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

Groups > sci.physics > #581621 > unrolled thread

Re: Did I characterize your argument accurately?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Did I characterize  your argument accurately? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 19:30 -0700
    Re: Did I characterize  your argument accurately? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-05-30 05:47 +0200

#581621 — Re: Did I characterize your argument accurately?

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 11:26:45 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 9:42:37 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> FNVWE:
> I have more than two and half centuries of rigorous scientific inquiry 
> backing me up. 
> 
> JM:
> If that were true you would have no need to make that claim.
> You also would have no need for the ad hominen and the
> gratuitous strawman tactics.  IOW, your desperation tells
> a story that is different from the one that is coming
> out of your mouth.
> 
> FNVWE:
> That claim happens to be fact, James. But for a moronic idiotic kook
> like you who denies fact, I'm sure you find it completely normal to
> deny things which were known before there was even a comprehensive
> explanation of electricity.
> 
> You're a throwback to the age of mysticism and alchemy... your kooky
> conspiracy theory is no better than AGW, it's merely a fairy tale, a
> scientific impossibility, as I have amply proven using that long-known
> scientific fact, James.
> 
> JM:
> 
So, let me get this straight, your argument for the scientific validity of 
> your position has to do with the fact that everybody has believed it for 
> the longest time and everybody that doesn't is crazy and dumb.  
> 
> Did I characterize  your argument accurately?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#581639

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:c5d8b0d5-9bdc-455c-8d8e-25c21d939062@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>> I have more than two and half centuries of rigorous scientific inquiry 
>> backing me up. 

> If that were true you would have no need to make that claim.
> You also would have no need for the ad hominen and the
> gratuitous strawman tactics.  IOW, your desperation tells
> a story that is different from the one that is coming
> out of your mouth.

>> That claim happens to be fact, James. But for a moronic idiotic kook
>> like you who denies fact, I'm sure you find it completely normal to
>> deny things which were known before there was even a comprehensive
>> explanation of electricity.
>> 
>> You're a throwback to the age of mysticism and alchemy... your kooky
>> conspiracy theory is no better than AGW, it's merely a fairy tale, a
>> scientific impossibility, as I have amply proven using that long-known
>> scientific fact, James.

> So, let me get this straight, your argument for the scientific validity of 
> your position has to do with the fact that everybody has believed it for 
> the longest time and everybody that doesn't is crazy and dumb.  
> 
> Did I characterize  your argument accurately?

Not just believe, Jim. Measure it, empirically observe it, time after
time after time, for more than 250 years. And each time it is
experimentally, empirically observed, the results are the same...
latent heat exists, and thus you're a moronic science-denying
kooktard.

Here, Jim... take another crack at refuting scientific reality... or
run away and prove yet again that you're merely a delusional retard
who cannot even back up your own blather...

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

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

You postulate the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.

Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for dry air

Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.

Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.

Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude
decreases.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water
partial pressure will have the same density.

At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous
water partial pressure will have higher density.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous
water partial pressure will have lower density.

For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure,
air at a higher altitude will have lower density.

(1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative
humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.

Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative
humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C,
the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.

Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to
increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the
air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the
air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or
the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater
than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.

Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas
relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that
temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather
systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.

IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which
requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air
itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of
monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of
higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).

It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is
"heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web