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

Groups > sci.physics > #563758 > unrolled thread

Nilsson Didn't Measure Gaseous H2O

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Nilsson Didn't Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 17:27 -0700
    HOH is lighter than most gasses, bu two of them is not noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 18:14 -0700
    Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 06:52 +0100
      Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 23:37 -0700
        Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 18:44 +0100
      Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:44 -0700
        Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0100
          Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:58 -0700
            Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 04:50 +0100
              Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 21:06 -0700
                Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:26 +0100
                  Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:52 -0700
                    Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 05:07 +0100
                      Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:18 -0700
                        Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 17:58 +0100
                          Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:30 -0700
                            Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 08:00 -0700
      Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 00:22 -0700
        Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:09 +0100
          Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:46 -0700
            Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:00 +0100
          Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:47 -0700
            Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:26 +0100
          Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:56 -0700
            Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 12:32 -0700
            Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:11 +0100
              Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 21:24 -0700
                Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:01 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#564361 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

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

James McGinn, in
<news:fd0e7a92-acec-48c1-a3de-e6820e895bb7@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> Of course you don't. You're a delusional moron who denies all of known
>>>> science 

>>> So, now I'm a science denier?  So, anybody with a different opinion or
>>> a different theory is a denier of all science?

>> When your 'theory' leads you to deny convection, molar mass, molar
>> volume, density, the Periodic Table of the Elements, electrostatic
>> attraction's diminishing by the inverse square of distance, Coulomb's
>> Law, the Standard Model, the mechanism for electron orbit... all while
>> you blather on about a sentient sky tornado monster that can stretch
>> its noodly appendages thousands of miles through the atmosphere to
>> touch down tornadoes while evading detection, avoiding aircraft, only
>> touching down at the rear portion of cumulonimbus clouds, avoiding
>> touching down out of clear blue sky or other clouds, and somehow
>> knowing not to touch down if the ground or water below is cooler than
>> the air above... all while claiming all scientific knowledge over the
>> past 250+ years is wrong as are all the scientists over those years...
>> all while equating yourself to Einstein and Archimedes... all while
>> claiming you're a 'physicist' because you once took an elective Basic
>> Meteorology class... all while claiming only *you* have the
>> "answer"... well, James... that's not a theory.
>> 
>> That's the mad barking of a psychotic.

> Uh, er . . . uh, . . . er. . . uh, . . .

James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is defeated. And psychotic.

-- 

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]

#564230 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > You have no substantive dispute with my hypothesis.  Right?
> 
> Except for the fact that it's completely wrong, diametrically opposed
> to reality, a scientific fraud, a fabrication told by a moron who
> can't even make up a believable lie?

I'll take that as a no.

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

#564374 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

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

James McGinn, in
<news:dabbec9e-bfb9-478a-a7aa-1553fd9b2cfe@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> You have no substantive dispute with my hypothesis.  Right?

>> Except for the fact that it's completely wrong, diametrically opposed
>> to reality, a scientific fraud, a fabrication told by a moron who
>> can't even make up a believable lie?

> I'll take that as a no.

You would, you're a reality denying psychotic.

Now stop evading the issue, you evasive twit.

Let's hear *your* explanation, James.

Remember, you deny all of reality, so I'm sure your take on why there
is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere will be
quite entertaining.

Unless you don't know... do you not know why there is a "boundary"
between the troposphere and the stratosphere, James?

Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* there is 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?

-- 

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]

#564239 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >> So now you're denying the Standard Model, which means you deny all of
> >> particle physics concerning the electromagnetic, weak and strong
> >> nuclear forces. 
> 
> > The subject was water and H bonding.  Are you drunk?
> 
> Exactly, James. H bonding is electrostatic. 

All chemical bonding is electrostatic.  

> Denying that electrostatic
> attraction diminishes as the inverse square of distance

Right.  This not disputed.

> means you also
> deny electron orbit, which means you *must* deny Coulomb's Law *and*
> the Standard Model, 

I'm a physicist.  So, . . . why would I deny any of this?  

> and thus particle physics, and thus the
> fundamentals of the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces.

I wasn't discussing the standard model of physics.  I was discussing the standard model of H bonding.  

I suppose when your whole educations comes from doing google searches . . . 

> Did you not think about that before your broken brain fabricated your
> retarded 'theory', James?

I overestimated your intelligence.  Sorry.

> 
> >>> Specifically, in my model there is an inverse relationship
> >>> between proximity and bond strength, which Nilsson et al
> >>> DO NOT assume.  
> 
> >> Moron says bond strength becomes *stronger* with increasing distance!
> >> 
> >> Do you not understand the concept of bond enthalpy, James? 
> 
> > Make sure you understand the issue before you throw a hissy fit.  
> 
> You're projecting, James.

LOL.  You can barely follow this discussion.  

> You've *denied* that electrostatic attraction diminished by the
> inverse square of distance in accord with Coulomb's Law, James. Do you
> have any idea what that denial entails?

I deny that I deny this.  

> > I never would have imagined anybody would be dumb enough to assume
> > such an absurd thing.  I guess it's impossible to account for the
> > limits of human stupidity.
> 
> Then get right on explaining your moronic 'theory',

You have to take reponsibility for your own education.

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

#564254 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

OCO is heavier than air, is heavier than HOH

> You have to take reponsibility for your own education.

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

#564364 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

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

James McGinn, in
<news:47c77012-9c23-4775-9203-a6e500df9902@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> So now you're denying the Standard Model, which means you deny all of
>>>> particle physics concerning the electromagnetic, weak and strong
>>>> nuclear forces. 

>>> The subject was water and H bonding.  Are you drunk?

>> Exactly, James. H bonding is electrostatic. 

> All chemical bonding is electrostatic.  

Wrong. You're too retarded to differentiate between covalent, ionic,
dipole-dipole, London dispersion and hydrogen bonding, because you're
an uneducated moron.

Go on, Jim... tell us the difference between the types of bonds.

And while you're at it, let's hear *your* explanation as to why
there's a "boundary" between the troposphere and stratosphere, James.

Remember, you deny all of reality, so I'm sure your take on why there
is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere will be
quite entertaining.

Unless you don't know... do you not know why there is a "boundary"
between the troposphere and the stratosphere, James?

Go on, Jim... tell us, *why* there is 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?

>> Denying that electrostatic
>> attraction diminishes as the inverse square of distance

> Right.  This not disputed.

Yes, it is. By you. You claim it *increases* as the inverse square of
distance. Because you're insane, uneducated and stupid.

>> means you also deny electron orbit, which means you *must* deny
>> Coulomb's Law *and* the Standard Model, 

> I'm a physicist.  So, . . . why would I deny any of this?  

No, you're not a physicist. You're a broken-brained retard who once
took an elective class in Basic Meteorology as means of trying to
justify your psychosis, learned nothing from the class, and now use it
as your basis for claiming yourself to be a physicist.

Which universities did you attend, what were your majors, and what was
your Ph.D. thesis, James?

>> and thus particle physics, and thus the
>> fundamentals of the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces.

> I wasn't discussing the standard model of physics.

You most certainly were. You're just too stupid to realize that fact.

> I was discussing the standard model of H bonding.  
> 
> I suppose when your whole educations comes from doing google searches . . . 

You're projecting, James.

>> Did you not think about that before your broken brain fabricated your
>> retarded 'theory', James?

> I overestimated your intelligence.  Sorry.

You're incapable of doing so. Cold doesn't flow to hot, James.

>>>>> Specifically, in my model there is an inverse relationship
>>>>> between proximity and bond strength, which Nilsson et al
>>>>> DO NOT assume.  

>>>> Moron says bond strength becomes *stronger* with increasing distance!
>>>> 
>>>> Do you not understand the concept of bond enthalpy, James? 

>>> Make sure you understand the issue before you throw a hissy fit.  

>> You're projecting, James.

> LOL.  You can barely follow this discussion.  

You can't mount a substantive defense of your psychosis, so you engage
in mass backpedaling as a means of defending yourself from the reality
that you are psychotic.

>> You've *denied* that electrostatic attraction diminished by the
>> inverse square of distance in accord with Coulomb's Law, James. Do you
>> have any idea what that denial entails?

> I deny that I deny this.  

Exactly. You deny pretty much all of modern scientific knowledge.
Which makes you retarded and psychotic.

>>> I never would have imagined anybody would be dumb enough to assume
>>> such an absurd thing.  I guess it's impossible to account for the
>>> limits of human stupidity.

>> Then get right on explaining your moronic 'theory',

> You have to take reponsibility for your own education.

Translation:
"I can't explain it. I have too many gaping logic holes and I'm
desperately trying to figure out how to patch them so you can't rip my
psychosis to shreds again. And again. And again. And again."

-- 

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]

#564366 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:21:36 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > All chemical bonding is electrostatic.  
> 
> Wrong. You're too retarded to differentiate between covalent, ionic,
> dipole-dipole, London dispersion and hydrogen bonding, because you're
> an uneducated moron.

All electrostatic.

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

#564481 — Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

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

James McGinn, in
<news:3d4d2586-713d-4b9c-8587-4ea864900b82@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:21:36 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> All chemical bonding is electrostatic.  

>> Wrong. You're too retarded to differentiate between covalent, ionic,
>> dipole-dipole, London dispersion and hydrogen bonding, because you're
>> an uneducated moron.

> All electrostatic.

Wrong.

Hydrogen bonding in water displays features of covalent bonding.
Describe which and why, James. You can't do it, huh, James.

I'd suggest you educate yourself, but you've already proven via your
single elective Basic Meteorology class, from which you took nothing,
instead trying to use it to justify your psychosis, which you failed
at, that you're so insane that you've become ineducable, James. That
you use your failed educational experience in the form of a single
elective Basic Meteorology class as your basis for claiming yourself
to be a "physicist" makes that claim all the more hilarious.

As proof of what I write, you'll yet again run away from mounting a
comprehensive defense of your moronic blathering "theory" with its
multitude of gaping logical contradictions, which I've been kind
enough to collate into an easily read and laughed at compendium of
your psychosis, in my .sig.

-- 

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] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web