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

Groups > sci.physics > #560883 > unrolled thread

Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 11:42 -0800
    Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 03:55 +0800
      Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog "Colonel Edmund J. Burke" <burkesgurlz@t-girls.com> - 2016-03-10 09:01 -0800
    Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:50 +0100
      Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:02 -0800
        Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 07:44 +0100
          Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:08 -0800
            Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:26 +0100
              Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 01:59 +0800
                Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:55 +0100
          Attn: Fake Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>  on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-03-10 11:31 +0000
            Re: Attn: Fake Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>  "\"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> - 2016-03-10 12:34 -0500
      Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 13:52 +0800
        Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog "\"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> - 2016-03-10 01:33 -0500

#560883 — Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:08:16 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

a) I quoted a university research team 

This demonstrates how gullible you are.  Universities are 
comprised of kids (students) who write grant seeking 
"research' papers under the "guidance" of grant seeking 
professors whose net sum of comprehension is based on what 
they learned, as students, in the 1960s or 1970s.  These 
people do little more than regurgitate confirmation of the 
models they've all accepted based on what they were told 
they should accepts. Rarely do any of them have anything 
but a cursory understanding of what is happening on the 
submolecular level.  They understand their models really 
well, but that acts as a barrier to them understanding what 
is happening in the real world.

Try finding one of them that is conversant about what is 
happening with the electron cloud on the oxygen atom.  
You will have as much luck getting a point across to 
one of them as you would explaining auto mechanics to
to your dog.  

When it comes to advanced thinking academia is a complete
waste of time.  The game they play has little to do with 
making advancesments and much to do with getting grant money.

 <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html
 "Due to the relatively large positive charge on the oxygen atom
 nucleus (8+) and the closeness of its electrons, the oxygen atom
 attracts electrons much more strongly (i.e. is much more
 electronegative) than the hydrogen atoms (1+)."

There are two factors that underlie molecular polarity. 
Electronegativity, as you indicate.  And asymmetry, that 
you fail to mention.  Unless you understand both of these 
you can't understand polarity.  For example, methane has electronegativity differences and covalently bonded 
hydrogen atoms. Yet is has no polarity and cannot form 
intermolecular hydrogen bonds.  Why?  Because it is 
perfectly symmetrical.  

To understand H2O polarity you have to understand how hydrogen bonds achieve symmetry, thus neutralizing polarity and making polarity and bond strength variable:
BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

 I'm sure Shiny Tinfoil Brain believes James McGinn is a physicist just
 as much as James McGinn believes he's a physicist... after all, James
 took an introductory Basic Meteorology elective class once, and hence,
 physicist!
 
 I've destroyed James McGinn's kooky conspiracy theory via several
 different avenues, the latest by proving that his central tenet of
 'water plasma in the troposphere' is a physical impossibility.

I can't even imagine how frustrated you must feel.

Deepest sympathies.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#560889

There you go, Sir Fakey.  I mean, "Nutcase dude".
It makes as much sense as anything you ever posted.

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:08:16 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> a) I quoted a university research team 
> 
> This demonstrates how gullible you are.  Universities are 
> comprised of kids (students) who write grant seeking 
> "research' papers under the "guidance" of grant seeking 
> professors whose net sum of comprehension is based on what 
> they learned, as students, in the 1960s or 1970s.  These 
> people do little more than regurgitate confirmation of the 
> models they've all accepted based on what they were told 
> they should accepts. Rarely do any of them have anything 
> but a cursory understanding of what is happening on the 
> submolecular level.  They understand their models really 
> well, but that acts as a barrier to them understanding what 
> is happening in the real world.
> 
> Try finding one of them that is conversant about what is 
> happening with the electron cloud on the oxygen atom.  
> You will have as much luck getting a point across to 
> one of them as you would explaining auto mechanics to
> to your dog.  
> 
> When it comes to advanced thinking academia is a complete
> waste of time.  The game they play has little to do with 
> making advancesments and much to do with getting grant money.
> 
>  <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html
>  "Due to the relatively large positive charge on the oxygen atom
>  nucleus (8+) and the closeness of its electrons, the oxygen atom
>  attracts electrons much more strongly (i.e. is much more
>  electronegative) than the hydrogen atoms (1+)."
> 
> There are two factors that underlie molecular polarity. 
> Electronegativity, as you indicate.  And asymmetry, that 
> you fail to mention.  Unless you understand both of these 
> you can't understand polarity.  For example, methane has electronegativity differences and covalently bonded 
> hydrogen atoms. Yet is has no polarity and cannot form 
> intermolecular hydrogen bonds.  Why?  Because it is 
> perfectly symmetrical.  
> 
> To understand H2O polarity you have to understand how hydrogen bonds achieve symmetry, thus neutralizing polarity and making polarity and bond strength variable:
> BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> 
>  I'm sure Shiny Tinfoil Brain believes James McGinn is a physicist just
>  as much as James McGinn believes he's a physicist... after all, James
>  took an introductory Basic Meteorology elective class once, and hence,
>  physicist!
>  
>  I've destroyed James McGinn's kooky conspiracy theory via several
>  different avenues, the latest by proving that his central tenet of
>  'water plasma in the troposphere' is a physical impossibility.
> 
> I can't even imagine how frustrated you must feel.
> 
> Deepest sympathies.
> 
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes

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

#561163

>> Solving Tornadoes.............



http://tinyurl.com/hlb4oxw

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

#561023

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

James McGinn, in
<news:30635fb1-6217-48f0-8a85-0287bc1d35f1@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:08:16 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> a) I quoted a university research team 

> Thi<SMACKAKOOK!>

I'll remind delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards who have had
their kooky conspiracy theories utterly demolished that their main
goal in life is to refute that basic physical reality which utterly
destroys their kooky conspiracy theory, and failing that, to melt down
as entertainment for the sane folk.

<snicker>

================================================

I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory, 
James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on.

I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. 
That's, what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky 
conspiracy theory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky 
conspiracy theory, Jim. Anyone with any interest can look up the data
and corroborate it for themselves. That's reality. Deal with it.

<snicker>

See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense 
that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky 
conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set 
of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a 
fucking moron.

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#561025

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:00:22 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:30635fb1-6217-48f0-8a85-0287bc1d35f1@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:08:16 AM UTC-8,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >> a) I quoted a university research team 
> 
> > Thi<SMACKAKOOK!>
> 
> I'll remind delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards who have had
> their kooky conspiracy theories utterly demolished that their main
> goal in life is to refute that basic physical reality which utterly
> destroys their kooky conspiracy theory, and failing that, to melt down
> as entertainment for the sane folk.
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> ================================================
> 
> I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory, 
> James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on.
> 
> I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. 
> That's, what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky 
> conspiracy theory?
> 
> Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma 
> existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from 
> that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well 
> impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning 
> strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never 
> stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near 
> clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who 
> knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, 
> apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled 
> you.
> 
> Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, 
> just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. 
> That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.
> 
> For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. 
> It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few 
> microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no 
> appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and 
> updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface 
> area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its 
> radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is 
> proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized 
> water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet 
> radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest 
> average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they 
> stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which 
> is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting 
> the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, 
> thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous 
> phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets 
> grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface 
> area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall 
> to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different 
> updraft speeds) cause different types of rain.
> 
> Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an 
> environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); 
> convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are 
> associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second.
> 
> For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its 
> fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air 
> down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of 
> sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as 
> compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of 
> air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further 
> proves this fact.
> 
> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is 
> another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas 
> where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating 
> lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the 
> Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by 
> rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a 
> dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced 
> tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle 
> being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the 
> P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and 
> telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination 
> signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their 
> Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically 
> the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, 
> thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger.
> 
> So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which 
> types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?
> 
> As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the 
> atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, 
> given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, 
> wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):
> 
> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
> =========================================================
> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only 
> you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of 
> energy about 12 electron volts of higher.  That means the water 
> molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about 
> this magnitude.   For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation 
> energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. 
> So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to 
> make such a plasma.
> =========================================================
> 
> Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 
> nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet 
> light, nearly in the x-ray range.
> 
> And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of 
> plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere 
> is plasma.
> 
> Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through 
> the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less 
> energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.
> 
> In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so 
> strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water 
> plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming 
> majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are 
> except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.
> 
> Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the 
> troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting 
> of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because 
> he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're 
> just a delusional kooktard?
> 
> So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky 
> conspiracy theory, Jim. Anyone with any interest can look up the data
> and corroborate it for themselves. That's reality. Deal with it.
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense 
> that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky 
> conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set 
> of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a 
> fucking moron.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
> =====================================
> The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
> Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
> should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
> *sinusoids*);
> 
> That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;
> 
> That superposition is the same as wave interference;
> 
> That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;
> 
> That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;
> 
> That RMS isn't a DC voltage;
> 
> That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
> volts RMS L-L;
> 
> That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;
> 
> The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;
> 
> That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
> engineering, physics and control systems engineering;
> 
> What a positive or negative vector is;
> 
> That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
> Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;
> 
> That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";
> 
> That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
> positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.
> 
> That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
> electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.
> 
> That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.
> 
> What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.
> 
> And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
> =====================================
> 
> SPNAK!
> 
> <snicker>

One word of advice: de-caf.

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

#561062

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

James McGinn, in
<news:19365e76-96be-4641-9eda-692b32660b84@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:00:22 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:30635fb1-6217-48f0-8a85-0287bc1d35f1@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:08:16 AM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> a) I quoted a university research team 

>>> Thi<SMACKAKOOK!>

>> I'll remind delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards who have had
>> their kooky conspiracy theories utterly demolished that their main
>> goal in life is to refute that basic physical reality which utterly
>> destroys their kooky conspiracy theory, and failing that, to melt down
>> as entertainment for the sane folk.
>> 
>> <snicker>
>> 
>> ================================================
>> 
>> I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory, 
>> James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on.
>> 
>> I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. 
>> That's, what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky 
>> conspiracy theory?
>> 
>> Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma 
>> existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from 
>> that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well 
>> impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning 
>> strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never 
>> stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near 
>> clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who 
>> knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, 
>> apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled 
>> you.
>> 
>> Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, 
>> just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. 
>> That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.
>> 
>> For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. 
>> It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few 
>> microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no 
>> appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and 
>> updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface 
>> area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its 
>> radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is 
>> proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized 
>> water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet 
>> radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest 
>> average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they 
>> stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which 
>> is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting 
>> the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, 
>> thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous 
>> phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets 
>> grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface 
>> area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall 
>> to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different 
>> updraft speeds) cause different types of rain.
>> 
>> Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an 
>> environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); 
>> convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are 
>> associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second.
>> 
>> For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its 
>> fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air 
>> down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of 
>> sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as 
>> compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of 
>> air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further 
>> proves this fact.
>> 
>> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is 
>> another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas 
>> where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating 
>> lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the 
>> Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by 
>> rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a 
>> dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced 
>> tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle 
>> being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the 
>> P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and 
>> telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination 
>> signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their 
>> Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically 
>> the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, 
>> thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger.
>> 
>> So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which 
>> types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?
>> 
>> As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the 
>> atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, 
>> given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, 
>> wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):
>> 
>> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
>> =========================================================
>> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
>> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
>> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
>> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only 
>> you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of 
>> energy about 12 electron volts of higher.  That means the water 
>> molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about 
>> this magnitude.   For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation 
>> energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. 
>> So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to 
>> make such a plasma.
>> =========================================================
>> 
>> Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 
>> nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet 
>> light, nearly in the x-ray range.
>> 
>> And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of 
>> plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere 
>> is plasma.
>> 
>> Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through 
>> the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less 
>> energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.
>> 
>> In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so 
>> strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water 
>> plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming 
>> majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are 
>> except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.
>> 
>> Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the 
>> troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting 
>> of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because 
>> he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're 
>> just a delusional kooktard?
>> 
>> So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky 
>> conspiracy theory, Jim. Anyone with any interest can look up the data
>> and corroborate it for themselves. That's reality. Deal with it.
>> 
>> <snicker>
>> 
>> See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense 
>> that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky 
>> conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set 
>> of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a 
>> fucking moron.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
>> =====================================
>> The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
>> Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
>> should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
>> *sinusoids*);
>> 
>> That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;
>> 
>> That superposition is the same as wave interference;
>> 
>> That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;
>> 
>> That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;
>> 
>> That RMS isn't a DC voltage;
>> 
>> That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
>> volts RMS L-L;
>> 
>> That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;
>> 
>> The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;
>> 
>> That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
>> engineering, physics and control systems engineering;
>> 
>> What a positive or negative vector is;
>> 
>> That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
>> Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;
>> 
>> That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";
>> 
>> That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
>> positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.
>> 
>> That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
>> electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.
>> 
>> That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.
>> 
>> What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.
>> 
>> And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
>> =====================================
>> 
>> SPNAK!
>> 
>> <snicker>

> One word of advice: de-caf.

One word of advice, Jim: SPNAK!

You've been defeated, your kooky conspiracy theory utterly decimated.
Now you're forced to either go back and reexamine the underlying
premise of your kooky conspiracy theory, or *knowingly* plunge
headlong down the insane path you've chosen.

And you owe me $100,000, Jim. Pay up.

<snicker>

-- 

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757

DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.

> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.

Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.

<snicker>
=================================================

DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================

DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f712515dedb738e450@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================

This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.

150 IQ? LOL

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

#561071

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:54:49 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:19365e76-96be-4641-9eda-692b32660b84@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:00:22 PM UTC-8,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >> James McGinn, in
> >> <news:30635fb1-6217-48f0-8a85-0287bc1d35f1@googlegroups.com> did
> >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> >>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:08:16 AM UTC-8,
> >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >>>> a) I quoted a university research team 
> 
> >>> Thi<SMACKAKOOK!>
> 
> >> I'll remind delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards who have had
> >> their kooky conspiracy theories utterly demolished that their main
> >> goal in life is to refute that basic physical reality which utterly
> >> destroys their kooky conspiracy theory, and failing that, to melt down
> >> as entertainment for the sane folk.
> >> 
> >> <snicker>
> >> 
> >> ================================================
> >> 
> >> I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory, 
> >> James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on.
> >> 
> >> I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. 
> >> That's, what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky 
> >> conspiracy theory?
> >> 
> >> Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma 
> >> existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from 
> >> that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well 
> >> impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning 
> >> strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never 
> >> stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near 
> >> clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who 
> >> knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, 
> >> apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled 
> >> you.
> >> 
> >> Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, 
> >> just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. 
> >> That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.
> >> 
> >> For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. 
> >> It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few 
> >> microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no 
> >> appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and 
> >> updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface 
> >> area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its 
> >> radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is 
> >> proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized 
> >> water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet 
> >> radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest 
> >> average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they 
> >> stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which 
> >> is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting 
> >> the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, 
> >> thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous 
> >> phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets 
> >> grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface 
> >> area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall 
> >> to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different 
> >> updraft speeds) cause different types of rain.
> >> 
> >> Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an 
> >> environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); 
> >> convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are 
> >> associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second.
> >> 
> >> For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its 
> >> fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air 
> >> down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of 
> >> sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as 
> >> compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of 
> >> air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further 
> >> proves this fact.
> >> 
> >> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is 
> >> another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas 
> >> where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating 
> >> lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the 
> >> Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by 
> >> rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a 
> >> dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced 
> >> tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle 
> >> being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the 
> >> P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and 
> >> telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination 
> >> signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their 
> >> Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically 
> >> the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, 
> >> thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger.
> >> 
> >> So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which 
> >> types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?
> >> 
> >> As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the 
> >> atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, 
> >> given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, 
> >> wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):
> >> 
> >> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
> >> =========================================================
> >> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
> >> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
> >> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
> >> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only 
> >> you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of 
> >> energy about 12 electron volts of higher.  That means the water 
> >> molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about 
> >> this magnitude.   For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation 
> >> energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. 
> >> So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to 
> >> make such a plasma.
> >> =========================================================
> >> 
> >> Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 
> >> nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet 
> >> light, nearly in the x-ray range.
> >> 
> >> And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of 
> >> plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere 
> >> is plasma.
> >> 
> >> Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through 
> >> the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less 
> >> energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.
> >> 
> >> In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so 
> >> strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water 
> >> plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming 
> >> majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are 
> >> except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.
> >> 
> >> Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the 
> >> troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting 
> >> of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because 
> >> he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're 
> >> just a delusional kooktard?
> >> 
> >> So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky 
> >> conspiracy theory, Jim. Anyone with any interest can look up the data
> >> and corroborate it for themselves. That's reality. Deal with it.
> >> 
> >> <snicker>
> >> 
> >> See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense 
> >> that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky 
> >> conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set 
> >> of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a 
> >> fucking moron.
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> 
> >> Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
> >> =====================================
> >> The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
> >> Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
> >> should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
> >> *sinusoids*);
> >> 
> >> That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;
> >> 
> >> That superposition is the same as wave interference;
> >> 
> >> That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;
> >> 
> >> That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;
> >> 
> >> That RMS isn't a DC voltage;
> >> 
> >> That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
> >> volts RMS L-L;
> >> 
> >> That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;
> >> 
> >> The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;
> >> 
> >> That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
> >> engineering, physics and control systems engineering;
> >> 
> >> What a positive or negative vector is;
> >> 
> >> That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
> >> Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;
> >> 
> >> That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";
> >> 
> >> That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
> >> positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.
> >> 
> >> That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
> >> electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.
> >> 
> >> That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.
> >> 
> >> What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.
> >> 
> >> And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
> >> =====================================
> >> 
> >> SPNAK!
> >> 
> >> <snicker>
> 
> > One word of advice: de-caf.
> 
> One word of advice, Jim: SPNAK!
> 
> You've been defeated, 

I think not.

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

#561179

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

James McGinn, in
<news:87b3c26d-172c-4d8f-9b4a-6695b423954d@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:54:49 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> One word of advice, Jim: SPNAK!
>> 
>> You've been defeated, your kooky conspiracy theory utterly decimated.
>> Now you're forced to either go back and reexamine the underlying
>> premise of your kooky conspiracy theory, or *knowingly* plunge
>> headlong down the insane path you've chosen.
>> 
>> And you owe me $100,000, Jim. Pay up.
>> 
>> <snicker>

> I think not.

Then you aren't paying attention, Jim. Your kooky conspiracy theory is
dead, Jim. Stick a fork in it. You've become a laughingstock. The
whole world watched as I proved James McGinn, 'CEO' of Solving
Tornadoes and Phictional Physicist, the moron who took one elective
class in Basic Meteorology and thus fancies himself a physicist, is a
delusional kooktard.

Here, Jim, run away from reality again:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of 
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous 
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar 
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the 
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas 
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.

Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for dry air

Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore 
air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.

Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its 
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.

Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude 
decreases.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water 
partial pressure will have the same density.

At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous 
water partial pressure will have higher density.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous 
water partial pressure will have lower density.

For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure, 
air at a higher altitude will have lower density.

(1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative 
humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.

Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative 
humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C, 
the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.

Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to 
increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the 
air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the 
air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or 
the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater 
than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.

Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas 
relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that 
temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather 
systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.

IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which 
requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air 
itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of 
monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of 
higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).

It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is 
"heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard, it's because density of 
the air varies with altitude, as does temperature. Or are you going to 
deny the existence of gravity the same as you've denied the existence 
of evaporation and sublimation?

These factors cause air to flow from higher pressure regions to lower 
pressure regions. But once you get near the top of the troposphere, 
the temperature no longer goes down, it goes up, thus air finds it 
more difficult to continue rising (especially considering that as it 
rises and expands through the troposphere due to decreasing pressure 
at altitude, it gets cooler and thus more dense due to the Ideal Gas 
Law). This generally balances out at the tropopause. Above this, the 
jet stream winds decrease in speed.

This horizontally flowing air at the tropopause is affected by 
planetary rotation, causing the air to turn to the right (in the 
Northern Hemisphere) in a phenomenon known as the Coriolis Effect. 
This causes a spiraling around the cold and warm air masses which 
induced the jet stream to begin with, thus causing those cold and warm 
air masses to spiral. This wind shear between warm and cold air masses 
is how hurricanes form, Jim.

You'll note the jet stream runs at the top and slightly above the 
tropopause for the polar jets, thus they don't "deliver energy and 
activity to top of the thunderclouds", given that the tropopause 
ranges from an average of 5.6 miles at the poles to 11 miles at the 
equator, whereas the highest clouds are thin wispy cirrus, 
cirrostratus and cirrocumulus clouds, and they are the *only* types of 
clouds at the top of the troposphere, except for the occasional 
unusually strong weather system forming cumulus, cumulonimbus or 
nimbostratus clouds all the way up to the top of the tropopause.

Because remember, it's the updraft which forms the clouds in the first 
place, and the speed of the updraft which determines what type of 
cloud is formed. And that updraft is caused by a combination of warmer 
air and air with higher gaseous water content creating air with 
greater buoyancy, carrying that gaseous water content upward, where 
the temperature drops, causing that gaseous water to condense and / or 
nucleate into clouds and eventually fall as rain under the right 
conditions.

And that destroys yet another of your kooky contentions... because 
you're a low-information uneducated moron trying to argue a subject 
about which you know very little, while k'laming yourself to be a 
'physicist' because you once took a Basic Meteorology elective 
class... a rather pathetic appeal to authority fallacy whilst trying 
to establish yourself as that authority. You are not an authority, 
Jim, you're just a delusional kooktard spouting a kooky and 
discredited conspiracy theory.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

That's one means by which I utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy 
theory, Jim.

I've destroyed the central tenets of your kooky conspiracy theory, 
James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on.

I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. 
That's... what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky 
conspiracy theory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense 
that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky 
conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set 
of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a 
fucking moron. Go back and finish high school, Jim. You'll be the 
better for it, and likely the saner, too.

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#561192

Fakey wrote:

> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous 
> phase and air have a molar volume

You're STILL wrong, Ersatzietta.  Water vapor doesn't follow
the ideal gas law.  I told you to use the steam tables, you
bumbling ignoramus.

What's the electronegativity of oxygen?

-- 
"...a sinewave is a Fourier transformation of a circle."
  --Fakey (aka "Nutcase dude")

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

#561441

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:d9d3ebdfgafb9rtssd43k0j05uef8fbh53@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous 
>> phase and air have a molar volume

> You're STILL wrong, Ersatzietta.  Water vapor doesn't follow
> the ideal gas law.  I told you to use the steam tables, you
> bumbling ignoramus.

You just love proving yourself to be a moron, don't you?

<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law>
========================================
Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal
gas law applies to within 10% error.

The ideal gas law is derived from a model (the ideal gas), and like
every other model it applies where it's underling assumptions are good
approximations to reality.
========================================

The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water
vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for
using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong. Moron.

SPNAK!

> What's the electronegativity of oxygen?

Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen
with that of the oxygen atom in a water molecule and prove that PhD
professor of applied sciences wrong, eh, Moron? LOL

<http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Electronegativity.html>
"The electronegativity of an atom is a measure of its affinity for 
electrons."

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html>
London South Bank University - Physics Department
Martin Chaplin BSc PhD CChem FRSC
Emeritus Professor of Applied Science
111 peer-reviewed studies published
3 books published
3 patents granted
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html>
==================================================
Due to the relatively large positive charge on the oxygen atom nucleus 
(8+) and the closeness of its electrons, the oxygen atom attracts 
electrons much more strongly (i.e. is much more electronegative) than 
the hydrogen atoms (1+). This results in a charge transfer from the 
hydrogen atoms towards the oxygen atom and, hence, the polarity of the 
water molecule.

The molecule H2O has 10 electrons associated, 8 from the oxygen atom 
and one each from the two hydrogen atoms.
==================================================

So now you're denying that covalent bonds exist within water 
molecules... but you're far too stupid to know why you've just made 
that k'lame nor even that you'd tacitly made the claim.

Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed the water molecule had 2 positive 
poles and 2 negative poles? Yeah... yeah, you are.

I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.

<snicker>

SPNAK!

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#561105 — Attn: Fake Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>

Snickerturd the Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus
<FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

[...]

> You've been defeated, your kooky conspiracy theory utterly decimated.

[...]

decimate
verb with obj.
Kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally 
a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group. 

-- 
  \|/ 
(((Ï)))               Mr On!on, earnest seeker after truth
 

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

#561175 — Re: Attn: Fake Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:31:18 -0500, Mr On!on <on!on@anon.invalid> wrote:

> Snickerturd the Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> You've been defeated, your kooky conspiracy theory utterly decimated.
>
> [...]
>
> decimate
> verb with obj.
> Kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally
> a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group.
>

according to fakey 1:10 ain't bad!

-- 
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007

 

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

#561041

Fakey wrote:

> delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards

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

#561057

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:52:34 -0500, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass  
<bender@the.future> wrote:

> Fakey wrote:
>
>> delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards

----

"> do you NOT have a multimeter, fakey?

Sure I do, and an oscilloscope, and a frequency generator, several
power supplies, a VFD, a decade resistance and capacitance box, etc.
I've even got a magnetizer."

too bad he doesn't need any of those because of his euler equation mastery.

why would a usenet slumlord and master need those fancy 'lectronics tools?

-- 
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007

 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web