Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #559812 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-06 11:14 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-07 10:58 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 135 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 11:14 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-06 13:25 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 11:50 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 00:57 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 16:27 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-06 19:40 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 03:52 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 20:52 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:13 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:11 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 17:45 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:35 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 20:14 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:37 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 17:30 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:55 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 22:18 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 08:15 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 05:36 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:34 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 18:01 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 10:04 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 17:39 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 09:30 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:54 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 21:22 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:11 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 04:09 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:12 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 20:23 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 20:21 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:23 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:59 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 17:59 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:21 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:19 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:55 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 21:58 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 10:07 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:17 +0100
pretty clouds in cOOl shapes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:04 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-03-09 08:43 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:30 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 23:26 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:53 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:56 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 09:04 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:28 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 02:34 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I "\"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> - 2016-03-08 13:47 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 03:33 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:05 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-09 05:39 -0700
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 22:44 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 08:51 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 17:21 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 02:03 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 10:13 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 18:17 +0000
Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 15:50 -0500
Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:24 -0800
Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:28 -0500
Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:37 -0800
Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:39 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I "\"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> - 2016-03-09 12:36 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 02:06 +0800
HOH is lighter than OO and NN noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 12:28 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 12:57 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 12:59 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:04 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:20 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:24 -0800
two molecules of HOH is not lighter than OO and NN noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:01 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 17:46 -0600
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 16:03 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 19:19 -0600
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:50 +0100
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 22:03 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 08:26 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 00:25 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-07 08:39 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 00:46 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 18:12 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water "\"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> - 2016-03-07 12:27 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 10:09 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 14:33 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:18 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 21:49 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 09:03 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 00:57 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 00:30 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 17:29 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:50 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:59 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water "\"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> - 2016-03-09 00:14 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:18 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-09 23:43 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water "\"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> - 2016-03-09 18:58 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 04:43 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water "\"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> - 2016-03-09 23:53 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 09:44 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:26 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 17:59 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:03 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 08:29 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 07:48 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:54 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-13 08:20 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:27 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 21:25 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-08 23:45 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Ty Foyd <death@spank.666> - 2016-03-07 05:27 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 08:25 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 10:54 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 05:15 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 17:03 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-07 17:35 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 17:56 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:40 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 22:05 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-07 20:08 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 17:56 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-07 20:58 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 18:27 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-07 21:30 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 18:34 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 10:05 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 17:18 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 19:49 +1100
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 01:04 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 21:34 +1100
Re: Clouds are made of water Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:04 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:12 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:44 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 10:58 -0600
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 11:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Clouds are made of water |
| Message-ID | <7f7ff1a0-9008-487d-bad9-3906d667eab7@googlegroups.com> |
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/why-the-science-of-clouds-is-still-cloudy/#more-26033 Clouds are made of water. Current models of water maintain over 60 anomalies. That is 60 as in a six with a zero behind it. That is 5 to 10 times more anomalies than any other substance. Obviously if the current models fail to account for the behavior of H2O then it's not likely we are going to get a handle on clouds any time soon. There is a silver lining, however: https://zenodo.org/record/37224 or https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 13:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbi070$16mc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #559812 |
On 3/6/2016 1:14 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > Clouds are made of water. But water is heavier than air. Your clouds cannot stay up, except by your magic imaginary plasma. Clouds are not water balloons. Clouds are made of almost all air and a very little moisture, specific answer requires temperature, pressure, and moles of water or g/m^3 water. How did the water get up there ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 11:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <48d4d930-a551-464c-84c1-42d960c9e264@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559813 |
On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 11:25:26 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > On 3/6/2016 1:14 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > Clouds are made of water. > > But water is heavier than air. Your clouds cannot stay up, except by > your magic imaginary plasma. > > Clouds are not water balloons. > > Clouds are made of almost all air and a very little moisture, specific > answer requires temperature, pressure, and moles of water or g/m^3 water. > > How did the water get up there ? convection versus plasma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 00:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d0bfce9ab9680a4276be73c19082817a@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #559817 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Jim McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in <news:48d4d930-a551-464c-84c1-42d960c9e264@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 11:25:26 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> On 3/6/2016 1:14 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> Clouds are made of water. >> But water is heavier than air. Water in its gaseous phase is *lighter* than dry air, as I've proven via two different avenues. >> Your clouds cannot stay up, except by your magic imaginary plasma. >> >> Clouds are not water balloons. >> >> Clouds are made of almost all air and a very little moisture, specific >> answer requires temperature, pressure, and moles of water or g/m^3 water. >> >> How did the water get up there ? > convection versus plasma > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk You're wrong, Jim. At time 3:45, you launch into your kooky take on water molecules aggregating and *increasing* their aggregate polarity as a result... water, as does everything in the universe, seeks its *lowest* energy state. Hence liquid water is a lower energy state than gaseous phase water. That gaseous phase water has had sufficient energy added to it via thermal collisions to escape the inter-molecular hydrogen bonding, which I've already discussed: Message-ID: <59de46e56833e802ffb541f95bec654e@dizum.com> ==================================================== Thermodynamics dictates that for a system of liquid, the free energy can be lowered by trading some enthalpy for the increase in entropy. For any given temperature, this balance determines the equilibrium vapor pressure. Thus, there will always be some gaseous phase water in equilibrium (for all temperatures above ~-60 C). ==================================================== But that gaseous phase water can still exist in air at a partial pressure sufficiently high to balance the pressure resultant to random molecular collisions in water causing evaporation. Further, tornados have nothing to do with plasma, they are a heat engine, nothing more. 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? Your kooky contention has been demolished, the dictates of your challenge have not only been met but have been exceeded, utilizing scientific facts, figures, equations, diagrams and concepts long-known and admissible in a court of law. Hence, you will make good on your promise to pay $100,000 to the person who disproved your kooky theory... namely your Usenet Lord and Master... me. Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong via several different avenues, and you'll be paying me the promised $100,000 for meeting (indeed, *exceeding*) your challenge. Jim McGinn owes FNVWe $100,000. I fully intend to collect, or to hound Mr. McGinn by continuing to deconstruct his kooky theory until he is driven so insane that he'll be begging to pay me my just due in order to be rid of me. Because stupidity should be painful... and taking $100,000 straight from a moron's wallet should prove sufficiently painful for the moron. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 16:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <577130e3-1423-4c42-b698-4459cf53d053@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559853 |
On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 4:07:55 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > >>> Clouds are made of water. > > >> But water is heavier than air. > > Water in its gaseous phase is *lighter* than dry air, > > convection versus plasma > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk > > You're wrong, Jim. Prove it. > At time 3:45, you launch into your kooky take on water molecules > aggregating and *increasing* their aggregate polarity as a result... > water, as does everything in the universe, seeks its *lowest* energy > state. Hence liquid water is a lower energy state than gaseous phase > water. Polarity. > That gaseous phase water has had sufficient energy added to it > via thermal collisions to escape the inter-molecular hydrogen bonding, > which I've already discussed: Vague. Simpleminded. Pedestrian. First start by acknowledging that the high boiling point of H2O is due to its polarity. > > Message-ID: <59de46e56833e802ffb541f95bec654e@dizum.com> > ==================================================== > Thermodynamics dictates that for a system of liquid, the free energy > can be lowered by trading some enthalpy for the increase in entropy. Wrong subject. > For any given temperature, this balance determines the equilibrium > vapor pressure. Thus, there will always be some gaseous phase water in > equilibrium (for all temperatures above ~-60 C). > ==================================================== > > But that gaseous phase water can still exist in air at a partial > pressure sufficiently high to balance the pressure resultant to random > molecular collisions in water causing evaporation. Vague. > > Further, tornados have nothing to do with plasma, they are a heat > engine, nothing more. Heat engine? > Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is > another easily disproved Then do so. > Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong > via several different avenues, Obviously I disagree. So now what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 19:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbim5q$hu8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #559858 |
On 3/6/2016 6:27 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 4:07:55 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > <snip> > >> Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong >> via several different avenues, > > Obviously I disagree. > > So now what? > We give you your grade, F- you FAIL, McGinn. You have proven beyond all doubt to everyone in these newsgroups, you know nothing of Chemistry, Physics, Meteorology, nor Science. Furthermore, you are identified as complete kook, and troll, infested with airy-fairy brain patterns, and *you are prohibited* from electronic posting everywhere. Now What ? Now we can go and add even more bad book reviews to your troll book on Amazon, which it totally deserves. a good learning lesson for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 03:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9d827db4a7df03d332042e899a77030@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #559858 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in <news:577130e3-1423-4c42-b698-4459cf53d053@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 4:07:55 PM UTC-8, Friendly > Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>> Clouds are made of water. >>>> But water is heavier than air. >> Water in its gaseous phase is *lighter* than dry air, >> as I've proven. >>> convection versus plasma >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk >> You're wrong, Jim. > Prove it. I already have, via several different avenues, Jim. Why do you refuse to take your meds? You meds will help your broken brain to reconcile itself to reality. >> At time 3:45, you launch into your kooky take on water molecules >> aggregating and *increasing* their aggregate polarity as a result... >> water, as does everything in the universe, seeks its *lowest* energy >> state. Hence liquid water is a lower energy state than gaseous phase >> water. > Polarity. Exactly right. The 8+ electronegativity of the oxygen atom and the 1+ electronegativity of each hydrogen atom means water molecules usually align in liquid phase with inter-molecular hydrogen bonding... but it's a weak bond comparative to the covalent O-H bond, and can be broken via random thermal fluctuations, as I've proven. This minimizes the free energy of the system as a whole. But those random thermal fluctuations still exist, and can still break the inter-molecular hydrogen bonding to evaporate water or sublimate ice, despite your denials. Thus monatomic water can and does exist in the atmosphere, especially considering that I've already proven that water vapor also contains water in it gaseous phase, thereby proving you *wrong*. But you ran away from that proof, and now refuse to pay the $100,000 you owe me, as per your public challenge, because to be proven wrong would mean you would spiral into a deep dark suicidal depression... Dunning-Kruger sufferers feel they must always be right despite not having the technical competence to *ever* be right. And you've got D-K in spades, Jim. Take your meds. >> That gaseous phase water has had sufficient energy added to it >> via thermal collisions to escape the inter-molecular hydrogen bonding, >> which I've already discussed: > Vague. Simpleminded. Pedestrian. That is the exact scientific process by which evaporation and sublimation occurs, Jim. Are you denying that evaporation and sublimation occurs, Jim? If you hope to wear me down by your constant denials of reality and non sequiturs, you don't know me very well... I argued with the Tholenbot until it *broke*... that's why Tholen took it offline. Yeah, I out-Tholen'd the Tholenbot, had it so twisted around it was arguing with itself. <snicker> > First start by acknowledging that the high boiling point of H2O Has nothing whatsoever to do with the random thermal motion of molecules sometimes randomly imparting sufficient energy to a molecule to allow it to break the hydrogen bonds and thus evaporate or sublimate, Jim. Are you denying evaporation and sublimation, Jim? > is due to its polarity. Which has nothing to do with the fact that random thermal motion of the molecules can impart sufficient energy to a molecule such that it can break those hydrogen bonds and evaporate or sublimate, as long as the partial vapor pressure is below the equilibrium vapor pressure, Jim. To deny this fact is to deny that evaporation and sublimation can occur... is that what you're doing, Jim? A primer for you, Jim: <https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/p670/Wi04/textbook/per5.pdf> ======================================================== Evaporative Cooling We observe that a liquid in an open container will eventually disappear. This process is known as evaporation, and gives us more evidence for the motion of the molecules in the liquid. Consider the molecules just below the surface of a liquid. The fast ones are more likely to overcome the intermolecular forces and escape, while the slower molecules stay behind in the liquid. Without the fast molecules, the average molecular speed in the liquid is lower and that implies a lower temperature. The greater the rate of evaporation, the stronger this cooling effect will be. ======================================================== According to your kooky blather, Doppler-shift laser cooling of BEC would be impossible. Or did you not realize that we've come within minute fractions of a degree of absolute zero via laser-induced evaporative cooling? >> Message-ID: <59de46e56833e802ffb541f95bec654e@dizum.com> >> ==================================================== >> Thermodynamics dictates that for a system of liquid, the free energy >> can be lowered by trading some enthalpy for the increase in entropy. > Wrong subject. Exactly the *right* subject, you moron. Any liquid system attempts to reach maximum entropy, as every system does. If a system finds it energetically beneficial to trade enthalpy for an increase in entropy, it will do so. In the case of water, it does so via evaporation. In the case of ice, it does so via sublimation. Said evaporation and sublimation proving that gaseous-phase water exists in the atmosphere. Did you even graduate from high school? >> For any given temperature, this balance determines the equilibrium >> vapor pressure. Thus, there will always be some gaseous phase water in >> equilibrium (for all temperatures above ~-60 C). >> ==================================================== >> >> But that gaseous phase water can still exist in air at a partial >> pressure sufficiently high to balance the pressure resultant to random >> molecular collisions in water causing evaporation. > Vague. It is not "vague", it is scientific reality. The equations proving the same have already been presented to you, you ran away from them. Remember, you've already admitted I was right, therefore you're wrong, therefore I've met the conditions of your kooky challenge, therefore you owe me $100,000, Jim. You may pay with money or your sanity... either way is good for me. >> Further, tornados have nothing to do with plasma, they are a heat >> engine, nothing more. > Heat engine? That's exactly correct. That you don't know this proves you lack the requisite knowledge to even converse on this topic, Jim. You'd be well-advised to give up, take down your kooky blog, erase your kooky YouTube videos, and stop offering that tripe you call a book for sale. You're so far out of your depth you haven't a clue how anything works, and you're so afflicted by Dunning-Kruger that you're clue repellant. A tornado is an atmospheric heat engine driven by convective instability between a warm moist source at the ground level and the much cooler upper atmosphere sink temperature, the general temperature differential in a mature tornado thus being about 40 - 70 C. The vorticity originates from wind shear between interacting air streams in the storm system. In its initial stages, the tornado starts as horizontal vortices of air as result of warm, moist air shearing horizontally with cooler dryer air. The shear creates large horizontal rolls in the atmosphere, which tip vertically and extend a funnel down toward the ground. Once the funnel touches down at the surface, intensification occurs. The wind increases and the funnel base broadens. The source of this additional input of energy appears related to the infiltration of warm and moist surface air into the vortex as the drag of surface friction unbalances the purely tangential flow and permits a partial radial inflow of surface air. Thus, the tornado is an isentropic transformation of energy from heat into flow velocity with no real work done (save the work done on lifting of various objects from the ground), represented by the equation: V = n^1/2 c_o [1 − T/T_o]^1/2 = n^1/2 c_o [d_T/T_o]^1/2 Where: c = wave speed c_o = static wave speed T = temperaure V = flow velocity n = division of the energy of the air flow = 2/(k-1) where: k= ratio of specific heats c_p/c_v = 1.4 for air Further deriving the equation gives the relationship between flow velocity (V) and differential temperature (d_T). >> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is >> another easily disproved > Then do so. I did, it's called the Triboelectric Effect. NASA's known about it ever since the beginning of the space program, why don't you, Jim? Are you stupid, or just uneducated? >> Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong >> via several different avenues, > Obviously I disagree. > > So now what? You've already admitted I was right, Jim. And your cowardly snipping of all that data proving you're a low-information ignoramus trying desperately to argue a topic which you know next to nothing about is obvious to all. So either you pay the $100,000 you agreed to pay when your kooky theory was disproved, as it has been, or I'll take payment in the form of your sanity. Your choice. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 20:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <28d533ed-69ed-4872-bd59-863b931b3b52@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559893 |
On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > >>> convection versus plasma > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk > > >> You're wrong, Jim. > > > Prove it. > > I already have, via several different avenues, Jim. Why do you refuse > to take your meds? You meds will help your broken brain to reconcile > itself to reality. > > >> At time 3:45, you launch into your kooky take on water molecules > >> aggregating and *increasing* their aggregate polarity as a result... > >> water, as does everything in the universe, seeks its *lowest* energy > >> state. Hence liquid water is a lower energy state than gaseous phase > >> water. > > > Polarity. > > Exactly right. The 8+ electronegativity of the oxygen atom and the 1+ > electronegativity of each hydrogen atom means water molecules usually > align in liquid phase with inter-molecular hydrogen bonding... but > it's a weak bond comparative to the covalent O-H bond, I'm impressed that you've actually enumerated electronegativity. The bond is weaker than covalent. But the strength of he H bond is not constant. And that is because polarity of the H2O molecule is not constant. And that is because polarity is not simply a function of electronegativity, it is also a function of asymmetry. And H bonds restore symmetry thereby neutralizing H2O polarity in the liquid state. IOW, in the liquid state of water the molecules therein have had their polarity neutralized by H bonds. There are many implications of the quirkiness mentioned in the above paragraph. One of these implications is that H2O forms very small droplets that appear to be a gas when mixed in with air at ambient temperatures. This is what has everybody perplexed. But it isn't actually a gas. It's very small droplets that look like gas to the naked eye and that are even too small to be seen on microscope. Read this paper for more details: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ > and can be > broken via random thermal fluctuations, as I've proven. You haven't proven shit. > This minimizes > the free energy of the system as a whole. Amateurish. > But those random thermal > fluctuations still exist, and can still break the inter-molecular > hydrogen bonding to evaporate water or sublimate ice, despite your > denials. You are ignorant. It's not singular bonds. Each H2O can form two acceptor bonds on its negative Oxygen molecule. WHEN YOU BREAK ONE YOU ACTIVATE THE POLARITY MAKING THE OTHER ONE A STRONGER BOND. Evaporation is associate with breakng the first (weaker) hond. Boiling is involved with the second. That is why boiling requires such high temps and is impossible at ambient temps. Read my paper for details. You don't understand H2O. I am a expert. Trust me. > >> That gaseous phase water has had sufficient energy added to it > >> via thermal collisions to escape the inter-molecular hydrogen bonding, > >> which I've already discussed: > > > Vague. Simpleminded. Pedestrian. > > That is the exact scientific process Bullshit. It's nonsense based on the "first principles" of other molecules that don't have the peculiarities of H2O. by which evaporation and > sublimation occurs, Jim. Are you denying that evaporation and > sublimation occurs, Jim? Hell no. I'm denying that they are the same a boiling. > If you hope to wear me down by your constant denials of reality and > non sequiturs, you don't know me very well... You understand electronegativity--but what about symmetry . . . That is your shortcoming. You will either admit I am right or you will blow a fuse. (I'm leaning toward the latter.) > I argued with the > Tholenbot until it *broke*... that's why Tholen took it offline. Yeah, > I out-Tholen'd the Tholenbot, had it so twisted around it was arguing > with itself. I assure you, you have more than met your match. > > First start by acknowledging that the high boiling point of H2O > > Has nothing whatsoever Address the issue, you evasive twit. H2O does have a high boiling point, does it not? > to do with the random thermal motion of > molecules sometimes randomly imparting sufficient energy to a molecule Wrong. (Did you get this from Feynman? [If so, you misinterpreted him.]) Water has extremely high heat conductivity. IOW, its temp tends to average out aggressively. (This is a consequence of its high connectivity, sharing, usually, four bonds with four neighbors.) So the notion that there is a wide range of activity (a wide bell-curve, let's say) is mistaken. > to allow it to break the hydrogen bonds and thus evaporate or > sublimate, Jim. Are you denying evaporation and sublimation, Jim? Obviously not. I'm denying the absurd notion that it evaporation and sublimation produce gaseous H2O. > > is due to its polarity. > > Which has nothing to do with the fact that random thermal motion of > the molecules That is your little fairy tale that you, probably, got from Feynman. The high boiling point of H2O is a result of it's polarity. See my paper for details. > can impart sufficient energy to a molecule such that it > can break those hydrogen bonds and evaporate or sublimate, as long as > the partial vapor pressure is below the equilibrium vapor pressure, > Jim. To deny this fact is to deny that evaporation and sublimation can > occur... is that what you're doing, Jim? No, dumbass. I'm denying it produces gaseous H2O. Where is your evidence that it is gaseous? The fact that it is invisible to the naked eye, I presume? Right? (Answer the question you evasive jackass.) > > A primer for you, Jim: > <https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/p670/Wi04/textbook/per5.pdf> > ======================================================== > Evaporative Cooling > We observe that a liquid in an open container will eventually > disappear. It "disappears" because the droplets are smaller than a photon, not because they turn to gas. Prove me wrong. > This process is known as evaporation, and gives us more > evidence for the motion of the molecules in the liquid. Consider the > molecules just below the surface of a liquid. The fast ones There are no "fast ones." Energy achieve equilibrium very quickly in water. See my paper for details and a conceptual understanding of the molecular dynamics that explain why you have the wrong idea on this notion--a notion that was popularized by Feynman. are more > likely to overcome the intermolecular forces and escape, while the > slower molecules stay behind in the liquid. Without the fast > molecules, the average molecular speed in the liquid is lower and that > implies a lower temperature. The greater the rate of evaporation, the > stronger this cooling effect will be. > ======================================================== > > According to your kooky blather, Doppler-shift laser cooling of BEC > would be impossible. Or did you not realize that we've come within > minute fractions of a degree of absolute zero via laser-induced > evaporative cooling? > > >> Message-ID: <59de46e56833e802ffb541f95bec654e@dizum.com> > >> ==================================================== > >> Thermodynamics dictates that for a system of liquid, the free energy > >> can be lowered by trading some enthalpy for the increase in entropy. > > > Wrong subject. > > Exactly the *right* subject, you moron. Any liquid system attempts to > reach maximum entropy, as every system does. If a system finds it > energetically beneficial to trade enthalpy for an increase in entropy, Energetic enthropy is achieved almost instantly in water. So it's a non-issue. Whatever the case, you have to understand the dynamics of H bonding neutralization before you start applying thermodynamics because you will just confuse yourself into thinking you have explained what you have not. Water is deceptive, because it appears to be simple and not dissimilar from other chemicals. In reality it is very complex and unique. > it will do so. In the case of water, it does so via evaporation. In > the case of ice, it does so via sublimation. Said evaporation and > sublimation proving that gaseous-phase water exists in the atmosphere. Prove it produces gaseous H2O. Don't assume that because it is invisible that it is gaseous. > Did you even graduate from high school? > > >> For any given temperature, this balance determines the equilibrium > >> vapor pressure. Thus, there will always be some gaseous phase water in > >> equilibrium (for all temperatures above ~-60 C). > >> ==================================================== > >> > >> But that gaseous phase water can still exist in air at a partial > >> pressure sufficiently high to balance the pressure resultant to random > >> molecular collisions in water causing evaporation. > > > Vague. > > It is not "vague", it is scientific reality. The equations proving the > same have already been presented to you, No proof has been presented. Just conjecture. you ran away from them. > Remember, you've already admitted I was right, therefore you're wrong, > therefore I've met the conditions of your kooky challenge, therefore > you owe me $100,000, Jim. You may pay with money or your sanity... > either way is good for me. > > >> Further, tornados have nothing to do with plasma, they are a heat > >> engine, nothing more. > > > Heat engine? > > That's exactly correct. I'm an expert on the subject. There is no heat involved, and no engine. That you don't know this proves you lack the > requisite knowledge to even converse on this topic, Jim. You'd be > well-advised to give up, take down your kooky blog, erase your kooky > YouTube videos, and stop offering that tripe you call a book for sale. > You're so far out of your depth you haven't a clue how anything works, > and you're so afflicted by Dunning-Kruger that you're clue repellant. > > A tornado is an atmospheric heat engine driven by convective > instability between a warm moist source at the ground level and the > much cooler upper atmosphere sink temperature, the general temperature > differential in a mature tornado thus being about 40 - 70 C. The > vorticity originates from wind shear between interacting air streams > in the storm system. > > In its initial stages, the tornado starts as horizontal vortices of > air as result of warm, moist air shearing horizontally with cooler > dryer air. The shear creates large horizontal rolls in the atmosphere, > which tip vertically and extend a funnel down toward the ground. Once > the funnel touches down at the surface, intensification occurs. The > wind increases and the funnel base broadens. The source of this > additional input of energy appears related to the infiltration of warm > and moist surface air into the vortex as the drag of surface friction > unbalances the purely tangential flow and permits a partial radial > inflow of surface air. The energy of storms does not come from below, comes from above. And it does come from heat expansion, it comes from low pressure, bernoulli effect. > > Thus, the tornado is an isentropic transformation of energy from heat > into flow velocity with no real work done (save the work done on > lifting of various objects from the ground), represented by the > equation: > > V = n^1/2 c_o [1 - T/T_o]^1/2 = n^1/2 c_o [d_T/T_o]^1/2 > Where: > c = wave speed > c_o = static wave speed > T = temperaure > V = flow velocity > n = division of the energy of the air flow = 2/(k-1) > where: > k= ratio of specific heats c_p/c_v = 1.4 for air > > Further deriving the equation gives the relationship between flow > velocity (V) and differential temperature (d_T). > > >> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is > >> another easily disproved > > > Then do so. > > I did, it's called the Triboelectric Effect. NASA's known about it > ever since the beginning of the space program, why don't you, Jim? Are > you stupid, or just uneducated? Can you explain the dynamics of a heat engine pushing the jet stream into existence? > > >> Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong > >> via several different avenues, > > > Obviously I disagree. > > > > So now what? > > You've already admitted I was right, Jim. And your cowardly snipping > of all that data proving you're a low-information ignoramus trying > desperately to argue a topic which you know next to nothing about is > obvious to all. > > So either you pay the $100,000 you agreed to pay when your kooky > theory was disproved, as it has been, or I'll take payment in the form > of your sanity. > > Your choice. > > <snicker> > > -- > > Kensi the moron wrote: > ================================ > The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so > the curvature is 4*pi > ================================ > > Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the > Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. > > Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi > Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 > > Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius > of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the > units. > > The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent > upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. > > Kensi the moron was corrected: > ================================ > Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the > Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you > backpedal, LunkHead. > > You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = > (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is > independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original > "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? > ================================ > > But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't > fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend > upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's > trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant > curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral > is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry > problems. > > Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an > astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor > concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general > relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of > space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is > "science fiction" and "a howler". > > In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was > mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative > Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects > of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. > > He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is > predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive > objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the > tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby > making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, > and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes > the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. > > Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon > the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there > was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in > the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the > 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of > magnetic attraction. > > Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could > not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, > and therefore a universe which could not exist. > > Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature > than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and > Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". > > Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody > radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow > at 489 F. > > Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming > that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of > temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron > doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain > circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien > Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron > infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. > > Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the > ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed > that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven > wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of > "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral > emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how > spectral absorption and emission works. > > Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; > that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", > that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on > a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead > cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. > > Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that > CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared > atmospheric window. > > The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate > Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a > global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second > Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same > moron continues to cling to his delusions. > > Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that > global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three > peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. > > Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a > lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's > intelligent... and failing badly. > > That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that > struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 08:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <McmdncEoF5nxEUDLnZ2dnUU7-TednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #559908 |
On 3/6/16 10:52 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > polarity of the H2O molecule is not constant Explained: 5 Fun Physics Phenomena (2 involving water) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIMihpDmBpY -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 07:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a5b9a674-164c-4a15-9fb4-df45fd264f26@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559908 |
Dne pondělí 7. března 2016 5:52:10 UTC+1 Solving Tornadoes napsal(a): > You haven't proven shit. You haven't proven none of yours, making up the physics as alternative to real learning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 17:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II |
| Message-ID | <477037b2caf278107a73eb31288c84db@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #559908 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in <news:28d533ed-69ed-4872-bd59-863b931b3b52@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > not because they turn to gas. > > Prove me wrong. I just did above, Jim. Now what are you going to do? I bet you snip it all out and pretend it wasn't posted, just as you've done for all the other proof that you're a know-nothing moron suffering the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger. >> This process is known as evaporation, and gives us more >> evidence for the motion of the molecules in the liquid. Consider the >> molecules just below the surface of a liquid. The fast ones > There are no "fast ones." Energy achieve equilibrium very quickly > in water. <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> "In liquid water, thermal energy bends and stretches and sometimes breaks these hydrogen bonds." Yet again, you prove you're a know-nothing nong, Jim. Do you not understand what translational kinetic energy is, Jim? Do you not understand what the equipartition of energy theorem is, Jim? <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/water.html> "They are in ceaseless rotation and vibration in addition to the high linear speeds associated with thermal energy at ordinary temperatures. In general, molecular vibrational motion takes place on a shorter time scale than rotation, going through many cycles of vibration during a rotation period so that the bond lengths obtained from molecular rotation spectra are effective average bond lengths." > See my paper for details and a conceptual understanding of the > molecular dynamics that explain why you have the wrong idea on > this notion--a notion that was popularized by Feynman. You're wrong, Jim. You don't even know what translational kinetic energy is, you've made that apparent. And I destroyed the entire underlying premise for your kook theory above. Now what will you do, Jim? >> are more likely to overcome the intermolecular forces and escape, while >> the slower molecules stay behind in the liquid. Without the fast >> molecules, the average molecular speed in the liquid is lower and that >> implies a lower temperature. The greater the rate of evaporation, the >> stronger this cooling effect will be. >> ======================================================== >> According to your kooky blather, Doppler-shift laser cooling of BEC >> would be impossible. Or did you not realize that we've come within >> minute fractions of a degree of absolute zero via laser-induced >> evaporative cooling? <crickets> >>>> Message-ID: <59de46e56833e802ffb541f95bec654e@dizum.com> >>>> ==================================================== >>>> Thermodynamics dictates that for a system of liquid, the free energy >>>> can be lowered by trading some enthalpy for the increase in entropy. >>> Wrong subject. >> Exactly the *right* subject, you moron. Any liquid system attempts to >> reach maximum entropy, as every system does. If a system finds it >> energetically beneficial to trade enthalpy for an increase in entropy, > Energetic enthropy is achieved almost instantly in water. So it's a > non-issue. Whatever the case, you have to understand the dynamics of > H bonding neutralization before you start applying thermodynamics > because you will just confuse yourself into thinking you have > explained what you have not. Water is deceptive, because it appears > to be simple and not dissimilar from other chemicals. In reality it > is very complex and unique. FFS, Jim, if you can't even properly spell 'entropy', you certainly don't understand what it is. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't understand water, meteorology or much of anything else, Jim. Your kook theory has been ripped to shreds. You're not going to survive this. >> it will do so. In the case of water, it does so via evaporation. In >> the case of ice, it does so via sublimation. Said evaporation and >> sublimation proving that gaseous-phase water exists in the atmosphere. > Prove it produces gaseous H2O. I did above, Jim. Now what will you do? Cry? > Don't assume that because it is invisible that it is gaseous. I know that because the surface molecules have their acceptor electrons sticking out from the surface, giving a net negative surface potential, whereas air has a net positive electric potential, that evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, Jim. I proved it above. You're the kooktard who k'lames that entire clumps of water are jumping off the surface of the water. Your kooky theory has been proven wrong, Jim. >> Did you even graduate from high school? <crickets> >>>> For any given temperature, this balance determines the equilibrium >>>> vapor pressure. Thus, there will always be some gaseous phase water in >>>> equilibrium (for all temperatures above ~-60 C). >>>> ==================================================== >>>> But that gaseous phase water can still exist in air at a partial >>>> pressure sufficiently high to balance the pressure resultant to random >>>> molecular collisions in water causing evaporation. >>> Vague. >> It is not "vague", it is scientific reality. The equations proving the >> same have already been presented to you, > No proof has been presented. Just conjecture. You lying piece of shit. I presented all that proof in my prior post, you snipped it out and ran away from it. How are you going to hand-wave away my having destroyed the entire kooky premise for your entire kooky theory, though, as I did above, Jim? No plasma in the thermosphere; you don't know the difference between bond angle and symmetry nor what those meanings entail; all vapor has gaseous phase in it; boiling, evaporation and sublimation are the same process at different energy levels; you think the two H bond acceptor sites take H bonds from the same water molecule so breaking only one won't cause evaporation; you don't know that the inter-molecular H bond gets *weaker* when one of them is broken due to the much stronger covalent bonds shortening; you don't know what translational kinetic energy is; and you have no idea of how evaporation actually works, nor that it's a molecule-by-molecule process. Your kook theory is destroyed, Jim. >> you ran away from them. >> Remember, you've already admitted I was right, therefore you're wrong, >> therefore I've met the conditions of your kooky challenge, therefore >> you owe me $100,000, Jim. You may pay with money or your sanity... >> either way is good for me. >>>> Further, tornados have nothing to do with plasma, they are a heat >>>> engine, nothing more. >>> Heat engine? >> That's exactly correct. > I'm an expert on the subject. There is no heat involved, and no engine. You're a kooktard who fancies himself an expert as you prove yourself to be a kooktard, Jim. Why can't you get any studies through the peer-review process, Jim? >> That you don't know this proves you lack the >> requisite knowledge to even converse on this topic, Jim. You'd be >> well-advised to give up, take down your kooky blog, erase your kooky >> YouTube videos, and stop offering that tripe you call a book for sale. >> You're so far out of your depth you haven't a clue how anything works, >> and you're so afflicted by Dunning-Kruger that you're clue repellant. >> >> A tornado is an atmospheric heat engine driven by convective >> instability between a warm moist source at the ground level and the >> much cooler upper atmosphere sink temperature, the general temperature >> differential in a mature tornado thus being about 40 - 70 C. The >> vorticity originates from wind shear between interacting air streams >> in the storm system. >> >> In its initial stages, the tornado starts as horizontal vortices of >> air as result of warm, moist air shearing horizontally with cooler >> dryer air. The shear creates large horizontal rolls in the atmosphere, >> which tip vertically and extend a funnel down toward the ground. Once >> the funnel touches down at the surface, intensification occurs. The >> wind increases and the funnel base broadens. The source of this >> additional input of energy appears related to the infiltration of warm >> and moist surface air into the vortex as the drag of surface friction >> unbalances the purely tangential flow and permits a partial radial >> inflow of surface air. > The energy of storms does not come from below, comes from above. How is that possible, Jim, given that energy cannot flow from cooler to warmer? Are you going to deny the Laws of Thermodynamics now, Jim? > And it does come from heat expansion, it comes from low pressure, > bernoulli effect. No, Jim. The rolling starts with horizontal shearing between cold and warm air masses. That rolling turns vertical, and when it reaches the ground, the warm moist air feeds the funnel with energy, the same as a hurricane, only smaller. That's why hurricanes weaken over land or cold water, Jim. Don't you know anything? Don't you know that stratocumulus clouds in the form of rollers are merely failed tornadoes, Jim? >> Thus, the tornado is an isentropic transformation of energy from heat >> into flow velocity with no real work done (save the work done on >> lifting of various objects from the ground), represented by the >> equation: >> >> V = n^1/2 c_o [1 - T/T_o]^1/2 = n^1/2 c_o [d_T/T_o]^1/2 >> Where: >> c = wave speed >> c_o = static wave speed >> T = temperaure >> V = flow velocity >> n = division of the energy of the air flow = 2/(k-1) >> where: >> k= ratio of specific heats c_p/c_v = 1.4 for air >> >> Further deriving the equation gives the relationship between flow >> velocity (V) and differential temperature (d_T). <crickets> >>>> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is >>>> another easily disproved >>> Then do so. >> I did, it's called the Triboelectric Effect. NASA's known about it >> ever since the beginning of the space program, why don't you, Jim? Are >> you stupid, or just uneducated? > Can you explain the dynamics of a heat engine pushing the jet > stream into existence? The same underlying cause which you fail to grasp for why a warmer or wetter layer of air can sit below a cooler or dryer layer of air despite it having a higher molar volume than the air above it if both were at the same altitude... air density due to altitude. 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 0 meters elevation, 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 water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of lower-energy air molecules and thus decreasing air density), but as it rises and pressure drops, it gives off energy (due to the Ideal Gas Law) in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, which goes straight out to space unhindered. Thus it's a self-balancing system. 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 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 is affected by planetary rotation, causing the air to turn to the right (in the Northern Hemisphere). This causes a spiraling around the cold and warm air masses which induced the jet stream to begin with. 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 troposphere. 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 for condense 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 moron trying to argue a subject about which you know very little. >>>> Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong >>>> via several different avenues, >>> Obviously I disagree. >>> >>> So now what? >> You've already admitted I was right, Jim. And your cowardly snipping >> of all that data proving you're a low-information ignoramus trying >> desperately to argue a topic which you know next to nothing about is >> obvious to all. >> >> So either you pay the $100,000 you agreed to pay when your kooky >> theory was disproved, as it has been, or I'll take payment in the form >> of your sanity. >> >> Your choice. >> >> <snicker> Your theory's underlying premise has been destroyed, Jim. I've irrefutably disproved your kook theory. You'll be paying me that $100,000 now. Because a fool and his money *deserve* to be parted. <snicker> -- Cipher (aka Dave A. Howard the Coward) is an ancient mainframe Usenet bot that never got shut off. He walkered his way back into AUK after an eternity spent in an infinite loop, started clacking his dentures and bragging about what a big man he *used* to be and how we kids should get the hell off his lawn, promptly outed himself, slipped in the urine dribbling down his leg from his over-full Depends, his walker went flying, his dentures clattered to the floor, and he lay there, hearing aid squealing, stabbing an arthritic finger at his Life-Alert pendant and crying "Help, I've soiled myself and I can't get up!" as we youngsters laughed raucously at him. Don't ask him about the Port-A-Potty that drove him so bonkers that he ended up in a tight-white jacket in a rubber room in a mental institution... that wasn't Dave, man. He's blocked all that out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 09:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II |
| Message-ID | <742f9100-96cb-4b62-8b89-159df4e1b748@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560001 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 8:55:48 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > See my paper for details and a conceptual understanding of the > > molecular dynamics that explain why you have the wrong idea on > > this notion--a notion that was popularized by Feynman. > > You're wrong, Jim. It's regrettable you can't prove it. > > Don't assume that because it is invisible that it is gaseous. > > I know that Do you? Why does it seem like you don't? > because the surface molecules have their acceptor > electrons sticking out from the surface, giving a net negative surface > potential, whereas air has a net positive electric potential, It's their acceptor hydrogen atoms (not electrons), giving surface a net positive charge. The atmosphere has a net negative charge. > that > evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, Jim. Impossible. Full polarity of singular H2O molecules is too high.. > I proved it above. You proved shit. > you don't know the difference between > bond angle and symmetry You lost me. > you don't know that the inter-molecular H > bond gets *weaker* when one of them is broken due to the much stronger > covalent bonds shortening; Are you saying you do know this? How? > you don't know what translational kinetic > energy is; and you have no idea of how evaporation actually works, nor > that it's a molecule-by-molecule process. So, you have this sophisticated theory, but no evidence to back it up. Right? > > The energy of storms does not come from below, comes from above. > > How is that possible, Jim, given that energy cannot flow from cooler > to warmer? Are you going to deny the Laws of Thermodynamics now, Jim? It' kinetic energy, dumbass. > > And it does come from heat expansion, it comes from low pressure, > > bernoulli effect. > > No, Jim. The rolling starts with horizontal shearing between cold and > warm air masses. That rolling turns vertical, and when it reaches the > ground, the warm moist air feeds the funnel What is the funnel made of? What is it's molecular composition? > > Can you explain the dynamics of a heat engine pushing the jet > > stream into existence? > > The same underlying cause which you fail to grasp for why a warmer or > wetter layer of air can sit below a cooler or dryer layer of air > despite it having a higher molar volume than the air above it if both > were at the same altitude... air density due to altitude. Vague. > 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 How do you detect that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 20:14 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II |
| Message-ID | <f603d966cebf083cfc716a972d18a29a@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560013 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:742f9100-96cb-4b62-8b89-159df4e1b748@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 8:55:48 AM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> See my paper for details and a conceptual understanding of the >>> molecular dynamics that explain why you have the wrong idea on >>> this notion--a notion that was popularized by Feynman. >> You're wrong, Jim. You don't even know what translational kinetic >> energy is, you've made that apparent. And I destroyed the entire >> underlying premise for your kook theory above. Now what will you do, >> Jim? > It's regrettable you can't prove it. The only regrettable thing is that you're suffering from Dunning-Kruger so badly that you've snipped out all that proof and run away from it, whilst offering absolutely no refutation of my having utterly destroyed your kooky little theory, Jim. Because you can't. Because you're wrong. And you know it. Which is *why* you snipped out all that proof of your being wrong. You'll be forwarding that $100,000 to me, Jim. Not only did I meet and exceed one of your 'Or' condition, I met and exceeded all of them, then went on to destroy the central premise of your entire kooky theory. This doesn't end until you pay, Jim. Can you spare the years it'll take to continually run away from the fact that you're a delusional kook, Jim? Can you spare the bad reputation you'll get, being known as a reality-denying delusional moron in spite of having your stupid face rubbed in a mountain of evidence that you're a reality-denying delusional moron? <snicker> >>> Don't assume that because it is invisible that it is gaseous. >> I know that > Do you? Why does it seem like you don't? Sure I do. You're the one cowardly snipping out all the proof that you're a delusional kooktard, Jim. That scientific proof also happens to *dis*prove your kooky theory *and* prove that you're a moron who cannot grasp simple physical processes, Jim. Why are you so stupid and delusional, Jim? >> because the surface molecules have their acceptor >> electrons sticking out from the surface, giving a net negative surface >> potential, whereas air has a net positive electric potential, > It's their acceptor hydrogen atoms (not electrons), giving surface a > net positive charge. The atmosphere has a net negative charge. FFS, you moron, you've got it exactly backwards. <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594, 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight negative charge on the surface." What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964. <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz> You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim. That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions, combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be wrong. Take your meds, Jim. >> that evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, Jim. > Impossible. Full polarity of singular H2O molecules is too high.. That makes absolutely no sense, Jim. If polarity were higher, evaporation would occur at an even faster rate. We're not talking about "singular H2O molecules", Jim, we're talking about bulk water, with those acceptor sites filled by H bonds. Why are you so stupid, Jim? People far smarter than you have figured all this out long before you conceived of your kooky discredited theory, Jim. Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> ================================================= A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. ================================================= "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, meaning you owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, Jim. <snicker> >> I know that because the surface molecules have their acceptor >> electrons sticking out from the surface, giving a net negative surface >> potential, whereas air has a net positive electric potential, that >> evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, Jim. I proved it above. >> You're the kooktard who k'lames that entire clumps of water are >> jumping off the surface of the water. Your kooky theory has been >> proven wrong, Jim. > You proved shit. I proved it, Jim. You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. Now you're faced with the choice of embracing the reality that your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, or continuing to grow your insanity by denying reality. Those are the only two choices you've been given, Jim. And we all know which you'll choose, because Dunning-Kruger sufferers always choose to deny reality until their lives are destroyed, Jim. I've seen it enough times to know you'll do the same. >> you don't know the difference between bond angle and symmetry > You lost me. Exactly. Because you're a low-information moron who can't grasp reality, Jim. >> you don't know that the inter-molecular H >> bond gets *weaker* when one of them is broken due to the much stronger >> covalent bonds shortening; > Are you saying you do know this? How? Because I've proved it with third-party corroborable proof from researchers far smarter and saner than you, Jim. You snipped it out because it utterly destroys the central tenet of your kooky theory. >> you don't know what translational kinetic >> energy is; and you have no idea of how evaporation actually works, nor >> that it's a molecule-by-molecule process. > So, you have this sophisticated theory, but no evidence to back it up. Right? The peer-reviewed proof was presented, which you cowardly snipped out, Jim. Do you believe that denying reality, backpedaling, cowardly snipping and attempting to non sequitur your way through your ordeal, as you present absolutely zero proof of your own, is a good way of pulling through your nightmare unscathed, Jim? >>> The energy of storms does not come from below, comes from above. >> How is that possible, Jim, given that energy cannot flow from cooler >> to warmer? Are you going to deny the Laws of Thermodynamics now, Jim? > It' kinetic energy, dumbass. So you *are* going to deny the Laws of Thermodynamics, then. That's not very sane of you, now is it, Jim? >>> And it does come from heat expansion, it comes from low pressure, >>> bernoulli effect. >> No, Jim. The rolling starts with horizontal shearing between cold and >> warm air masses. That rolling turns vertical, and when it reaches the >> ground, the warm moist air feeds the funnel > What is the funnel made of? What is it's molecular composition? It's air and condensation, you fecking nong. WTF? Are you retarded, Jim? >>> Can you explain the dynamics of a heat engine pushing the jet >>> stream into existence? >> The same underlying cause which you fail to grasp for why a warmer or >> wetter layer of air can sit below a cooler or dryer layer of air >> despite it having a higher molar volume than the air above it if both >> were at the same altitude... air density due to altitude. > Vague. Not vague, Jim. Just not understandable to morons like you. Why can't you understand air density due to altitude, Jim? Are you stupid, or just uneducated? Which grade school level did you complete, Jim? Do you deny that air density decreases as altitude increases, Jim? >> 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 > How do you detect that? Well, Jim, for the non-morons, we can "detect" that because we know the molar weight and molar volume of water and air, and we know the underlying mechanisms for physical phenomena, and can mathematically model those phenomena. For you morons, you have to make stuff up and get laughed at because you have no way of mathematically modeling your kooky theory that isn't full of holes. But the question remains, Jim... why are you *so* moronic that you'd create a kooky theory that was so easy to utterly destroy? Another question, Jim... why can't you get your kooky theory through the peer-review process? Because it's wrong, Jim. I proved it's wrong, Jim. -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 11:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II |
| Message-ID | <57ea2c02-80dd-46ab-871b-35108d019e52@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560065 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:24:36 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 17:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II |
| Message-ID | <nbl2ub$58t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560074 |
On 3/7/2016 1:37 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:24:36 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. > why did you snip all his responce out ? it contained proof, answers, and questions Answer the questions you evasive Twerp ! you obviously snipped it out because IT PROVES *YOU ARE CRAZY*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 06:55 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II |
| Message-ID | <16ac6ab66395bebfc4da6f35c6cc9c5c@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560074 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:57ea2c02-80dd-46ab-871b-35108d019e52@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:24:36 AM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: Awww, I've done *such* a good job of utterly destroying James McGinn's kooky theory that he's now forced to snip *every* *single* *word* I wrote because it proves his kooky theory *wrong* and it proves James McGinn is a low-information uneducated oaf blathering out delusional stupidity. LOL > The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. That's exactly right, Jim... and whereas I know the limits of my genius *because* I'm a genius who continually tests and expands those limits, you blindly plumb the unfathomable depths of your infinite stupidity. <snicker> Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim? <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594, 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight negative charge on the surface." What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964. <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz> You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim. That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions, combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be wrong. Take your meds, Jim. Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> ================================================= A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. ================================================= "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, meaning you owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, Jim. <snicker> Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous water exists in the atmosphere: <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/> ========================================================= Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains controversial. ========================================================= That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding challenge, it also utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves you're a moronic kooktard, Jim. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 22:18 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II |
| Message-ID | <6395ab86-057a-4ab1-94e6-f4127ead44d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560258 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 10:05:24 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. > > That's exactly right, Jim Oki doki.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 08:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II |
| Message-ID | <3743010fad8da9fce6795e8f9149017e@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560266 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:6395ab86-057a-4ab1-94e6-f4127ead44d5@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 10:05:24 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. >> That's exactly right, Jim... and whereas I know the limits of my >> genius *because* I'm a genius who continually tests and expands those >> limits, you blindly plumb the unfathomable depths of your infinite >> stupidity. >> >> <snicker> >> >> Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that >> evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to >> nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim? >> >> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> >> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H >> group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594, >> 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions >> [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight >> negative charge on the surface." >> >> What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs >> in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The >> electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random >> thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water >> molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman >> Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964. >> >> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html> >> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz> >> >> You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've >> destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving >> that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim. >> >> That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions, >> combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be >> wrong. Take your meds, Jim. >> >> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research >> <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> >> ================================================= >> A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in >> the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number >> is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least >> one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the >> obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain >> sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, >> the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, >> and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that >> an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise >> interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent >> collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the >> liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was >> interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the >> evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation >> process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's >> cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a >> well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. >> ================================================= >> >> "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule >> process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the >> atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, >> meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been >> provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been >> utterly destroyed, meaning you owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, >> Jim. >> >> <snicker> >> >> Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous >> water exists in the atmosphere: >> <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/> >> ========================================================= >> Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum >> absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains >> controversial. >> ========================================================= >> >> That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, >> thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you >> promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding >> challenge, it also utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves >> you're a moronic kooktard, Jim. >> >> <snicker> > Oki doki. And that, folks, signals that James McGinn, "president" of the kook conspiracy theory promulgating organization "Solving Tornadoes" has accepted the fact that his Usenet Lord and Master has so destroyed his kooky little theory that he has no response. <snicker> Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less* energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical processes. You further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when an inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance" Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger) than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent bonds. You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do? Peer-reviewed evidence is evidence, Jim. Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering about, Jim? <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594, 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight negative charge on the surface." What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964. <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz> You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim. That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions, combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be wrong. Take your meds, Jim. Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> ================================================= A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. ================================================= "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, meaning you owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, Jim. <snicker> Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous water exists in the atmosphere: <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/> ========================================================= Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains controversial. ========================================================= That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves you're a moronic kooktard, Jim. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 05:36 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II |
| Message-ID | <p4hudbtru8rh6gpifgi8rmal2fc8j3qokd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #560273 |
Fakey wrote:
> You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've
> destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving
> that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim.
Translation: "Dammit Jim, i'm a slumlord, not a scientist.
I don't even know a water molecule's shape, for fucksake!
Gimme gimme da money, pleeeeeeeeease?"
--
"Water has *no* 'negative poles' "
--Fakey reveals the shocking discovery that the water
molecule is an electrical monopole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 05:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II |
| Message-ID | <2e5a0d3ca5d46feb6832224411879e66@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560508 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in <news:p4hudbtru8rh6gpifgi8rmal2fc8j3qokd@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat Again: >> You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've >> destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving >> that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim. > Translation: "Dammit Jim, i'm a slumlord, not a scientist. > I don't even know a water molecule's shape, for fucksake! > Gimme gimme da money, pleeeeeeeeease?" Awww, look at the ass-kicked retard bleating as he thread-hijacks. Shall we review your utter stupidity as regards the water molecule, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? You appear to relish getting drop-kicked across Usenet by truth and reality... likely because abuse is the only attention you can get. Moron. <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. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web