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

Groups > sci.physics > #558042 > unrolled thread

James McGinn why he is that way

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 14:56 -0600
    Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:06 -0800
      Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 09:22 -0600
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:30 -0800
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-01 18:52 +0000
    Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 19:15 -0800
      Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 07:17 -0800
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 07:37 -0800
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:50 -0500
          Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 08:22 -0800
            Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:45 -0500
              Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 14:32 -0800
                Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 20:02 -0500
                  Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 04:58 -0800
                    Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:30 -0500
                      Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 11:45 -0800
                        Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:00 -0500
      Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:23 -0800
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 11:37 -0600
          Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:45 -0800
            Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 12:17 -0600
              Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:57 -0800
                Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 13:14 -0600
                  Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 11:53 -0800
                    Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 14:08 -0600
                      Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 12:14 -0800
                        Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 14:29 -0600
                          Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 12:41 -0800
                            Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 16:14 -0600
                              Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 14:43 -0800
                                Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 20:14 -0600
                    Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 20:17 +0000
                      Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 12:42 -0800
                        Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 23:49 +0000
                          Re: James McGinn why he is that way Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:06 -0800
                            Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 00:54 +0000
                            Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 09:16 -0600
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 11:41 -0600
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 17:53 +0000
          Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:11 -0800
            Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 12:19 -0600
            Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 19:23 +0000
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 11:28 -0800
          Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:54 -0500
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 18:36 -0800
          Re: James McGinn why he is that way Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 21:10 -0600
            Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 19:59 -0800
              Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 05:18 +0000
                Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 21:56 -0800
                  Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 06:24 +0000
              Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 19:49 -0800
                Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 20:05 -0800
                  Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:05 -0800
                    Re: James McGinn why he is that way Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:15 -0800
                      Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 07:31 -0600
          Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 19:54 -0800
            Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 19:45 -0800
              Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 20:03 -0800
                Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 06:47 +0000
                  Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 06:12 -0800
                    Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 18:51 +0000
                      Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 11:05 -0800
                        Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 19:22 +0000
                          Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 11:39 -0800
                            Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 22:08 +0000
                              Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 14:29 -0800
                                Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 22:46 +0000
                        Re: James McGinn why he is that way edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-05 13:01 -0800
                          Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 13:50 -0800
                            Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:28 -0600
                Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:16 -0800
                  Re: James McGinn why he is that way Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:30 -0800
                    Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-06 11:56 -0600

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#558622

On 3/2/2016 12:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:01:07 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:15:23 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>>>> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:57:17 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> I believe James delusional world is very similar to the belief systems
>>>>> that many New Age'ers and their "Ascended Masters".
>>>>
>>>>    You're close. He's one of those "Electric Universe" whackos:
>>>
>>> I do like some of what Electric Universe has to say.
>>
>> LIkely because it is just as crazy as you are.
>
> Braindead simpleton
>
> Duhhhr!
>

figures...

Duhr - Something uttered by a complete retarted idiot. (urban dictionary)

Duhr - is the prayer after midday  "Attend constantly to prayers and to 
the middle prayer and stand up truly obedient to Allah".

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

#558646

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:01:07 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:15:23 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>> >> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:57:17 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> >> > I believe James delusional world is very similar to the belief systems 
>> >> > that many New Age'ers and their "Ascended Masters".
>> >> 
>> >>   You're close. He's one of those "Electric Universe" whackos:
>> > 
>> > I do like some of what Electric Universe has to say.
>> 
>> LIkely because it is just as crazy as you are.
> 
> Braindead simpleton
> 
> Duhhhr!

I would bet that you think this is actually clever.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558643

McFly says
I do like some of what Electric Universe has to say.
------------

McFly let me ask you a serious question: In an average day, how much dick do you suck?

A) 1-3

B) 3-5

C) 5-7

D) All of the above

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

#558682

On 03/02/2016 02:28 PM, HVAC wrote:
> McFly says
> I do like some of what Electric Universe has to say.
> ------------
>
> McFly let me ask you a serious question: In an average day, how much dick do you suck?
>
> A) 1-3
>
> B) 3-5
>
> C) 5-7
>
> D) All of the above
>
Bwahahahaha! You are such a hoot! My whole 6th grade class was laughing 
themselves silly when the teacher came in and wondered what was the 
matter with us! It's all your fault HVAC!

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

#558789

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:23:37 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:15:23 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:57:17 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> > > I believe James delusional world is very similar to the belief systems 
> > > that many New Age'ers and their "Ascended Masters".
> > 
> >   You're close. He's one of those "Electric Universe" whackos:
> 
> I do like some of what Electric Universe has to say.  It isn't all new age
> stuff.  It is a fact, for example, that electricity is constantly flowing in
> as a result of the solar wind.

  No, electricity is not "constantly flowing in as a result of the solar wind". How did you get the idea that it is?

  For that matter, what do you think "electricity" is?

>  This has significant effect.  Electricity is, for example, necessary to
> explain evaporation.

  Please explain why you believe that to be true.

> Only kooks think evaporation involves water turning to gaseous H2O.

  What do you think water vapor is?

>  I suppose you wackjobs think the boiling point of H2O is flexible.

  I'm going to guess that you either don't cook, or have always lived in one place.

  It is demonstrable fact that the temperature at which water boils depends on the ambient air pressure. I used to think it one of those trivial laboratory curiosities until I spent some time in Denver, Colorado. There, water boils at 202 F, not at 212 F like I was used to when living near sea level in California. I had to relearn how to cook.


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#558792

On 3/2/2016 8:36 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:23:37 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

>
>>   I suppose you wackjobs think the boiling point of H2O is flexible.
>
>    I'm going to guess that you either don't cook, or have always lived in one place.
>
>    It is demonstrable fact that the temperature at which water boils depends on the
> ambient air pressure. I used to think it one of those trivial laboratory curiosities
> until I spent some time in Denver, Colorado. There, water boils at 202 F, not at 212 F
> like I was used to when living near sea level in California. I had to relearn how to cook.

That's not really his error. What he claims is that the DEFINITION of 
boiling point is that no gaseous water can exist below the boiling point 
at that pressure, which of course is not what boiling point means, nor 
has it ever meant that.

This is why if you suggest that gaseous water exists at room 
temperature, this somehow entails bringing the boiling point to a 
temperature below room temperature.

But then again, he's an idiot not worth any attention.

>
>
>    Mark L. Fergerson
>


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

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

#558801

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 7:10:52 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> That's not really his error. What he claims is that the DEFINITION of 
> boiling point is that no gaseous water can exist below the boiling point 
> at that pressure, which of course is not what boiling point means, nor 
> has it ever meant that.

Definitions are irrelevant.  Empirical evidence is what counts.

I'm saying the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O has been firmly established in the laboratory and earth's atmosphere is too cool to support existence of genuine gaseous H2O.  Moisture in our atmosphere is actually microdroplets.  What confused people is that these microdroplets are so small they are invisible and people that don't understand the the significance of laboratory evidence just assume that since moist air is often invisible that it must contains gaseous H2O.  And that is wrong.  Gaseous H2O requires a much higher temperature.

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

#558818

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 7:10:52 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
>> That's not really his error. What he claims is that the DEFINITION of 
>> boiling point is that no gaseous water can exist below the boiling point 
>> at that pressure, which of course is not what boiling point means, nor 
>> has it ever meant that.
> 
> Definitions are irrelevant. 

Without definitions there can be no discourse as no one knows what anyone
else is talking about.

Do you know the definition of "boiling point"?

> Empirical evidence is what counts.

Of which you have none.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558827

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 7:10:52 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > 
> >> That's not really his error. What he claims is that the DEFINITION of 
> >> boiling point is that no gaseous water can exist below the boiling point 
> >> at that pressure, which of course is not what boiling point means, nor 
> >> has it ever meant that.
> > 
> > Definitions are irrelevant. 
> 
> Without definitions there can be no discourse as no one knows what anyone
> else is talking about.
> 
> Do you know the definition of "boiling point"?

Yes, I also know the definition of the tooth fairy.

Any more inane questions?

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

#558836

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 7:10:52 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> > 
>> >> That's not really his error. What he claims is that the DEFINITION of 
>> >> boiling point is that no gaseous water can exist below the boiling point 
>> >> at that pressure, which of course is not what boiling point means, nor 
>> >> has it ever meant that.
>> > 
>> > Definitions are irrelevant. 
>> 
>> Without definitions there can be no discourse as no one knows what anyone
>> else is talking about.
>> 
>> Do you know the definition of "boiling point"?
> 
> Yes, I also know the definition of the tooth fairy.

What do you think is the definition of "boiling point"?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#559486

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 7:59:39 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 7:10:52 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> > That's not really his error. What he claims is that the DEFINITION of 
> > boiling point is that no gaseous water can exist below the boiling point 
> > at that pressure, which of course is not what boiling point means, nor 
> > has it ever meant that.
> 
> Definitions are irrelevant.  Empirical evidence is what counts.
> 
> I'm saying the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O has been firmly
> established in the laboratory and earth's atmosphere is too cool to support
> existence of genuine gaseous H2O.  Moisture in our atmosphere is actually
> microdroplets.

  Comprising how many molecules each?

>  What confused people is that these microdroplets are so small

  How small, exactly?

> they are invisible

  I presume you mean invisible to the unaided human eye. Why have they not been detected by instruments?


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#559491

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:49:31 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> > I'm saying the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O has been firmly
> > established in the laboratory and earth's atmosphere is too cool to support
> > existence of genuine gaseous H2O.  Moisture in our atmosphere is actually
> > microdroplets.
> 
>   Comprising how many molecules each?

IDK

> 
> >  What confused people is that these microdroplets are so small
> 
>   How small, exactly?

Small enough to just as invisible as gaseous H2O.  

> 
> > they are invisible
> 
>   I presume you mean invisible to the unaided human eye. Why have they not been detected by instruments?

Too small.

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

#559722

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 8:05:58 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:49:31 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> 
> > > I'm saying the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O has been firmly
> > > established in the laboratory and earth's atmosphere is too cool to
> > > support existence of genuine gaseous H2O.  Moisture in our atmosphere
> > > is actually microdroplets.
> > 
> >   Comprising how many molecules each?
> 
> IDK

  Your absolute certainty seems to go fuzzy when critical details are requested.

> > >  What confused people is that these microdroplets are so small
> > 
> >   How small, exactly?
> 
> Small enough to just as invisible as gaseous H2O.  
> 
> > 
> > > they are invisible
> > 
> >   I presume you mean invisible to the unaided human eye. Why have they not
> > been detected by instruments?
> 
> Too small.

  Again, how small, exactly? Have you ever heard of schlieren photography? It's not that difficult to find very small particles, even water droplets smaller than those that make up the aerosol known as "mist", suspended in air.


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#559724

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:05:54 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> > Too small.
> 
>   Again, how small, exactly? Have you ever heard of schlieren photography? It's not that difficult to find very small particles, even water droplets smaller than those that make up the aerosol known as "mist", suspended in air.

And this air would be heavier than dry air, wouldn't it?

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

#559752

On 3/5/16 9:15 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> And this air would be heavier than dry air, wouldn't it?



   Liquid water, suspended in air would be in the form of fog, clouds,
   mist or other precipitation.

   Water vapour (H2O gas) would be lighter than air.


   Evaporation from soil, oceans, plants and lakes results in a
   continuous supply of Water Vapor (gaseous H2O) in the earth's
   atmosphere.

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

 > Water vapour (H2O molecules)

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




-- 

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

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

#558798

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 6:36:44 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> > I do like some of what Electric Universe has to say.  It isn't all new age
> > stuff.  It is a fact, for example, that electricity is constantly flowing in
> > as a result of the solar wind.
> 
>   No, electricity is not "constantly flowing in as a result of the solar wind". How did you get the idea that it is?

Actually, it is.  Look it up.  That is what causes the northern lights. Lightning too.

>   For that matter, what do you think "electricity" is?

Look it up. 

> 
> >  This has significant effect.  Electricity is, for example, necessary to
> > explain evaporation.
> 
>   Please explain why you believe that to be true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

> 
> > Only kooks think evaporation involves water turning to gaseous H2O.
> 
>   What do you think water vapor is?

Suspended microdroplets, not gas.

> 
> >  I suppose you wackjobs think the boiling point of H2O is flexible.
> 
>   I'm going to guess that you either don't cook, or have always lived in one place.
> 
>   It is demonstrable fact that the temperature at which water boils depends on the ambient air pressure. I used to think it one of those trivial laboratory curiosities until I spent some time in Denver, Colorado. There, water boils at 202 F, not at 212 F like I was used to when living near sea level in California. I had to relearn how to cook.

Irrelevant.

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

#559482

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 7:54:13 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 6:36:44 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> 
> > > I do like some of what Electric Universe has to say.  It isn't all new age
> > > stuff.  It is a fact, for example, that electricity is constantly flowing
> > > in as a result of the solar wind.
> > 
> >   No, electricity is not "constantly flowing in as a result of the solar
> > wind". How did you get the idea that it is?
> 
> Actually, it is.  Look it up.  That is what causes the northern lights.

  That's not electricity, that's electrons *and ions*.

> Lightning too.

  Nonsense.

> >   For that matter, what do you think "electricity" is?
> 
> Look it up. 

  Where can I find an online or printed source for what YOU think electricity is?

  I've been playing and working with electrical and electronic devices for slightly over five decades.

  Electricity can not "constantly flow in" from the sun to the Earth because eventually the Earth would charge up so that other charges would be repelled.

> > >  This has significant effect.  Electricity is, for example, necessary to
> > > explain evaporation.
> > 
> >   Please explain why you believe that to be true.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

  I don't watch Sam Wormley's stupid youtube videos and I'm not going to watch yours because I can read faster than anyone can talk. Also, unless it's you in the video I'm not interested in a text version of it either. I asked YOU.

> > > Only kooks think evaporation involves water turning to gaseous H2O.
> > 
> >   What do you think water vapor is?
> 
> Suspended microdroplets, not gas.

  So, you believe that individual molecules of water can't leave the surface of liquid water below its boiling point, but clusters of them can?

> > >  I suppose you wackjobs think the boiling point of H2O is flexible.
> > 
> >   I'm going to guess that you either don't cook, or have always lived in
> > one place.
> > 
> >   It is demonstrable fact that the temperature at which water boils depends
> > on the ambient air pressure. I used to think it one of those trivial
> > laboratory curiosities until I spent some time in Denver, Colorado. There,
> > water boils at 202 F, not at 212 F like I was used to when living near sea
> > level in California. I had to relearn how to cook.
> 
> Irrelevant.

  It is exactly relevant unless, as Jim Pennino suggests, you mean something other than what everyone else on the planet means by "boiling point".


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#559490

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:45:19 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

>   That's not electricity, that's electrons *and ions*.

So, uh . . uh, . . . er . . . uh . . . electrons aren't electricity?

> 
> > Lightning too.
> 
>   Nonsense.
> 
> > >   For that matter, what do you think "electricity" is?
> > 
> > Look it up. 

>   I've been playing and working with electrical and electronic devices for slightly over five decades.

Batteries included?

>   Electricity can not "constantly flow in" from the sun to the Earth because eventually the Earth would charge up so that other charges would be repelled.

I think you are over thinking it.  

> 
> > > >  This has significant effect.  Electricity is, for example, necessary to
> > > > explain evaporation.
> > > 
> > >   Please explain why you believe that to be true.
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
> 
>   I don't watch Sam Wormley's stupid youtube videos

I don't either.

>   and I'm not going to watch yours

That's  unfortunate.

>   because I can read faster than anyone can talk. Also, unless it's you in the video

Yours truly

 I'm not interested in a text version of it either. I asked YOU.
> 
> > > > Only kooks think evaporation involves water turning to gaseous H2O.



> > > 
> > >   What do you think water vapor is?
> > 
> > Suspended microdroplets, not gas.
> 
>   So, you believe that individual molecules of water can't leave the surface of liquid water below its boiling point, but clusters of them can?

Correct.  Moreover, being a physicist, I can precisely describe the mechanism underlying this behavior.  Are you interested in reading something on that?  

> > Irrelevant.
> 
>   It is exactly relevant

Actually, it is irrelevant.

unless, as Jim Pennino suggests, you mean something other than what everyone else on the planet means by "boiling point".

IDK.  It's irrelevant.  Prove otherwise.

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

#559539

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:45:19 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

<snip>

> unless, as Jim Pennino suggests, you mean something other than what everyone else on the planet means by "boiling point".
> 
> IDK.  It's irrelevant.  Prove otherwise.

You haven't the slightest clue what "boiling point" means from the
standpoint of physics.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#559548

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> You haven't the slightest clue what "boiling point" means from the
> standpoint of physics.

It seems rather selfish of you to hide your special meaning from the rest of the world.  Go ahead, tell us your special secret.  

Maybe you can start by telling us how a point isn't, uh, pointy.

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web