Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #556549 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-25 08:33 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-29 23:57 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 27 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Brawndo Has Electrolytes James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 08:33 -0800
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 10:45 -0600
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 11:22 -0600
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 09:27 -0800
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 11:32 -0600
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 09:38 -0800
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 12:44 -0600
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 10:56 -0800
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 19:51 +0000
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 14:33 -0600
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 19:49 +0000
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 13:14 -0800
e-something noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:03 -0800
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 22:09 +0000
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:35 -0800
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 16:48 -0600
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:08 +0000
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:23 -0800
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:10 +0000
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:05 -0800
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:26 +0000
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:39 -0800
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:53 +0000
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:31 -0800
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 03:51 +0000
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:41 -0800
Re: Brawndo Has Electrolytes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 23:57 +0000
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 08:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Brawndo Has Electrolytes |
| Message-ID | <ae5bf014-12bc-4f2c-af7a-2e5b2e975ae3@googlegroups.com> |
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39146 Convection is non-existent on our planet. Its a belief system. A religion. Nobody can address it factually because it is factually nonsensical. It's just dumb people following dumb people, like sheep. Everybody follows, nobody can describe why. Nobody will even try. Like global warming. You and Will demonstrated this brain-dead approach right here. Will gets emotional. You repeat the same thing, over and freekin over. Neither of you address the blatant contradictions of the convection model. Believers dodge contradictions. Scientists embrace them, explain them. If contradictions exist your theory is wrong or flawed. The convection model maintains huge contradictions. Hell, even the observation that most moist air is along the surface and most dry air is a few thousand feet above is an observation that kills the convection model. I pointed that out right here in this thread. DM provide an absurd explanation. And you didn't notice it. That alone tells me you are not a scientist. You say we can ascribe some clouds to thermals. That is just dumb confirmation bias. Dumb people assume humans are less prone to confirmation bias collectively. Actually humans are more prone to confirmation bias collectively. Sheep follow bigger herds. Do the math on cloud convection. Nobody ever does. Math doesn't lie. People lie. People are easily fooled by observations that appear to confirm what they believe. The dynamics of our atmosphere--including Hadley cells--have to do with boundary layers (between moist air and dry air) where flow/energy accumulates, and water-based plasma forming vortices along these boundaries, causing storms and jet stream. Convection plays no role at all. Electricity actually plays a larger role that anybody has been assuming, especially with respect to keeping heavier moist air suspended, it causes evaporation. The solar wind is the source for this electricity. I've challenged you many times to explain what you claim you understand. You refuse. You will not attempt to explain. You do not understand. You just believe. You just keep repeating the brain-dead mantra of believers. This is what you sound like to me: Idiocracy - Electrolytes - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA The data in the tables isn't directly measured. It is derived using assumptions. I have refuted the assumptions. That is all that is necessary. I'm not able to chase the ghosts of your imagination. Stop asking me to do the impossible. Take responsibility for what you claim you understand.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 10:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Ieednf7xpdteslLLnZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #556549 |
On 2/25/16 10:33 AM, James McGinn wrote: > Convection is non-existent on our planet. Review | Convection > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection > Convection is the concerted, collective movement of groups or > aggregates of molecules within fluids (e.g., liquids, gases) and > rheids, through advection or through diffusion or as a combination of > both of them. Convection of mass cannot take place in solids, since > neither bulk current flows nor significant diffusion can take place > in solids. Diffusion of heat can take place in solids, but that is > called heat conduction. Convection can be demonstrated by placing a > heat source (e.g. a Bunsen burner) at the side of a glass full of a > liquid, and observing the changes in temperature in the glass caused > by the warmer ghost fluid moving into cooler areas. > > Convective heat transfer is one of the major types of heat transfer, > and convection is also a major mode of mass transfer in fluids. > Convective heat and mass transfer take place both by diffusion – the > random Brownian motion of individual particles in the fluid – and by > advection, in which matter or heat is transported by the larger-scale > motion of currents in the fluid. In the context of heat and mass > transfer, the term "convection" is used to refer to the sum of > advective and diffusive transfer.[1] In common use the term > "convection" may refer loosely to heat transfer by convection, as > opposed to mass transfer by convection, or the convection process in > general. Sometimes "convection" is even used to refer specifically to > "free heat convection" (natural heat convection) as opposed to forced > heat convection. However, in mechanics the correct use of the word is > the general sense, and different types of convection should be > qualified for clarity. > > Convection can be qualified in terms of being natural, forced, > gravitational, granular, or thermomagnetic. It may also be said to be > due to combustion, capillary action, or Marangoni and Weissenberg > effects. Heat transfer by *natural convection plays a role* in the > structure of *Earth's atmosphere*, its oceans, and its mantle. Discrete > *convective cells in the atmosphere can be seen as clouds* , with > stronger convection resulting in thunderstorms. Natural convection > also plays a role in stellar physics. -- 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]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 11:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nandan$46e$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #556549 |
On 2/25/2016 10:33 AM, James McGinn wrote: dont post your goofy troll blog here, simpleton. So McGinn, "HOW DOES MY SHIRT DRY ?" you say you are a physicist, a meteorologist, an expert in water, what is your answer ? ANSWER NOW !! no evasive stuff, answer the simple question
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 09:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a3fae212-9092-4dcb-8218-c406cedda8a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556567 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:23:40 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > On 2/25/2016 10:33 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > dont post your goofy troll blog here, simpleton. > > > > > So McGinn, "HOW DOES MY SHIRT DRY ?" > > > you say you are a physicist, a meteorologist, an expert in water, > > what is your answer ? > > > ANSWER NOW !! > > no evasive stuff, answer the simple question A dryer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 11:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nandsn$5f5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #556569 |
On 2/25/2016 11:27 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:23:40 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> On 2/25/2016 10:33 AM, James McGinn wrote: >> >> dont post your goofy troll blog here, simpleton. >> >> >> >> >> So McGinn, "HOW DOES MY SHIRT DRY ?" >> >> >> you say you are a physicist, a meteorologist, an expert in water, >> >> what is your answer ? >> >> >> ANSWER NOW !! >> >> no evasive stuff, answer the simple question > > A dryer? > how does a "dryer" work ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 09:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b7f0e4e-efe4-443a-be5b-4c704055bf19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556570 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:33:18 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > On 2/25/2016 11:27 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:23:40 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >> On 2/25/2016 10:33 AM, James McGinn wrote: > >> > >> dont post your goofy troll blog here, simpleton. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> So McGinn, "HOW DOES MY SHIRT DRY ?" > >> > >> > >> you say you are a physicist, a meteorologist, an expert in water, > >> > >> what is your answer ? > >> > >> > >> ANSWER NOW !! > >> > >> no evasive stuff, answer the simple question > > > > A dryer? > > > > > how does a "dryer" work ? First you put the quarters in. Be sure to close the door all the way. Also, be sure you take the shirt off first.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 12:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nani2t$chn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #556571 |
On 2/25/2016 11:38 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:33:18 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> On 2/25/2016 11:27 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:23:40 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 2/25/2016 10:33 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>> >>>> dont post your goofy troll blog here, simpleton. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So McGinn, "HOW DOES MY SHIRT DRY ?" >>>> >>>> >>>> you say you are a physicist, a meteorologist, an expert in water, >>>> >>>> what is your answer ? >>>> >>>> >>>> ANSWER NOW !! >>>> >>>> no evasive stuff, answer the simple question >>> <snip unresponsive troll crap> ANSWER THE QUESTION MCGINN !! I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is completely dry. there was no wet spot under the shirt at all. how did the water get out ? No "smoke" came off it at all. did my shirt out-gas ? did the water come out as a gas ? water gas ? Water Vapor ? Humidity ? so How can that happen when you say there is no such thing on earth ? a counter example you refuse to answer ? did you make a mistake ? It blows a HUGE hole in you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 10:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <48451cb3-f154-4071-8093-31a538b220b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556588 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:44:51 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > On 2/25/2016 11:38 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:33:18 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >> On 2/25/2016 11:27 AM, James McGinn wrote: > >>> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:23:40 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >>>> On 2/25/2016 10:33 AM, James McGinn wrote: > >>>> > >>>> dont post your goofy troll blog here, simpleton. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> So McGinn, "HOW DOES MY SHIRT DRY ?" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> you say you are a physicist, a meteorologist, an expert in water, > >>>> > >>>> what is your answer ? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ANSWER NOW !! > >>>> > >>>> no evasive stuff, answer the simple question > >>> > > <snip unresponsive troll crap> > > > ANSWER THE QUESTION MCGINN !! > > I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is > completely dry. there was no wet spot under the shirt at all. > > how did the water get out ? > > No "smoke" came off it at all. > > did my shirt out-gas ? did the water come out as a gas ? > > water gas ? Water Vapor ? Humidity ? > > so How can that happen when you say there is no such thing on earth ? > > a counter example you refuse to answer ? > > did you make a mistake ? > > It blows a HUGE hole in you. For safety purposes maybe it would be best to keep the quarters in your pocket before you put the shirt in the dryer, what way if you forget to take the shirt off first you won't be able to turn it on. Or maybe get somebody there to help you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <di24qc-mg.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556590 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:44:51 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> On 2/25/2016 11:38 AM, James McGinn wrote: >> > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:33:18 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> >> On 2/25/2016 11:27 AM, James McGinn wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:23:40 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> >>>> On 2/25/2016 10:33 AM, James McGinn wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> dont post your goofy troll blog here, simpleton. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> So McGinn, "HOW DOES MY SHIRT DRY ?" >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> you say you are a physicist, a meteorologist, an expert in water, >> >>>> >> >>>> what is your answer ? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ANSWER NOW !! >> >>>> >> >>>> no evasive stuff, answer the simple question >> >>> >> >> <snip unresponsive troll crap> >> >> >> ANSWER THE QUESTION MCGINN !! >> >> I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is >> completely dry. there was no wet spot under the shirt at all. >> >> how did the water get out ? >> >> No "smoke" came off it at all. >> >> did my shirt out-gas ? did the water come out as a gas ? >> >> water gas ? Water Vapor ? Humidity ? >> >> so How can that happen when you say there is no such thing on earth ? >> >> a counter example you refuse to answer ? >> >> did you make a mistake ? >> >> It blows a HUGE hole in you. > > For safety purposes maybe it would be best to keep the quarters in your A delusional kook might mistake them for candy. <snip characters past 78> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 14:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nanogu$ov7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #556590 |
On 2/25/2016 12:56 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:44:51 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> On 2/25/2016 11:38 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:33:18 AM UTC-8, Sergio >>> wrote: >>>> On 2/25/2016 11:27 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:23:40 AM UTC-8, Sergio >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 2/25/2016 10:33 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> dont post your goofy troll blog here, simpleton. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So McGinn, "HOW DOES MY SHIRT DRY ?" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> you say you are a physicist, a meteorologist, an expert in >>>>>> water, >>>>>> >>>>>> what is your answer ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ANSWER NOW !! >>>>>> >>>>>> no evasive stuff, answer the simple question >>>>> >> >> <snip unresponsive troll crap> >> >> >> ANSWER THE QUESTION MCGINN !! >> >> I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it >> is completely dry. there was no wet spot under the shirt at all. >> >> how did the water get out ? >> >> No "smoke" came off it at all. >> >> did my shirt out-gas ? did the water come out as a gas ? >> >> water gas ? Water Vapor ? Humidity ? >> >> so How can that happen when you say there is no such thing on earth >> ? >> >> a counter example you refuse to answer ? >> >> did you make a mistake ? >> >> It blows a HUGE hole in you. > > For safety purposes maybe it would be best to keep the quarters in > my bla bla bla bla bla bla bla what way if I > forget to take the shirt obla bla bla bla bla o turn it on. > Or maybe get somebody there to help me. > gotcha ! You can't answer the question, you little cold steam denier. you are total full of shit ko0K. Your entire delusional world smashed by a shirt drying on a clothesline.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 19:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jf24qc-mg.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556549 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39146 > > Convection is non-existent on our planet. Since convection can be oberved in real time by schlieren imaging, this is obviously false. <snip characters past 78> > > Believers dodge contradictions. Scientists embrace them, explain them. Scientists say convection can be oberved in real time by schlieren imaging. <snip characters past 78> > You say we can ascribe some clouds to thermals. That is just dumb Who is "you"? Glider pilots can confirm thermals lead to clouds. <snip characters past 78> > > The dynamics of our atmosphere--including Hadley cells--have to do with You are clueless. <snip characters past 78> > I've challenged you many times to explain what you claim you understand. I have given you two experiments that refute your nonsense; you arm waved the experiments away with more nonsense. <snip characters past 78> <snip remaining, unformatted, delusional ravings> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 13:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5e78e700-8079-498e-a1d7-3797cc5306fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556611 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 12:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39146 > > > > Convection is non-existent on our planet. > > Since convection can be oberved in real time by schlieren imaging, this is > obviously false. > > <snip characters past 78> > > > > > Believers dodge contradictions. Scientists embrace them, explain them. > > Scientists say convection can be oberved in real time by schlieren imaging. > > <snip characters past 78> > > > You say we can ascribe some clouds to thermals. That is just dumb > > Who is "you"? > > Glider pilots can confirm thermals lead to clouds. Just out of curiosity, do you believe in the greenhouse effect also?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 14:03 -0800 |
| Subject | e-something |
| Message-ID | <142cb4d9-8f5f-4f0f-9aec-cb95ae212f4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556642 |
the primary glassal houser is the vapor of water; OCO comes way behind, but they are both cobustionstuff > Just out of curiosity, do you believe in the greenhouse effect also?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 22:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mla4qc-eg1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556642 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 12:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39146 >> > >> > Convection is non-existent on our planet. >> >> Since convection can be oberved in real time by schlieren imaging, this is >> obviously false. >> >> <snip characters past 78> >> >> > >> > Believers dodge contradictions. Scientists embrace them, explain them. >> >> Scientists say convection can be oberved in real time by schlieren imaging. >> >> <snip characters past 78> >> >> > You say we can ascribe some clouds to thermals. That is just dumb >> >> Who is "you"? >> >> Glider pilots can confirm thermals lead to clouds. > > Just out of curiosity, do you believe in the greenhouse effect also? Which "greenhouse effect", there is more than one thing with this name. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 14:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <055a91b5-475c-4241-b1d6-375e618fb598@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556664 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > Convection is non-existent on our planet. > >> > >> Since convection can be observed in real time by schlieren imaging, this is > >> obviously false. How so? Can you explain? > >> > Believers dodge contradictions. Scientists embrace them, explain them. > >> > >> Scientists say convection can be oberved in real time by schlieren imaging. You believe them? Why? Can you explain? > >> > >> <snip characters past 78> > >> > >> > You say we can ascribe some clouds to thermals. That is just dumb > >> > >> Who is "you"? > >> > >> Glider pilots can confirm thermals lead to clouds. How do they know thermals are, uh, thermal? Can you explain? Or should we just take your word on all of this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 16:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nao0dk$164i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #556672 |
On 2/25/2016 4:35 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>> Convection is non-existent on our planet. >>>> >>>> Since convection can be observed in real time by schlieren imaging, this is >>>> obviously false. > > How so? Can you explain? we can't help you learn anything troll, esad. > >>>>> Believers dodge contradictions. Scientists embrace them, explain them. >>>> >>>> Scientists say convection can be oberved in real time by schlieren imaging. > > I believe them? Why? Can I explain? no need to give you any information, it is a complete waste of time. > >>>> >>>> <snip characters past 78> >>>> >>>>> You say we can ascribe some clouds to thermals. That is just dumb >>>> >>>> Who is "you"? >>>> >>>> Glider pilots can confirm thermals lead to clouds. > > How do they know thermals are, uh, thermal? Can I explain? stupid moron, kept locked in a closet since you were 6 ? go play with yourself in alt.mcginn.moron.troll. > > Or should we just take my word on all of this? I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is completely dry. there was no wet spot under the shirt at all. how did the water get out ? No "smoke" came off it at all. did my shirt out-gas ? did the water come out as a gas ? water gas ? Water Vapor ? Humidity ? so How can that happen when you say there is no such thing on earth ? a counter example you refuse to answer ? did you make a mistake ? It blows a HUGE hole in you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 23:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <h4e4qc-6s1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556672 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> > Convection is non-existent on our planet. >> >> >> >> Since convection can be observed in real time by schlieren imaging, this is >> >> obviously false. > > How so? Can you explain? I have several times already. >> >> > Believers dodge contradictions. Scientists embrace them, explain them. >> >> >> >> Scientists say convection can be oberved in real time by schlieren imaging. > > You believe them? Why? Can you explain? Yes. Because I have seen it. Explain what? >> >> <snip characters past 78> >> >> >> >> > You say we can ascribe some clouds to thermals. That is just dumb >> >> >> >> Who is "you"? >> >> >> >> Glider pilots can confirm thermals lead to clouds. > > How do they know thermals are, uh, thermal? Can you explain? From the outside air temperature and the vertical speed indicator. Explain what? > Or should we just take your word on all of this? No, go get a glider rating and see for yourself. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 15:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6372d59b-861f-460b-8cf8-b18eb7ce514d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556689 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com > >> >> Since convection can be observed in real time by schlieren imaging, this is > >> >> obviously false. > > > > How so? Can you explain? > > I have several times already. Really? > >> >> > Believers dodge contradictions. Scientists embrace them, explain them. > >> >> > >> >> Scientists say convection can be oberved in real time by schlieren imaging. > > > > You believe them? Why? Can you explain? > > Yes. Because I have seen it. Explain what? Could you see individual water molecules? > >> >> Glider pilots can confirm thermals lead to clouds. > > > > How do they know thermals are, uh, thermal? Can you explain? > > From the outside air temperature and the vertical speed indicator. Explain > what? Are you saying that you know for a fact that the energy of the updraft came from below rather from above. How did you verify this? Or is that just assumed? > > > Or should we just take your word on all of this? > > No, go get a glider rating and see for yourself. > > > -- > Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 00:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnh4qc-682.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556691 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com > >> >> >> Since convection can be observed in real time by schlieren imaging, this is >> >> >> obviously false. >> > >> > How so? Can you explain? >> >> I have several times already. > > Really? > >> >> >> > Believers dodge contradictions. Scientists embrace them, explain them. >> >> >> >> >> >> Scientists say convection can be oberved in real time by schlieren imaging. >> > >> > You believe them? Why? Can you explain? >> >> Yes. Because I have seen it. Explain what? > > Could you see individual water molecules? Answered many times now. >> >> >> Glider pilots can confirm thermals lead to clouds. >> > >> > How do they know thermals are, uh, thermal? Can you explain? >> >> From the outside air temperature and the vertical speed indicator. Explain >> what? > > Are you saying that you know for a fact that the energy of the updraft > came from below rather from above. How did you verify this? Or is that > just assumed? Learn how to format a line of text to no more than 78 characters. Yes. Get a glider rating and see for yourself. No. >> > Or should we just take your word on all of this? >> >> No, go get a glider rating and see for yourself. >> >> >> -- >> Jim Pennino > -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 15:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7fbfd292-d35d-40ee-aa1a-f4dab4bf374b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556705 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > Could you see individual water molecules? > > Answered many times now. Brawndo has electrolytes > Yes. Get a glider rating and see for yourself. No. Pilots drink Brawndo, because it has electrolytes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web