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

Groups > sci.physics > #562279 > unrolled thread

Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . .

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 01:20 -0700
    Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-14 08:47 -0500
    Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 16:34 +0100
      Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-14 20:55 -0600
      Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:52 -0700
        Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-15 14:11 -0500
        Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 05:39 +0100
          Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 21:56 -0700
            Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 07:29 +0100
          Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-16 19:28 +0000
            Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-16 15:31 -0400
            Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 04:40 +0100

#562279 — Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . .

http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39384

NOY says: 14th March 2016 at 6:21 am
Then you'll get right on doing that experiment, James. You refuse to accept any data from anyone smarter or saner than you, and you've made an extraordinary claim that latent heat doesn't exist... 

James McGinn:
Well, if it is any consolation, your reluctance to discuss the details of "latent heat" is not unique to yourself.  I've been trying tor 25 years--starting with college professors of meteorology, to whom through which I was taking classes--to find somebody that would explain the details of the convection and latent heat that, supposedly, underlie storms.  I've scoured the internet, and every bookstore I could find.  Nothing. Nada. Zilch. So don't feel that you are atypical or inadequate in that respect.  

Since you don't want to talk about your theory, maybe you wouldn't mind answering a few questions in regard to my theory:
1) Do you agree that there are boundary layers in the atmosphere?
2) Do you agree that we can characterize these boundary layers on the basis of differences in the composition of the bodies of air that lay on either side of the boundary layer?
3) Do you agree that some will be moister, some drier, some warmer, some cooler and that they can often have unique vectors (directions of flow) and velocities?
4) Do you agree that the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere would?generally be a long flat boundary?
5) Do you agree that the stratosphere would generally be cooler and drier'?
6) Do you agree that the troposphere would generally be warmer and moister?
7) Do you agree that the jet streams are generally located along this boundary between troposphere and stratosphere?

Thanks in advance for your response.  It will help me get a better understanding of what other people do and don't think about the atmosphere and storms.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#562295

On 3/14/2016 3:20 AM, James McGinn wrote:

>
> James McGinn: Well, if it is any consolation, your reluctance to
> discuss the details of "latent heat" is not unique to yourself.  I've
> been trying tor 25 years--starting with college professors of
> meteorology, to whom through which I was taking classes--

so you flunked meteorology, because you could not understand Latent 
Heat, and the rest of it.

           No worries !

You can make your own meteorology videos and put them on youtube and 
prove to everybody else that you won.

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

#562316

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

James McGinn, in
<news:805b9c1b-97b9-4d82-937a-dbef2ea6328e@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39384

> NOY says: 14th March 2016 at 6:21 am
> Then you'll get right on doing that experiment, James. You refuse to accept any data from anyone smarter or saner than you, and you've made an extraordinary claim that latent heat doesn't exist... 
> 
> James McGinn:
> Well, if it is any consolation, your reluctance to discuss the details of "latent heat" is not unique to yourself.  I've been trying tor 25 years--starting with college professors of meteorology, to whom through which I was taking classes--to find somebody that would explain the details of the convection and latent heat that, supposedly, underlie storms.  I've scoured the internet, and every bookstore I could find.  Nothing. Nada. Zilch. So don't feel that you are atypical or inadequate in that respect.  
> 
> Since you don't want to talk about your theory, maybe you wouldn't mind answering a few questions in regard to my theory:
> 1) Do you agree that there are boundary layers in the atmosphere?
> 2) Do you agree that we can characterize these boundary layers on the basis of differences in the composition of the bodies of air that lay on either side of the boundary layer?
> 3) Do you agree that some will be moister, some drier, some warmer, some cooler and that they can often have unique vectors (directions of flow) and velocities?
> 4) Do you agree that the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere would?generally be a long flat boundary?
> 5) Do you agree that the stratosphere would generally be cooler and drier'?
> 6) Do you agree that the troposphere would generally be warmer and moister?
> 7) Do you agree that the jet streams are generally located along this boundary between troposphere and stratosphere?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your response.  It will help me get a better understanding of what other people do and don't think about the atmosphere and storms.

Awww, look at James McGinn asking questions he knows to be true, then
conflating that those questions somehow support his kooky claims.

But in order for your kooky claims to be true, Jim, you would have to
be able to explain in detail, with the mathematics to model your kooky
'theory' all those questions I've been asking.

I've destroyed your kooky 'theory' using more than a half-dozen
different avenues, Jim, to which you have no defense. All you've done
is blathered non sequiturs, repeatedly asked for data which has been
confirmed again and again over centuries, conflated, backpedaled,
moved the goalposts, and employed every slimy tactic you could as
means of protecting your delusion... because your delusion is
comforting to you, Jim... you think you know better than every single
scientist studying the topic over the past 250+ years.

But which do you think is more likely...

That every single scientist studying the topic over the past 250+
years got their experiments wrong, or;

That a blathering kooktard (who has done *no* experiments; has *no*
math to model your kooky theory; who has admitted you're using
"hypothetical" (your word, Jim) constructs to get your 'theory' to
work; who has *no* corroborating experimental data, and who employs
slimy debating tactics rather than answering tough questions) is just
a blathering kooktard?

Here, Jim, take another crack at refuting scientific reality... or run
away from it, thereby admitting you know you're engaged in a hasty
retreat as means of protecting your delusion. I've left you no means
of defending your kooky 'theory', so protecting your delusion is all
you have left.

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

Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous
phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully
explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has
been utterly demolished.

You postulate the following:

1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere,
which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can
continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.

2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source
that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without
dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water
will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely
energetic laser.

3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only
atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound
water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the
*minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be
equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just
3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the
problem inherent in your contention, James.

4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except
it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than
~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to
ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the
overwhelming majority of all water is.

5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which
direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why?
Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus
convects upward.

6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air,
except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and
molar volume...

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than
humidity.

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.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not
applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the
calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in
agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even
with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same
relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and
more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der
Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and
increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the
difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der
Waals equation... notice the converging trend?

Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with
gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error
to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't
understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf.

7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding...
which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties,
and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim.
You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there
are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths:

<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's
photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
phases.

<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304>
You'll note the double peak of liquid water.

Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
====================================================
Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.
====================================================

You betcha... para and ortho-form water.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html>
====================================================
Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated
with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2),
the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess
parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are
parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a
magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three
symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three
states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state
always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7
J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1)
H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a].

When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called
para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin
state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in
this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room
temperature.

Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but
ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden
for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular
species. They can change spin state on interaction with another
particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of
these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where
the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting
to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative
amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures
(>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish
itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It
is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much
closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076].
This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of
non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or
para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two
forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186],
which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water
clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due
to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835].

The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a
significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin
interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural
rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion
[1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O,
possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than
hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that
ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150]
with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally
coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density
clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated.
Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a
strong dc electric field [2156].
====================================================

The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when
water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water
clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily
broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be
ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is
very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray
spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration
temperature and phase.

Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than
the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated
removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm
thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable 
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just 
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less 
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the 
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and 
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a 
lower temperature).
=====================================================

As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in
which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer
of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is
happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with
other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving
off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially
condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note
above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same
properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the
difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and
phase.

For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater
water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the
condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O
gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of
ice is melted.

So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the
water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because
there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two
different hydrogen bonding strengths.

Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by
scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done
utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL

<http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html>
==============================================
A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable
to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the
nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined
in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric
wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called
para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called
ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is
"forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin
isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as
collisions.
==============================================

Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and
para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen
atoms, also has two spin isomers?

<https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e>
<http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif>

In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at
low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously
converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has
implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by
this spin isomer conversion.

In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to
para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via
partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which
would cause spin isomer conversion.

Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking,
Jim...

How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
plasma, Jim?

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules
account for the different H bonding strengths which account for
evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<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 the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear 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.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#562504

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:34:49 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:


>is blathered non sequiturs, repeatedly asked for data which has been
>confirmed again and again over centuries, conflated, backpedaled,
>moved the goalposts, and employed every slimy tactic you could as
>means of protecting your delusion.

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

#562654

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:45:04 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> I've destroyed your kooky 'theory' using more than a half-dozen
> different avenues, Jim, to which you have no defense. 

Is there some reason you can't just answer my questions.  It will help me greatly.

Regards,

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

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

#562662

On 3/15/2016 1:52 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:45:04 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>> I've destroyed your kooky 'theory' using more than a half-dozen
>> different avenues, Jim, to which you have no defense.
>
> Is there some reason you can't just answer my questions.  It will help me greatly.
>
> Regards,
>
> James McG00n
> Snorting Pornadoes
>

he answered them fully => at least READ his response next time

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

#562771

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

James McGinn, in
<news:6adb4c0e-7044-4fc8-b438-2e89b0cf9b1b@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:45:04 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> I've destroyed your kooky 'theory' using more than a half-dozen
>> different avenues, Jim, to which you have no defense. 

> Is there some reason you can't just answer my questions.
> It will help me greatly.

You're projecting, James. Don't do that, it makes you look stupid.

I've explained every single concept to you, James, in detail... and in
the process I've utterly destroyed your kooky little 'theory' via more
than a half-dozen different avenues *and* met not just one but every
single one of the terms of your challenge for which you offered
$100,000.

Your refusal to accept long-known scientific fact because you're a
delusional kooktard is no one's fault but your own. Visit a mental
health professional and obtain a prescription for the necessary
psychotropic medications to ameliorate your psychological affliction.

I also note you ran away from yet another tough question, James.
They're stacking up and you're finding yourself utterly unable to
answer any of them...

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

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if 
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado 
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? 
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is 
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, 
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due 
to lack of oxygen. So your k'laming that convection doesn't exist 
means you're further k'laming that gravity does not exist, and fire 
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of 
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced 
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, 
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a 
hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of 
plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation 
energy of water are identical, and thus the water will dissociate into 
hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, 
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except 
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above 
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the 
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not 
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the 
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly 
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change 
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes 
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do 
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water 
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account 
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your 
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

-- 

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 the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear 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.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#562773

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Is there some reason you can't just answer my questions.
> > It will help me greatly.
> 
> You're projecting, James. Don't do that, it makes you look stupid.
> 
> I've explained every single concept to you, James, in detail... and in
> the process I've utterly destroyed your kooky little 'theory' via more
> than a half-dozen different avenues *and* met not just one but every
> single one of the terms of your challenge for which you offered
> $100,000.

I don't know what to tell you.  You haven't met the criteria, in my judgement.  Maybe it's a communication thing.  Maybe if you got somebody to help you explain your claim things might go better.  

But, honestly, it might be best if you just forgot about it.  

Good luck to you.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

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

#562788

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

James McGinn, in
<news:74b75e4e-f8c9-41e7-bd94-5a0c617e4084@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Is there some reason you can't just answer my questions.
>>> It will help me greatly.

>> You're projecting, James. Don't do that, it makes you look stupid.
>> 
>> I've explained every single concept to you, James, in detail... and in
>> the process I've utterly destroyed your kooky little 'theory' via more
>> than a half-dozen different avenues *and* met not just one but every
>> single one of the terms of your challenge for which you offered
>> $100,000.

> I don't know what to tell you.  You haven't met the criteria,
> in my judgement.

Oh, but I have, James.

I've not only provided the links to scientific experiments starting in
the 1700s up to today, all showing the same result, that humid air is
less dense than dry air, I did the calculations using both the Ideal
Gas Law and Avogadro's Law *and* van der Waals equation, proving the
same.

To argue otherwise, James, means you're arguing against such basics of
science as the Periodic Table of the Elements... or do you still not
understand what molar mass is, James?

Then I provided the results of two peer-reviewed studies proving that
monomer water is being evaporated, *and* I described in exquisite
detail the exact mechanism of evaporation and condensation, to include
the two spin isomers of water accounting for the two different
hydrogen bonding strengths found in liquid water, thereby destroying
your kooky claim that water molecule polarity changed upon H bonding.

Then I provided you the means by which you could either substantiate
or null your kooky claim that latent heat of evaporation doesn't
exist, as well as provided you the means by which you could educate
yourself as to how NASA and other agencies monitor latent heat of
condensation from clouds via satellite... but you've run away from all
that because you can't admit when you're wrong... a common trait
amongst insane kooktards who run off the rails.

> Maybe it's a communication thing.

No, it's that you're an insane kooktard too stupid to grasp reality
and too Dunning-Kruger afflicted to admit you're wrong, James. And
now, you're *so* butthurt over being proven wrong that you're going to
sue *science*. A kooksoot will be the perfect dunce cap to top off
your stupidity, James. LOL

> Maybe if you got somebody to help you explain your claim things
> might go better.  

You're projecting, James. It's you who has demonstrated you have
gaping chasms in your understanding of basic reality.

> But, honestly, it might be best if you just forgot about it.  

Oh, but that's not how I operate, James. You're backed into a corner,
and you *will* submit. You'll not be allowed to just slink away so you
can start your retarded blather again at a later date.

This continues until you acknowledge scientific reality, issue a
public apology to the scientific community for being such a moron, and
pay that $100,000 you've offered for meeting the terms of your
challenge to either Martin Chaplin or Anders Nilsson, two legitimate
researchers whose research I've used to utterly destroy your kooky
blather.

> Good luck to you.

Where do you think you're going, James? We're not done here by a long
shot.

You've got plenty of explaining to do...

============================================================
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if 
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado 
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel hundreds of miles away from 
the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and 
know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather 
than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is 
your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? 
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is 
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, 
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due 
to lack of oxygen. So your k'laming that convection doesn't exist 
means you're further k'laming that gravity does not exist, and fire 
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of 
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced 
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, 
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a 
hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of 
plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation 
energy of water are identical, and thus the water will dissociate into 
hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, 
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except 
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above 
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the 
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not 
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the 
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly 
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change 
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes 
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do 
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water 
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account 
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your 
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

-- 

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 the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear 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.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#562912

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 05:39:46 +0100, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus wrote:

 
> I've explained every single concept to you, James, in detail... and in
> the process I've utterly destroyed your kooky little 'theory' via more
> than a half-dozen different avenues *and* met not just one but every
> single one of the terms of your challenge for which you offered
> $100,000.
> 
> Your refusal to accept long-known scientific fact because you're a
> delusional kooktard is no one's fault but your own. Visit a mental
> health professional and obtain a prescription for the necessary
> psychotropic medications to ameliorate your psychological affliction.

And from 57375f4a05eaba5e0451b8c7bb9aed67@dizum.com:

> IOW, you're delusional, tending toward paranoia. There are psychotropic
> medications which can ameliorate your condition, Jim.

Does this count as practicing medicine without a license?

And how has FNVHe determined that James is schizophrenic, instead of 
suffering from schizotypal affective disorder?

Oh, and of course -- if FNVHe thinks James doesn't have his wits about 
him, it is unreasonable for him to try to extort that $100K out of that 
poor, sick man.

[But don't mind me -- I just like poking holes in people's (lack of) 
logic.]

-- 
 -v

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

#562913

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:28:30 -0400, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 05:39:46 +0100, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
> Emeritus wrote:
>
>
>> I've explained every single concept to you, James, in detail... and in
>> the process I've utterly destroyed your kooky little 'theory' via more
>> than a half-dozen different avenues *and* met not just one but every
>> single one of the terms of your challenge for which you offered
>> $100,000.
>>
>> Your refusal to accept long-known scientific fact because you're a
>> delusional kooktard is no one's fault but your own. Visit a mental
>> health professional and obtain a prescription for the necessary
>> psychotropic medications to ameliorate your psychological affliction.
>
> And from 57375f4a05eaba5e0451b8c7bb9aed67@dizum.com:
>
>> IOW, you're delusional, tending toward paranoia. There are psychotropic
>> medications which can ameliorate your condition, Jim.
>
> Does this count as practicing medicine without a license?
>
> And how has FNVHe determined that James is schizophrenic, instead of
> suffering from schizotypal affective disorder?
>
> Oh, and of course -- if FNVHe thinks James doesn't have his wits about
> him, it is unreasonable for him to try to extort that $100K out of that
> poor, sick man.
>
> [But don't mind me -- I just like poking holes in people's (lack of)
> logic.]
>

fakey looks like a wheel of swiss cheese.

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

-

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

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

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

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

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.  it says that you're in denial  
about the inversion of your AC legs.

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

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

on page 2:

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

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

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

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

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

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

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

compiles with:

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

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

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

using namespace std;

int main(){

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

-

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

<snicker>

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

<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">

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

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

-

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

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

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

-

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

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

-

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

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

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

(just as useful as the original!)

-

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

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

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

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016

 

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

#562999

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

vallor, in <news:dktqeuF12shU2@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 05:39:46 +0100, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> I've explained every single concept to you, James, in detail... and in
>> the process I've utterly destroyed your kooky little 'theory' via more
>> than a half-dozen different avenues *and* met not just one but every
>> single one of the terms of your challenge for which you offered
>> $100,000.
>> 
>> Your refusal to accept long-known scientific fact because you're a
>> delusional kooktard is no one's fault but your own. Visit a mental
>> health professional and obtain a prescription for the necessary
>> psychotropic medications to ameliorate your psychological affliction.

> And from 57375f4a05eaba5e0451b8c7bb9aed67@dizum.com:

>> IOW, you're delusional, tending toward paranoia. There are psychotropic
>> medications which can ameliorate your condition, Jim.

Awww, I've got the kooktard so obsessed about his Usenet Lord and
Master that he's feverishly burrowing through my posts and collating
statements... that obsessed kook likely has already built a dox file
and spent an inordinate amount of time raping Google in trying to
unmask me.

Maybe you and Shiny Tinfoil Brain can get together and count the lines
in my posts, Obsesso.

<snicker>

> Does this count as practicing medicine without a license?
> 
> And how has FNVHe determined that James is schizophrenic, instead of 
> suffering from schizotypal affective disorder?

Does this count as practicing medicine without a license? LOL

> Oh, and of course -- if FNVHe thinks James doesn't have his wits about 
> him, it is unreasonable for him to try to extort that $100K out of that 
> poor, sick man.

"extort" LOL

In order to meet the terms of James McGinn's challenge, made when he
was fully cognizant of his actions and which he has reiterated
repeatedly, only *one* term need be met. I met all of them.

And I'm not going to be the recipient of the money... it's a pittance
to me. He'll be forced to donate that money to *legitimate*
researchers of my choice... taking from the anti-science moron and
giving to legitimate researchers seems to me to be the perfect
punishment for the anti-science moron, and has a cumulative effect...
every time he thinks about that lost money, there'll be the additional
pointy stick of him having been forced to fund research into the
reality which he denies.

> [But don't mind me -- I just like poking holes in people's (lack of) 
> logic.]

Then you've failed. Again.

<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 the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear 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.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web