Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #555283 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-21 11:25 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-01 15:42 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 11:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:41 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-21 19:55 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:04 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 15:05 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 21:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:00 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:18 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:34 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:37 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:48 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:05 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:39 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 06:53 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:25 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:32 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:57 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 23:19 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:41 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:39 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 09:31 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness dm <pippinese@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 08:14 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:30 -0800
moistly noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:30 -0800
Re: moistly James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:45 -0800
my assumptions are easy to explain noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:00 -0800
Re: moistly Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 14:01 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:38 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:54 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:12 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:21 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:05 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:19 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:49 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:56 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:59 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 22:44 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 23:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 08:27 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 12:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 17:27 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:55 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 17:09 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:04 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:26 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 21:59 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:15 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:46 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:59 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:51 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:36 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 17:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 10:41 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 11:31 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 16:39 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:34 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 17:25 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:24 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:54 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:40 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:47 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:10 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:35 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:56 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:03 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:33 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:06 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 01:05 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:01 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 22:45 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:19 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:43 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 17:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 19:43 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:02 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:18 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 21:12 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 03:11 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:07 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:09 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 19:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:27 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 17:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:30 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 19:41 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:07 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:23 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:23 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 20:38 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:36 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-26 13:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-26 21:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:09 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:23 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:26 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:22 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:48 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 23:25 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:18 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:35 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:50 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 17:22 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 02:14 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 21:03 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 03:33 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 20:21 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:14 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:24 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 13:11 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:10 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:56 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:36 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:46 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:38 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:56 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 22:58 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:28 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:36 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 00:13 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 03:50 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 23:55 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 18:01 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 15:28 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 14:50 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:50 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:38 -0800
haha, none noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:53 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 15:42 -0600
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 12:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cae03b12-f42f-4b16-ab20-3d1caf5a4feb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556041 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:26:26 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: Are you still wetting yourself, shirt boy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 18:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naqqcn$1cuo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #557000 |
On 2/26/2016 2:52 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:26:26 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > take a look at the links below James "tweeker" McGinn, proof and evidence you are missing as your brain evaporated. James McGinn Book Review Customer Reviews; 1.0 out of 5 stars insane rambling *By K. Parker* on July 3, 2014 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit. 1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of time, a non-funny joke *By hunter* on July 16, 2014 Format: Kindle Edition This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive self publishing by a moron. *direct film evidence of convection*; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLp_rSBzteI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSFwH0BVd3Q *direct film evidence of Water Vapor*, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQX6c_Ln2To https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgdoGPXOwGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g74X2nnBTw *COLD STEAM direct evidence on film*; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMNSvpB9dY *Water Vapor explained to little James by Mr. Wizard* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTKmWp7ek2A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l0qupc-v6c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555655 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > The data that, supposedly, substantiates it doesn't involve direct >> >> > measurement but derivations base on indirect data. >> >> >> >> Convection, evaporation, and sublimation can all be directly observed >> >> with Schlieren imaging. >> > >> > Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? >> >> So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling >> point and the relative densities of gaseous H2O and air at different >> temperatures, which are different than your claims. > > The subject is moisture in the atmosphere at ambient temperatures/pressure. > Do you agree? Yep. > > Are you saying that the fact that moisture is in the atmosphere that it > must be gaseous? Answer this question. Answer yes or no. Don't think > about it just answer. No. I am saying it is possible to see the difference between gaseous H2O and liquid H2O in air. One method to see this is using Schlieren imaging. Yet another method to see this is based on the proven fact that while air, liquid H2O (in very small amounts) and gaseous H2O are invisible in the visible spectrum, they have very different properties at other light frequencies, most notably IR. And there is yet another experiment that can be done to show you are delusional. Take a fixed volume of air and slowly increase the temperature while monitoring the pressure. If the H2O in the air were liquid, the pressure would increase smoothly with temperature until the boiling point was reached, at which point the liquid H2O would become gaseous and there would be a sudden increase in prssure. If the H2O in the air were gaseous, the pressure would increase smoothly with temperature through the boiling point and above. Guess which happens? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 14:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <abe7f748-2f3f-4674-81fb-630c32a29ba4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555963 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > I am saying it is possible to see the difference between gaseous H2O and > liquid H2O in air. > > One method to see this is using Schlieren imaging. Can you explain this? > Yet another method to see this is based on the proven fact that while > air, liquid H2O (in very small amounts) and gaseous H2O are invisible > in the visible spectrum, they have very different properties at other > light frequencies, most notably IR. Can you be more specific? Has this been verified? How? > And there is yet another experiment that can be done to show you are > delusional. > > Take a fixed volume of air and slowly increase the temperature while > monitoring the pressure. Where is the data on this? > > If the H2O in the air were liquid, the pressure would increase smoothly > with temperature until the boiling point was reached, at which point > the liquid H2O would become gaseous and there would be a sudden increase > in prssure. Are you assuming this, or do you know? How do you know? Should we just take your word on it? > > If the H2O in the air were gaseous, the pressure would increase smoothly > with temperature through the boiling point and above. > > Guess which happens? What does this prove, and why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 16:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ga6dneDH4_8PGVLLnZ2dnUU7-K8AAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #556676 |
On 2/25/16 4:40 PM, James McGinn wrote: > Should we just take your word on it? You can look it up, James. But you won't. A true scientist always investigates the scientific literature. -- 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 | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 23:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87e4qc-6s1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556679 |
Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/25/16 4:40 PM, James McGinn wrote: >> Should we just take your word on it? > > > You can look it up, James. But you won't. A true scientist always > investigates the scientific literature. A true scientist always does the experiment himself. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 15:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <735f6930-f607-4b65-898f-204a35082c07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556690 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2/25/16 4:40 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >> Should we just take your word on it? > > > > > > You can look it up, James. But you won't. A true scientist always > > investigates the scientific literature. > > A true scientist always does the experiment himself. Have you done the experiment?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 23:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <avg4qc-682.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556697 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 2/25/16 4:40 PM, James McGinn wrote: >> >> Should we just take your word on it? >> > >> > >> > You can look it up, James. But you won't. A true scientist always >> > investigates the scientific literature. >> >> A true scientist always does the experiment himself. > > Have you done the experiment? Which experiment; I have told about several now. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 23:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <crd4qc-6s1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556676 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> I am saying it is possible to see the difference between gaseous H2O and >> liquid H2O in air. >> >> One method to see this is using Schlieren imaging. > > Can you explain this? Yes, and I have several times now. To summarize; the density of air varies with temperature and humidity and hence one is able to see things like convection and water evaporating. >> Yet another method to see this is based on the proven fact that while >> air, liquid H2O (in very small amounts) and gaseous H2O are invisible >> in the visible spectrum, they have very different properties at other >> light frequencies, most notably IR. > > Can you be more specific? Has this been verified? How? This is something that is fairly widely known and used daily in satellite observation. Compare visible photographs to IR photographs. This is also well documented, look it up yourself I am not going to spoon feed you. >> And there is yet another experiment that can be done to show you are >> delusional. >> >> Take a fixed volume of air and slowly increase the temperature while >> monitoring the pressure. > > Where is the data on this? That is the whole point, YOU take the data. >> If the H2O in the air were liquid, the pressure would increase smoothly >> with temperature until the boiling point was reached, at which point >> the liquid H2O would become gaseous and there would be a sudden increase >> in prssure. > > Are you assuming this, or do you know? How do you know? I know because I understand the science. > Should we just take your word on it? No, doubters should do the experiment and see for themselves. >> If the H2O in the air were gaseous, the pressure would increase smoothly >> with temperature through the boiling point and above. >> >> Guess which happens? > > What does this prove, and why? It proves that humidity in air is gaseous and the reason to do it is to prove that humidity in air is gaseous to any doubters that do the experiment. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 15:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e03d8177-9ba8-49a2-a480-9b10f771c7dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556688 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> I am saying it is possible to see the difference between gaseous H2O and > >> liquid H2O in air. > >> > >> One method to see this is using Schlieren imaging. > > > > Can you explain this? > > Yes, and I have several times now. Does this method allow you to view individual molecules of H2O? > To summarize; the density of air varies with temperature and humidity > and hence one is able to see things like convection and water evaporating. But you're not saying you can see individual molecules, right? Or am I missing something? > >> Yet another method to see this is based on the proven fact that while > >> air, liquid H2O (in very small amounts) and gaseous H2O are invisible > >> in the visible spectrum, they have very different properties at other > >> light frequencies, most notably IR. > > > > Can you be more specific? Has this been verified? How? > > This is something that is fairly widely known and used daily in satellite > observation. Compare visible photographs to IR photographs. How was gaseous H2O verified? Be specific. > This is also well documented, look it up yourself I am not going to > spoon feed you. Can explain it, in your own words? > > >> And there is yet another experiment that can be done to show you are > >> delusional. > >> > >> Take a fixed volume of air and slowly increase the temperature while > >> monitoring the pressure. > > > > Where is the data on this? > > That is the whole point, YOU take the data. How do you know if you have no data? Can you explain? > > >> If the H2O in the air were liquid, the pressure would increase smoothly > >> with temperature until the boiling point was reached, at which point > >> the liquid H2O would become gaseous and there would be a sudden increase > >> in prssure. > > > > Are you assuming this, or do you know? How do you know? > > I know because I understand the science. Can you explain it? > > > Should we just take your word on it? > > No, doubters should do the experiment and see for themselves. See what, exactly? > > >> If the H2O in the air were gaseous, the pressure would increase smoothly > >> with temperature through the boiling point and above. > >> > >> Guess which happens? > > > > What does this prove, and why? > > It proves that humidity in air is gaseous How so? and the reason to do it is to > prove that humidity in air is gaseous to any doubters that do the experiment. What is the criteria I should be looking for? Be specific.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 00:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1ih4qc-682.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556696 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> I am saying it is possible to see the difference between gaseous H2O and >> >> liquid H2O in air. >> >> >> >> One method to see this is using Schlieren imaging. >> > >> > Can you explain this? >> >> Yes, and I have several times now. > > Does this method allow you to view individual molecules of H2O? It allows you to see the difference between gaseous H2O and water. >> To summarize; the density of air varies with temperature and humidity >> and hence one is able to see things like convection and water evaporating. > > But you're not saying you can see individual molecules, right? Or am I > missing something? See above. Yes, you are missing the fact that USENET posting should limit the line length to 78 characters or less. >> >> Yet another method to see this is based on the proven fact that while >> >> air, liquid H2O (in very small amounts) and gaseous H2O are invisible >> >> in the visible spectrum, they have very different properties at other >> >> light frequencies, most notably IR. >> > >> > Can you be more specific? Has this been verified? How? >> >> This is something that is fairly widely known and used daily in satellite >> observation. Compare visible photographs to IR photographs. > > How was gaseous H2O verified? Be specific. It is time for you to do some of your own homework. >> This is also well documented, look it up yourself I am not going to >> spoon feed you. > > Can explain it, in your own words? Yes; air, gaseous H2O and water appear differently in the IR spectrum. >> >> And there is yet another experiment that can be done to show you are >> >> delusional. >> >> >> >> Take a fixed volume of air and slowly increase the temperature while >> >> monitoring the pressure. >> > >> > Where is the data on this? >> >> That is the whole point, YOU take the data. > > How do you know if you have no data? Can you explain? Because I understand the science. I just did. Do the experiment and prove me wrong. >> >> If the H2O in the air were liquid, the pressure would increase smoothly >> >> with temperature until the boiling point was reached, at which point >> >> the liquid H2O would become gaseous and there would be a sudden increase >> >> in prssure. >> > >> > Are you assuming this, or do you know? How do you know? >> >> I know because I understand the science. > > Can you explain it? I just did. >> >> > Should we just take your word on it? >> >> No, doubters should do the experiment and see for themselves. > > See what, exactly? See that what I said is correct. >> >> If the H2O in the air were gaseous, the pressure would increase smoothly >> >> with temperature through the boiling point and above. >> >> >> >> Guess which happens? >> > >> > What does this prove, and why? >> >> It proves that humidity in air is gaseous > > How so? Already explained several times. > and the reason to do it is to >> prove that humidity in air is gaseous to any doubters that do the experiment. > > What is the criteria I should be looking for? Already explained several times. > Be specific. I have already dumbed it down so a grade school kid could do the experiment. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 16:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <be5230d2-695f-4b3b-9379-e021cb51f0fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556704 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> >> I am saying it is possible to see the difference between gaseous H2O and > >> >> liquid H2O in air. > >> >> > >> >> One method to see this is using Schlieren imaging. > >> > > >> > Can you explain this? > >> > >> Yes, and I have several times now. > > > > Does this method allow you to view individual molecules of H2O? > > It allows you to see the difference between gaseous H2O and water. Bullshit. > > >> To summarize; the density of air varies with temperature and humidity > >> and hence one is able to see things like convection and water evaporating. > > > > But you're not saying you can see individual molecules, right? Or am I > > missing something? > > See above. > > Yes, you are missing the fact that USENET posting should limit the line > length to 78 characters or less. > > >> >> Yet another method to see this is based on the proven fact that while > >> >> air, liquid H2O (in very small amounts) and gaseous H2O are invisible > >> >> in the visible spectrum, they have very different properties at other > >> >> light frequencies, most notably IR. > >> > > >> > Can you be more specific? Has this been verified? How? > >> > >> This is something that is fairly widely known and used daily in satellite > >> observation. Compare visible photographs to IR photographs. > > > > How was gaseous H2O verified? Be specific. > > It is time for you to do some of your own homework. You just did it for me. > > >> This is also well documented, look it up yourself I am not going to > >> spoon feed you. > > > > Can explain it, in your own words? > > Yes; air, gaseous H2O and water appear differently in the IR spectrum. If that is what you believe then why not make an argument to that effect. > > >> >> And there is yet another experiment that can be done to show you are > >> >> delusional. > >> >> > >> >> Take a fixed volume of air and slowly increase the temperature while > >> >> monitoring the pressure. > >> > > >> > Where is the data on this? > >> > >> That is the whole point, YOU take the data. > > > > How do you know if you have no data? Can you explain? > > Because I understand the science. I just did. Isn't that what scientific frauds claim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 01:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <h0l4qc-tl2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556717 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >> >> I am saying it is possible to see the difference between gaseous H2O and >> >> >> liquid H2O in air. >> >> >> >> >> >> One method to see this is using Schlieren imaging. >> >> > >> >> > Can you explain this? >> >> >> >> Yes, and I have several times now. >> > >> > Does this method allow you to view individual molecules of H2O? >> >> It allows you to see the difference between gaseous H2O and water. > > Bullshit. Try it and see for yourself. >> >> To summarize; the density of air varies with temperature and humidity >> >> and hence one is able to see things like convection and water evaporating. >> > >> > But you're not saying you can see individual molecules, right? Or am I >> > missing something? >> >> See above. >> >> Yes, you are missing the fact that USENET posting should limit the line >> length to 78 characters or less. >> >> >> >> Yet another method to see this is based on the proven fact that while >> >> >> air, liquid H2O (in very small amounts) and gaseous H2O are invisible >> >> >> in the visible spectrum, they have very different properties at other >> >> >> light frequencies, most notably IR. >> >> > >> >> > Can you be more specific? Has this been verified? How? >> >> >> >> This is something that is fairly widely known and used daily in satellite >> >> observation. Compare visible photographs to IR photographs. >> > >> > How was gaseous H2O verified? Be specific. >> >> It is time for you to do some of your own homework. > > You just did it for me. Nope, that sounds like sour grapes from someone backed into a corner. >> >> This is also well documented, look it up yourself I am not going to >> >> spoon feed you. >> > >> > Can explain it, in your own words? >> >> Yes; air, gaseous H2O and water appear differently in the IR spectrum. > > If that is what you believe then why not make an argument to that effect. Why don't you try it and see for yourself? >> >> >> And there is yet another experiment that can be done to show you are >> >> >> delusional. >> >> >> >> >> >> Take a fixed volume of air and slowly increase the temperature while >> >> >> monitoring the pressure. >> >> > >> >> > Where is the data on this? >> >> >> >> That is the whole point, YOU take the data. >> > >> > How do you know if you have no data? Can you explain? >> >> Because I understand the science. I just did. > > Isn't that what scientific frauds claim? As well as delusional kooks that refuse to do an experiment that would prove them wrong. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 17:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5fe2ec4e-81ff-4fdc-99b2-3ba9b91b2fe9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556727 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > As well as delusional kooks that refuse to do an experiment that would > prove them wrong. You are the one making the claim here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 02:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a8o4qc-rv2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556733 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> As well as delusional kooks that refuse to do an experiment that would >> prove them wrong. > > You are the one making the claim here. I am making no claim, I am outlining an experiment to prove or disprove your claims. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 13:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8b6916d0-f01b-4490-8890-fc6bb520c987@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556744 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > I am making no claim, Excellent, the first step is being honest about what you don't know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 22:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nar9n1$1ttr$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #557011 |
On 2/26/2016 3:10 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:16:07 PM UTC-8, > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> I am making no claim, > > Excellent, the first step is being honest about what I don't know is > water, weather, air etc.... > take a look at the links below James "tweeker" McGinn, proof and evidence you are missing as your brain evaporated. James McGinn Book Review Customer Reviews; 1.0 out of 5 stars insane rambling *By K. Parker* on July 3, 2014 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit. 1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of time, a non-funny joke *By hunter* on July 16, 2014 Format: Kindle Edition This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive self publishing by a moron. *direct film evidence of convection*; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLp_rSBzteI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSFwH0BVd3Q *direct film evidence of Water Vapor*, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQX6c_Ln2To https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgdoGPXOwGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g74X2nnBTw *COLD STEAM direct evidence on film*; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMNSvpB9dY *Water Vapor explained to little James by Mr. Wizard* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTKmWp7ek2A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 16:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dc9de4f9-6c4c-42bd-b068-3aec6d47d546@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556688 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> I am saying it is possible to see the difference between gaseous H2O and > >> liquid H2O in air. > >> > >> One method to see this is using Schlieren imaging. > > > > Can you explain this? > > Yes, and I have several times now. I wonder why I can't find it? > > To summarize; the density of air varies with temperature and humidity > and hence one is able to see things like convection and water evaporating. Would you like to retract your claim that it can distinguish gaseous H2O from evaporate? Maybe you will feel better about yourself? > > >> Yet another method to see this is based on the proven fact that while > >> air, liquid H2O (in very small amounts) and gaseous H2O are invisible > >> in the visible spectrum, they have very different properties at other > >> light frequencies, most notably IR. > > > > Can you be more specific? Has this been verified? How? > > This is something that is fairly widely known and used daily in satellite > observation. Compare visible photographs to IR photographs. > > This is also well documented, look it up yourself I am not going to > spoon feed you. I guess I'll just have to take your word on it. Right? > > >> And there is yet another experiment that can be done to show you are > >> delusional. > >> > >> Take a fixed volume of air and slowly increase the temperature while > >> monitoring the pressure. > > > > Where is the data on this? > > That is the whole point, YOU take the data. Can you explain how you drew a firm conclusion with no data? > > >> If the H2O in the air were liquid, the pressure would increase smoothly > >> with temperature until the boiling point was reached, at which point > >> the liquid H2O would become gaseous and there would be a sudden increase > >> in prssure. > > > > Are you assuming this, or do you know? How do you know? > > I know because I understand the science. Don't all scientific frauds make the same claim? > > > Should we just take your word on it? > > No, doubters should do the experiment and see for themselves. Did you do the experiment? Where is your data? Did you write a paper? If not, how are you so sure? > > >> If the H2O in the air were gaseous, the pressure would increase smoothly > >> with temperature through the boiling point and above. > >> > >> Guess which happens? > > > > What does this prove, and why? > > It proves that humidity in air is gaseous But you admit you haven't seen it being gaseous, right? and the reason to do it is to > prove that humidity in air is gaseous to any doubters that do the experiment. Maybe your understanding of proof is different from that of science?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 00:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rlj4qc-gg2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556706 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >> I am saying it is possible to see the difference between gaseous H2O and >> >> liquid H2O in air. >> >> >> >> One method to see this is using Schlieren imaging. >> > >> > Can you explain this? >> >> Yes, and I have several times now. > > I wonder why I can't find it? Because you are stupid? There are lots of articles on the web about both the science and building such an experiment at home. >> To summarize; the density of air varies with temperature and humidity >> and hence one is able to see things like convection and water evaporating. > > Would you like to retract your claim that it can distinguish gaseous H2O > from evaporate? Learn to format a line to 78 characters. No. > Maybe you will feel better about yourself? I would not feel better if I lied. >> >> Yet another method to see this is based on the proven fact that while >> >> air, liquid H2O (in very small amounts) and gaseous H2O are invisible >> >> in the visible spectrum, they have very different properties at other >> >> light frequencies, most notably IR. >> > >> > Can you be more specific? Has this been verified? How? >> >> This is something that is fairly widely known and used daily in satellite >> observation. Compare visible photographs to IR photographs. >> >> This is also well documented, look it up yourself I am not going to >> spoon feed you. > > I guess I'll just have to take your word on it. Right? No, you could look it up yourself. Wrong. >> >> And there is yet another experiment that can be done to show you are >> >> delusional. >> >> >> >> Take a fixed volume of air and slowly increase the temperature while >> >> monitoring the pressure. >> > >> > Where is the data on this? >> >> That is the whole point, YOU take the data. > > Can you explain how you drew a firm conclusion with no data? Can you explain why you are asking me for data from an experiment that YOU should be performing? As for my data, it was turned in to my high school physics teacher many years ago. >> >> If the H2O in the air were liquid, the pressure would increase smoothly >> >> with temperature until the boiling point was reached, at which point >> >> the liquid H2O would become gaseous and there would be a sudden increase >> >> in prssure. >> > >> > Are you assuming this, or do you know? How do you know? >> >> I know because I understand the science. > > Don't all scientific frauds make the same claim? You mean like you? Have you done the experiment yet? >> > Should we just take your word on it? >> >> No, doubters should do the experiment and see for themselves. > > Did you do the experiment? Where is your data? Did you write a paper? Yes, Turned in to my high school physics teacher. Don't be silly. > If not, how are you so sure? See above. >> >> If the H2O in the air were gaseous, the pressure would increase smoothly >> >> with temperature through the boiling point and above. >> >> >> >> Guess which happens? >> > >> > What does this prove, and why? >> >> It proves that humidity in air is gaseous > > But you admit you haven't seen it being gaseous, right? I haven't seen electrons, protons, radio waves or IR light either. One does not need to see something to know it exists. > and the reason to do it is to >> prove that humidity in air is gaseous to any doubters that do the experiment. > > Maybe your understanding of proof is different from that of science? Maybe you are just a delusional troll. Have you done the experiment yet? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 17:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7cd3361c-6d59-4ff4-933c-4b426cd382c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556706 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:20:18 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > Would you like to retract your claim that it can distinguish gaseous H2O from evaporate? Gaseous H2O and evaporate are one and the same... "Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice." - Wiki
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web