Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #546306 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-18 12:45 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-26 10:44 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 130 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 12:45 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-18 16:38 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 10:31 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-18 23:01 +0000
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 19:48 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 23:01 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:08 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 05:42 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 08:23 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:18 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:23 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:30 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:37 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:53 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:07 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:05 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:29 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:41 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:02 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:36 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-23 13:42 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 09:11 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" claudiusdenk@gmail.com - 2016-01-25 11:50 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:37 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:16 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 06:24 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 08:36 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 14:20 -0500
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 13:35 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 09:51 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" claudiusdenk@gmail.com - 2016-01-25 11:55 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:39 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:18 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-26 10:40 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:46 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:05 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:03 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:04 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:15 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 17:31 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 08:52 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:33 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:39 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" claudiusdenk@gmail.com - 2016-01-25 12:04 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:43 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:31 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-26 10:42 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:28 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:46 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:33 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-24 20:00 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 01:08 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 17:22 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 11:14 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-25 10:45 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-26 11:40 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 17:34 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-26 13:03 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 18:18 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-26 14:28 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:28 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 09:32 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:07 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 10:18 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:55 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 11:29 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 07:01 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 10:02 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 17:05 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 11:16 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-25 10:48 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:39 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" claudiusdenk@gmail.com - 2016-01-25 12:00 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:40 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:22 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:10 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 09:31 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:00 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 10:10 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:11 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 10:24 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:22 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-26 13:05 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 18:20 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-26 10:42 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:26 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:31 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 12:42 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:52 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-22 18:59 +0000
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:08 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 14:35 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 20:54 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-23 13:28 +0000
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:33 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 00:18 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:48 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 00:27 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-25 10:49 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Rebecca Ochsenknecht <rebeoch@stritzelhassel.net> - 2016-01-24 12:27 +0000
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 16:29 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Rebecca Ochsenknecht <rebeoch@stritzelhassel.net> - 2016-01-24 15:54 +0000
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-25 20:12 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 13:03 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:09 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 14:33 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:54 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 18:29 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:11 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 09:13 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 00:35 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 07:38 -0600
Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 04:18 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 18:09 -0500
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-19 16:44 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 19:26 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 07:41 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-23 13:41 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 19:34 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-23 16:33 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 21:36 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 04:12 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:25 -0500
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-26 14:31 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-26 04:46 +0000
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 21:53 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:31 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 21:05 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-26 10:44 -0600
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 07:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n87s92$q9i$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548168 |
On 1/25/2016 8:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:03:48 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> I've already explained that I cannot possibly look up what you believe >> to be the boiling point. >> >> What do you believe to be the boiling point? > > I believe steam tables. > And point to a steam table to show what YOU believe the boiling point of water is. And furthermore, use the same steam tables to show why YOU believe there can be no gaseous water below that boiling point. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 09:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de68f6bf-8c47-44fa-9ef8-8d4422897a30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548269 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:28:06 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/25/2016 8:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:03:48 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> I've already explained that I cannot possibly look up what you believe > >> to be the boiling point. > >> > >> What do you believe to be the boiling point? > > > > I believe steam tables. > > > > And point to a steam table to show what YOU believe the boiling point of > water is. And furthermore, use the same steam tables to show why YOU > believe there can be no gaseous water below that boiling point. I'm not interested in debating your imagination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 12:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n88clg$1s46$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548315 |
On 1/26/2016 11:32 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:28:06 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/25/2016 8:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:03:48 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>>> I've already explained that I cannot possibly look up what you believe >>>> to be the boiling point. >>>> >>>> What do you believe to be the boiling point? >>> >>> I believe steam tables. >>> >> >> And point to a steam table to show what YOU believe the boiling point of >> water is. And furthermore, use the same steam tables to show why YOU >> believe there can be no gaseous water below that boiling point. > > I'm not interested in debating your imagination. > You're not even interested in supporting your own claims with data. And so what you claim is ignorable. At least, that's what anyone with sense will do. And behold! Look at what has happened in response to your claims! -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 10:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6501b89e-4dcd-4c92-a6f6-ab45cc962da8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548322 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:07:49 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/26/2016 11:32 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:28:06 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/25/2016 8:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:03:48 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> > >>>> I've already explained that I cannot possibly look up what you believe > >>>> to be the boiling point. > >>>> > >>>> What do you believe to be the boiling point? > >>> > >>> I believe steam tables. > >>> > >> > >> And point to a steam table to show what YOU believe the boiling point of > >> water is. And furthermore, use the same steam tables to show why YOU > >> believe there can be no gaseous water below that boiling point. > > > > I'm not interested in debating your imagination. > > > > You're not even interested in supporting your own claims with data. Actually, I was just trying to demonstrate that the "data" was/is imaginary -- thank you for your participation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 12:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n88fec$15v$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548328 |
On 1/26/2016 12:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:07:49 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/26/2016 11:32 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:28:06 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/25/2016 8:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:03:48 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I've already explained that I cannot possibly look up what you believe >>>>>> to be the boiling point. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you believe to be the boiling point? >>>>> >>>>> I believe steam tables. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And point to a steam table to show what YOU believe the boiling point of >>>> water is. And furthermore, use the same steam tables to show why YOU >>>> believe there can be no gaseous water below that boiling point. >>> >>> I'm not interested in debating your imagination. >>> >> >> You're not even interested in supporting your own claims with data. > > Actually, I was just trying to demonstrate that the "data" > was/is imaginary -- thank you for your participation. > OK, so now you are saying that you are happy to make claims without support of data to back up your contentions. Fine. You'll notice that's what I've been saying from the beginning. Thanks for confirming. Anytime you want to retreat from your position of idiocy and decide when to come back in a future year.... -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 11:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <005f5e03-2558-4d18-aff6-c67bacf28c31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548338 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:55:13 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/26/2016 12:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:07:49 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/26/2016 11:32 AM, James McGinn wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:28:06 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 1/25/2016 8:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:03:48 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I've already explained that I cannot possibly look up what you believe > >>>>>> to be the boiling point. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What do you believe to be the boiling point? > >>>>> > >>>>> I believe steam tables. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> And point to a steam table to show what YOU believe the boiling point of > >>>> water is. And furthermore, use the same steam tables to show why YOU > >>>> believe there can be no gaseous water below that boiling point. > >>> > >>> I'm not interested in debating your imagination. > >>> > >> > >> You're not even interested in supporting your own claims with data. > > > > Actually, I was just trying to demonstrate that the "data" > > was/is imaginary -- thank you for your participation. > > > > OK, so now you are saying that you are happy to make claims without > support of data to back up your contentions. > > Fine. You'll notice that's what I've been saying from the beginning. > Thanks for confirming. > > Anytime you want to retreat from your position of idiocy and decide when > to come back in a future year.... > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Thank you for your participation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 07:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <28fab295-8d54-4f79-8007-434ee935f13c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548328 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:18:22 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:07:49 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 1/26/2016 11:32 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:28:06 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> On 1/25/2016 8:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > >>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:03:48 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I've already explained that I cannot possibly look up what you believe > > >>>> to be the boiling point. > > >>>> > > >>>> What do you believe to be the boiling point? > > >>> > > >>> I believe steam tables. > > >>> > > >> > > >> And point to a steam table to show what YOU believe the boiling point of > > >> water is. And furthermore, use the same steam tables to show why YOU > > >> believe there can be no gaseous water below that boiling point. > > > > > > I'm not interested in debating your imagination. > > > > > > > You're not even interested in supporting your own claims with data. > > Actually, I was just trying to demonstrate that the "data" was/is imaginary -- thank you for your participation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 10:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eeb87313-914e-49d1-99b1-f5ae45f0f8c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548322 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:07:49 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/26/2016 11:32 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:28:06 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/25/2016 8:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:03:48 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> > >>>> I've already explained that I cannot possibly look up what you believe > >>>> to be the boiling point. > >>>> > >>>> What do you believe to be the boiling point? > >>> > >>> I believe steam tables. > >>> > >> > >> And point to a steam table to show what YOU believe the boiling point of > >> water is. And furthermore, use the same steam tables to show why YOU > >> believe there can be no gaseous water below that boiling point. > > > > I'm not interested in debating your imagination. > > > > You're not even interested in supporting your own claims with data. > And so what you claim is ignorable. > At least, that's what anyone with sense will do. And behold! Look at > what has happened in response to your claims! > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 17:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n82sjt$ges$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #547207 |
Dne 22/01/2016 v 17:23 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote: > >> >> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means? >> >> At what temperature does water turn to gas? > > All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim. And not only water, but ice as well. The freezing point is the temperature, when vapour pressure is the same above both condensed phases. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 11:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3117e42d-b1eb-460f-adc6-57f1904ba85b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547791 |
On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 8:06:00 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 22/01/2016 v 17:23 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > > On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > > >> > >> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means? > >> > >> At what temperature does water turn to gas? > > > > All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim. > > And not only water, but ice as well. > > The freezing point is the temperature, > when vapour pressure is the same above both condensed phases. Vapour isn't gas. It is liquid, suspended in air. Ignorance makes arrogant men small.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 10:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n85jll$180m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547811 |
On 1/24/2016 1:16 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > Vapour isn't gas. It is liquid, suspended in air. at what pressure, and temperature ? > Ignorance makes arrogant men small. > you are already microscopic in this newsgroup, you are esad troll. you have demonstrated no real knowledge of physics or chemistry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 10:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n85j34$16n3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547791 |
On 1/24/2016 10:05 AM, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 22/01/2016 v 17:23 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): >> On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote: >> >>> >>> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means? >>> >>> At what temperature does water turn to gas? >> >> All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim. > > And not only water, but ice as well. Exactly. Which is why I asked Jim if he thought that the sublimated water ice that passes into the atmosphere at temperatures below 0 C took the form of microsnowflakes rather than gas. > > The freezing point is the temperature, > when vapour pressure is the same above both condensed phases. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | claudiusdenk@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 12:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <431a21bc-9c01-44fa-acab-c4a6fa51b556@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548016 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Exactly. Which is why I asked Jim if he thought that the sublimated > water ice that passes into the atmosphere at temperatures below 0 C took > the form of microsnowflakes rather than gas. Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always liquid, not gas. Consult steam tables.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 16:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8688m$d47$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548078 |
On 1/25/2016 2:00 PM, claudiusdenk@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Exactly. Which is why I asked Jim if he thought that the sublimated >> water ice that passes into the atmosphere at temperatures below 0 C took >> the form of microsnowflakes rather than gas. > > Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always liquid, not gas. Now, why would there be supercooled liquid drops in the air at -40 C, Jim? > Consult steam tables. You consult steam tables. Show where in steam tables it says that there is only liquid water in air at -40 C. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 15:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a11470c6-39a8-487b-9d00-2dd884d7e394@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548120 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:40:29 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always liquid, not gas. > > Now, why would there be supercooled liquid drops in the air at -40 C, Jim? > > > Consult steam tables. > > You consult steam tables. Show where in steam tables it says that there > is only liquid water in air at -40 C. LOL. So, your point is based on what the steam table doesn't say? Is that right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 07:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n87r77$o6s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548133 |
On 1/25/2016 5:22 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:40:29 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always liquid, not gas. >> >> Now, why would there be supercooled liquid drops in the air at -40 C, Jim? >> >>> Consult steam tables. >> >> You consult steam tables. Show where in steam tables it says that there >> is only liquid water in air at -40 C. > > LOL. So, your point is based on what the steam table doesn't say? Is that right? > And your claim (shared by no one but you) is that steam tables indicate that no gaseous water exists below the boiling point, even though they don't say that? Is that right? Believe what you want to believe Jim. You don't have company. You don't have data you can point to that backs you up. All you have is hubris and assorted mental problems. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 09:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2eeea9e1-91cf-443e-882b-69390d1f27e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548264 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:10:06 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/25/2016 5:22 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:40:29 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >>> Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always liquid, not gas. > >> > >> Now, why would there be supercooled liquid drops in the air at -40 C, Jim? > >> > >>> Consult steam tables. > >> > >> You consult steam tables. Show where in steam tables it says that there > >> is only liquid water in air at -40 C. > > > > LOL. So, your point is based on what the steam table doesn't say? Is that right? > > > > And your claim (shared by no one but you) is that steam tables indicate > that no gaseous water exists below the boiling point, even though they > don't say that? Is that right? > > Believe what you want to believe Jim. You don't have company. You don't > have data you can point to that backs you up. All you have is hubris and > assorted mental problems. So, you agree! You believe in imaginary data. You say let's go along with what everybody believes and ignore what the actual data says. You are a pretender that doesn't understand science. I go by the data. Call me crazy if you want. I will just call you stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 12:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n88c7m$1r68$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548313 |
On 1/26/2016 11:31 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:10:06 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/25/2016 5:22 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:40:29 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>>>> Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always liquid, not gas. >>>> >>>> Now, why would there be supercooled liquid drops in the air at -40 C, Jim? >>>> >>>>> Consult steam tables. >>>> >>>> You consult steam tables. Show where in steam tables it says that there >>>> is only liquid water in air at -40 C. >>> >>> LOL. So, your point is based on what the steam table doesn't say? Is that right? >>> >> >> And your claim (shared by no one but you) is that steam tables indicate >> that no gaseous water exists below the boiling point, even though they >> don't say that? Is that right? >> >> Believe what you want to believe Jim. You don't have company. You don't >> have data you can point to that backs you up. All you have is hubris and >> assorted mental problems. > > So, you agree! You believe in imaginary data. You say let's go along with what everybody > believes and ignore what the actual data says. You are a pretender that doesn't understand science. But Jim, you haven't presented any actual data. At all. Other people have pointed you to books that contain actual data, which you have declined to look at. You have asked for steam tables, which have been provided, but you haven't pointed out any data from any of the steam tables that support anything you say. When you actually support what you say with actual data that you actually cite, then maybe people will treat you as something other than a loon. > > I go by the data. Call me crazy if you want. I will just call you stupid. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 10:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4ba3f391-946d-4456-853a-91bc7cad41f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548319 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > But Jim, you haven't presented any actual data. I have no issue with the existing data. > At all. > Other people have pointed you to books that contain actual data, which > you have declined to look at. I'm not interested in debating your imagination. > You have asked for steam tables, which have been provided, but you > haven't pointed out any data from any of the steam tables that support > anything you say. See my answer above. > When you actually support what you say with actual data that you > actually cite, then maybe people will treat you as something other than > a loon. above. Troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 12:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n88cte$1s46$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548325 |
On 1/26/2016 12:10 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> But Jim, you haven't presented any actual data. > > I have no issue with the existing data. Of course you don't. But what you claim is not related to the data you have no issue with. That's perhaps why you don't cite the data you don't have an issue with, because it doesn't actually support your claims. > > >> At all. >> Other people have pointed you to books that contain actual data, which >> you have declined to look at. > > I'm not interested in debating your imagination. > >> You have asked for steam tables, which have been provided, but you >> haven't pointed out any data from any of the steam tables that support >> anything you say. > > See my answer above. > >> When you actually support what you say with actual data that you >> actually cite, then maybe people will treat you as something other than >> a loon. > > above. > > Troll. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web