Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #558042 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-29 14:56 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-03-06 11:56 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 73 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 14:56 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:06 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 09:22 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:30 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-01 18:52 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 19:15 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 07:17 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 07:37 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:50 -0500
Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 08:22 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:45 -0500
Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 14:32 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 20:02 -0500
Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 04:58 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:30 -0500
Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 11:45 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:00 -0500
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:23 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 11:37 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:45 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 12:17 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:57 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 13:14 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 11:53 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 14:08 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 12:14 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 14:29 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 12:41 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 16:14 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 14:43 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 20:14 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 20:17 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 12:42 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 23:49 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:06 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 00:54 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 09:16 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 11:41 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 17:53 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:11 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 12:19 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 19:23 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 11:28 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:54 -0500
Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 18:36 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 21:10 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 19:59 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 05:18 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 21:56 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 06:24 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 19:49 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 20:05 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:05 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:15 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 07:31 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 19:54 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 19:45 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 20:03 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 06:47 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 06:12 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 18:51 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 11:05 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 19:22 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 11:39 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 22:08 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 14:29 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 22:46 +0000
Re: James McGinn why he is that way edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-05 13:01 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 13:50 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:28 -0600
Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:16 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:30 -0800
Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-06 11:56 -0600
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 12:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nb7ape$1a80$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #558610 |
On 3/2/2016 11:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:39:10 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >>> Electricity is, for example, necessary to >>> explain evaporation. >> >> nope. wiki for it. > > Wiki is for consensus fools. electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a clothes line, no electricty required. > >>> Only kooks think evaporation involves water turning to gaseous H2O. >> >> then how does a wet shirt dry on a clothesline ? > > I've already explained evaporation and how it is different from boiling. no, you haven't explained anything about evaporation at all. > >>> I suppose you wackjobs think the boiling point of H2O is flexible. >> >> at what pressure ? ever use a pressure cooker ? > > Other than the one on top of your head, do you have a point? answer the questions you evasive twit! > > >>> Only a moron would believe that. >> >> >> I recomend you read up on how to use common kitchen things like pressure >> cookers, and how to dry clothes. > > I suggest you find another hobby. Science isn't for you. > you live in your imagination, keep it from leaking out all over the place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 10:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <31e5edbc-acb8-4cef-9827-ae436db86337@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558621 |
> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a > clothes line, no electricty required. Prove it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 13:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nb7e3q$1gb6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #558631 |
On 3/2/2016 12:57 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a >> clothes line, no electricty required. > > Prove it. > common knowledge, I can't learn you everything, pupa. Try Listening inside to a different ascended master, the one you have now is crap. sometimes you just have to grab the the bull by the horns, and go to the library, or ask somebody. I know that is unfair suggestion, as you are confined to that institution, but ask a staff member. Ask them if clothes dry on a clothesline. if they breakout laughing at you, you know why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 11:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a259afed-7905-4909-a889-bdca54c79746@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558635 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > On 3/2/2016 12:57 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > > >> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a > >> clothes line, no electricty required. > > > > Prove it. > > > > common knowledge, How do you know it is accurate? Let's face it, you haven't an argument. You have a belief.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 14:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nb7h9q$1ncn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #558654 |
On 3/2/2016 1:53 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> On 3/2/2016 12:57 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> >>>> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a >>>> clothes line, no electricty required. >>> >>> Prove it. >>> >> >> common knowledge, > > How do you know it is accurate? wiki or google for it, or call somebody, ask anybody, ask them if clothes dry on a clothesline. seems like your common knowledge got lost along the way, or it is your personal delusion. > > Let's face it, you haven't an argument. You have a belief. > electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a clothes line, no electricty required. common knowledge, I can't learn you everything, pupa. Try Listening inside to a different ascended master, the one you have now is crap. sometimes you just have to grab the the bull by the horns, and go to the library, or ask somebody. I know that is unfair suggestion, as you are confined to that institution, but ask a staff member. Ask them if clothes dry on a clothesline. if they breakout laughing at you, you know why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 12:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8168d92f-e01d-4d9f-b05c-02cfcaa77c3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558658 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:09:36 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >>>> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a > >>>> clothes line, no electricty required. > >>> > >>> Prove it. > >>> > >> > >> common knowledge, > > > > How do you know it is accurate? > > wiki That's what I thought. > > Let's face it, you haven't an argument. You have a belief. > > > > electricity is not required for evaporation, Obviously I disagree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 14:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nb7ihn$1pvh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #558661 |
On 3/2/2016 2:14 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:09:36 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >>>>>> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a >>>>>> clothes line, no electricty required. >>>>> >>>>> Prove it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> common knowledge, >>> >>> How do you know it is accurate? >> >> wiki > > That's what I thought. > >>> Let's face it, you haven't an argument. You have a belief. >>> >> >> electricity is not required for evaporation, > > Obviously I disagree. > you must disagree, as you think there is no such thing as water gas. There is. you must disagree, as you think there is no gradual change from liquid water to water vapor. There is. you must disagree, because you think it is that way. It isn't. you must disagree, because you are delsuional. you must disagree, because you are a troll. you must disagree because you think it is a valuable discovery. it is poop.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 12:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a1ef5bc2-e77a-4165-bb39-fc7660c79113@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558665 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:30:54 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > On 3/2/2016 2:14 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:09:36 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > > > >>>>>> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a > >>>>>> clothes line, no electricty required. > >>>>> > >>>>> Prove it. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> common knowledge, > >>> > >>> How do you know it is accurate? > >> > >> wiki > > > > That's what I thought. > > > >>> Let's face it, you haven't an argument. You have a belief. > >>> > >> > >> electricity is not required for evaporation, > > > > Obviously I disagree. > > > > you must disagree, > as you think there is no such thing as water gas. There is. Is that your argument?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 16:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nb7ome$611$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #558670 |
On 3/2/2016 2:41 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:30:54 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 3/2/2016 2:14 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:09:36 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a
>>>>>>>> clothes line, no electricty required.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> common knowledge,
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know it is accurate?
>>>>
>>>> wiki
>>>
>>> That's what I thought.
>>>
>>>>> Let's face it, you haven't an argument. You have a belief.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> electricity is not required for evaporation,
>>>
>>> Obviously I disagree.
>>>
>>
>> you must disagree,
>> as you think there is no such thing as water gas. There is.
you must disagree,
as you think there is no such thing as water gas. There is.
you must disagree,
as you think there is no gradual change from liquid water to water
vapor. There is.
you must disagree,
because you think it is that way. It isn't.
you must disagree,
because you are delsuional.
you must disagree,
because you are a troll.
you must disagree
because you think it is a valuable discovery. it is poop.
>
> Is that your argument?
you agree with my statements ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 14:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58959e77-792c-4e20-af64-25227d2bf55c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558689 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 2:15:59 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > On 3/2/2016 2:41 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:30:54 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >> On 3/2/2016 2:14 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:09:36 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a > >>>>>>>> clothes line, no electricty required. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Prove it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> common knowledge, > >>>>> > >>>>> How do you know it is accurate? > >>>> > >>>> wiki > >>> > >>> That's what I thought. > >>> > >>>>> Let's face it, you haven't an argument. You have a belief. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> electricity is not required for evaporation, > >>> > >>> Obviously I disagree. > >>> > >> > >> you must disagree, > >> as you think there is no such thing as water gas. There is. > > you must disagree, > as you think there is no such thing as water gas. There is. > > you must disagree, > as you think there is no gradual change from liquid water to water > vapor. There is. > > you must disagree, > because you think it is that way. It isn't. > > you must disagree, > because you are delsuional. > > you must disagree, > because you are a troll. > > you must disagree > because you think it is a valuable discovery. it is poop. > > > > > Is that your argument? > > you agree with my statements ? You don't have an argument, do you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 20:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nb86ni$q38$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #558702 |
On 3/2/2016 4:43 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 2:15:59 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> On 3/2/2016 2:41 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:30:54 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2016 2:14 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:09:36 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a >>>>>>>>>> clothes line, no electricty required. >>>>>>>>> Prove it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> common knowledge, >>>>>>> How do you know it is accurate? >>>>>> wiki >>>>> >>>>> That's what I thought. >>>>> >>>>>>> Let's face it, you haven't an argument. You have a belief. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> electricity is not required for evaporation, >>>>> Obviously I disagree. >>>>> >>>> >>>> you must disagree, >>>> as you think there is no such thing as water gas. There is. >> >> you must disagree, >> as you think there is no such thing as water gas. There is. >> you must disagree, >> as you think there is no gradual change from liquid water to water >> vapor. There is. >> >> you must disagree, >> because you think it is that way. It isn't. >> you must disagree, >> because you are delsuional. >> >> you must disagree, >> because you are a troll. >> >> you must disagree >> because you think it is a valuable discovery. it is poop. >> >>> Is that your argument? >> >> you agree with my statements ? > > You don't have an argument, do you? > so you do agree with me ! I knew it, deep down inside you're a softy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sbujqc-nvn.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #558654 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> On 3/2/2016 12:57 PM, James McGinn wrote: >> > >> >> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a >> >> clothes line, no electricty required. >> > >> > Prove it. >> > >> >> common knowledge, > > How do you know it is accurate? Because it is repeatable. > Let's face it, you haven't an argument. You have a belief. Science is not arguements, it is repeatable experiments. You have a delusion. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 12:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <28da13b0-e545-4031-8400-7b22b61dd7ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558666 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >> On 3/2/2016 12:57 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >> > > >> >> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a > >> >> clothes line, no electricty required. > >> > > >> > Prove it. > >> > > >> > >> common knowledge, > > > > How do you know it is accurate? > > Because it is repeatable. Is that your whole argument?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 23:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dpakqc-87p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #558671 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> >> On 3/2/2016 12:57 PM, James McGinn wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a >> >> >> clothes line, no electricty required. >> >> > >> >> > Prove it. >> >> > >> >> >> >> common knowledge, >> > >> > How do you know it is accurate? >> >> Because it is repeatable. > > Is that your whole argument? Science is not about arguments, it is about repeatable experiments. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 16:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <407dfb11-08bb-4e69-a6fb-e2a8fa0ba1b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558729 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >> >> On 3/2/2016 12:57 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a > >> >> >> clothes line, no electricty required. > >> >> > > >> >> > Prove it. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> common knowledge, > >> > > >> > How do you know it is accurate? > >> > >> Because it is repeatable. > > > > Is that your whole argument? > > Science is not about arguments, it is about repeatable experiments. You have neither.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 00:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjekqc-ijp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #558733 |
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> >> >> On 3/2/2016 12:57 PM, James McGinn wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a >> >> >> >> clothes line, no electricty required. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Prove it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> common knowledge, >> >> > >> >> > How do you know it is accurate? >> >> >> >> Because it is repeatable. >> > >> > Is that your whole argument? >> >> Science is not about arguments, it is about repeatable experiments. > > You have neither. In front of me, no, in every physics and chemistry book in existence, yes. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 09:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbk5vj$1boa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #558733 |
On 3/2/2016 6:06 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2016 12:57 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> electricity is not required for evaporation, that is silly. Use a >>>>>>>> clothes line, no electricty required. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Prove it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> common knowledge, >>>>> >>>>> How do you know it is accurate? >>>> >>>> Because it is repeatable. >>> >>> Is that your whole argument? >> >> Science is not about arguments, it is about repeatable experiments. > > You have neither. > you have neither, Mcginn, all you ever had was airy-fairy verbiage from the Comatose New Age Spaced Kadets (CNASK).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 11:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <h9mdnf69j-tAuErLnZ2dnUU7-fUAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #558604 |
On 3/2/16 11:23 AM, James McGinn wrote: > I suppose you wackjobs think the boiling point of H2O is flexible. Water Altitude Boiling Point Calculator > http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2oboilcalc.html > At a barometric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury (standard > pressure at sea level) water boils at about 212.0°F [1]. These are > the default values in our calculator. Change the barometric pressure > to the value appropriate for your area and click on Calculate. The > boiling point of water will be shown as a result. You may enter data > in any of the fields and conversions will be made. The actual > calculations are done on feet and inches of mercury. It should be > noted that the only actual factor that is truly involved in the > variance of boiling water is the pressure. Altitude is given as an > alternative where and when pressure information is not available. Have fun with you boils, James. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8uljqc-o1n.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #558604 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:15:23 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote: >> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:57:17 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> > I believe James delusional world is very similar to the belief systems >> > that many New Age'ers and their "Ascended Masters". >> >> You're close. He's one of those "Electric Universe" whackos: > > I do like some of what Electric Universe has to say. LIkely because it is just as crazy as you are. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 10:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa636fe9-cc18-452f-8a90-327afa46a331@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558614 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:01:07 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:15:23 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > >> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:57:17 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >> > I believe James delusional world is very similar to the belief systems > >> > that many New Age'ers and their "Ascended Masters". > >> > >> You're close. He's one of those "Electric Universe" whackos: > > > > I do like some of what Electric Universe has to say. > > LIkely because it is just as crazy as you are. Braindead simpleton Duhhhr!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web