Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #559647 > unrolled thread
| Started by | TrollReportService <envalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-05 14:46 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-03-07 12:34 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 297 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland TrollReportService <envalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-05 14:46 -0600
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 13:13 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-06 06:50 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 23:15 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-06 12:04 -0600
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-06 19:50 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-06 14:04 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 11:48 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-06 23:09 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:29 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 01:35 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 17:00 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 04:53 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 21:05 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 17:18 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:04 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 18:43 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 10:22 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:07 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 21:54 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 08:47 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 03:05 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 00:47 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 16:37 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:13 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 20:00 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:29 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 08:54 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:04 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 18:40 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:16 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 06:09 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 21:48 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-09 11:58 -0600
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:23 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 12:01 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:14 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-14 16:58 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 17:09 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 00:15 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 17:08 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-06 20:07 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 03:57 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 00:18 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-06 23:13 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-06 18:51 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 10:48 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-08 13:03 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 07:38 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 02:04 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 08:14 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-08 17:34 +0800
RMS Primer for Fakey (was: Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland) snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 09:45 +0000
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey (was: Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland) Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-08 18:05 +0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 10:14 +0000
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 09:34 -0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 12:46 -0500
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey (was: Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland) Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 09:34 -0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey (was: Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 12:55 -0500
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey (was: Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland) Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 02:08 +0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey (was: Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland) Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 11:54 -0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey (was: Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland) Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 02:07 +0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey (was: Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 13:11 -0500
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey (was: Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland) Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 11:58 -0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 19:11 +0000
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 11:59 -0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 04:05 +0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 20:14 +0000
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 04:25 +0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 20:27 +0000
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 04:51 +0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 21:00 +0000
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 12:31 -0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 04:47 +0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 20:52 +0000
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-08 14:35 -0700
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 05:41 +0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-08 14:37 -0700
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 19:00 -0500
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-08 17:37 -0700
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 19:15 -0800
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 20:13 +0000
Re: RMS Primer for Fakey (was: Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 12:33 -0500
DFTs vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-08 10:24 +0000
Re: DFTs Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-08 22:30 +0800
Re: DFTs "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 12:50 -0500
Re: DFTs Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 06:14 +0100
Re: DFTs Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-09 05:41 -0700
Re: DFTs "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 11:32 -0500
Re: DFTs Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:16 +0100
Re: DFTs "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 13:36 -0500
Re: DFTs Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 10:44 -0800
Re: DFTs "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 13:47 -0500
Re: DFTs Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-11 18:22 -0700
Re: DFTs Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:24 +0100
Re: DFTs "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-13 20:12 -0400
Re: DFTs Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-13 18:25 -0600
Re: DFTs Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:05 +0100
Re: DFTs on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-03-15 15:51 +0000
Re: DFTs Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 08:49 -0800
Re: DFTs snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 17:17 +0000
Re: DFTs Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 09:20 -0800
Re: DFTs vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-09 19:48 +0000
Re: DFTs pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2016-03-09 11:26 -0600
Re: DFTs snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 11:14 +0000
Re: DFTs Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-11 18:19 -0700
Re: DFTs Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 18:55 -0800
Re: DFTs buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 15:53 -0500
Re: DFTs Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-11 18:15 -0700
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 12:31 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 01:48 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 13:10 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 12:01 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 04:12 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 16:42 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 00:55 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 19:32 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 01:14 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 12:53 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 12:01 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 21:13 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 04:39 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-08 20:50 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 06:04 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 00:19 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:16 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 18:37 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 21:41 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 05:11 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:14 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 00:02 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:44 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 01:30 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 16:11 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 12:23 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-10 13:33 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:23 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-11 01:45 -0500
https://soundcloud.com/djdizazter/en3-arrangement-1 "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-11 02:18 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:21 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:25 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 08:34 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 17:53 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:09 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 16:48 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-13 08:57 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 22:12 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:05 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-14 06:31 -0600
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:32 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 10:01 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 18:16 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 12:29 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 07:54 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-11 03:09 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 12:25 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 15:55 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 10:06 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:36 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 12:49 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 03:00 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 14:08 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 03:40 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 15:03 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 10:07 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 18:45 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 14:58 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-12 16:17 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:34 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-11 18:52 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:24 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:39 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 19:00 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 08:47 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:27 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 22:35 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:29 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 09:01 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 08:32 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 11:34 -0500
Earth Calling Planet Fakey, Come In Fakey... Earth Calling Planet Fakey, Come In Fakey... snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 17:49 +0000
Re: Earth Calling Planet Fakey, Come In Fakey... Earth Calling Planet Fakey, Come In Fakey... snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 19:30 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:53 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 03:33 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 15:05 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:11 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 15:13 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:17 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 15:17 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:22 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-09 22:04 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:03 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:29 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:35 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:40 -0800
Re:Jefferson was James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:45 -0500
Re: Re:Jefferson was James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 16:28 -0800
Re: Jefferson was James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 19:32 -0500
Re: Jefferson was James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 19:41 -0500
Re: Jefferson was James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 10:08 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:35 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 10:12 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 18:30 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 12:32 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 12:26 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 19:54 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 19:12 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 19:44 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:16 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 10:44 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:56 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 18:19 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 18:17 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 13:43 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 12:03 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 20:20 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-08 17:54 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 12:45 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 09:50 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 06:14 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 19:21 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-08 19:01 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 03:26 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 12:10 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 04:17 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 12:21 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-08 22:38 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 14:54 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 18:58 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-08 17:39 -0700
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 19:14 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 18:54 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-08 17:38 -0700
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 19:13 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:39 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 00:04 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:54 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 15:11 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:16 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 04:22 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:24 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:20 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 00:06 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:59 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 01:34 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 23:00 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:41 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:41 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 12:52 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:13 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 08:06 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 18:50 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:19 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 15:03 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 02:23 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 21:03 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 15:36 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 09:14 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 08:33 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-11 04:21 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-12 01:21 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:29 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 04:42 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:45 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-11 02:01 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 18:53 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 15:00 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:09 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 01:14 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 13:21 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-03-09 18:37 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:10 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:21 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 00:38 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 07:39 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 02:02 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 10:22 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 19:34 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 13:51 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 12:10 -0700
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 15:07 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 03:16 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 15:01 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 10:18 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:37 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 03:16 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:05 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 00:21 -0500
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 14:23 +0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 07:49 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 10:31 +0000
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 17:14 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 12:29 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:54 +0100
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-03-09 00:03 -0800
Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-06 13:21 -0500
his sister's dog noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 12:34 -0800
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 08:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fb786885b86868851dcbb80bbf53a449@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560252 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:cd5839ef-24ec-4978-950a-e042a152f8cb@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:17:03 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> Maybe you can explain it to all of us. Hmm. I wonder why it's >>> called a "point" and not a boiling distribution. Hmm. >> That might be because it's the *point* where the evaporation processes >> gaseous pressure is sufficient to overcome atmospheric pressure, thus >> allowing boiling (bubble formation) to occur in the bulk of the >> liquid, > Reference? Does anyone find it strange that the kooktard James McGinn continually asks for proof of everything, even that which is common knowledge, yet has provided absolutely no evidence (let alone proof) that his kooky theory is anything other than the mad ranting of a badly damaged brain? <snicker> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/vappre.html> =============================================================== Evaporation vs Boiling Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization becomes a volume phenomena. =============================================================== And yet again, the delusional uneducated oaf James McGinn has his kooky theory utterly demolished. Now, let's you get busy refuting all that peer-reviewed data which shreds your kooky theory, Jim... Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less* energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical processes. You further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when an inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance" Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger) than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent bonds. You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do? Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that evidence which proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering about, Jim? <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594, 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight negative charge on the surface." What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964. <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz> You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim. That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions, combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be wrong. Take your meds, Jim. Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> ================================================= A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. ================================================= "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, meaning you owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, Jim. <snicker> Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous water exists in the atmosphere: <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/> ========================================================= Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains controversial. ========================================================= That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves you're a moronic kooktard, Jim. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 03:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.ydzx2wdmtm21m2@benson.localhost> |
| In reply to | #560277 |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 02:47:55 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:cd5839ef-24ec-4978-950a-e042a152f8cb@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:17:03 PM UTC-8,
>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>>>> Maybe you can explain it to all of us. Hmm. I wonder why it's
>>>> called a "point" and not a boiling distribution. Hmm.
>
>>> That might be because it's the *point* where the evaporation processes
>>> gaseous pressure is sufficient to overcome atmospheric pressure, thus
>>> allowing boiling (bubble formation) to occur in the bulk of the
>>> liquid,
>
>> Reference?
>
> Does anyone find it strange that the kooktard James McGinn continually
> asks for proof of everything, even that which is common knowledge, yet
> has provided absolutely no evidence (let alone proof) that his kooky
> theory is anything other than the mad ranting of a badly damaged
> brain?
yes, i've noticed that you do that.
>
> <snicker>
>
> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/vappre.html>
> ===============================================================
> Evaporation vs Boiling
>
> Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor
> pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to
> atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor
> cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is
> equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization
> becomes a volume phenomena.
> ===============================================================
>
> And yet again, the delusional uneducated oaf James McGinn has his
> kooky theory utterly demolished.
>
> Now, let's you get busy refuting all that peer-reviewed data which
> shreds your kooky theory, Jim...
>
> Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules
> of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less*
> energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a
> low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional
> Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical
> processes.
>
> You further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when an
> inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond
> isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that
> broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened:
>
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
> strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
> covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"
>
> Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
> than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
> ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
> covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
> the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
> frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
> frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
> bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
> bonds.
>
> You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
> premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
> kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?
>
> Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that
> evidence which proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to
> nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering about, Jim?
>
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
> group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
> 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
> [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
> negative charge on the surface."
>
> What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
> in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
> electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
> thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
> molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
> Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.
>
> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html>
> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz>
>
> You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've
> destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving
> that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim.
>
> That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions,
> combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be
> wrong. Take your meds, Jim.
>
> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
> <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
> =================================================
> A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in
> the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number
> is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least
> one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the
> obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain
> sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this,
> the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies,
> and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that
> an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise
> interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent
> collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the
> liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was
> interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the
> evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation
> process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's
> cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a
> well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.
> =================================================
>
> "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule
> process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the
> atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere,
> meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been
> provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been
> utterly destroyed, meaning you owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay,
> Jim.
>
> <snicker>
>
> Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous
> water exists in the atmosphere:
> <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/>
> =========================================================
> Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum
> absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains
> controversial.
> =========================================================
>
> That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim,
> thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you
> promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding
> challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves
> you're a moronic kooktard, Jim.
>
> <snicker>
>
--
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu
-
FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>
">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>> phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>> voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)
Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking
*moron*?
"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""
it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png
http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf
on page 2:
** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)
*COUGH*
SPNAK!!
-
i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>
-
snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:
- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:
http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html
place those files in a directory and save this file as
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.
compiles with:
gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++
run with:
./a.out
enjoy the LULZ ;)
*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>
using namespace std;
int main(){
//float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
//float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);
float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
float_precision t=float_precision(0); // time variable
float_precision sum=float_precision(0); // sum of SnickerTurd's
ridiculous sinewave mess
float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25); //
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
float_precision PI;
PI =_float_table(_PI,25);
// this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
while(sum < snickerPrediction){
// fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))
+
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));
// perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh
snickerTurds
if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
}
t = t+STEP;
}
/*
Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"
Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves
never reaches that. They never reach their max values at the same time.
That's how stupid you are.
Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"
Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when
summed.
the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.
*/
cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
-
Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>
-
Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
<snicker>
Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL
on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*
*hell doesn't exist. hope everybody is having a productive evening.
-
http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg
http://cafepress.com/kooktown
http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg
-
If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)
if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2
-
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd
-
Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:
$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!
(just as useful as the original!)
-
snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden
service. It's not rocket science.
_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._ (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a
kiddie pr0n network.)
That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 00:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f71e4f1b-6566-4dce-84f5-8221555b1b8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560277 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:57:57 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > >>> Maybe you can explain it to all of us. Hmm. I wonder why it's > >>> called a "point" and not a boiling distribution. Hmm. > > >> That might be because it's the *point* where the evaporation > >> processes > >> gaseous pressure is sufficient to overcome atmospheric pressure, > >> thus > >> allowing boiling (bubble formation) to occur in the bulk of the > >> liquid, > > > Reference? > > Does anyone find it strange that the kooktard James McGinn continually > asks for proof of everything, So, uh, I wonder why the steam tables indicate the boiling point being so hot. Kinda makes you wonder. Hmm. Maybe you should contact them to let them know of your amazing discovery. Were you home schooled?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 16:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3e85a67d19ce3b2b7416e2e70ce24b2a@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560282 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:f71e4f1b-6566-4dce-84f5-8221555b1b8c@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:57:57 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> Does anyone find it strange that the kooktard James McGinn continually >> asks for proof of everything, even that which is common knowledge, yet >> has provided absolutely no evidence (let alone proof) that his kooky >> theory is anything other than the mad ranting of a badly damaged >> brain? >> >> <snicker> >> >> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/vappre.html> >> =============================================================== >> Evaporation vs Boiling >> >> Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor >> pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to >> atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor >> cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is >> equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization >> becomes a volume phenomena. >> =============================================================== >> >> And yet again, the delusional uneducated oaf James McGinn has his >> kooky theory utterly demolished. > So, uh, I wonder why the steam tables indicate the boiling point being so hot. > Kinda makes you wonder. Hmm. > > Maybe you should contact them to let them know of your amazing discovery. > > Were you home schooled? Bwahahaaa! Yet again James McGinn the delusional kooktard demonstrates that he can't grasp that water being evaporated is merely a slower, lower-energy process of vaporization, the same as boiling is a faster, higher-energy process of vaporization. Not even after the proof of same has been posted, from the physics department of a university, no less. Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you fucking *moron*? Now, as to all that proof of your being a delusional kooktard, which you cowardly snipped out, let's set you to refuting that peer-reviewed data, shall we? <snicker> ====================================================================== Bwahahahaaa! Referring to your own blathering asinine nitwittery isn't proof, Jim. You fucking kooktard. "Plasma in the atmosphere" "thick air" "tornadoes... jet stream... same thing" "this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse ears more relatively positive" And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you fucking *moron*? Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled you. Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different updraft speeds) cause different types of rain. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further proves this fact. Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating lightning... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger. So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right? Your kooky contention has been demolished, the dictates of your challenge have not only been met but have been exceeded, utilizing scientific facts, figures, equations, diagrams and concepts long-known and admissible in a court of law. Hence, you will make good on your promise to pay $100,000 to the person who disproved your kooky theory... namely your Usenet Lord and Master... me. Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong via several different avenues, and you'll be paying me the promised $100,000 for meeting (indeed, *exceeding*) your challenge. Holy fuck, Jim. Seek immediate professional psychiatric help, and be sure to describe in detail your kooky theory that has led you to become so very delusional. But meanwhile, how about you get right on refuting all that peer-reviewed scientific data I've provided proving your kooky theory *wrong*: ------------------------- Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less* energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical processes. The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we, Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me $100,000 for meeting your challenge. You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim. Jim, you further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when an inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance" Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger) than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent bonds. You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do? Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim? <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594, 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight negative charge on the surface." What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964. <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz> You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim. That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions, combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be wrong. Take your meds, Jim. Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> ================================================= A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. ================================================= "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, meaning you owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, Jim. <snicker> Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous water exists in the atmosphere: <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/> ========================================================= Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains controversial. ========================================================= That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves you're a moronic kooktard, Jim. <snicker> ====================================================================== -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 08:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <795c6892-d1c7-4b57-a8dd-87edb4d34ea2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560332 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:47:51 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > So, uh, I wonder why the steam tables indicate the > > boiling point being so hot. > > Kinda makes you wonder. Hmm. > > > > Maybe you should contact them to let them know of > > your amazing discovery. > > > > Were you home schooled? > > Bwahahaaa! Yet again James McGinn the delusional kooktard demonstrates > that he can't grasp that water being evaporated is merely a slower, > lower-energy process of vaporization, the same as boiling is a faster, > higher-energy process of vaporization. Not even after the proof of > same has been posted, from the physics department of a university, no > less. Uh, so, let me get this straight. Boiling is fast and evaporation is slow. That is your insight? And you got this from some university. Is that your argument? > Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is > electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, Do you have a reference for this? Or should I just take your word on it, like everything else?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <497a7ccbf78b578659dbf1c254345f41@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560343 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:795c6892-d1c7-4b57-a8dd-87edb4d34ea2@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:47:51 AM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> Bwahahaaa! Yet again James McGinn the delusional kooktard demonstrates >> that he can't grasp that water being evaporated is merely a slower, >> lower-energy process of vaporization, the same as boiling is a faster, >> higher-energy process of vaporization. Not even after the proof of >> same has been posted, from the physics department of a university, no >> less. > > Uh, so, let me get this straight. Boiling is fast and evaporation is slow. That is your insight? And you got this from some university. Is that your argument? Again, Jim, your inability to comprehend physical phenomena is due in part to your lack of education, and in part to your delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you (which is everyone). Thus you have no sounding board for reality, leading your broken brain off into the brambles of your kooky discredited conspiracy theory. Both attributes of your affliction can be ameliorated via subjecting yourself to those educational and psychiatric authorities, which your broken brain will not allow you to do... hence the Catch-22 of Dunning-Kruger. <snicker> >> Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is >> electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, > Do you have a reference for this? Or should I just take your word > on it, like everything else? <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594, 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight negative charge on the surface." <http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/36_eneg/electroneg.html> <http://www.webelements.com/nitrogen/electronegativity.html> O2 is electronegative, Jim, as is nitrogen, the two largest constituents of our atmosphere. They accept those electrons at the water surface, helped by thermal kinetic energy random motion giving those molecules enough of a kick to leave the bulk water, thereby stripping water away from the surface in a process known as evaporation, a process you continue to demonstrate that you cannot fathom. Thus, at temperatures below the boiling point, the thermal kinetic energy is barely sufficient to evaporate those molecules of water except for the contributing factor of molecular attraction between the surface water molecules and the atmosphere. The opposite process also occurs, diffusion of the atmosphere into the water. If this were not the case, fish, for one example, would all suffocate. Given that the water molecule has only 62% the molar weight of bulk air for a given molar volume, once it's stripped from the water surface, its buoyancy will naturally cause it to rise until temperature in the atmosphere is low enough that condensation can occur, whereupon the ratio of the water cluster's downward facing surface area:mass is sufficient to allow it to fall back to earth against the combined effects of that lower molar weight and air updraft speed. That condensation process, BTW, is how water augurs heat out of our atmosphere... the latent heat of condensation is emitted in the infrared, at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, which allows that heat nearly unhindered passage out to the 2.725 K of space. I've already proven via two peer-reviewed sources that monomolecular water exists in the atmosphere, Jim. Why do you continue to deny reality? Here, I'll repost all that peer-reviewed data which utterly destroys your kooky conspiracy theory which states that meteorologists are withholding sooper sekret information from the public as means of gaining domination over us, Jim. Do try your *very* best to refute it, rather than snipping it out and running away from it again, thereby proving you know you're *wrong*. <snicker> ======================================================== Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you fucking *moron*? Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled you. Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different updraft speeds) cause different types of rain. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further proves this fact. Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating lightning... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger. So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right? Your kooky contention has been demolished, the dictates of your challenge have not only been met but have been exceeded, utilizing scientific facts, figures, equations, diagrams and concepts long-known and admissible in a court of law. Hence, you will make good on your promise to pay $100,000 to the person who disproved your kooky theory... namely your Usenet Lord and Master... me. Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong via several different avenues, and you'll be paying me the promised $100,000 for meeting (indeed, *exceeding*) your challenge. Holy fuck, Jim. Seek immediate professional psychiatric help, and be sure to describe in detail your kooky theory that has led you to become so very delusional. But meanwhile, how about you get right on refuting all that peer-reviewed scientific data I've provided proving your kooky theory *wrong*: ------------------------- Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less* energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical processes. The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we, Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me $100,000 for meeting your challenge. You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim. Jim, you further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when an inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance" Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger) than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent bonds. You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do? Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim? <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594, 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight negative charge on the surface." What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964. <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz> You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim. That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions, combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be wrong. Take your meds, Jim. Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> =========================== A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. =========================== "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, meaning you owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, Jim. <snicker> Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous water exists in the atmosphere: <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/> =========================== Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains controversial. =========================== That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves you're a moronic kooktard, Jim. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 11:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1f765a39-83c9-4f01-971e-a78fea56493d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560414 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > >> Bwahahaaa! Yet again James McGinn the delusional kooktard demonstrates > >> that he can't grasp that water being evaporated is merely a slower, > >> lower-energy process of vaporization, the same as boiling is a faster, > >> higher-energy process of vaporization. Not even after the proof of > >> same has been posted, from the physics department of a university, no > >> less. > > > > Uh, so, let me get this straight. Boiling is fast and evaporation is slow. That is your insight? And you got this from some university. Is that your argument? > > Again, Jim, your inability to comprehend physical phenomena is due in > part to your lack of education, and in part to your delusional > Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting any information from those > you deem to be of higher authority than you (which is everyone). Thus > you have no sounding board for reality, leading your broken brain off > into the brambles of your kooky discredited conspiracy theory. > > Both attributes of your affliction can be ameliorated via subjecting > yourself to those educational and psychiatric authorities, which your > broken brain will not allow you to do... hence the Catch-22 of > Dunning-Kruger. Can you provide a reference for your slow/fast theory? Or are you still working on the paper? Do you dress yourself? > O2 is electronegative, Jim, as is nitrogen, the two largest > constituents of our atmosphere. Yes, I explained this to you. > They accept those electrons at the > water surface, helped by thermal kinetic energy random motion giving > those molecules enough of a kick to leave the bulk water, thereby > stripping water away from the surface in a process known as > evaporation, a process you continue to demonstrate that you cannot > fathom. Do you have any direct evidence that evaporation produces gaseous H2O? > I've already proven via two peer-reviewed sources that monomolecular > water exists in the atmosphere, Jim. Why do you continue to deny > reality? Too bad you can't prove it. Huh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 08:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <57375f4a05eaba5e0451b8c7bb9aed67@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560428 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:1f765a39-83c9-4f01-971e-a78fea56493d@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> Bwahahaaa! Yet again James McGinn the delusional kooktard demonstrates >>>> that he can't grasp that water being evaporated is merely a slower, >>>> lower-energy process of vaporization, the same as boiling is a faster, >>>> higher-energy process of vaporization. Not even after the proof of >>>> same has been posted, from the physics department of a university, no >>>> less. >>> Uh, so, let me get this straight. Boiling is fast and evaporation is slow. That is your insight? And you got this from some university. Is that your argument? >> Again, Jim, your inability to comprehend physical phenomena is due in >> part to your lack of education, and in part to your delusional >> Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting any information from those >> you deem to be of higher authority than you (which is everyone). Thus >> you have no sounding board for reality, leading your broken brain off >> into the brambles of your kooky discredited conspiracy theory. >> >> Both attributes of your affliction can be ameliorated via subjecting >> yourself to those educational and psychiatric authorities, which your >> broken brain will not allow you to do... hence the Catch-22 of >> Dunning-Kruger. > Can you provide a reference for your slow/fast theory? Or are you still working on the paper? Already provided, Jim, and you snipped it out and ran away from it. It's provided again immediately below: <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/vappre.html> =============================================================== Evaporation vs Boiling Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization becomes a volume phenomena. =============================================================== That's the physics department of a university, Jim. People far smarter and saner than you. That you continue to reject reality merely because it came from people far smarter and saner than you shows you have a problem with authority figures, as does your kooky conspiracy theory that meteorologists are withholding sooper sekret information from the public to give themselves some sort of domination over us. IOW, you're delusional, tending toward paranoia. There are psychotropic medications which can ameliorate your condition, Jim. <snicker> > Do you dress yourself? It's apparent that you ask that question as means of projection, Jim. >> O2 is electronegative, Jim, as is nitrogen, the two largest >> constituents of our atmosphere. > Yes Great, then you understand the process of evaporation, don't you, Jim? Which utterly destroys your kooky conspiracy theory. > I explained this to you. Lying won't help your losing position, Jim. >> They accept those electrons at the >> water surface, helped by thermal kinetic energy random motion giving >> those molecules enough of a kick to leave the bulk water, thereby >> stripping water away from the surface in a process known as >> evaporation, a process you continue to demonstrate that you cannot >> fathom. > Do you have any direct evidence that evaporation produces gaseous H2O? Besides the two peer-reviewed studies which empirically observed monomer H2O in the atmosphere? Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> ================================================= A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. ================================================= "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, meaning you owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, Jim. <snicker> Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous water exists in the atmosphere: <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/> ========================================================= Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains controversial. ========================================================= That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves you're a moronic kooktard, Jim. <snicker> >> I've already proven via two peer-reviewed sources that monomolecular >> water exists in the atmosphere, Jim. Why do you continue to deny >> reality? > Too bad you can't prove it. Huh? I just did, Jim. Too bad you can't muster the intelligence to refute that reality. Do you feed yourself, Jim? Do you dress yourself? It's becoming apparent that you do not. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Why can't you even get your kooky conspiracy theory on the pre-print servers, Jim? Answer the questions, you evasive twit. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 08:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a362af95-4784-4692-a6dc-8400313bf212@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560277 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:57:57 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > Reference? > > Does anyone find it strange that the kooktard James McGinn continually > asks for proof of everything, even that which is common knowledge, yet > has provided absolutely no evidence Hmm. Well, there's the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O at atmospheric pressures is much higher than is available in the atmosphere. That seems like pretty good evidence to me. Can you explain the physics of low temperature boiling? Has this ever been detected in the laboratory? Or does it only exist up high in the atmosphere where nobody can measure it? I wonder why that would be? Hmm. > Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor > pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to > atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor > cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is > equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization > becomes a volume phenomena. Do you have a reference for all of this? It seems rather speculative. Or am I expected to take your, uh, expert opinion on this? > you don't understand that when an > inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond > isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that > broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened: > > <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> > "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond > strengths; the stronger the H路路路路O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H > covalent bond, and the shorter the O路路路路O distance" > > Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger) > than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is > ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite > covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of > the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. Nothing I see here indicates the covalent bond shortening. So I can't figure out what your point is. That's why, when using high > frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond > frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H > bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent > bonds. You are misreading something. I don't know what. You aren't making any sense. Sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 18:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1a7a69c9429dc23b34ab195a39e309f1@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560341 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:a362af95-4784-4692-a6dc-8400313bf212@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:57:57 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> Reference? >> Does anyone find it strange that the kooktard James McGinn continually >> asks for proof of everything, even that which is common knowledge, yet >> has provided absolutely no evidence (let alone proof) that his kooky >> theory is anything other than the mad ranting of a badly damaged >> brain? >> >> <snicker> >> >> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/vappre.html> >> =============================================================== >> Evaporation vs Boiling >> >> Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor >> pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to >> atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor >> cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is >> equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization >> becomes a volume phenomena. >> =============================================================== >> >> And yet again, the delusional uneducated oaf James McGinn has his >> kooky theory utterly demolished. > Hmm. Well, there's the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O > at atmospheric pressures is much higher than is available in the > atmosphere. That seems like pretty good evidence to me. So you admit you're still confused as regards the vaporization process of water. The internet contains a plethora of information to relieve you of your confusion, Jim... unfortunately, you being a delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard, you'll run off into the brambles of yet another kooky conspiracy theory that contradicts reality nearly immediately after starting your education. Perhaps you should attempt an education in a more formal setting... try finishing high school. <snicker> > Can you explain the physics of low temperature boiling? Has this > ever been detected in the laboratory? Or does it only exist up > high in the atmosphere where nobody can measure it? > > I wonder why that would be? Hmm. That you continue to demonstrate your lack of comprehension of physical processes is no one's fault but your own, Jim. Your broken brain has formulated an equally broken conspiracy theory, a manifestation of your Dunning-Kruger afflicted schizoid brain rejecting reality because it is too painful to contemplate. Seek professional psychiatric intervention to alleviate yourself of your burden. <snicker> >> Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor >> pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to >> atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor >> cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is >> equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization >> becomes a volume phenomena. > Do you have a reference for all of this? Already provided, Jim, and you snipped it out and ran away from it. It's provided again above, and immediately below: <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/vappre.html> =============================================================== Evaporation vs Boiling Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization becomes a volume phenomena. =============================================================== That's the physics department of a university, Jim. People far smarter and saner than you. That you continue to reject reality merely because it came from people far smarter and saner than you shows you have a problem with authority figures, as does your kooky conspiracy theory that meteorologists are withholding sooper sekret information from the public to give themselves some sort of domination over us. IOW, you're delusional, tending toward paranoia. There are psychotropic medications which can ameliorate your condition, Jim. <snicker> > It seems rather speculative. Or am I expected to take your, uh, > expert opinion on this? Well, that's your problem in a nutshell, isn't it, Jim? You take *no* expert opinion due to your problem with authority figures and your delusional paranoia. Thus your broken little brain scrambles off into the brambles of kooky conspiracy theories, exacerbated by your lack of education. <snicker> >> you don't understand that when an >> inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond >> isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that >> broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened: >> >> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> >> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond >> strengths; the stronger the H--O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H >> covalent bond, and the shorter the O--O distance" >> >> Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger) >> than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is >> ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite >> covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of >> the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. > Nothing I see here indicates the covalent bond shortening. So > I can't figure out what your point is. <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> "The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2 'hydrogen' bond." Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water. Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you (which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other D-K sufferer. <snicker> >> That's why, when using high >> frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond >> frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H >> bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent >> bonds. > You are misreading something. I don't know what. > > You aren't making any sense. Sorry. That reality doesn't make any sense to you is part and parcel of your displayed and demonstrated confusion as regards the very underlying precepts of your own kooky theory, Jim. Your lack of knowledge and hence understanding is no one's fault but your own. Educate yourself, then try again. Why can't you even get your kooky theory through the peer-review process, Jim? <snicker> Now, get to refuting all that peer-reviewed data which utterly decimates your kooky theory, Jim: ================================= Bwahahahaaa! Referring to your own blathering asinine nitwittery isn't proof, Jim. You fucking kooktard. "Plasma in the atmosphere" "thick air" "tornadoes... jet stream... same thing" "this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse ears more relatively positive" And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you fucking *moron*? Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled you. Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different updraft speeds) cause different types of rain. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further proves this fact. Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating lightning... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger. So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right? Your kooky contention has been demolished, the dictates of your challenge have not only been met but have been exceeded, utilizing scientific facts, figures, equations, diagrams and concepts long-known and admissible in a court of law. Hence, you will make good on your promise to pay $100,000 to the person who disproved your kooky theory... namely your Usenet Lord and Master... me. Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong via several different avenues, and you'll be paying me the promised $100,000 for meeting (indeed, *exceeding*) your challenge. Holy fuck, Jim. Seek immediate professional psychiatric help, and be sure to describe in detail your kooky theory that has led you to become so very delusional. But meanwhile, how about you get right on refuting all that peer-reviewed scientific data I've provided proving your kooky theory *wrong*: ------------------------- Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less* energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical processes. The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we, Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me $100,000 for meeting your challenge. You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim. Jim, you further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when an inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance" Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger) than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent bonds. You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do? Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim? <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594, 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight negative charge on the surface." What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964. <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz> You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim. That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions, combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be wrong. Take your meds, Jim. Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> ================================================= A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. ================================================= "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, meaning you owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, Jim. <snicker> Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous water exists in the atmosphere: <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/> ========================================================= Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains controversial. ========================================================= That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves you're a moronic kooktard, Jim. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 11:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <99d53837-6063-45ca-8477-8eab79f0517d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560381 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:50:04 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > Hmm. Well, there's the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O > > at atmospheric pressures is much higher than is available in the > > atmosphere. That seems like pretty good evidence to me. > > So you admit you're still confused as regards the vaporization process > of water. The internet contains a plethora of information to relieve > you of your confusion, So, uh, you have a plethora of information. And, apparently, none of confirms your assertions. What you have pointed to is indicative of a group delusion, not unlike the notion that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. You have a belief supported by consensus. You don't have a fact supported by empirical evidence. > > ever been detected in the laboratory? Or does it only exist up > > high in the atmosphere where nobody can measure it? > > > > I wonder why that would be? Hmm. > > That you continue to demonstrate your lack of comprehension of > physical processes is no one's fault but your own, Jim. Is that a yes or a no? > >> Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor > >> pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to > >> atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor > >> cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is > >> equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization > >> becomes a volume phenomena. > > > Do you have a reference for all of this? > > Already provided, Jim, and you snipped it out I snip anything that is not defnitive. Do you have anything definitive? Or should we just take your word on all of this? > > It seems rather speculative. Or am I expected to take your, uh, > > expert opinion on this? > > Well, that's your problem in a nutshell, isn't it, Jim? Apparently. > You take *no* > expert opinion Yes, well, I'm a physicist. So that is a part of my training. Did you know that the results of google searches aren't considered experimental evidence by real scientists, like me? > > Nothing I see here indicates the covalent bond shortening. So > > I can't figure out what your point is. > > <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> > "The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding > orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-路路路路OH2) both weaken the > covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) LOL. It's an O-H bond being lengthened, dumbass. Covalent bonds aren't being lengthened. > Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically > opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. Surreal. Do you feed yourself? > >> That's why, when using high > >> frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond > >> frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H > >> bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent > >> bonds. > > > You are misreading something. I don't know what. > > > > You aren't making any sense. Sorry. > > That reality doesn't make any sense to you is part and parcel of your > displayed That's funny. Because I'm an expert on this subject. > Now, get to refuting all that peer-reviewed data You/we don't refute data, dumbass. > Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is > electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is > the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you > fucking *moron*? Might you be so kind as to explain to us how you came to this amazing realization? Are you going to write a paper on it? > Do you not understand what plasma is, Perfectly. > Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere Proof?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 06:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <056771765eec75cacb84b83bf93b3079@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560420 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:99d53837-6063-45ca-8477-8eab79f0517d@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:50:04 AM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> Hmm. Well, there's the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O >>> at atmospheric pressures is much higher than is available in the >>> atmosphere. That seems like pretty good evidence to me. >> So you admit you're still confused as regards the vaporization process >> of water. The internet contains a plethora of information to relieve >> you of your confusion, > So, uh, you have a plethora of information. All of which utterly destroys your kooky little conspiracy theory, Jim. > And, apparently, none of confirms your assertions. Bullshit, Jim. It all confirms it. Your inability or refusal to grasp that reality is no one's fault but your own. > What you have pointed to is indicative of a group delusion, > not unlike the notion that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. > You have a belief supported by consensus. It is supported by experimental empirically derived data obtained from 2517 peer-reviewed studies, Jim. Conversely, your kooky theory has the sum total of ZERO corroborating peer-reviewed studies, cannot pass the peer-review process itself, and indeed cannot even get placed on a pre-print server. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit. > You don't have a fact supported by empirical evidence. Except for those 2517 studies, all presenting data empirically derived, Jim. You can backpedal and deny all you want, but your kooky theory is destroyed. I've shown you lack the requisite knowledge to even form a coherent theory that reflects reality. Accept that fact. >>> ever been detected in the laboratory? Or does it only exist up >>> high in the atmosphere where nobody can measure it? >>> >>> I wonder why that would be? Hmm. >> That you continue to demonstrate your lack of comprehension of >> physical processes is no one's fault but your own, Jim. > Is that a yes or a no? That is a "you're far too stupid to understand whether it is a yes or no", Jim. >>>> Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor >>>> pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to >>>> atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor >>>> cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is >>>> equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization >>>> becomes a volume phenomena. >>> Do you have a reference for all of this? >> Already provided, Jim, and you snipped it out > I snip anything that is not defnitive. Do you have anything > definitive? Or should we just take your word on all of this? You mean beside all that definitive data which definitively destroyed your kooky little conspiracy theory, Jim? Why do you snip out that which proves your theory wrong, rather than try to refute it, Jim? Is it because you know you cannot? >>> It seems rather speculative. Or am I expected to take your, uh, >>> expert opinion on this? >> Well, that's your problem in a nutshell, isn't it, Jim? > Apparently. No "apparently" about it, Jim. You have a mental problem that has led you to construct your kooky little conspiracy theory, despite lacking the requisite knowledge to ever construct a theory that reflects reality. I'd tell you to educate yourself, but your affliction with Dunning-Kruger means you really have nowhere to turn for knowledge that you would accept as reality... hence your own echo-chamber delusions are all you have, Jim. >> You take *no* expert opinion > Yes, well, I'm a physicist. So that is a part of my training. No, no you're not. You're a kooktard with an inadequate education pretending that he's a physicist. Which universities did you attend, and which degrees did you earn, Jim? > Did you know that the results of google searches aren't considered > experimental evidence by real scientists, like me? Then it's a good thing I've provided no Google search results, Jim. I've provided peer-reviewed studies which utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy theory because you're too stupid to construct a theory that reflects reality. >>> Nothing I see here indicates the covalent bond shortening. So >>> I can't figure out what your point is. >> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> >> "The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding >> orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-路路路路OH2) both weaken the >> covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) > LOL. It's an O-H bond being lengthened, dumbass. Covalent bonds > aren't being lengthened. Holy shit, James McGinn thinks covalent bonds don't change length! What does it say above, Jim? "both weaken the covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it)". Yet again, you prove you're a moron who is far too stupid and uneducated to ever construct a theory which reflects reality... hence you've constructed your kooky little discredited conspiracy theory instead. >> Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically >> opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. > Surreal. > > Do you feed yourself? And yet again James McGinn the uneducated oaf reiterates that he has no background education in chemical or physical sciences. Does it hurt your feelings that you're inadequate as compared to even a first-year chemistry major, Jim? >>>> That's why, when using high >>>> frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond >>>> frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H >>>> bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent >>>> bonds. >>> You are misreading something. I don't know what. >>> >>> You aren't making any sense. Sorry. >> That reality doesn't make any sense to you is part and parcel of your >> displayed > That's funny. Because I'm an expert on this subject. No, you're a kooktard with a discredited conspiracy theory and a raging case of Dunning-Kruger, desperately and pathetically attempting an appeal to authority fallacy whilst simultaneously attempting to establish yourself as that authority... but you're not an authority, Jim. You're a delusional kook. >> Now, get to refuting all that peer-reviewed data > You/we don't refute data, dumbass. Oh, then you admit you cannot refute the peer-reviewed studies, and the data contained therein, which utterly destroy your kooky little discredited conspiracy theory. Well, now we're making progress, Jim. Now scrap your kooky little conspiracy theory and try again. >> Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is >> electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is >> the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you >> fucking *moron*? > Might you be so kind as to explain to us how you came to this > amazing realization? Are you going to write a paper on it? <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594, 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight negative charge on the surface." <http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/36_eneg/electroneg.html> <http://www.webelements.com/nitrogen/electronegativity.html> O2 is electronegative, Jim, as is N2, the two largest constituents of our atmosphere. They accept those electrons at the water surface, helped by thermal kinetic energy random motion giving those molecules enough of a kick to leave the bulk water, thereby stripping water away from the surface in a process known as evaporation, a process you continue to demonstrate that you cannot fathom. Thus, at temperatures below the boiling point, the thermal kinetic energy is barely sufficient to evaporate those molecules of water except for the contributing factor of molecular attraction between the surface water molecules and the atmosphere. The opposite process also occurs, diffusion of the atmosphere into the water. If this were not the case, fish, for one example, would all suffocate. Given that the water molecule has only 62% the molar weight of bulk air for a given molar volume, once it's stripped from the water surface, its buoyancy will naturally cause it to rise until temperature in the atmosphere is low enough that condensation can occur, whereupon the ratio of the water cluster's downward facing surface area:mass is sufficient to allow it to fall back to earth against the combined effects of that lower molar weight and air updraft speed. That condensation process, BTW, is how water augurs heat out of our atmosphere... the latent heat of condensation is emitted in the infrared, at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, which allows that heat nearly unhindered passage out to the 2.725 K of space. I've already proven via two peer-reviewed sources that monomolecular water exists in the atmosphere, Jim. Why do you continue to deny reality? >> Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma >> existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from >> that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well >> impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning >> strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never >> stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near >> clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who >> knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, >> apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled >> you. > Perfectly. Apparently you don't, Jim. >> Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, >> just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. >> That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. > Proof? I've seen no proof from you that plasma *does* exist anywhere in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, Jim. Because you *have* no proof... and a large corpus of evidence that you're a blathering moron for even suggesting such a thing. Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere exists so high above the planet's surface is because it takes a lot of energy to generate and sustain a plasma? Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere has plasma is because at that altitude, the predominant species is hydrogen ions, not oxygen and nitrogen, said hydrogen ions *required* for the plasma to form? Do you not understand that the atmospheric reflection and absorption of sunlight as it descends through the atmosphere means the troposphere doesn't have the solar flux *nor* the hydrogen ions necessary to generate plasma? Do you not understand that clouds top out at the tropopause, and therefore the *only* place you can claim there exists plasma for your kooky conspiracy theory to work is in the troposphere? Do you not understand that in order for any degree of water ionization and thus plasma from water to occur, it requires a minimum of 12 eV to ionize that water, Jim? Do you not know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet light, nearly in the x-ray range. And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere is plasma. Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm. In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim. Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because he took an elective Basic Meteorology course once, when really you're just a delusional kooktard? So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 21:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4730e9fe-f054-49a8-a8d3-f2f48f0daaca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560667 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:19:38 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > What you have pointed to is indicative of a group delusion, > > not unlike the notion that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. > > You have a belief supported by consensus. > > It is supported by experimental empirically derived data obtained from > 2517 peer-reviewed studies, All you need is one that is definitive and you collect $100,000.00. Don't let the fact that I know my money is safe stop you from trying. > >>> ever been detected in the laboratory? Or does it only exist up > >>> high in the atmosphere where nobody can measure it? > >>> > >>> I wonder why that would be? Hmm. > > >> That you continue to demonstrate your lack of comprehension of > >> physical processes is no one's fault but your own, Jim. > > > Is that a yes or a no? > > That is a "you're far too stupid to understand whether it is a yes or > no", Jim. Appaently. > > Yes, well, I'm a physicist. So that is a part of my training. > > No, no you're not. Actually, I am. > > Did you know that the results of google searches aren't considered > > experimental evidence by real scientists, like me? > > Then it's a good thing I've provided no Google search results, Jim. > I've provided peer-reviewed studies which utterly destroyed your kooky > conspiracy theory because you're too stupid to construct a theory that > reflects reality. You've provided nonsense. > > LOL. It's an O-H bond being lengthened, dumbass. Covalent bonds > > aren't being lengthened. > > Holy shit, James McGinn thinks covalent bonds don't change length! I'm just going by what you referenced, dumbass. > > What does it say above, Jim? "both weaken the covalent O-H bond (so > lengthening it)". You misread it. > > You/we don't refute data, dumbass. > > Oh, then you admit you cannot refute the peer-reviewed studies, You can't refute nonsense. > >> Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is > >> electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is > >> the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you > >> fucking *moron*? > > > Might you be so kind as to explain to us how you came to this > > amazing realization? Are you going to write a paper on it? > > <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> > "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H > group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594, > 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions > [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight > negative charge on the surface." > > <http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/36_eneg/electroneg.html> > <http://www.webelements.com/nitrogen/electronegativity.html> > > O2 is electronegative, Jim, as is N2, the two largest constituents of > our atmosphere. They accept those electrons at the water surface, > helped by thermal kinetic energy random motion giving those molecules > enough of a kick to leave the bulk water, thereby stripping water away > from the surface in a process known as evaporation, a process you > continue to demonstrate that you cannot fathom. You didn't answer my question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 11:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbpo8u$1ecq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560679 |
On 3/8/2016 11:48 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:19:38 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>>> What you have pointed to is indicative of a group delusion,
>>> not unlike the notion that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming.
>>> You have a belief supported by consensus.
>>
>> It is supported by experimental empirically derived data obtained from
>> 2517 peer-reviewed studies,
>>>>> ever been detected in the laboratory? Or does it only exist up
>>>>> high in the atmosphere where nobody can measure it?
>>>>>
>>
>>>> That you continue to demonstrate your lack of comprehension of
>>>> physical processes is no one's fault but your own, Jim.
>>
>>
>> That is a "you're far too stupid to understand whether it is a yes or
>> no", Jim.
>
> Appaently.
>
>>> Yes, well, I'm a physicist. So that is a part of my training.
>>
>> No, no you're not.
>
> Actually, I am.
Prove it !
what college did you get your Physics degree at ?
I will call them and see if they have any record of your Degree.
answer NOW, you evasive Twit ! If you do not answer, we all will
know you are a liar.
Now, did we catch you in LIE ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 20:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ef3f50a4c5dceabeb69262166dd5e9f0@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560679 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:4730e9fe-f054-49a8-a8d3-f2f48f0daaca@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:19:38 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> What you have pointed to is indicative of a group delusion, >>> not unlike the notion that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. >>> You have a belief supported by consensus. >> It is supported by experimental empirically derived data obtained from >> 2517 peer-reviewed studies, > A<SMACKAKOOK!> I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory, James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on. I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. That's, what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory? Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled you. Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different updraft speeds) cause different types of rain. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further proves this fact. Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating lightning... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger. So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right? As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds: <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html> ========================================================= It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of energy about 12 electron volts of higher. That means the water molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to make such a plasma. ========================================================= Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet light, nearly in the x-ray range. And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere is plasma. Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm. In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim. Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're just a delusional kooktard? So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. <snicker> -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*); That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms; That superposition is the same as wave interference; That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves; That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things; That RMS isn't a DC voltage; That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave; That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering; What a positive or negative vector is; That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero; That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic"; That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 12:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16489cda-f0a6-40df-9342-ab33d703e645@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560878 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:33:20 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory, > James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 05:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5f24e91292c55a004c9c07231f9e1e8a@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560895 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:16489cda-f0a6-40df-9342-ab33d703e645@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:33:20 AM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ >> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> Still struggling with Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, Jim? >> >> 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, it's because density of >> the air varies with altitude, as does temperature. Or are you going to >> deny the existence of gravity the same as you've denied the existence >> of evaporation and sublimation? >> >> These factors cause air to flow from higher pressure regions to lower >> pressure regions. But once you get near the top of the troposphere, >> the temperature no longer goes down, it goes up, thus air finds it >> more difficult to continue rising (especially considering that as it >> rises and expands through the troposphere due to decreasing pressure >> at altitude, it gets cooler and thus more dense due to the Ideal Gas >> Law). This generally balances out at the tropopause. Above this, the >> jet stream winds decrease in speed. >> >> This horizontally flowing air at the tropopause is affected by >> planetary rotation, causing the air to turn to the right (in the >> Northern Hemisphere) in a phenomenon known as the Coriolis Effect. >> This causes a spiraling around the cold and warm air masses which >> induced the jet stream to begin with, thus causing those cold and warm >> air masses to spiral. This wind shear between warm and cold air masses >> is how hurricanes form, Jim. >> >> You'll note the jet stream runs at the top and slightly above the >> tropopause for the polar jets, thus they don't "deliver energy and >> activity to top of the thunderclouds", given that the tropopause >> ranges from an average of 5.6 miles at the poles to 11 miles at the >> equator, whereas the highest clouds are thin wispy cirrus, >> cirrostratus and cirrocumulus clouds, and they are the *only* types of >> clouds at the top of the troposphere, except for the occasional >> unusually strong weather system forming cumulus, cumulonimbus or >> nimbostratus clouds all the way up to the top of the tropopause. >> >> Because remember, it's the updraft which forms the clouds in the first >> place, and the speed of the updraft which determines what type of >> cloud is formed. And that updraft is caused by a combination of warmer >> air and air with higher gaseous water content creating air with >> greater buoyancy, carrying that gaseous water content upward, where >> the temperature drops, causing that gaseous water to condense and / or >> nucleate into clouds and eventually fall as rain under the right >> conditions. >> >> And that destroys yet another of your kooky contentions... because >> you're a low-information uneducated moron trying to argue a subject >> about which you know very little, while k'laming yourself to be a >> 'physicist' because you once took a Basic Meteorology elective >> class... a rather pathetic appeal to authority fallacy whilst trying >> to establish yourself as that authority. You are not an authority, >> Jim, you're just a delusional kooktard spouting a kooky and >> discredited conspiracy theory. >> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ >> >> That's one means by which I utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy >> theory, Jim. >> >> I've destroyed the central tenets of your kooky conspiracy theory, >> James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on. >> >> I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. >> That's... what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky >> conspiracy theory? >> >> Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky >> conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is >> a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm >> wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the >> atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well >> impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even >> *begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in >> the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic >> photons reaching throughout the troposphere. >> >> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ >> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma >> existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from >> that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well >> impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning >> strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never >> stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near >> clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who >> knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, >> apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled >> you. >> >> Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, >> just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. >> That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. >> >> For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. >> It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few >> microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no >> appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and >> updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface >> area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its >> radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is >> proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized >> water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet >> radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest >> average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they >> stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which >> is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting >> the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, >> thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous >> phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets >> grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface >> area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall >> to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different >> updraft speeds) cause different types of rain. >> >> Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an >> environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); >> convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are >> associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. >> >> For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its >> fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air >> down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of >> sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as >> compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of >> air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further >> proves this fact. >> >> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is >> another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas >> where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating >> lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the >> Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by >> rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a >> dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced >> tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle >> being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the >> P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and >> telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination >> signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their >> Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically >> the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, >> thus the Triboelectric Effect is stronger. >> >> So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which >> types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right? >> >> As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the >> atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, >> given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, >> wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds): >> >> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html> >> ========================================================= >> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a >> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at >> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if >> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only >> you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of >> energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water >> molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about >> this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation >> energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. >> So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to >> make such a plasma. >> ========================================================= >> >> Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 >> nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet >> light, nearly in the x-ray range. >> >> And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of >> plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere >> is plasma. >> >> Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through >> the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less >> energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm. >> >> In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so >> strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water >> plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming >> majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are >> except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim. >> >> Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the >> troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting >> of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because >> he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're >> just a delusional kooktard? >> >> Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for >> themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead >> run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your >> delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll >> avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world >> you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim. >> >> So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky >> conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. >> >> <snicker> >> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. No, Jim, we will not "have to agree to disagree". What is going to happen is that I will continue to deconstruct your kooky conspiracy theory with the entire world as an audience until even your delusional brain is forced to admit you're a low-information uneducated kooktard promulgating a kooky conspiracy theory that is physically impossible. Your beatings have just begun, Jim. We're only three days in and already I'm met the terms of your challenge, thereby causing you to owe me your offered $100,000, *and* I've utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy theory via several avenues. You and your kooky conspiracy theory stood no chance, Jim. That is a reality you will have to reconcile yourself to eventually. -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 16:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nc7c5r$lvh$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560895 |
On 3/9/2016 2:01 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:33:20 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > >> I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory, >> James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on. > > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. > everyone disagrees with you, which is good, and lets you retain your circular delusion
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 17:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20191e61-84be-4fa2-97b6-138dec5734e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559990 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 8:28:43 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: You're not the first D-K sufferer to suffer this fate, Jim... you're so prototypical you didn't even realize other D-K sufferers are often compelled to up the ante to ridiculous heights, often offering a "cash reward" to disprove their kooky theories... and all of them, when their kooky theories are disproved, ran away and went into hiding rather than pay. Don't worry, though... I'm also very good at tracking people down. There's no escape for you now, Jim. James McGinn: Don't get your panties in a bunch. Why don't you contact Al Gore. I'm notorious as a global warming "denier". My AKA is Claudius Denk. Do some research. They would love to find a way to get revenge on me. I exposed the scam about ten years ago. He would probably pay all your legal fees. And they are dumb enough they might actually think you have a case. You don't want to come chasing me down. I will just laugh at you. You need to find some allies in this endeavor. James McGinn Solving Tornadoes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 00:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3146d893360099c398ca6e@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #559904 |
In article <9f938a8128279124eb54c8c7295e9c0f@dizum.com>, FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx says... > "A fairyboy with an inadequate penis." But... but what about those six drooling mongoloids you claim to have fathered? -- Mustaffa Sheboygan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web