Groups > sci.physics > #554746 > unrolled thread

Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative weight of moist air.

Started by	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
First post	2016-02-19 16:34 -0800
Last post	2016-02-21 18:31 +0000
Articles	20 on this page of 102 — 11 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →

#554805

From	Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date	2016-02-19 21:11 -0600
Message-ID	<na8lhd$1vs4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#554793

On 2/19/2016 7:56 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 5:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you think that is?
>>
>> Your delusions.

>>> I know why:
>>
>> Oh look, kook videos.
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> The only time there is plasma in the atmosphere is during a lightning
>> stroke and when crap from space burns up on entry.
>

This is not a set of babbling selfies in the yard at a mental institution.

It is the way of the new future, without that pesky math and books and 
other professors.



James McGinn the early days;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbUS4F9K8RA

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

#554828

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-20 04:40 +0000
Message-ID	<da7lpc-6r9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#554793

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 5:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Why do you think that is?
>> 
>> Your delusions.
>> 
>> > I know why:
>> 
>> Oh look, kook videos.
>> 
>> > 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
>> 
>> The only time there is plasma in the atmosphere is during a lightning
>> stroke and when crap from space burns up on entry.
> 
> Is that your argument?

Any theory about the atmosphere that includes plasma might as well
include pink polka dotted elephants.

That you are clueless why that is true says volumes about your delusions.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#554840

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-19 21:46 -0800
Message-ID	<9d8749fa-37c0-4fa9-8e0b-a420f4631b8d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#554828

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:05 PM UTC-8, 

> Any theory about the atmosphere that includes plasma might as well
> include pink polka dotted elephants.

LOL.  You are a dull-witted twit who thinks reality should conform to his simplistic expectations.

Plasma is a state of matter, pal.  Welcome to the 21st century.

> That you are clueless why that is true says volumes about your delusions.

So, your dispute isn't based on the limitations of my hypothesis but on the limitations of your comprehension.

It is regrettable that the world is full of so many simpletons like yourself.   It's a wonder science progresses at all.

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

#554853

From	Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date	2016-02-20 00:49 -0600
Message-ID	<na92b6$eas$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#554840

On 2/19/2016 11:46 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:05 PM UTC-8,
>
>> Any theory about the atmosphere that includes plasma might as well
>> include pink polka dotted elephants.
>

McGinn's turd compressed for transport to disposal site.  The dude is a 
foul mouth troll with nothing to do, and no background in science at all

LOL.Youareadull-wittedtwitwhothinksrealityshouldconformtoissimpl
sticexpectationsPlasmaisastateofmatter,pal.Welcometothe21stcentury.
ThatyouarecluelesswhythatistruesaysvolumesaboutyourdelusionsSo,yo
rdisputeisn'tbasedonthelimitationsofmyhypothesisbutonthelimitati
onsofyourcomprehension.Itisregrettablethattheworldisfullofsoman
ysimpletonslikeyourself.It'sawonderscienceprogressesatall.

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

#554899

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-20 07:05 +0000
Message-ID	<erflpc-5ma.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#554840

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:05 PM UTC-8, 
> 
>> Any theory about the atmosphere that includes plasma might as well
>> include pink polka dotted elephants.
> 
> LOL.  You are a dull-witted twit who thinks reality should conform to his simplistic expectations.
> 

Nope, reality conforms to the observations whose existence you refuse to
acknowledge.

> Plasma is a state of matter, pal.  Welcome to the 21st century.

Yep, and it seldom exists in the atmosphere.
 
>> That you are clueless why that is true says volumes about your delusions.
> 
> So, your dispute isn't based on the limitations of my hypothesis but on the limitations of your comprehension.

Nope, it is based on the insanity of your claims.

> It is regrettable that the world is full of so many simpletons like yourself.   It's a wonder science progresses at all.

Fortunately few scientists have the delusions you do.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#554796

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-19 18:01 -0800
Message-ID	<fa54d6dc-0f82-4d13-a015-288ce62e25ab@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#554786

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 5:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Why do you think that is?
> 
> Your delusions.
> 
> > I know why:
> 
> Oh look, kook videos.
> 
> > 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
> 
> The only time there is plasma in the atmosphere is during a lightning
> stroke and when crap from space burns up on entry.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

Plasma isn't a thing.  It's a phase, dumbass.

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

#554808

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2016-02-20 03:54 +0000
Message-ID	<na8o22$4mt$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#554746

>Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
>weight of moist air.

Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
believe this is very wrong.

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

#554819

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-19 20:44 -0800
Message-ID	<098c3415-0a3b-4312-b669-8a8ca0edc8a2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#554808

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:55:00 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
> >weight of moist air.
> 
> Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
> believe this is very wrong.

Well, since I was a meteorology student, I know what you saw.  

It fooled me too, at first.  (For about an hour.)

"Believers, keep on believing."
  -- Stevie Wonder

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

#554829

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-20 04:45 +0000
Message-ID	<0k7lpc-6r9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#554808

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
>>weight of moist air.
> 
> Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
> believe this is very wrong.

One hell of a lot of people have seen it done and/or have done it themselves.

Of course his delusions prevent him from accepting that.

See:

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2016/02/18
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2016/02/19



-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#554841

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-19 21:47 -0800
Message-ID	<5ed6cb4d-0d47-40f4-ab9f-b2e2b46faa05@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#554829

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
> >>weight of moist air.
> > 
> > Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
> > believe this is very wrong.
> 
> One hell of a lot of people have seen it done and/or have done it themselves.
> 
> Of course his delusions prevent him from accepting that.
> 
> See:
> 
> http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2016/02/18
> http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2016/02/19

I'm not interested in debating your imagination.

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

#554900

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-20 07:06 +0000
Message-ID	<6tflpc-5ma.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#554841

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>> >>Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
>> >>weight of moist air.
>> > 
>> > Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
>> > believe this is very wrong.
>> 
>> One hell of a lot of people have seen it done and/or have done it themselves.
>> 
>> Of course his delusions prevent him from accepting that.
>> 
>> See:
>> 
>> http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2016/02/18
>> http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2016/02/19
> 
> I'm not interested in debating your imagination.

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2016/02/18
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2016/02/19

Says it all.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#554843

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-19 21:50 -0800
Message-ID	<440a7df6-2e65-4a20-80d5-6d144a30c14e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#554829

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> One hell of a lot of people have seen it done and/or have done it themselves.

Is it more or less than have seen bigfoot?  Ghosts?  Space aliens?

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

#554901

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-20 07:09 +0000
Message-ID	<i1glpc-5ma.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#554843

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> One hell of a lot of people have seen it done and/or have done it themselves.
> 
> Is it more or less than have seen bigfoot?  Ghosts?  Space aliens?

Kook babble.

The above mentioned experiments are reproducible, can be done by anyone,
and the results are always the same.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#554918

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 07:34 -0800
Message-ID	<ecc15a8b-1e5c-40af-b68c-0dd8880529ca@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#554901

JimP
The above mentioned experiments are reproducible, can be done by anyone, 
and the results are always the same. 
---------------

This is the cornerstone of science.

It's also the reason that kooks like BJ hate science. Kook science requires that the observer BELIEVES. Otherwise the experiments don't work. 

It's like asking the audience to turn around while the magician performs his 'magic'.

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

#554846

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-19 22:05 -0800
Message-ID	<8eb76e9a-c316-42ba-9359-1132a84da5d1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#554808

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:55:00 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
> >weight of moist air.
> 
> Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
> believe this is very wrong.

So, why do you think nobody made the results of the experiment available?  Did they forget?

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

#554902

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-20 07:10 +0000
Message-ID	<p4glpc-5ma.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#554846

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:55:00 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
>> >weight of moist air.
>> 
>> Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
>> believe this is very wrong.
> 
> So, why do you think nobody made the results of the experiment available?  Did they forget?  

Kook babble.

The experiments can be done by anyone and the results are always the same.

But no, high school science classes don't generally publish the results
of common experiments.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555191

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2016-02-21 06:57 +0000
Message-ID	<nabn43$run$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#554846

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:

>On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:55:00 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
>> >weight of moist air.
>> 
>> Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
>> believe this is very wrong.

>So, why do you think nobody made the results of the experiment 
>available?  Did they forget?  

Apparently not.  I can google "density of moist air" and get results all
day.  I can do proper scientific research and get all kinds of experiments
that show, or depend on, moist air being less dense.

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

#555212

From	Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 10:32 +0100
Message-ID	<nac01p$obm$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#555191

Dne 21/02/2016 v 07:57 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:55:00 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
>>>> weight of moist air.
>>>
>>> Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
>>> believe this is very wrong.
> 
>> So, why do you think nobody made the results of the experiment 
>> available?  Did they forget?  
> 
> Apparently not.  I can google "density of moist air" and get results all
> day.  I can do proper scientific research and get all kinds of experiments
> that show, or depend on, moist air being less dense.
> 

There is one simple rule :

What he is lazy to search for, or does not want to know,
such a thing does not exist.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#555218

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 01:59 -0800
Message-ID	<b808b0f0-d8cc-4e08-9bc7-e67768f82bd1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555212

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 1:32:30 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 21/02/2016 v 07:57 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
> > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> >> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:55:00 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
> >>>> weight of moist air.
> >>>
> >>> Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
> >>> believe this is very wrong.
> > 
> >> So, why do you think nobody made the results of the experiment 
> >> available?  Did they forget?  
> > 
> > Apparently not.  I can google "density of moist air" and get results all
> > day.  I can do proper scientific research and get all kinds of experiments
> > that show, or depend on, moist air being less dense.
> > 
> 
> There is one simple rule :
> 
> What he is lazy to search for, or does not want to know,
> such a thing does not exist.

Science groupies think doing a search make them and expert.  You are a dumbass that knows how to type.

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

#555223

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 02:54 -0800
Message-ID	<42eb88db-557e-489e-b6f2-5dbf1e506fff@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555212

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 1:32:30 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 21/02/2016 v 07:57 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
> > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> >> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:55:00 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
> >>>> weight of moist air.
> >>>
> >>> Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
> >>> believe this is very wrong.
> > 
> >> So, why do you think nobody made the results of the experiment 
> >> available?  Did they forget?  
> > 
> > Apparently not.  I can google "density of moist air" and get results all
> > day.  I can do proper scientific research and get all kinds of experiments
> > that show, or depend on, moist air being less dense.
> > 
> 
> There is one simple rule :
> 
> What he is lazy to search for, or does not want to know,
> such a thing does not exist.

So, if it's on the internet it must be true?  You are a moron.

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

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →

csiph-web

Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative weight of moist air.

Contents

#554805

#554828

#554840

#554853

#554899

#554796

#554808

#554819

#554829

#554841

#554900

#554843

#554901

#554918

#554846

#554902

#555191

#555212

#555218

#555223