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

Groups > sci.physics > #560177 > unrolled thread

Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 15:17 -0800
    Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 17:24 -0600
    Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 07:38 +0100
      Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 23:04 -0800
        Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 16:37 +0100
          Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:18 -0800
            Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 20:00 +0100
              Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:19 -0800
                Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:39 +0100
                  Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 21:09 -0800
                    Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:43 +0100
                      Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 11:06 -0800
                        Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:30 +0100
                          Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 20:59 -0800
                            Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:16 +0100
                              Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:58 -0800
                                Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 07:55 +0100
                                  sum over stories noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:08 -0800
                          Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-12 15:16 +0800
                            Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:49 +0100
                              Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-13 08:16 +0000
                                Re: Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:12 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#560177 — Feynman Did Most of His Work Over Sixty Years Ago

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:24:36 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> <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.

Let's say, for purposes of argument, that you are right and I am wrong about the respective charges of the air and of the surface.  Does it really make any difference to my premise the evaporation involves clusters/droplet and not gaseous H2O?  


> 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>

So, if Feynan didn't know about H2O polarity neutralization through hydrogen bonding then its hardly a reasonable argument to refer to his thinking for why this new thinking is wrong.  Like many others, Feynman was trying to make sense of the paradoxical behavior of H2O in the atmosphere.  His explanation is pretty good for somebody that was unaware/ignorant of H2O polarity neutralization through hydrogen bonding. But it does appear that he correctly inferred that electrostatic forces in ambient air are involved, which is pretty advanced for his time.  

Feynman did most of his work over sixty years ago.  Maybe it's time for you and everybody else to stop living in the past:

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#560181

On 3/7/16 5:17 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Does it really make any difference to my premise the evaporation involves clusters/droplet and not gaseous H2O?


   Evaporation is the escape of single molecules of H2O from liquid
   water, and sublimation of single molecules of H2O from from ice.

   Droplets of water in the atmosphere can also evaporate into gas.
   I have observed many "dry rains" in my years.

   Review | Evaporation
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation

 > Evaporation is a type of vaporization of a liquid that occurs from
 > the *surface of a liquid into a gaseous phase* that is not saturated
 > with the evaporating substance. The other type of vaporization is
 > boiling, which is characterized by bubbles of saturated vapor forming
 > in the liquid phase. Steam produced in a boiler is another example of
 > evaporation occurring in a saturated vapor phase. Evaporation that
 > occurs directly from the solid phase below the melting point, as
 > commonly observed with ice at or below freezing or moth crystals
 > (napthalene or paradichlorobenzene), is called sublimation.
 >
 > On average, a fraction of the molecules in a glass of water have
 > enough heat energy to escape from the liquid. Water molecules from
 > the air enter the water in the glass, but as long as the relative
 > humidity of the air in contact is less than 100% (saturation), the
 > net transfer of water molecules will be to the air. The water in the
 > glass will be cooled by the evaporation until an equilibrium is
 > reached where the air supplies the amount of heat removed by the
 > evaporating water. In an enclosed environment the water would
 > evaporate until the air is saturated.

 > Evaporation is an essential part of the water cycle. The sun (solar
 > energy) drives evaporation of water from oceans, lakes, moisture in
 > the soil, and other sources of water. In hydrology, evaporation and
 > transpiration (which involves evaporation within plant stomata) are
 > collectively termed evapotranspiration. *Evaporation of water*
 > *occurs when the surface of the liquid is exposed, allowing*
 > *molecules to escape and form water vapor* [gas]; this vapor can
 > then rise up and form clouds. The tracking of evaporation from its
 > source on the surface of the earth, through the atmosphere as vapor
 > or clouds, and to its fate as precipitation closes the atmospheric
 > water cycle, and embodies the concept of the precipitationshed.





-- 

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]

#560269

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

James McGinn, in
<news:b4534ad8-c6e8-435e-b701-83bffc06af58@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:

>> <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.

> Let's say, for purposes of argument, that you are right and I am wrong

And I am right. And you are wrong. Because you're a moronic kooktard
with a silly little theory that doesn't reflect reality in the
slightest, and hence cannot even get past the peer-review process,
Jim.

> about the respective charges of the air and of the surface. Does
> it really make any difference to my premise the evaporation
> involves clusters/droplet and not gaseous H2O?  

It makes *such* a difference, Jim, that it utterly destroys your kooky
theory, proving that it cannot reflect reality.

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.

>> 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>

> So, if Feynan didn't know about H2O polarity neutralization through
> hydrogen bonding then its hardly a reasonable argument to refer to
> his thinking for why this new thinking is wrong.  Like many others,
> Feynman was trying to make sense of the paradoxical behavior of H2O
> in the atmosphere.  His explanation is pretty good for somebody that
> was unaware/ignorant of H2O polarity neutralization through hydrogen
> bonding. But it does appear that he correctly inferred that
> electrostatic forces in ambient air are involved, which is pretty
> advanced for his time.  

And what, pray tell, causes your purported shift in electron
probability distribution about the molecule, Jim?

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we,
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

> Feynman did most of his work over sixty years ago.  Maybe it's time
> for you and everybody else to stop living in the past:

Jim, 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]

#560270

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 10:48:16 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > So, if Feynan didn't know about H2O polarity neutralization through
> > hydrogen bonding then its hardly a reasonable argument to refer to
> > his thinking for why this new thinking is wrong.  Like many others,
> > Feynman was trying to make sense of the paradoxical behavior of H2O
> > in the atmosphere.  His explanation is pretty good for somebody that
> > was unaware/ignorant of H2O polarity neutralization through hydrogen
> > bonding. But it does appear that he correctly inferred that
> > electrostatic forces in ambient air are involved, which is pretty
> > advanced for his time.  
> 
> And what, pray tell, causes your purported shift in electron
> probability distribution about the molecule, Jim?

Pay attention to the concept of symmetry here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

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

#560331

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

James McGinn, in
<news:d82bd855-0c6f-41f1-b4e7-53778a29bf48@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 10:48:16 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> So, if Feynan didn't know about H2O polarity neutralization through
>>> hydrogen bonding then its hardly a reasonable argument to refer to
>>> his thinking for why this new thinking is wrong.  Like many others,
>>> Feynman was trying to make sense of the paradoxical behavior of H2O
>>> in the atmosphere.  His explanation is pretty good for somebody that
>>> was unaware/ignorant of H2O polarity neutralization through hydrogen
>>> bonding. But it does appear that he correctly inferred that
>>> electrostatic forces in ambient air are involved, which is pretty
>>> advanced for his time.  

>> And what, pray tell, causes your purported shift in electron
>> probability distribution about the molecule, Jim?
>> 
>> The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can
>> shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the
>> water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we,
>> Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that
>> gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge
>> has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been
>> utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me
>> $100,000 for meeting your challenge.
>> 
>> You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

> Pay attention to the concept of symmetry here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

Bwahahahaaa! Referring to your own blathering asinine nitwittery isn't
proof, Jim. You fucking kooktard.

"Plasma in the atmosphere"
"thick air"
"tornadoes... jet stream... same thing"
"this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse
ears more relatively positive"

And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL

Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are
laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron
in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL

Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is
the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you
fucking *moron*?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Holy fuck, Jim. Seek immediate professional psychiatric help, and be
sure to describe in detail your kooky theory that has led you to
become so very delusional.

But meanwhile, how about you get right on refuting all that
peer-reviewed scientific data I've provided proving your kooky theory
*wrong*:
-------------------------
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.

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we,
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

Jim, 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?

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, 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]

#560345

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:47:50 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Pay attention to the concept of symmetry here:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
> 
> Bwahahahaaa! Referring to your own blathering asinine nitwittery isn't
> proof, Jim. You fucking kooktard.
> 
> "Plasma in the atmosphere"
> "thick air"
> "tornadoes... jet stream... same thing"
> "this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse
> ears more relatively positive"
> 
> And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL

You appear to not have a substantive dispute.  

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

#560415

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

James McGinn, in
<news:a6bc1249-8a2c-40d8-9255-aa4b2c043363@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:47:50 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Bwahahahaaa! Referring to your own blathering asinine nitwittery isn't
>> proof, Jim. You fucking kooktard.
>> 
>> "Plasma in the atmosphere"
>> "thick air"
>> "tornadoes... jet stream... same thing"
>> "this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse
>> ears more relatively positive"
>> 
>> And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL

> You appear to not have a substantive dispute.

Except for all that peer-reviewed data proving your kooky discredited
conspiracy theory *wrong*, Jim, which thus far you've found yourself
utterly unable to dispute or refute.

Here, I'll post it all again, so we can watch James McGinn the
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard snip it all out and deny
reality again... it's the best form of entertainment.

<snicker>

"Plasma in the atmosphere"
"thick air"
"tornadoes... jet stream... same thing"
"this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse
ears more relatively positive"

And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL

Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are
laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron
in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL

Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is
the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you
fucking *moron*?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Holy fuck, Jim. Seek immediate professional psychiatric help, and be
sure to describe in detail your kooky theory that has led you to
become so very delusional.

But meanwhile, how about you get right on refuting all that
peer-reviewed scientific data I've provided proving your kooky theory
*wrong*:
-------------------------
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.

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we,
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

Jim, 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?

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, 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]

#560423

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > You appear to not have a substantive dispute.
> 
> Except for all that peer-reviewed data 

> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is
> another easily disproved kook contention... 

That's funny.  I've mostly heard its a mystery.  

Are you going to write a paper on this?

> Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong

You've proven you are a kook

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

#560650

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

James McGinn, in
<news:148267d4-62b5-409f-a648-10e4c7b16df3@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> You appear to not have a substantive dispute.

>> Except for all that peer-reviewed data 
> 
>> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is
>> another easily disproved kook contention... 

> That's funny.  I've mostly heard its a mystery.  

It is not a "mystery", you loon. It's a well-known phenomenon. Holy
fuck, Jim, if you can't even understand the Triboelectric Effect, you
have no hope of defending your kooky conspiracy theory.

> Are you going to write a paper on this?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim. Answer the question, you evasive twit.

>> Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong

> You've proven you are a kook

Oh great, then you'll have no problem refuting all that peer-reviewed
data which utterly destroys your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim.

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

"Plasma in the atmosphere"
"thick air"
"tornadoes... jet stream... same thing"
"this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse 
ears more relatively positive"

And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL

Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are 
laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron 
in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL

Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is 
electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is 
the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you 
fucking *moron*?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Holy fuck, Jim. Seek immediate professional psychiatric help, and be 
sure to describe in detail your kooky theory that has led you to 
become so very delusional.

But meanwhile, how about you get right on refuting all that 
peer-reviewed scientific data I've provided proving your kooky theory 
*wrong*:
-------------------------
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.

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we,
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

Jim, 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?

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, 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]

#560660

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:49:34 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> It is not a "mystery", you loon. It's a well-known phenomenon. Holy
> fuck, Jim, if you can't even understand the Triboelectric Effect, 

Nope.

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

#560863

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

James McGinn, in
<news:b990ce57-1cb2-41a4-9d58-753eaa55c845@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:49:34 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> It is not a "mystery", you loon. It's a well-known phenomenon. Holy
>> fuck, Jim, if you can't even understand the Triboelectric Effect, 

> Nope.

Bwahahahaa! Poor stupid James McGinn denies the Triboelectric Effect
exists... I guess all those scientists at NASA were wrong when they
created their Triboelectrification Rule.

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.

I've seen no proof from you that plasma *does* exist anywhere in our 
atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, Jim. Because you *have* no 
proof... and a large corpus of evidence that you're a blathering moron 
for even suggesting such a thing.

Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere exists so high 
above the planet's surface is because it takes a lot of energy to 
generate and sustain a plasma?

Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere has plasma is 
because at that altitude, the predominant species is hydrogen ions, 
not oxygen and nitrogen, said hydrogen ions *required* for the plasma 
to form?

Do you not understand that the atmospheric reflection and absorption 
of sunlight as it descends through the atmosphere means the 
troposphere doesn't have the solar flux *nor* the hydrogen ions 
necessary to generate plasma?

Do you not understand that clouds top out at the tropopause, and 
therefore the *only* place you can claim there exists plasma for your 
kooky conspiracy theory to work is in the troposphere?

Do you not understand that in order for any degree of water ionization 
and thus plasma from water to occur, it requires a minimum of 12 eV to 
ionize that water, Jim?

Do you not know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 
103.32 nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic 
ultraviolet light, nearly in the x-ray range.

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

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

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

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

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

<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]

#560867

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:53:05 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> Bwahahahaa! Poor stupid James McGinn denies the Triboelectric Effect
> exists... I guess all those scientists at NASA were wrong when they
> created their Triboelectrification Rule.
> 
> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma

Don't put words in my mouth you strawbaiting nitwit.  All I'm saying is the solar wind is the source of the electricity.  Hardly controversial.

> Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere exists so high 
> above the planet's surface is because it takes a lot of energy to 
> generate and sustain a plasma?

How much energy does it take to generate a slight plasma.

> Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the 
> troposphere, 

How would you prove such?

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

#561014

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

James McGinn, in
<news:fc6d2d32-9ad6-451e-8014-4f83197a6d8a@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:53:05 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Bwahahahaa! Poor stupid James McGinn denies the Triboelectric Effect
>> exists... I guess all those scientists at NASA were wrong when they
>> created their Triboelectrification Rule.
>> 
>> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma

> Don't put words in my mouth you strawbaiting nitwit.

I don't have to put words in your mouth, Jim. You're retarded enough
to blather out all your stupidity all on your own, and you don't even
feel embarrassed by having done so.

> All I'm saying is the solar wind is the source of the electr<SMACKAKOOK!>

Try reading what I write, Jim, instead of just cowardly snipping it
out. You'll find out just *how* wrong you are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snicker>

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

-- 

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

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

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

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

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

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

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

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

What a positive or negative vector is;

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

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

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

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

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

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#561021

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:40:08 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:fc6d2d32-9ad6-451e-8014-4f83197a6d8a@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:53:05 AM UTC-8,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >> Bwahahahaa! Poor stupid James McGinn denies the Triboelectric Effect
> >> exists... I guess all those scientists at NASA were wrong when they
> >> created their Triboelectrification Rule.
> >> 
> >> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma
> 
> > Don't put words in my mouth you strawbaiting nitwit.
> 
> I don't have to put words in your mouth, Jim. You're retarded enough
> to blather out all your stupidity all on your own, and you don't even
> feel embarrassed by having done so.
> 
> > All I'm saying is the solar wind is the source of the electr<SMACKAKOOK!>
> 
> Try reading what I write, Jim, 

I'll take a pass on that.

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

#561035

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

James McGinn, in
<news:0c529f19-b7c3-43c0-850c-c62adc3993ff@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:40:08 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:fc6d2d32-9ad6-451e-8014-4f83197a6d8a@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:53:05 AM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> Bwahahahaa! Poor stupid James McGinn denies the Triboelectric Effect
>>>> exists... I guess all those scientists at NASA were wrong when they
>>>> created their Triboelectrification Rule.
>>>> 
>>>> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma

>>> Don't put words in my mouth you strawbaiting nitwit.

>> I don't have to put words in your mouth, Jim. You're retarded enough
>> to blather out all your stupidity all on your own, and you don't even
>> feel embarrassed by having done so.

>>> All I'm saying is the solar wind is the source of the electr<SMACKAKOOK!>

>> Try reading what I write, Jim, 

> I'll take a pass on that.

Of course you will, Jim... because you're a delusional kook who
doesn't possess the intestinal fortitude to examine the ramifications
to your sanity due to your being proven wrong and your kooky
conspiracy theory being utterly destroyed.

Here, Jim. Run away from reality again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snicker>

-- 

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

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

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

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

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

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

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

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

What a positive or negative vector is;

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

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

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

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

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

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#561044

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:26:28 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > I'll take a pass on that.
> 
> Of course you will, Jim... 

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

So, if we just pretend that h2O is gaseous . . . 

Let's say we don't pretend, then what?

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

#561070

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James McGinn, in
<news:e0040ba2-78c0-43e1-9249-60db8689e8b0@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:26:28 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> I'll take a pass on that.

>> Of course you will, Jim... 
>> 
>> The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of 
>> the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

> So, if we just pretend that h2O is gaseous . . . 
> 
> Let's say we don't pretend, then what?

No need to pretend, Jim. I've proven via two peer reviewed studies and
scientific concepts such as:

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.

You'll continue denying reality despite my having destroyed the
primary premise for your kooky theory, Jim... that being the water in
the atmosphere is *not* plasmized due to the simple fact that no
photons of sufficient energy can reach the troposphere which *could*
plasmize water (if those photons only 3.32 nm wavelength away from
x-rays *could* reach the troposphere, life would not exist, Jim).

Denial is all you have left, Jim. Your kooky conspiracy theory is
dead.

<snicker>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snicker>

-- 

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

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

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

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

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

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

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

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

What a positive or negative vector is;

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

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

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

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

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

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#561381 — sum over stories

he (Mcdood does not compute

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

#561821

Fakey wrote:

> I don't have to put words in your mouth, Jim. You're retarded enough
> to blather out all your stupidity all on your own, and you don't even
> feel embarrassed by having done so.

Oh, the irony is strong in this one.

> Try reading what I write, Jim, instead of just cowardly snipping it
> out. You'll find out just *how* wrong you are.

What was it Sn!pe was saying yesterday?  Hmmmmnoww...

-- 
"Thus using... the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous phase
and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP."
  --Fakey rewrites thermodynamics, claiming water follows
    the Ideal Gas Law.

"The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous
phase water vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of
the criteria for using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong."
  --Fakey backpedals to "within 10% error," begging the
    question of why he claimed 5 significant digits'
    accuracy to his previous calculation.

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

#562039

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:kqf7ebptdtp00dg3id4r4e1auuu803ogtn@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

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

>> I don't have to put words in your mouth, Jim. You're retarded enough
>> to blather out all your stupidity all on your own, and you don't even
>> feel embarrassed by having done so.

> Oh, the irony is strong in this one.

Says the moron who's been repeatedly drop-kicked across Usenet for his
stupidity, as outlined in my .sig. LOL

>> Try reading what I write, Jim, instead of just cowardly snipping it
>> out. You'll find out just *how* wrong you are.

> What was it Sn!pe was saying yesterday?  Hmmmmnoww...

Let's let Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker tell us... the dB on that is
astronomical. One word from me provokes Steve Hall into a torrent of
froth.

<snicker>

-- 

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

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

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

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

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

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

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

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

What a positive or negative vector is;

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

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

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

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

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

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web