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

Groups > sci.physics > #554801 > unrolled thread

So, uh, what's the problem, fellas?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 18:41 -0800
    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-19 21:16 -0600
    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 22:12 -0600
      Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 20:36 -0800
        Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-19 23:35 -0600
    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 04:48 +0000
      Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 21:48 -0800
        Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 07:14 +0000
          Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 07:28 -0800
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:10 -0800
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-20 11:15 -0600
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:39 -0800
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 19:27 +0000
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-20 14:31 -0600
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 19:23 +0000
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 11:39 -0800
                Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 13:47 -0600
          Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:09 -0800
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-20 11:19 -0600
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:43 -0800
                Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 19:30 +0000
                Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-20 13:39 -0600
                  Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 12:09 -0800
                    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-20 14:32 -0600
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 19:29 +0000
          Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:31 -0800
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? dm <pippinese@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:22 -0800
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:44 -0800
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 19:33 +0000
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 01:23 -0800
                Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 07:57 -0600
                  Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:20 -0800
                    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:37 +0000
      Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 22:57 -0800
        Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 19:34 +0000
          Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 01:24 -0800
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 19:47 -0800
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 04:49 +0000
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 21:09 -0800
                Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 05:58 +0000
                  Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 22:53 -0800
                    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 10:07 -0600
                    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 19:24 +0000
                      Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:40 -0800
                        Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:28 +0000
                      Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:23 -0800
                        Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:39 +0000
                  Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 06:32 -0800
                    fella said, "pi meteorologists walk into a noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:45 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#554801 — So, uh, what's the problem, fellas?

There are at least 5 of you.  You each have a computer, internet access.  You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips.  Yet we have no arguments?  Just whining.  

Hmm.  

I wonder what the problem is.

Keep trying . . . I guess . . . 

Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4

H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ

How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU

Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss

Convection Versus Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo

Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#554806

On 2/19/2016 8:41 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> There are at least 5 of you.  You each have a computer, internet
> access.  You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental
> evidence at your fingertips.  Yet we have no arguments?  Just
> whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of
> Meteorology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
>
>

trying to get people to watch your vids to up the count ?

did you use a camera stand ?

did you keep the copyrights to your works ?

You could try to sell them on epsy too as a package, on a CD. or package
the CD with a book

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

#554812

On 2/19/16 8:41 PM, James McGinn wrote:

   The problem appears to be your lack of understanding of the following:

   Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
   gas. There is nothing to see.

 > Water vapour (H2O molecules)

 > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
 > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
 > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
 > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
 > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
 > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
 > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
 > lead to clouds.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#554815

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 8:12:40 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/19/16 8:41 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>    The problem appears to be your lack of understanding of the following:
> 
>    Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
>    gas. There is nothing to see.

I wonder what it is I'm not seeing.

Hmmmm.

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

#554838

On 2/19/2016 10:36 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 8:12:40 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/19/16 8:41 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>
>>     The problem appears to be your lack of understanding of the following:
>>
>>     Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
>>     gas. There is nothing to see.
>
> I wonder what it is I'm not seeing.
>
> Hmmmm.
>

yup, does it not look like this, below ?


























































































                                       .






















wait, you passed it.

it was one simulated molecule that had boiled off, a mono-something 
something
































































































what is down here anyway ?


































                                        .


















.

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

#554830

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There are at least 5 of you.  You each have a computer, internet access.  You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips.  Yet we have no arguments?  Just whining.  
> 

Logical arguments to someone with a delusional fixation is pointless as
all they do is ignore the facts.

> Hmm.  
> 
> I wonder what the problem is.

Explained here:

http://www.regionalcenter.org/mental-health/delusional-disorder


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#554842

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > There are at least 5 of you.  You each have a computer, internet access.  You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips.  Yet we have no arguments?  Just whining.  
> > 
> 
> Logical arguments to someone with a delusional fixation is pointless as
> all they do is ignore the facts.

You presented no facts, you evasive twit.

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

#554903

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > There are at least 5 of you.  You each have a computer, internet access.  You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips.  Yet we have no arguments?  Just whining.  
>> > 
>> 
>> Logical arguments to someone with a delusional fixation is pointless as
>> all they do is ignore the facts.
> 
> You presented no facts, you evasive twit.

On the contrary, I have presented several:

Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.

Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
always the same.

You have a delusional fixation.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#554917

Jim...@specsol.spam.sux.com
- show quoted text -
On the contrary, I have presented several: 

Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere. 

Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are 
commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are 
always the same. 

You have a delusional fixation. 
-------------

I suppose lightning may be classified as a plasma if you stretch the definition a bit.

But that ain't what Jimmy Mac was talking about. 

I wonder why kooks and other mental defectives like jim McGuinn are attracted to science newsgroups?

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

#554938

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
> Jim...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> - show quoted text -
> On the contrary, I have presented several: 
> 
> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere. 
> 
> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are 
> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are 
> always the same. 
> 
> You have a delusional fixation. 
> -------------
> 
> I suppose lightning may be classified as a plasma if you stretch the definition a bit.
> 
> But that ain't what Jimmy Mac was talking about. 
> 
> I wonder why kooks and other mental defectives like jim McGuinn are attracted to science newsgroups?

Bumbling moron.

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

#554941

On 2/20/2016 11:10 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
>> Jim...@specsol.spam.sux.com - show quoted text - On the contrary, I
>> have presented several:
>>
>> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.
>>
>> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions
>> are commonly done in both high school and college courses; the
>> results are always the same.
>>
>> You have a delusional fixation. -------------
>>
>> I suppose lightning may be classified as a plasma if you stretch
>> the definition a bit.
>>
>> But that ain't what Jimmy Mac was talking about.
>>
>> I wonder why kooks and other mental defectives like jim McGuinn are
>> attracted to science newsgroups?
>
> Bumbling moron.
>

it is a valid question, why are you posting in sci.physics ?

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

#554961

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
> Jim...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> - show quoted text -
> On the contrary, I have presented several: 
> 
> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere. 
> 
> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are 
> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are 
> always the same. 

There is zero data indicating the existence of cold steam.  That is but a mass delusion.  All you retards have is anecdote.  No data.


> 
> You have a delusional fixation. 
> -------------
> 
> I suppose lightning may be classified as a plasma if you stretch the definition a bit.

Plasma is't a thing.  It's a state of matter.  Only simpletons use make arguments based on dictionary definitions.

Our atmosphere is a slight plasma.  Moist air is a slightly stronger plasma.  Wind shear produces a plasma that is stronger still.

Don't get your panties in a twist.  A plasma is a plasma based on electromagnetic charges that exists between the molecules.  It's no big deal.

Fire is a plasma.

Sheep have difficulty thinking outside the box.  You are a sheep.

You are follower.  You are not a scientist.

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

#555015

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
>> Jim...@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> - show quoted text -
>> On the contrary, I have presented several: 
>> 
>> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere. 
>> 
>> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are 
>> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are 
>> always the same. 
> 
> There is zero data indicating the existence of cold steam.  That is but a mass delusion.  All you retards have is anecdote.  No data.

On the contrary, there is lots of data but you refuse to look at it.

That is a common defense mechanizm for the delusional.

>> 
>> You have a delusional fixation. 
>> -------------
>> 
>> I suppose lightning may be classified as a plasma if you stretch the definition a bit.
> 
> Plasma is't a thing.  It's a state of matter.  Only simpletons use make arguments based on dictionary definitions.

To be precise, a lightning strike can generate a plasma for a very short
period of time, but such does not generally occur in the atmosphere.

> Our atmosphere is a slight plasma.  Moist air is a slightly stronger plasma.  Wind shear produces a plasma that is stronger still.

As I thought, you don't understand what a plasma is.

> Don't get your panties in a twist.  A plasma is a plasma based on electromagnetic charges that exists between the molecules.  It's no big deal.
> 
> Fire is a plasma.

Nope.

> 
> Sheep have difficulty thinking outside the box.  You are a sheep.

The delusional refuses to actually look at reality.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555073

On 2/20/2016 11:39 AM, James McGinn wrote:

>
> Plasma is't a thing.  It's a state of matter.  Only simpletons use
> make arguments based on dictionary definitions.
>
> Our atmosphere is a slight plasma.

no

> Moist air is a slightly stronger
> plasma.

totally wrong.

  Wind shear produces a plasma that is stronger still.

very wrong.


>
> Don't get your panties in a twist.  A plasma is a plasma based on
> electromagnetic charges that exists between the molecules.

very wrong.


> It's no
> big deal.
>
> Fire is a plasma.

no, not at all.   try again.


You do not know what plasma is.

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

#555014

HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> - show quoted text -
> On the contrary, I have presented several: 
> 
> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere. 
> 
> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are 
> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are 
> always the same. 
> 
> You have a delusional fixation. 
> -------------
> 
> I suppose lightning may be classified as a plasma if you stretch the definition a bit.

A plasma may be formed for a short while in a large lightning stroke.
 
> But that ain't what Jimmy Mac was talking about. 

He doesn't know what he is talking about.

There are only two kinds of plasma; ionized matter and biological fluids,
neither of which are generally in the atmosphere.
 
> I wonder why kooks and other mental defectives like jim McGuinn are attracted to science newsgroups?

Their delusions that they alone have stumbled onto some truth through
some flash of insight without any groundwork educataion drives them
to reveal that truth to the ignorant world.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555028

You physics groupies can't formulate a substantive argument.  All you have is semantic triviality. 

It makes no difference to my theory as to whether or not the word plasma is fully accurate.  

Only fools fret about semantics.

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

#555038

On 2/20/16 1:39 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> You physics groupies can't formulate a substantive argument.


   From all the push back you are getting, James, you should start
   to understand that you've got everything wrong.


   The problem appears to be your lack of understanding of the following:

   Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
   gas. There is nothing to see.

 > Water vapour (H2O molecules)

 > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
 > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
 > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
 > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
 > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
 > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
 > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
 > lead to clouds.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#554937

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, > > You presented no facts, you evasive twit.
> 
> On the contrary, I have presented several:
> 
> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.

Not a fact.

> 
> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
> always the same.

Irrelevant. 

You are a simpleton.

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

#554944

On 2/20/2016 11:09 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, > > You presented
> no facts, you evasive twit.
>>
>> On the contrary, I have presented several:
>>
>> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.
>
> Not a fact.

plasma is ions, free ions do not travel far in the atmosphere before
combining and becoming molicule. Like 10^-3 mm at most.

everybody know that.  Where have you been ?

>
>>
>> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions
>> are commonly done in both high school and college courses; the
>> results are always the same.
>
> Irrelevant.

not so, too bad you missed out in HS and in college.

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

#554964

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> plasma is ions, free ions do not 

You are slow on the uptake.  The forces associated with ionic bonds and the forces associated with hydrogen bonds are both electromagnetic forces.  

Sheep can't think outside the box.  

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web