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

Groups > sci.physics > #565625 > unrolled thread

Where did I go wrong?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Where did I go wrong? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 17:56 -0700
    Re: Where did I go wrong? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-26 06:20 +0100
      Kook melter give me lessons to use on HVAC benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 02:06 -0400
      Re: Where did I go wrong? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 13:40 -0700
        Re: Where did I go wrong? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-07 08:52 +0200
    Re: Where did I go wrong? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-26 18:07 +0000
    Re: Where did I go wrong? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 14:06 -0700
      Re: Where did I go wrong? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 19:47 -0700

#565625 — Where did I go wrong?

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: 
One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this misconception for 25 years now.  So I've had a lot more time to reconcile all the anecdotal evidence that you all keep tripping over.   

Let's say, for purposes of argument, that I am wrong.  Where did I go wrong?  I can think of only one thing, that I had miscalculated the effect of air molecules on water clusters/droplets.  Do air molecules in the atmosphere--in contrast to what I am assuming--possess some ability to break up water clusters/droplets and force them to remain gaseous at ambient temps?  If such a force does exist nobody as of yet has been able to describe it.   

Any testing of this notion would be very difficult because there is no simple or straightforward way to detect water being monomolecular.   

There is a way to verify it through application of gas laws utilizing extremely sensitive scales.  But the problem here is that gas laws are complex and humans are simple; when presented with complex proof humans almost always fall back on simple anecdote.  And that doesn't even get to the political problems one would face even if they did prove it.  Even if a famous scientist took up the cause they would find themselves at odds with the industrial complex of major scientific institutions, like meteorology and climatology.  Because any such proof would show that all of their models are the nonsense that they actually are.  There would be a lot of mud on a lot of faces.  And so, any known scientists who did take up the cause would be putting their career in jeopardy.  They would be labeled the king of all science deniers, and that would just be the beginning of an endless onslaught of character assassination from the likes of Al Gore and other self-righteous science evangelist, many of whom have a lot more money than Al Gore, like Bill Gates for example. 

So, it could be done.  But it wouldn't be simple.  It wouldn't be cheap.  And it wouldn't be fun. 

25 years 
https://youtu.be/C6GZEn7N7Ss?t=5m42s 

Can air maintain H2O as a gas at ambient temps? 
https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk?t=3m2s 

How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU 

My channel 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1ALfDP7sGkeIEBjkMQ 

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

Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4 

H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ 

How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU 

Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss 

Convection Versus Plasma 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk 

Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo 

Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#565674

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:112c0eaf-d725-4eb1-a2ff-f777e953893e@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> Where did I go wrong?

Step 1) One must be smart enough and sane enough to acknowledge and
accept reality prior to attempting to model reality.

<snicker>

Remember, you've admitted your "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist,
Jim.

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim 
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls. And 
without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your "boundaries and 
structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma" forms which 
drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory" just came 
crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build your 
"theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and suppositions, 
James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap 
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong. 
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or 
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

Thanks for playing, but you lose.

That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

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

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

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 claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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 in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially 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?

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

#565689 — Kook melter give me lessons to use on HVAC

On 03/26/2016 01:20 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

> Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
> patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
> You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
> understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
>
> Thanks for playing, but you lose.

Listen to this wordsmithing!
"You're too ignorant, insane, and uneducated to acknowledge reality, let 
alone model it!"

Wow does that fit you to a TEE, Hardblow!

When it comes to melting kooks like you I'm a fast learner!

Melt Kooker Melt! <snicker>

Thanks for playing but you lose.


-- 


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

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

#568392

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 10:31:26 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:112c0eaf-d725-4eb1-a2ff-f777e953893e@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > Where did I go wrong?
> 
> Step 1) One must be smart enough and sane enough to acknowledge and
> accept reality prior to attempting to model reality.
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> Remember, you've admitted your "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist,
> Jim.
> 
> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
> ========================================================
> > Retracted:
> > Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> > the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> > bonds with adjoining water molecules.
> ========================================================
> 
> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
> ========================================================
> > In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> > Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> > droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> > these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> > reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> > structural integrity. It is important to note that
> > without the concept that is the subject of this post
> > (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> > Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> > would not be possible.
> ========================================================
> 
> Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim 
> (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls. And 
> without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your "boundaries and 
> structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma" forms which 
> drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory" just came 
> crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build your 
> "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and suppositions, 
> James.
> 
> Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap 
> patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong. 
> You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or 
> understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
> 
> Thanks for playing, but you lose.
> 
> That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL
> 
> -- 
> 
> Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
> which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
> inherent in your "theory":
> 
> ============================================================
> Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
> spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
> You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
> Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
> water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
> thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
> *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
> 
> You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
> water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
> atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
> from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
> if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
> energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
> your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
> with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
> created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
> destroys your theory, James.
> 
> According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
> distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
> electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
> energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
> attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
> electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
> that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
> attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
> violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
> 
> How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
> away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
> detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
> touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
> tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
> types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
> sky" sentient, James?
> 
> Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
> troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
> Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
> tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
> way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
> 
> If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
> inside the jet stream so smooth, James?

Because it is very big.

 Have you never ridden in an
> airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
> jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
> back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
> shreds, Jim?
> 
> Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
> tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
> mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
> which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
> ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
> claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
> hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
> which would make air travel deadly.
> 
> 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 claiming that convection doesn't exist
> means you're further claiming 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
> differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
> less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
> giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
> appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?
> 
> 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 in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
> semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
> dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
> preferentially 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?

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

#568500

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in 
<news:8a7f20f9-4458-41c9-87d6-b7153a664ae1@googlegroups.com> did 
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 10:31:26 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
>> inside the jet stream so smooth, James?

> Because it is very big.

Define "very big", James. Or did you not realize they're usually only 
a few hundred miles wide, and a maximum of three miles deep.

More questions, TornadoTard... how does a *vortex* sustain itself with 
an elliptic cylinder cross-section with such a highly skewed 
height:width ratio? Wouldn't it be round to minimize turbulence and 
thus air friciton?

And why can planes fly in and out of the jet streams without getting 
ripped to shreds, if the jet streams are vortexes, James?

And wouldn't the planes be pushed *up* when exiting one side of the 
jet stream, and *down* when exiting the other side, and vice versa for 
entering the jet stream, which we know doesn't happen, James?

And just how slow do you purport your "giant sentient tornado monster 
in the jet stream" to be turning, and still have the power to stretch 
its noodly appendages thousands of miles through the troposphere to 
touch down tornadoes, avoiding detection, avoiding aircraft, somehow 
knowing to only touch down from the rearward edge of cumulonimbus 
clouds, avoiding all other clouds, and avoiding touching down 
tornadoes if the air or water beneath that cumulonimbus cloud was 
colder than the air above, James?

James? Hey, where are you running away to again, Tardnado?

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, 
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions 
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions 
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant 
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a 
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating 
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself 
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? 
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and 
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a 
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a 
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. 
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was 
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase 
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, 
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby 
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from 
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the 
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come 
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" 
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport 
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates 
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin 
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've 
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly 
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's 
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction 
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and 
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually 
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with 
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an 
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher 
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic 
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the 
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, 
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic 
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just 
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even 
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli 
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, 
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is 
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling 
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded 
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's 
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* 
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have 
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same 
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron 
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of 
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that 
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and 
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not 
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

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

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the 
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, 
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant 
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that 
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient 
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't 
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is 
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory 
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your 
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your 
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, 
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, 
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being 
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as 
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in 
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of 
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out 
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been 
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class 
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", 
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, 
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was 
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then 
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while 
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an 
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient 
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its 
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to 
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the 
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the 
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon 
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the 
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you 
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially 
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, 
which would make air travel deadly.

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 claiming that convection doesn't exist 
means you're further claiming 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 that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? 
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their 
surface area as you claim?

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 in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a 
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and 
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will 
preferentially 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 are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#565782

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

> Where did I go wrong?
 
In not seaking help for your delusions when they first began to manifest.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#565992

not too long ago, we used to think that
space was filled with atomic hydrogen ions; then,
when it was seen that dimers have no dipole,
they used Raman spectorscopy (or, what ever,
to see that 19/20 of space was dihydrogenic

> Do air molecules in the atmosphere--in contrast to what I am assuming--possess some ability to break up water clusters/droplets and force them to remain gaseous at ambient temps?  If such a force does exist nobody as of yet has been able to describe it.   
> 
> Any testing of this notion would be very difficult because there is no simple or straightforward way to detect water being monomolecular.   
> 
> There is a way to verify it through application of gas laws utilizing extremely sensitive scales.  But the problem here is that gas laws are complex and humans are simple; when presented with complex proof humans almost always fall back on simple anecdote.  And that doesn't even get to the political problems one would face even if they did prove it.  Even if a famous scientist took up the cause they would find themselves at odds with the industrial complex of major scientific institutions, like meteorology and climatology.  Because any such proof would show that all of their models are the nonsense that they actually are.  There would be a lot of mud on a lot of faces.  And so, any known scientists who did take up the cause would be putting their career in jeopardy.  They would be labeled the king of all science deniers, and that would just be the beginning of an endless onslaught of character assassination from the likes of Al Gore and other self-righteous science evangelist, many of whom have a lot more money than Al Gore, like Bill Gates for example. 
> 
> So, it could be done.  But it wouldn't be simple.  It wouldn't be cheap.  And it wouldn't be fun. 
> 
> 25 years 
> https://youtu.be/C6GZEn7N7Ss?t=5m42s 
> 
> Can air maintain H2O as a gas at ambient temps? 
> https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk?t=3m2s 
> 
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU 
> 
> My channel 
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1ALfDP7sGkeIEBjkMQ 
> 
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0 
> 
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4 
> 
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ 
> 
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU 
> 
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss 
> 
> Convection Versus Plasma 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk 
> 
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo 
> 
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

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

#566052

so, like, may be, that sas where you went
with your thing

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web