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

Groups > sci.physics > #556090 > unrolled thread

I've known about this misconception for 25 years now

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  I've known about this misconception for 25 years now James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 18:25 -0800
    Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 02:45 +0000
      Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 13:26 -0800
        Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 22:53 +0000
    Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 18:53 -0800
      Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 06:33 +0100
        Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 08:09 -0600
          Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 07:21 -0800
    Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 21:47 -0600
    Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 23:21 -0600
    Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 09:07 -0800
      Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-24 11:24 -0600
      Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 11:33 -0600
        Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 18:34 +0000
          Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-24 12:02 -0800
            Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-24 14:28 -0600
            Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 20:36 +0000
          Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 13:11 -0800
            Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 22:58 +0000
              Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 17:26 -0800
                Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 02:18 +0000
      Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 18:30 +0000
        Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 13:30 -0800
          Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-24 15:39 -0600
          Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 23:00 +0000
            Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 17:28 -0800
              Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 02:23 +0000
          Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-24 15:33 -0800
            Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 17:32 -0800
              Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 02:24 +0000
              Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-24 19:14 -0800
              5/2 decades of noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:16 -0800
              Re: I've known about this misconception for 25 years now Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 16:37 -0600

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#556090 — I've known about this misconception for 25 years now

One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this mosconception for 25 years now.  So I've had a lot more time to reconcile all the anecdotal evidence that you all keep tripping over.  

Let's say, for purposes of argument, that I am wrong.  We can then ask ourselves how or where did I make a mistake.  I can think of only one thing.  And that would be that I had miscalculated the effect of air molecules on water clusters/droplets.  Do air molecules in the atmosphere--in contrast to what I am assuming--possess some ability to break up water clusters/droplets and force them to remain gaseous at ambient temps?  If such a force does exist nobody as of yet has been able to describe it.  

Any testing of this notion would be very difficult because there is no simple or straightforward way to detect water being monomolecular.  

There is a way to verify it through application of gas laws utilizing extremely sensitive scales.  But the problem here is that gas laws are complex and humans are simple; when presented with complex proof humans almost always fall back on simple anecdote.  And that doesn't even get to the political problems one would face even if they did prove it.  Even if a famous scientist took up the cause they would find themselves at odds with the industrial complex of major scientific institutions, like meteorology and climatology.  Because any such proof would show that all of their models are the nonsense that they actually are.  There would be a lot of mud on a lot of faces.  And so, any known scientists who did take up the cause would be putting their career in jeopardy.  They would be labeled the king of all science deniers, and that would just be the beginning of an endless onslaught of character assassination from the likes of Al Gore and other self-righteous science evangelist, many of whom have a lot more money than Al Gore, like Bill Gates for example.

So, it could be done.  But it wouldn't be simple.  It wouldn't be cheap.  And it wouldn't be fun.

25 years
https://youtu.be/C6GZEn7N7Ss?t=5m42s

Can air maintain H2O as a gas at ambient temps?
https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk?t=3m2s

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

My channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1ALfDP7sGkeIEBjkMQ

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]

#556102

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this
> mosconception for 25 years now.  So I've had a lot more time to
> reconcile all the anecdotal evidence that you all keep tripping over.  

So you have had this delusion for 25 years that out of the thousands and
thousands of physicists, chemists, engineers, meteorologists that have
studied the subject for hundreds of year, you have been blessed with
some miraculous insight overlooked by everyone else?

Yet you have no reproducible experiment that would verify your miraculous
insight while the rest of the world has numerous reproducible experiments
that say you are wrong.

I have given you two experiments that would prove it one way or the other.

Have you done either yet?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556315

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> I have given you two experiments that would prove it one way or the other.

I've seen one.  The one dealing with discontinuance.  Where's the other one?

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

#556338

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> I have given you two experiments that would prove it one way or the other.
> 
> I've seen one.  The one dealing with discontinuance.  Where's the other one?

Posted at least four times; pay attention.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556103

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this mosconception for 25 years now.  So I've had a lot more time to reconcile all the anecdotal evidence that you all keep tripping over.  
> 
> Let's say, for purposes of argument, that I am wrong.  We can then ask ourselves how or where did I make a mistake.  I can think of only one thing.  And that would be that I had miscalculated the effect of air molecules on water clusters/droplets.  Do air molecules in the atmosphere--in contrast to what I am assuming--possess some ability to break up water clusters/droplets and force them to remain gaseous at ambient temps?  If such a force does exist nobody as of yet has been able to describe it.  
> 
> Any testing of this notion would be very difficult because there is no simple or straightforward way to detect water being monomolecular.  
> 
> There is a way to verify it through application of gas laws utilizing extremely sensitive scales.  But the problem here is that gas laws are complex and humans are simple; when presented with complex proof humans almost always fall back on simple anecdote.  And that doesn't even get to the political problems one would face even if they did prove it.  Even if a famous scientist took up the cause they would find themselves at odds with the industrial complex of major scientific institutions, like meteorology and climatology.  Because any such proof would show that all of their models are the nonsense that they actually are.  There would be a lot of mud on a lot of faces.  And so, any known scientists who did take up the cause would be putting their career in jeopardy.  They would be labeled the king of all science deniers, and that would just be the beginning of an endless onslaught of character assassination from the likes of Al Gore and other self-righteous science evangelist, many of whom have a lot more money than Al Gore, like Bill Gates for example.
> 
> So, it could be done.  But it wouldn't be simple.  It wouldn't be cheap.  And it wouldn't be fun.
> 
> 25 years
> https://youtu.be/C6GZEn7N7Ss?t=5m42s
> 
> Can air maintain H2O as a gas at ambient temps?
> https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk?t=3m2s
> 
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
> 
> My channel
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1ALfDP7sGkeIEBjkMQ
> 
> 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

Cool! 

So... where's the evidence that you are correct? I don't see it anywhere... your YouTube videos, of course, don't actually count...

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

#556127

Dne 24/02/2016 v 03:53 pnalsing@gmail.com napsal(a):

> 
> Cool! 
> 
> So... where's the evidence that you are correct? I don't see it anywhere... your YouTube videos, of course, don't actually count...
> 
He wasted 25 his years
refusing to make any single experiment,
that he could make even at home, if he had wanted,
that would refute his ideas.

He is as that priest,
refuting to look at the Jupiter moons,
when offered by Galileo,
saying such things cannot exist.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#556189

On 2/23/2016 11:33 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 24/02/2016 v 03:53 pnalsing@gmail.com napsal(a):
>
>>
>> Cool!
>>
>> So... where's the evidence that you are correct? I don't see it
>> anywhere... your YouTube videos, of course, don't actually count...
>>
> He wasted 25 his years
> refusing to make any single experiment,
> that he could make even at home, if he had wanted,
> that would refute his ideas.
>
> He is as that priest,
> refuting to look at the Jupiter moons,
> when offered by Galileo,
> saying such things cannot exist.
>

I've stopped wasting my time and have plonked him.

His mode of operation is to:
1. Believe something unusual.
2. Demand that others present evidence to the contrary.
3. Dismiss any evidence presented.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#556205

Dne středa 24. února 2016 15:09:39 UTC+1 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
> 
> I've stopped wasting my time and have plonked him.
> 
> His mode of operation is to:
> 1. Believe something unusual.
> 2. Demand that others present evidence to the contrary.
> 3. Dismiss any evidence presented.
> 

Exactly.
HIS extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.

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

#556107

On 2/23/2016 8:25 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this
> mosconception for 25 years now.  So I've had a lot more time to
> reconcile all the anecdotal evidence that you all keep tripping
> over.
>
> Let's say, for purposes of argument, that I am wrong.  We can then
> ask ourselves how or where did I make a mistake.  I can think of only
> one thing.  And that would be that I had miscalculated the effect of
> air molecules on water clusters/droplets.  Do air molecules in the
> atmosphere--in contrast to what I am assuming--possess some ability
> to break up water clusters/droplets and force them to remain gaseous
> at ambient temps?

yes, yes, yes.  there are several ways to think of it.

one way is as a liquid progressing and arriving at a gas.
Liquid- all the molecules are connected, touching each other
Gas - all molecules are apart  (think a hot gas)

so there is middle ground where their are clusters, and the clusters 
very in size from two molecules to millions, depending upon pressure and 
temperature.  then larger to a fog, or cloud where you have droplets. It 
is not a sudden transition, we tend to see it that way because we are 
much bigger, and dont observe at the boiling surface in detail.  Note 
when boiling, the bubbles are water vapor leaving the liquid.

in your theory, what is in the bubbles when boiling?

it is the same for all the other types of molecules, like ethanol going 
from liquid to gas.  They teach this in Chem and some in physics.
Water has slight polarity which adds to its feature set

If you stay with your theory, then you cannot dry your clothes, there is 
no way to get the liquid water off.

so your theory gets you labeled as a Ko0k delusional troll and you can 
keep trolling on.

so mentally zoom in to the water surface, and see water molecules 
constantly leaving the surface.  How many and how fast depends upon 
temperature and pressure. Many leave in clumps too. as the water gets 
hot and steams before boiling, the steam is the clumps, and the clumps 
separate into individual molecules and continue on.

Then there is another statistical explanation which agrees with all 
data, but is complicated for you.

all this work was done decades ago, fully understood and verified, 
tested and all kinds of equipment made using the effects of water.

so your "no water vapor", would cause all kinds of problems with all 
kinds of Machines that use water.  But they work fine, because there is 
water vapor and humidity all over the place, everywhere, even in your 
nose and ears, and lungs, and on your eyeballs, fingers, keyboard.

a good learning lesson for you. if it is too much, read it again for the 
first time.


Biggus

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

#556124

On 2/23/16 8:25 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this mosconception for 25 years now


   Some Basics for James
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/vappre.html#c1

> The process of evaporation in a closed container will proceed until
> there are as many molecules returning to the liquid as there are
> escaping. At this point the vapor is said to be saturated, and the
> pressure of that vapor (usually expressed in mmHg) is called the
> saturated vapor pressure.


-- 

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]

#556228

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

One of the things a scientist will ask people that believe in paranormal phenomena is if they can explain why the phenomena they believe in never shows up under laboratory conditions.  Do ghosts not like laboratories?  

We can ask the same question here.  Can any of you explain why your ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory conditions?  Does it not like laboratories?  

Can any of you explain why, according to you, it only show up under conditions where its existence can't be verified?  

Could it be that you are all seeing a ghost?


> 25 years
> https://youtu.be/C6GZEn7N7Ss?t=5m42s
> 
> Can air maintain H2O as a gas at ambient temps?
> https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk?t=3m2s
> 
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
> 
> My channel
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1ALfDP7sGkeIEBjkMQ
> 
> 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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#556229

On 2/24/2016 11:07 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
> wrote:
>
> One of the things a scientist will ask people that believe in
> paranormal phenomena is if they can explain why the phenomena they
> believe in never shows up under laboratory conditions.

no, scientists do not.

> Do ghosts not
> like laboratories?

ghosts like lavatories, not laboratories.

In the movies they don't want to tell you that ghosts need to go potty 
just like the rest of us.


> We can ask the same question here.  Can any of you explain why your
> ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
> conditions?  Does it not like laboratories?

can you prove the negative ?

What happens to wet clothes on the clothesline ?
         They get dry.

How does the liquid water get out of the clothes ?

how ?

  magic ?


<snip Ko0k crap>

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

#556231

On 2/24/16 11:07 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> We can ask the same question here.  Can any of you explain why your
> ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
> conditions?  Does it not like laboratories?


   There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
   home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
   with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
   More modern measurement are electronic.

   Current measurements in my area can be found here:
> http://www.aviationweather.gov/adds/metars/?station_ids=KAMW&std_trans=translated&chk_metars=on




-- 

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]

#556257

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/16 11:07 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>> We can ask the same question here.  Can any of you explain why your
>> ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
>> conditions?  Does it not like laboratories?
> 
> 
>   There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
>   home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
>   with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
>   More modern measurement are electronic.

Sorry, but that does not PROVE that the H2O is gas.

See if you can find someone else's material that does prove it and you
can then copy it.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556275

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:46:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/24/16 11:07 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >> We can ask the same question here.  Can any of you explain why your
> >> ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
> >> conditions?  Does it not like laboratories?
> > 
> > 
> >   There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
> >   home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
> >   with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
> >   More modern measurement are electronic.
> 
> Sorry, but that does not PROVE that the H2O is gas.

Well, the very definition of 'humidity' tells us that it is the relative amount of water vapor in the air, and except for what's-his-face who thinks he's a physicist, we all agree that water vapor is the gaseous state of water and is invisible. In other words, if you are measuring the humidity, you are measuring gaseous H2O.

What's to prove?

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

#556284

On 2/24/2016 2:02 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:46:05 AM UTC-8,
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/24/16 11:07 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> We can ask the same question here.  Can any of you explain why
>>>> your ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under
>>>> laboratory conditions?  Does it not like laboratories?
>>>

>>> There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
>>> home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
>>> with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
>>> More modern measurement are electronic.
>>
>> Sorry, but that does not PROVE that the H2O is gas.
>
> Well, the very definition of 'humidity' tells us that it is the
> relative amount of water vapor in the air, and except for
> what's-his-face who thinks he's a physicist, we all agree that water
> vapor is the gaseous state of water and is invisible. In other words,
> if you are measuring the humidity, you are measuring gaseous H2O.
>
> What's to prove?
>

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.

how did the water get out ?

No smoke came off it at all.

did my shirt out-gas ?

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

#556298

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:46:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 2/24/16 11:07 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>> >> We can ask the same question here.  Can any of you explain why your
>> >> ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
>> >> conditions?  Does it not like laboratories?
>> > 
>> > 
>> >   There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
>> >   home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
>> >   with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
>> >   More modern measurement are electronic.
>> 
>> Sorry, but that does not PROVE that the H2O is gas.
> 
> Well, the very definition of 'humidity' tells us that it is the relative
> amount of water vapor in the air, and except for what's-his-face who
> thinks he's a physicist, we all agree that water vapor is the gaseous
> state of water and is invisible. In other words, if you are measuring
> the humidity, you are measuring gaseous H2O.

That is proof by definition, hardly a proof.

> What's to prove?

As far as I am concerned, it has been proven, but that isn't the point.

So far I have been able to come up with two experiments that would prove
that humidity is gaseous H2O off the top of my head,

Surely people can come up with more.

Look at it as a return to all those classes where the prof would say
"So and so is so, and now we are going into the lab to prove it".


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556311

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:46:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> >   There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
> >   home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
> >   with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
> >   More modern measurement are electronic.
> 
> Sorry, but that does not PROVE that the H2O is gas.

Right.

How is it that you know that now but you didn't know that yesterday?  Were you not, yesterday, claiming that the clarity of clear, moist air is evidence that confirms that the moisture therein is gaseous?  Or do I have you confused with somebody else?  

Did you have an awakening?  And epiphany?  Please explain.  What happened between now and yesterday that brought you to the realization that the clarity of moist air is not evidence that it contains gaseous H2O?  Did you take a smart pill?  Please explain.

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

#556339

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:46:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> >   There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
>> >   home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
>> >   with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
>> >   More modern measurement are electronic.
>> 
>> Sorry, but that does not PROVE that the H2O is gas.
> 
> Right.
> 
> How is it that you know that now but you didn't know that yesterday? 
> Were you not, yesterday, claiming that the clarity of clear, moist air
> is evidence that confirms that the moisture therein is gaseous?  Or
> do I have you confused with somebody else?  

I'm afraid you have everything confused.

Note that saying a particular thing is not proof is not the same thing
as saying there is no proof.

> Did you have an awakening?  And epiphany?  Please explain.  What
> happened between now and yesterday that brought you to the realization
> that the clarity of moist air is not evidence that it contains gaseous
> H2O?  Did you take a smart pill?  Please explain.

You are babbling.

Nothing has changed in regards to my position; you are still delusional.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556373

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > How is it that you know that now but you didn't know that yesterday? 
> > Were you not, yesterday, claiming that the clarity of clear, moist air
> > is evidence that confirms that the moisture therein is gaseous?  Or
> > do I have you confused with somebody else?  
> 
> I'm afraid you have everything confused.

Apparently not.

> Note that saying a particular thing is not proof is not the same thing
> as saying there is no proof.

You can't unring a bell.

Thank you for your honesty--finally.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web