >> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand >> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to >> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* >> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart >> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. >> >> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and >> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL >> >> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the >> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for >> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden >> slug. James? No reply, James? > Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with > Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law and reality, James. You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the exact opposite of what it actually states, and when called on it, you gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model it. That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and make the nightly news. Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in that order. Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your head, such as it is. Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing a ghost who haunts only you. Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? James? Right, James? <snicker> -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 09:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3030b07d-74cf-47fb-b6cb-6b1fb21627db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568482 |
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 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:dd32b95f-7b28-4d09-a291-4d79345f1faf@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:32:46 AM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > >> <news:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did > >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, > >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as > >>>> Solving Tornadoes, in > >>>> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did > >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, > >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>>> Obviously not. > > >>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually > >>>>>> states > > >>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. > > >>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to > >>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually > >>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely > >>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to > >>>> Coulomb's Law... > > >>> You > > >> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, > >> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her > >> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until > >> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the > >> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish > >> incest? LOL > >> > >> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now > >> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL > >> > >> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they > >> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" > >> > >> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. > >> > >> <snicker> > > James? No reply, James? > > >>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me > >>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. > > >> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist > >> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift > >> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, > >> only to expose even more holes. > > James? No reply, James? > > >>> You don't get it. > >>> > >>> You are a child. > > >> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a > >> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide > >> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand > >> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to > >> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* > >> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart > >> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. > >> > >> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and > >> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL > >> > >> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the > >> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for > >> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden > >> slug. > > James? No reply, James? > > > Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with > > Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? > > Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law > and reality, James. You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the > exact opposite of what it actually states, and when called on it, you > gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" > straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not > realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water > immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of > Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too > insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model > it. > > That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's > basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you > lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and > make the nightly news. > > Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who > doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the > Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from > street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle > bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in > particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and > cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in > that order. > > Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a > happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you > do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your > head, such as it is. > > Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And > also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your > delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing > a ghost who haunts only you. > > Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have > no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing > drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? > > James? > > Right, James? > > <snicker> > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant > uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? > > Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a > lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating > that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself > if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? > Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and > help you to not piss all over yourself? > > And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a > pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. > > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's > Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction > increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and > electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually > cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? > > According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with > distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an > electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher > energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic > attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the > electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, > that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic > attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just > violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. > > How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even > you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli > Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, > and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is > that not dissociating the water? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling > point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded > hydrides, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's > cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* > splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have > such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same > H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron > that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of > vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that > your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and > that's just retarded. > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not > become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient > tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't > you explain that, James? > > Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is > *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory > not-a-theory" can't answer. > > Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your > claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? > > Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your > delusions, James? > > Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, > James? > > Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? > > Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, > James? > > Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? > > Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being > *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? > > Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as > "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? > > Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in > which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of > education about now, James? > > Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out > of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been > deemed mentally incompetent, James? > > Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class > as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", > James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, > whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? > > What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was > the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then > you're not a physicist, James. LOL > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? > How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their > surface area as you claim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > > Why are you not taking your meds, James? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim? I can't figure out what you point is, or if you even have one. Sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 08:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <43614f754b6ad10790ace1c6261a0642@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #568593 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:3030b07d-74cf-47fb-b6cb-6b1fb21627db@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>>>> Obviously not. >>>>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually >>>>>>>> states >>>>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. >>>>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to >>>>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually >>>>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely >>>>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to >>>>>> Coulomb's Law... >>>>> You >>>> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, >>>> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her >>>> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until >>>> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the >>>> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish >>>> incest? LOL >>>> >>>> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now >>>> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL >>>> >>>> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they >>>> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" >>>> >>>> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. >>>> >>>> <snicker> >> James? No reply, James? >>>>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me >>>>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. >>>> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist >>>> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift >>>> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, >>>> only to expose even more holes. >> James? No reply, James? >>>>> You don't get it. >>>>> >>>>> You are a child. >>>> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a >>>> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide >>>> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand >>>> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to >>>> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* >>>> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart >>>> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. >>>> >>>> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and >>>> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL >>>> >>>> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the >>>> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for >>>> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden >>>> slug. >> James? No reply, James? >>> Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with >>> Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? >> Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law >> and reality, James. You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the >> exact opposite of what it actually states, and when called on it, you >> gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" >> straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not >> realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water >> immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of >> Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too >> insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model >> it. >> >> That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's >> basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you >> lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and >> make the nightly news. >> >> Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who >> doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the >> Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from >> street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle >> bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in >> particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and >> cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in >> that order. >> >> Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a >> happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you >> do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your >> head, such as it is. >> >> Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And >> also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your >> delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing >> a ghost who haunts only you. >> >> Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have >> no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing >> drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? >> >> James? >> >> Right, James? >> >> <snicker> > I can't figure out what you point is, or if you even have one. Sorry. The point is, James, that you cannot win against a far superior force. In effect, you declared war against a nuclear power, while you are armed only with spitwads. On your side, you have delusion, paranoia, schizophrenia, babbling, backpedaling, non sequiturs, evasion and lies. On my side we have control of nearly all of society, centuries of scientific fact, a firm grasp upon reality and the surety that we will rule you morons forever. Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 12:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61e7a465-89a7-4b29-94be-1287fcd9d26f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568835 |
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:05:43 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:3030b07d-74cf-47fb-b6cb-6b1fb21627db@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:22:31 PM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Obviously not. > > >>>>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually > >>>>>>>> states > > >>>>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. > > >>>>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to > >>>>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually > >>>>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely > >>>>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to > >>>>>> Coulomb's Law... > > >>>>> You > > >>>> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, > >>>> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her > >>>> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until > >>>> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the > >>>> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish > >>>> incest? LOL > >>>> > >>>> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now > >>>> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL > >>>> > >>>> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they > >>>> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" > >>>> > >>>> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. > >>>> > >>>> <snicker> > > >> James? No reply, James? > > >>>>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me > >>>>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. > > >>>> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist > >>>> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift > >>>> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, > >>>> only to expose even more holes. > > >> James? No reply, James? > > >>>>> You don't get it. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are a child. > > >>>> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a > >>>> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide > >>>> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand > >>>> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to > >>>> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* > >>>> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart > >>>> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. > >>>> > >>>> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and > >>>> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL > >>>> > >>>> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the > >>>> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for > >>>> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden > >>>> slug. > > >> James? No reply, James? > > >>> Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with > >>> Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? > > >> Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law > >> and reality, James. You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the > >> exact opposite of what it actually states, and when called on it, you > >> gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" > >> straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not > >> realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water > >> immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of > >> Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too > >> insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model > >> it. > >> > >> That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's > >> basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you > >> lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and > >> make the nightly news. > >> > >> Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who > >> doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the > >> Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from > >> street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle > >> bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in > >> particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and > >> cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in > >> that order. > >> > >> Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a > >> happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you > >> do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your > >> head, such as it is. > >> > >> Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And > >> also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your > >> delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing > >> a ghost who haunts only you. > >> > >> Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have > >> no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing > >> drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? > >> > >> James? > >> > >> Right, James? > >> > >> <snicker> > > > I can't figure out what you point is, or if you even have one. Sorry. > > The point is, James, that you cannot win against a far superior force. > In effect, you declared war against a nuclear power, while you are > armed only with spitwads. > > On your side, you have delusion, paranoia, schizophrenia, babbling, > backpedaling, non sequiturs, evasion and lies. > > On my side we have control of nearly all of society, centuries of > scientific fact, a firm grasp upon reality and the surety that we will > rule you morons forever. > > Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, > James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant > uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? > > Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a > lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating > that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself > if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? > Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and > help you to not piss all over yourself? > > And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a > pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. > > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's > Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction > increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and > electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually > cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? > > According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with > distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an > electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher > energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic > attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the > electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, > that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic > attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just > violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. > > How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even > you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli > Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, > and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is > that not dissociating the water? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling > point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded > hydrides, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's > cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* > splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have > such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same > H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron > that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of > vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that > your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and > that's just retarded. > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not > become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient > tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't > you explain that, James? > > Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is > *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory > not-a-theory" can't answer. > > Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your > claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? > > Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your > delusions, James? > > Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, > James? > > Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? > > Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, > James? > > Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? > > Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being > *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? > > Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as > "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? > > Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in > which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of > education about now, James? > > Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out > of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been > deemed mentally incompetent, James? > > Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class > as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", > James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, > whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? > > What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was > the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then > you're not a physicist, James. LOL > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? > How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their > surface area as you claim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > > Why are you not taking your meds, James? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim? I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed. I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do. Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 07:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <b7c686ff53ec524fff5571fc7bcbc0f3@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #569058 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in <news:61e7a465-89a7-4b29-94be-1287fcd9d26f@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:05:43 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Obviously not. >>>>>>>>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually >>>>>>>>>> states >>>>>>>>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. >>>>>>>> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to >>>>>>>> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually >>>>>>>> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely >>>>>>>> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to >>>>>>>> Coulomb's Law... >>>>>>> You >>>>>> Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, >>>>>> James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her >>>>>> wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until >>>>>> it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the >>>>>> form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish >>>>>> incest? LOL >>>>>> >>>>>> You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now >>>>>> become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL >>>>>> >>>>>> "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they >>>>>> changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" >>>>>> >>>>>> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> <snicker> >>>> James? No reply, James? >>>>>>> still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me >>>>>>> directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. >>>>>> That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist >>>>>> scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift >>>>>> around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, >>>>>> only to expose even more holes. >>>> James? No reply, James? >>>>>>> You don't get it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are a child. >>>>>> You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a >>>>>> penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide >>>>>> laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand >>>>>> reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to >>>>>> "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* >>>>>> and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart >>>>>> your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and >>>>>> mommy won't buy you any more? LOL >>>>>> >>>>>> You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the >>>>>> sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for >>>>>> yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden >>>>>> slug. >>>> James? No reply, James? >>>>> Do you now concede that my model harbors no contradiction with >>>>> Coulomb's Law? Yes? No? >>>> Your "model not-a-model" is in direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law >>>> and reality, James. You tried to twist Coulomb's Law to state the >>>> exact opposite of what it actually states, and when called on it, you >>>> gave up on that and pulled a whole new "mechanism not-a-mechanism" >>>> straight from your ass that acted opposite to Coulomb's Law, not >>>> realizing that the two would mutually cancel and dissociate all water >>>> immediately... because you're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of >>>> Antioch, CA, the broken-brained uneducated moronic halfwit who is too >>>> insane to recognize reality, let alone acknowledge it, let alone model >>>> it. >>>> >>>> That's why you've had to live your entire life in mommy and daddy's >>>> basement, James... you'd be a danger to yourself and others if you >>>> lived independently. You'd chimp out like Rainman on bath salts and >>>> make the nightly news. >>>> >>>> Of course, you're headed that way anyway. You're the only one who >>>> doesn't see that reality, James. Then after an extended stay in the >>>> Home For The Criminally Insane, you'll be released to shamble from >>>> street corner to street corner, dirty and disheveled, with a ankle >>>> bracelet monitor, begging for spare change and muttering to no one in >>>> particular that you used to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", and >>>> cursing the letters 'e', 'F', 'N', 'V' and 'W', not necessarily in >>>> that order. >>>> >>>> Or you could submit to the Meteorology Cabal, James. You won't have a >>>> happy life, or much of a life at all, really, but for the odd jobs you >>>> do in service to the Meteorology Cabal, you'll have a roof over your >>>> head, such as it is. >>>> >>>> Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal is always watching you. And >>>> also remember that we don't exist. This is all just a figment of your >>>> delusion. You've been pounding on your keyboard for no reason, cursing >>>> a ghost who haunts only you. >>>> >>>> Just take your meds, James. Then everything will be alright. You have >>>> no reason to suspect that they've been switched out for brainwashing >>>> drugs. Your own mother wouldn't do that to you. Right, James? >>>> >>>> James? >>>> >>>> Right, James? >>>> >>>> <snicker> >>> I can't figure out what you point is, or if you even have one. Sorry. >> The point is, James, that you cannot win against a far superior force. >> In effect, you declared war against a nuclear power, while you are >> armed only with spitwads. >> >> On your side, you have delusion, paranoia, schizophrenia, babbling, >> backpedaling, non sequiturs, evasion and lies. >> >> On my side we have control of nearly all of society, centuries of >> scientific fact, a firm grasp upon reality and the surety that we will >> rule you morons forever. > I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of > meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an > aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of > meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because > here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's > futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their > understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of > the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed. > > I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical > thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will > see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and > for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do. > > Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help. Your evasion of proving proof of your delusions stands as your admission to defeat, James. And given that you've spammed your evasion multiple times, this represents a new low you've sunk to. Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 00:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b8d189f-2a76-48a0-8b20-f5bc3dc6fda3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564381 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:52:18 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > You are just confused. > > Not at all, James. It is perfectly clear that you are attempting to > hijack Coulomb's Law and invert it, twist it You don't even have an argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 15:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9f957cb0a319c7a7776409020dbcd7c@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564401 |
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:0b8d189f-2a76-48a0-8b20-f5bc3dc6fda3@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:52:18 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> You are just confused. >> Not at all, James. It is perfectly clear that you are attempting to >> hijack Coulomb's Law and invert it, twist it > You don't even have an argument. I absolutely do. It's in my .sig... all the gaping holes in your moronic and wholly fabricated "theory". You've thus far been utterly unable to muster a counter-argument. How could you? Your psychotic "theory not-a-theory" doesn't reflect reality. -- 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]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web