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

Groups > sci.physics > #555614 > unrolled thread

Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:37 -0800
    Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 15:03 -0600
    Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 13:38 -0800
      Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:07 -0800
        Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:35 +0000
          Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:03 -0800
            Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:12 +0000
              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:32 -0800
                Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:54 +0000
                  Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 17:22 -0800
                    Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 02:21 +0000
                      Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:48 -0800
                        Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 03:36 +0000
                          Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 20:26 -0800
                            Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:19 +0000
                              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:39 -0800
                                Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 13:05 -0600
                                Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:12 +0000
        Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 15:56 -0800
          Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:13 +0000
          Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:17 -0800
            Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:05 -0800
              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 21:56 -0800
                Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:21 +0000
                  Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:46 -0800
                    Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:14 +0000
                Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 08:34 -0600
          Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-23 06:05 +0000
            Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:14 -0800
              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:23 -0800
                Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:50 -0800
              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:25 +0000
                Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:46 -0800
                  Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 13:06 -0600
                  Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:15 +0000
              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:19 -0600
              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-23 18:01 +0000
                Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:03 -0800
                  Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:19 +0000
                he gave the limit of a stage of suction pumping of water, at sea level noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 17:02 -0800
            Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-23 06:16 +0000
              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:52 -0800
        Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:34 -0800
          Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 19:46 -0500
      Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 08:04 -0600
        Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:34 -0800
          Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:21 +0000
            Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:52 -0800
              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 15:31 -0800
                Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 15:57 -0800
                  Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 00:42 +0000
                  Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 16:57 -0800
              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 00:38 +0000
                Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 16:53 -0800
                  Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 01:15 +0000
                    Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:09 -0800
                      Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:20 +0000
                        Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:38 -0800
                          Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:51 +0000
                            Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:30 -0800
                              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 03:50 +0000
            Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 16:04 -0800
              Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 00:53 +0000
    Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 21:48 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#555777

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> pnalsing@gmail.com writes:
>>On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>>> > You don't really know much physics at all,
>>> I am a physicist.
>>Bullshit. This is virtually impossible!
> He even claims to be a "trained meteorologist"!
> Bwahahahahahaha!
> Sorry, Jim, flunking a meteorology course does not a meteorologist make.

Jim forgets he keeps tweeting stuff like:

Jim McGinn #@jimmcginn Feb 18
Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations http://youtu.be/T-1p1rJp1x4?a 

or (to paraphrase)
"I wrote to a [real] meteorologist about my ideas and he said ..."

so he does not identify as a meteorologist.

Ergo he has been caught in a clumsy lie.


--
-- http://principia-scientific.org/what-is-the-theory-of-man-made-global-warming/
Joel, both myself and Pat invited you and Leonard to define/delineate your 
"greenhouse effect" and you refused/declined. Then you resorted to the 
whining and name calling that is so characteristic people that maintain cult-
based beliefs. So . . . it doesn't seem to me that it is your head that you 
are beating.
-- "solving tornadoes" aka jim mcginn, Apr 10 2015 5:32pm

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

#555785

On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:25:44 PM UTC-8, Kym Horsell wrote:
> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > pnalsing@gmail.com writes:
> >>On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >>> > You don't really know much physics at all,
> >>> I am a physicist.
> >>Bullshit. This is virtually impossible!
> > He even claims to be a "trained meteorologist"!
> > Bwahahahahahaha!
> > Sorry, Jim, flunking a meteorology course does not a meteorologist make.
> 
> Jim forgets he keeps tweeting stuff like:
> 
> Jim McGinn #@jimmcginn Feb 18
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations http://youtu.be/T-1p1rJp1x4?a 
> 
> or (to paraphrase)
> "I wrote to a [real] meteorologist about my ideas and he said ..."
> 
> so he does not identify as a meteorologist.
> 
> Ergo he has been caught in a clumsy lie.
> 
> 
> --
> -- http://principia-scientific.org/what-is-the-theory-of-man-made-global-warming/
> Joel, both myself and Pat invited you and Leonard to define/delineate your 
> "greenhouse effect" and you refused/declined. Then you resorted to the 
> whining and name calling that is so characteristic people that maintain cult-
> based beliefs. So . . . it doesn't seem to me that it is your head that you 
> are beating.
> -- "solving tornadoes" aka jim mcginn, Apr 10 2015 5:32pm

Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

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

#555689

> 
> You don't really know much physics at all, 

I am a physicist. 
------------

Probably has a business card to prove it

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

#555695

On 02/22/2016 07:34 PM, HVAC wrote:
>>
>> You don't really know much physics at all,
>
> I am a physicist.
> ------------
>
> Probably has a business card to prove it
>
Who is saying what here?  Garbage post.

God, HVAC, better check that circulation in your neck. Your posts are 
getting worse than reber's.  Soon you'll be promoting your "theory of 
heavy air".

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#555831

On 2/22/2016 3:38 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

>>
>> Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O.
>> Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains
>> gaseous H2O.  Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction.  Strangely you seem to be emotionally
>> incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.  Possibly you are emotionally
>> incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O.  I don't know. And I don't care.  Why don't you see if you
>> can find a professional that can help you with that distinction.
>
> You don't really know much physics at all, this is clear to anyone who has ever taken even a freshman physics class.
>
> To claim that gases have no index of refraction is beyond belief. Have you never seen a red sunset? This first link blows
> you completely out of the water...

He's an idiot.
Two common applications of gaseous refraction:
1. Surveyors in long pipes will frequently evacuate the pipe to 
eliminate temperature-gradient refraction by the gas (or even 
density-gradient for tall enough pipes), which is not solved by pumping 
in a dry gas like CO2 or N2.
2. Timing of the sunrise or sunset shows that the sun actually is 
visible for a while before it rises and for a while after it actually 
sets, and this is accompanied by larger apparent angular speed near the 
horizon. This is directly related to atmospheric refraction, even from 
the regions of the atmosphere too cold to support liquid droplets of water.

>
> http://web.mit.edu/ytc/www/HLMA/Ref/opticsPaper02.pdf
>
> ... but there are literally thousands and thousands more...
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=index+of+refraction+for+gases&oq=index+of+refraction+for+gases&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#555922

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:04:56 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/22/2016 3:38 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O.
> >> Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains
> >> gaseous H2O.  Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction.  Strangely you seem to be emotionally
> >> incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.  Possibly you are emotionally
> >> incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O.  I don't know. And I don't care.  Why don't you see if you
> >> can find a professional that can help you with that distinction.
> >
> > You don't really know much physics at all, this is clear to anyone who has ever taken even a freshman physics class.
> >
> > To claim that gases have no index of refraction is beyond belief. Have you never seen a red sunset? This first link blows
> > you completely out of the water...
> 
> He's an idiot.
> Two common applications of gaseous refraction:
> 1. Surveyors in long pipes will frequently evacuate the pipe to 
> eliminate temperature-gradient refraction by the gas (or even 
> density-gradient for tall enough pipes), which is not solved by pumping 
> in a dry gas like CO2 or N2.

Relevance?

> 2. Timing of the sunrise or sunset shows that the sun actually is 
> visible for a while before it rises and for a while after it actually 
> sets, and this is accompanied by larger apparent angular speed near the 
> horizon. This is directly related to atmospheric refraction,

Liquid water refracts, dude.  So it seems you are making my argument for me.

 even from 
> the regions of the atmosphere too cold to support liquid droplets of water.

Look into supercooled water.  It is especially prevalent in the atmosphere.  

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

#555984

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:04:56 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/22/2016 3:38 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> 
>> >>
>> >> Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O.
>> >> Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains
>> >> gaseous H2O.  Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction.  Strangely you seem to be emotionally
>> >> incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O.  Possibly you are emotionally
>> >> incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O.  I don't know. And I don't care.  Why don't you see if you
>> >> can find a professional that can help you with that distinction.
>> >
>> > You don't really know much physics at all, this is clear to anyone who has ever taken even a freshman physics class.
>> >
>> > To claim that gases have no index of refraction is beyond belief. Have you never seen a red sunset? This first link blows
>> > you completely out of the water...
>> 
>> He's an idiot.
>> Two common applications of gaseous refraction:
>> 1. Surveyors in long pipes will frequently evacuate the pipe to 
>> eliminate temperature-gradient refraction by the gas (or even 
>> density-gradient for tall enough pipes), which is not solved by pumping 
>> in a dry gas like CO2 or N2.
> 
> Relevance?
> 
>> 2. Timing of the sunrise or sunset shows that the sun actually is 
>> visible for a while before it rises and for a while after it actually 
>> sets, and this is accompanied by larger apparent angular speed near the 
>> horizon. This is directly related to atmospheric refraction,
> 
> Liquid water refracts, dude.  So it seems you are making my argument for me.

Sure it does, and the index of refraction of liquid water is vastly 
different than the index of refraction of both gaseous water and air.

That is why using Schlieren imaging allows one to tell the difference
between them.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556000

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > Liquid water refracts, dude.  So it seems you are making my argument for me.
> 
> Sure it does, and the index of refraction of liquid water is vastly 
> different than the index of refraction of both gaseous water and air.
> 
> That is why using Schlieren imaging allows one to tell the difference
> between them.

We already know what you believe.  Beliefs are irrelevant to scientific truth.

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

#556043

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:52:19 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:

> Beliefs are irrelevant to scientific truth.

Well, you better look in the mirror when you say that, because all you got are your beliefs. "Beliefs", as in "faith", or "religion", or "superstition".

You keep pounding on everyone else to show papers or experiments that prove their point, but the reality is that you cannot possibly show an experiment to defend your own position, let alone a textbook or a peer-reviewed article... which is not at all surprising, considering that you have zero evidence to offer to us, the great unwashed masses... you got nuttin', nuttin' at all...

Obviously, to offer your own YouTube videos isn't even close to being evidence.

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

#556052

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:32:10 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:52:19 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> 
> > Beliefs are irrelevant to scientific truth.
> 
> Well, you better look in the mirror when you say that, because all you got are your beliefs. "Beliefs", as in "faith", or "religion", or "superstition".
> 
> You keep pounding on everyone else to show papers or experiments that prove their point, but the reality is that you cannot possibly show an experiment to defend your own position, let alone a textbook or a peer-reviewed article... which is not at all surprising, considering that you have zero evidence to offer to us, the great unwashed masses... you got nuttin', nuttin' at all...
> 
> Obviously, to offer your own YouTube videos isn't even close to being evidence.

So, Jimbo, if the evidence is so one sided why are you getting so emotional?

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

#556069

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:32:10 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:52:19 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>> 
>> > Beliefs are irrelevant to scientific truth.
>> 
>> Well, you better look in the mirror when you say that, because all you
>> got are your beliefs. "Beliefs", as in "faith", or "religion", or "superstition".
>> 
>> You keep pounding on everyone else to show papers or experiments that
>> prove their point, but the reality is that you cannot possibly show
>> an experiment to defend your own position, let alone a textbook or a
>> peer-reviewed article... which is not at all surprising, considering
>> that you have zero evidence to offer to us, the great unwashed masses...
>> you got nuttin', nuttin' at all...
>> 
>> Obviously, to offer your own YouTube videos isn't even close to being
>> evidence.
> 
> So, Jimbo, if the evidence is so one sided why are you getting so emotional?

If you are talking to me, there are two things you should note:

1. I didn't write any of the above.

2. The only one getting emotional about anything is you because that is
the typical reaction of a delusional when the delusions are challenged.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556072

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:57:23 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:32:10 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:52:19 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > 
> > > Beliefs are irrelevant to scientific truth.
> > 
> > Well, you better look in the mirror when you say that, because all you got are your beliefs. "Beliefs", as in "faith", or "religion", or "superstition".
> > 
> > You keep pounding on everyone else to show papers or experiments that prove their point, but the reality is that you cannot possibly show an experiment to defend your own position, let alone a textbook or a peer-reviewed article... which is not at all surprising, considering that you have zero evidence to offer to us, the great unwashed masses... you got nuttin', nuttin' at all...
> > 
> > Obviously, to offer your own YouTube videos isn't even close to being evidence.
> 
> So, Jimbo, if the evidence is so one sided why are you getting so emotional?

Jimbo? WTF is Jimbo?

Yup, the evidence is clearly one sided... and it isn't your side. You have no evidence whatsoever to support almost everything you say. Plenty of evidence has been provided to you, but you choose to disregard everything put forward. 

Perhaps things should be turned around here. For example, rather than me showing you why humid air is less dense than dry air, why don't you take a stab at proving that it is? Of course, Avogadro's Gas Law, all by itself, pretty much settles the argument.

You can't do it, of course, because you are terribly wrong.

Or, prove that gaseous H2O can't exist below the boiling point of water.

You can't do it, of course, because you are terribly wrong. 

After all, it is YOU who is the physicists here, as you have mentioned ad nauseum, so it should be YOU who should provide the proofs for your very own weak and isolated claims.

You can't do it, of course, because you are terribly wrong.

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

#556068

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> > Liquid water refracts, dude.  So it seems you are making my argument for me.
>> 
>> Sure it does, and the index of refraction of liquid water is vastly 
>> different than the index of refraction of both gaseous water and air.
>> 
>> That is why using Schlieren imaging allows one to tell the difference
>> between them.
> 
> We already know what you believe.  Beliefs are irrelevant to scientific truth.

Belief has nothing to do with it.

Schlieren imaging was invented by the German physicist August Toepler in 1864
and is widely used in aeronautical engineering to photograph the flow of
air around objects.

It is also used to study convection in binary gas-liquid systems by
chemical engineers and to study various effects by ballistic engineers.

In the 150 years it has been in use the basic technique has been vastly
improved by the invention of things like adaptive optics and lasers.

That you are clueless is no surprise.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556070

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 4:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> >> > Liquid water refracts, dude.  So it seems you are making my argument for me.
> >> 
> >> Sure it does, and the index of refraction of liquid water is vastly 
> >> different than the index of refraction of both gaseous water and air.
> >> 
> >> That is why using Schlieren imaging allows one to tell the difference
> >> between them.
> > 
> > We already know what you believe.  Beliefs are irrelevant to scientific truth.
> 
> Belief has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Schlieren imaging was invented by the German physicist August Toepler in 1864
> and is widely used in aeronautical engineering to photograph the flow of
> air around objects.
> 
> It is also used to study convection in binary gas-liquid systems by
> chemical engineers and to study various effects by ballistic engineers.
> 
> In the 150 years it has been in use the basic technique has been vastly
> improved by the invention of things like adaptive optics and lasers.
> 
> That you are clueless is no surprise.

What do you think it indicates that you keep bringing up irrelevancies?

Did Toepler verify that moist air contains gaseous H2O, or did he just assume it?  How do you know?  

What do you think it indicates that you keep making the same mistake over and over again.  

  

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

#556082

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 4:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > 
>> >> > Liquid water refracts, dude.  So it seems you are making my argument for me.
>> >> 
>> >> Sure it does, and the index of refraction of liquid water is vastly 
>> >> different than the index of refraction of both gaseous water and air.
>> >> 
>> >> That is why using Schlieren imaging allows one to tell the difference
>> >> between them.
>> > 
>> > We already know what you believe.  Beliefs are irrelevant to scientific truth.
>> 
>> Belief has nothing to do with it.
>> 
>> Schlieren imaging was invented by the German physicist August Toepler in 1864
>> and is widely used in aeronautical engineering to photograph the flow of
>> air around objects.
>> 
>> It is also used to study convection in binary gas-liquid systems by
>> chemical engineers and to study various effects by ballistic engineers.
>> 
>> In the 150 years it has been in use the basic technique has been vastly
>> improved by the invention of things like adaptive optics and lasers.
>> 
>> That you are clueless is no surprise.
> 
> What do you think it indicates that you keep bringing up irrelevancies?

The only irrelevancies are yours.

> Did Toepler verify that moist air contains gaseous H2O, or did he just
> assume it?  How do you know?  

And here is yet another of your irrelevancies.

It is irrelevant whether or not Toepler used his invention to verify
that moist air contains gaseous H2O as thousand of people in the
150 years since his invention have used his invention to do so.

In your massive delusion, you are assuming everyone else is fixated
about gaseous H2O as you are; Toepler was concerned about many other things.

> What do you think it indicates that you keep making the same mistake
> over and over again.  

My only mistake is to attempt to talk rationally to a delusional individual.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557063

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> It is irrelevant whether or not Toepler used his invention to verify
> that moist air contains gaseous H2O as thousand of people in the
> 150 years since his invention have used his invention to do so.

Surreal.  

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

#557076

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> It is irrelevant whether or not Toepler used his invention to verify
>> that moist air contains gaseous H2O as thousand of people in the
>> 150 years since his invention have used his invention to do so.
> 
> Surreal.  

Delusional.

I suppose you also believe that after inventing the Peacemaker, Sam Colt
immediately ran out and jumped on his horse to fight indians.



-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557078

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:31:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> >> It is irrelevant whether or not Toepler used his invention to verify
> >> that moist air contains gaseous H2O as thousand of people in the
> >> 150 years since his invention have used his invention to do so.
> > 
> > Surreal.  
> 
> Delusional.
> 
> I suppose you also believe that after inventing the Peacemaker, Sam Colt
> immediately ran out and jumped on his horse to fight indians.

Desperation.

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

#557087

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:31:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > 
>> >> It is irrelevant whether or not Toepler used his invention to verify
>> >> that moist air contains gaseous H2O as thousand of people in the
>> >> 150 years since his invention have used his invention to do so.
>> > 
>> > Surreal.  
>> 
>> Delusional.
>> 
>> I suppose you also believe that after inventing the Peacemaker, Sam Colt
>> immediately ran out and jumped on his horse to fight indians.
> 
> Desperation.

Still delusional.

Toepler was interested in fluid flow and shock waves; trivial stuff
like humidity and convection had already been figured out.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557111

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:31:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> It is irrelevant whether or not Toepler used his invention to verify
> >> >> that moist air contains gaseous H2O as thousand of people in the
> >> >> 150 years since his invention have used his invention to do so.
> >> > 
> >> > Surreal.  
> >> 
> >> Delusional.
> >> 
> >> I suppose you also believe that after inventing the Peacemaker, Sam Colt
> >> immediately ran out and jumped on his horse to fight indians.
> > 
> > Desperation.
> 
> Still delusional.
> 
> Toepler was interested in fluid flow and shock waves; trivial stuff
> like humidity and convection had already been figured out.

Idiot.

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web