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

Groups > sci.physics > #561319 > unrolled thread

My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:49 -0800
    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 18:33 -0600
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:51 -0800
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 19:27 -0600
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:33 -0800
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:40 -0600
              Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:40 +0100
                Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 01:07 -0800
                  Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:38 -0800
                    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-11 09:05 -0600
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 01:22 +0000
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:36 -0800
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 19:52 -0600
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 03:13 +0000
              Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:44 -0800
                Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 05:24 +0000
                  Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 21:53 -0800
                    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 07:12 +0000
    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 00:42 +0000
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:53 -0800
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 19:29 -0600
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 01:17 +0000
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:34 -0800
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 20:34 -0600
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 03:15 +0000
      E-maniA noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:49 -0800
    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:34 -0600
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:12 +0100
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 22:36 -0800
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-11 07:48 -0600
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:43 -0800
              Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 09:01 -0800
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:22 -0800
    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:55 +0100
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:37 -0800
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-11 07:51 -0600
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 19:08 +0000
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 13:20 -0600
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:44 +0100
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:20 -0800
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:32 +0100
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:21 -0500
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-14 19:33 +0000
              Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:19 -0700
                Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-14 16:53 -0500
                Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-14 22:53 +0000
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 22:53 +0800
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 15:10 +0000
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear g8dgc <g8dgc@noneya.none> - 2016-03-11 10:15 -0500
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe aka g8dgc) - 2016-03-11 15:23 +0000
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:19 +0100
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 15:49 +0800
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 06:47 +0100
      wind shear?! noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 12:37 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#561338

On 3/10/2016 6:53 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 4:46:06 PM UTC-8,
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.
>>
>> The word "plasma" has a well defined meaning in physics.
>
> Who cares, dumbass.  There is more to science than looking up
> definitions in wikipedia.  Go find another hobby.
>

...very shallow there McFly, you sound like you do not care at all about 
science !

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

#561340

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 4:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.
>> 
>> The word "plasma" has a well defined meaning in physics.
> 
> Who cares, dumbass.

Every educated person on the planet, kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#561344

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 4:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.
> >> 
> >> The word "plasma" has a well defined meaning in physics.
> > 
> > Who cares, dumbass.
> 
> Every educated person on the planet, kook.

And they chose you to speak for them?  LOL.

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

#561365

On 3/10/2016 7:34 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 4:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.
>>>>
>>>> The word "plasma" has a well defined meaning in physics.
>>>
>>> Who cares, dumbass.
>>
>> Every educated person on the planet, kook.
>
> And they chose you to speak for them?  LOL.
>

Hey, Plasma Pants McGinn, got any Water Vapor ?

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

#561387

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 4:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.
>> >> 
>> >> The word "plasma" has a well defined meaning in physics.
>> > 
>> > Who cares, dumbass.
>> 
>> Every educated person on the planet, kook.
> 
> And they chose you to speak for them?  LOL.

Not at all, I am simply one voice out of the multitude recognizing
you are a kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#561390 — E-maniA

plasma is about 99.99/100 of Universe,
which shows why gravity is a secondary force (as opposed
to mainstream EinsteinmaniA

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

#561345

On 3/10/16 5:49 PM, James McGinn wrote:

> My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear.
>

   Plasma doesn't hang around from H-Bombs or lightning.

-- 

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]

#561421

Dne 11/03/2016 v 02:34 Sam Wormley napsal(a):
> On 3/10/16 5:49 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear.

@James
Everything is possible if expressed by words,
until math and quantitative evaluation
convince it from being nonsense.

So, express all your hypothesis by math model
and lets talk about confrontation
of experimental data
and quantitative predictions
of current and your models.

But as you freak away from simple formulas,
I highly doubt we get anywhere close to above.

BTW, every honest scientist
is the first merciless critique of his own hypothesis.
trying to refute it.

IF he is not,
he is not interested in finding the finest model of reality,
but in promoting of his ideas to look great.
> 
>    Plasma doesn't hang around from H-Bombs or lightning.
> 


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#561423

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:12:29 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/03/2016 v 02:34 Sam Wormley napsal(a):
> > On 3/10/16 5:49 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > 
> >> My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear.
> 
> @James
> Everything is possible if expressed by words,
> until math and quantitative evaluation
> convince it from being nonsense.
> 
> So, express all your hypothesis by math model
> and lets talk about confrontation
> of experimental data
> and quantitative predictions
> of current and your models.
> 
> But as you freak away from simple formulas,
> I highly doubt we get anywhere close to above.
> 
> BTW, every honest scientist
> is the first merciless critique of his own hypothesis.
> trying to refute it.
> 
> IF he is not,
> he is not interested in finding the finest model of reality,
> but in promoting of his ideas to look great.
> > 
> >    Plasma doesn't hang around from H-Bombs or lightning.

The only math you need to be concerned with at this juncture is the math that underlies the convection model. You need to focus on gas theory and on how to assess temperature relevant to H2O. 

You need to understand things conceptually before you worry about the math of my model.

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

#561499

On 3/11/2016 12:36 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:12:29 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 11/03/2016 v 02:34 Sam Wormley napsal(a):
>>> On 3/10/16 5:49 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>
>>>> My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear.
>>
>> @James Everything is possible if expressed by words, until math and
>> quantitative evaluation convince it from being nonsense.

>> So, express all your hypothesis by math model and lets talk about
>> confrontation of experimental data and quantitative predictions of
>> current and your models.
>>
>> But as you freak away from simple formulas, I highly doubt we get
>> anywhere close to above.



>> BTW, every honest scientist is the first merciless critique of his
>> own hypothesis. trying to refute it.
>>
>> IF he is not, he is not interested in finding the finest model of
>> reality, but in promoting of his ideas to look great.

>>> Plasma doesn't hang around from H-Bombs or lightning.
>
> The only math you need to be concerned with at this juncture is the
> math that underlies the convection model. You need to focus on gas
> theory and on how to assess temperature relevant to H2O.

James the Boob, throws out yet another red herring to avoid showing he 
has NOTHING but his unhinged imagination.

James only has nonsense, lies, fluffy airy fairy poofnesses.



>
> You need to understand things conceptually before you worry about the
> math of my model.

show us the math now, or you remain a liar.



>

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

#561570

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:48:33 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> James only has nonsense, lies, fluffy airy fairy poofnesses.

So, you idiots can't grasp the significance of the math of convection.  The last thing any of you simpletons should be worried about is more math.  

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

#561580

Dne pátek 11. března 2016 17:43:05 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:48:33 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> 
> > James only has nonsense, lies, fluffy airy fairy poofnesses.
> 
> So, you idiots can't grasp the significance of the math of convection.  The last thing any of you simpletons should be worried about is more math.

Calling names is essential part of James's math model of his hypotheses.
But I am not sure if it is invariant wrt commutative arithmetic law.

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

#561445

tastes great, fewer calorie(s

> he is not interested in finding the finest model of reality,
> but in promoting of his ideas to look great.
> > 
> >    Plasma doesn't hang around from H-Bombs or lightning.
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> 
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#561439

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:4a0a359d-ed09-43ea-ac66-ca231a8c19ba@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:38:24 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
>> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
>> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
>> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) 

> You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.

No, you're just a Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard attempting to
redefine words to make your kooky theory work. It's what D-K sufferers
like you do, Jim.

> There is no ionization associated with my plasma.

Then it's not plasma, Jim.

> Ionization is associated with ionic bonds. My plasma is a
> consequence of H bonds and wind shear.

Aww, Jim didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding
energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, thus water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize.
That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.

How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's 
plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear 
binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying 
that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen... 
so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets", 
Jim?

> See my videos for details.

Referring to your own kooky blather doesn't make you right, Jim. It
only means you're clue-repellant because you're screaming at the top
of your lungs in your own little Dunning-Kruger lined echo chamber in
attempting to convince *yourself* that you're "not wrong".

But you *are* wrong, Jim. I've used more than a half dozen different
avenues to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory.

Deal with that reality, Jim.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

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

#561447

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:06:01 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:4a0a359d-ed09-43ea-ac66-ca231a8c19ba@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:38:24 AM UTC-8,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
> >> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
> >> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
> >> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) 
> 
> > You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.
> 
> No, you're just a Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard attempting to
> redefine words to make your kooky theory work. It's what D-K sufferers
> like you do, Jim.
> 
> > There is no ionization associated with my plasma.
> 
> Then it's not plasma, Jim.

Plasma is just a word, dumbass.  Semantics are trivial.  Only simpleton's bother to dispute semantics.  



> 
> > Ionization is associated with ionic bonds. My plasma is a
> > consequence of H bonds and wind shear.
> 
> Aww, Jim didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding
> energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, 

You don't have an substantive argument.  All you have is a trivial semantic dispute.  


thus water will
> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize.
> That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.

You have no idea what the "plasma" is of my scenario.  


> 
> How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's 
> plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear 
> binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying 
> that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen... 
> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets", 
> Jim?
> 
> > See my videos for details.
> 
> Referring to your own kooky blather doesn't make you right, Jim. It
> only means you're clue-repellant because you're screaming at the top
> of your lungs in your own little Dunning-Kruger lined echo chamber in
> attempting to convince *yourself* that you're "not wrong".
> 
> But you *are* wrong, Jim. I've used more than a half dozen different
> avenues to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory.

You are a bozo.


> 
> Deal with that reality, Jim.

You idiots get so flabbergasted with semantics that you can't follow a mildly complex argument.

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

#561501

On 3/11/2016 1:37 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:06:01 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:4a0a359d-ed09-43ea-ac66-ca231a8c19ba@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:38:24 AM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>
>>>> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a
>>>> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at
>>>> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if
>>>> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma)
>>
>>> You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.
>>
>> No, you're just a Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard attempting to
>> redefine words to make your kooky theory work. It's what D-K sufferers
>> like you do, Jim.
>>
>>> There is no ionization associated with my plasma.
>>
>> Then it's not plasma, Jim.
>
> Plasma is just a word, dumbass.  Semantics are trivial.  Only simpleton's bother to dispute semantics.
>

liar, it is 4th state of matter.

what you say is total bullshit.
always has been.

>
>
>>
>>> Ionization is associated with ionic bonds. My plasma is a
>>> consequence of H bonds and wind shear.
>>
>> Aww, Jim didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding
>> energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol,
>
> You don't have an substantive argument.  All you have is a trivial semantic dispute.
>
>
> thus water will
>> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize.
>> That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.
>
> You have no idea what the "plasma" is of my scenario.

you use "Magical Plasma", James, the imaginary kind.

>
>
>>
>> How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's
>> plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
>> binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying
>> that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen...
>> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets",
>> Jim?
>>
>>> See my videos for details.
>>
>> Referring to your own kooky blather doesn't make you right, Jim. It
>> only means you're clue-repellant because you're screaming at the top
>> of your lungs in your own little Dunning-Kruger lined echo chamber in
>> attempting to convince *yourself* that you're "not wrong".
>>
>> But you *are* wrong, Jim. I've used more than a half dozen different
>> avenues to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory.
>
> You are a bozo.
>
>
>>
>> Deal with that reality, Jim.
>
> You idiots get so flabbergasted with semantics that you can't follow a mildly complex argument.

you are lying troll.


>

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

#561641

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

> Plasma is just a word, dumbass.

And words have meanings that are found in an appropriate dictionary.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#561644

On 3/11/16 1:37 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> Plasma is just a word, dumbass.


   Plasma
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29


 > Plasma is one of the four fundamental states of matter, the others
 > being solid, liquid, and gas. A plasma has properties unlike those of
 > the other states.
 >
 > A plasma can be created by heating a gas or subjecting it to a
 > strong electromagnetic field applied with a laser or microwave
 > generator. This decreases or increases the number of electrons,
 > creating positive or negative charged particles called ions,[2] and
 > is *accompanied by the dissociation of molecular bonds* , if present.



-- 

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]

#562055

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:f126f473-b95c-46bc-af87-e3a16ea886f2@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:06:01 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:4a0a359d-ed09-43ea-ac66-ca231a8c19ba@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:38:24 AM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
>>>> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
>>>> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
>>>> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) 

>>> You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.

>> No, you're just a Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard attempting to
>> redefine words to make your kooky theory work. It's what D-K sufferers
>> like you do, Jim.

>>> There is no ionization associated with my plasma.

>> Then it's not plasma, Jim.

> Plasma is just a word, dumbass.

You're backpedaling, Jim. That means that through the fog of your
insanity, you've gotten a faint glimpse at how wrong and insane you
are.

> Semantics are trivial. Only simpleton's bother to dispute semantics.  

No, Jim. Only simpletons attempt to redefine well-known and long-held
definitions as a desperate attempt at making their kooky conspiracy
theory work, Jim.

>>> Ionization is associated with ionic bonds. My plasma is a
>>> consequence of H bonds and wind shear.

>> Aww, Jim didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding
>> energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, 

> You don't have an substantive argument.  All you have is a trivial
> semantic dispute.  

All you have is magical "plasma not-a-plasma" that cannot exist, Jim.
Hence your kooky conspiracy theory cannot reflect reality. Hence
you're a moronic kooktard blathering fantasy. Deal with that reality,
Jim.

>> thus water will
>> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize.
>> That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.

> You have no idea what the "plasma" is of my scenario.  

There is no other "plasma" but what is strictly defined as plasma,
Jim... your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" isn't plasma... it's a
mythical invention by a Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard desperately
backpedaling as he tries to salvage his kooky conspiracy theory *and*
his faltering sanity.

>> How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's 
>> plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear 
>> binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying 
>> that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen... 
>> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets", 
>> Jim?

Jim? No answer, Jim? Are you there, Jim? Reality is dry-fucking you as
it donkey-punches your retarded skull, Jim.

<snicker>

>>> See my videos for details.

>> Referring to your own kooky blather doesn't make you right, Jim. It
>> only means you're clue-repellant because you're screaming at the top
>> of your lungs in your own little Dunning-Kruger lined echo chamber in
>> attempting to convince *yourself* that you're "not wrong".
>> 
>> But you *are* wrong, Jim. I've used more than a half dozen different
>> avenues to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory.

> You are a bozo.

I am right. You are a moron who is desperately backpedaling and
inventing fairy-tale "plasma not-a-plasma" as a desperate means of
salvaging your kooky conspiracy theory *and* your sanity, Jim.

>> Deal with that reality, Jim.

> You idiots get so flabbergasted with semantics that you can't
> follow a mildly complex argument.

There is no argument, Jim. It's been proven via more than a half-dozen
different avenues that you're a moron with only the flimsiest of
grasps upon reality, that you don't have the education or the
brainpower to construct a theory that reflects reality, and hence
you've instead concocted your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" theory which
consists of substances that cannot exist, created by energy sources
which do not exist in the troposphere.

Deal with that reality, Jim. Your kooky conspiracy theory is dead.

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#562059

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:54:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly 

> >>> There is no ionization associated with my plasma.
> 
> >> Then it's not plasma, Jim.
> 
> > Plasma is just a word, dumbass.
> 
> You're backpedaling, 

Only nitwits debate semantics.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web