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

Groups > sci.physics > #553566 > unrolled thread

Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation

Started bySam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
First post2016-02-16 10:36 -0600
Last post2016-02-19 00:04 -0800
Articles 20 on this page of 102 — 13 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 10:36 -0600
    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 10:45 -0600
      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:50 -0800
        Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 14:28 -0600
          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 13:46 -0800
            Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 17:52 -0600
              Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:00 -0800
                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 19:31 -0600
        Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 14:54 -0800
          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:28 -0800
            Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 20:36 -0800
              Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 20:58 -0800
                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:11 -0600
                  Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 21:27 -0800
                    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:50 -0600
                      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:57 -0800
                        Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:10 -0600
                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 21:36 -0800
                  Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 22:03 -0800
                    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 22:29 -0800
                      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:19 -0800
                        Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 10:24 -0600
                          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:29 -0600
                          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:03 -0800
                            Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 12:46 -0600
                              Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:54 -0800
                                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 13:10 -0600
                                  Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:20 -0800
                                    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 19:11 -0600
          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-17 00:40 +0000
            Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:18 -0800
    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 10:49 -0800
      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 12:57 -0600
        Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-02-16 14:59 -0800
        Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:38 -0800
          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:45 -0800
            Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 17:59 -0600
              Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:07 -0800
                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 19:56 -0600
                  Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:10 -0800
                    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 20:58 -0600
                      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 19:10 -0800
                        Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 22:12 -0600
                          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 20:57 -0800
                            Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:10 -0600
                              Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 21:26 -0800
                                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:49 -0600
                                  Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation dm <pippinese@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 07:39 -0800
                                    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:50 -0600
                                      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 10:34 -0600
                                        Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:04 -0800
                                          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 12:49 -0600
                                    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:45 -0800
                                      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 13:14 -0600
                                      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 15:53 -0500
                                    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:55 -0800
                                  Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:44 -0800
                                    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:50 -0600
                                      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:14 -0800
                                        Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:50 -0600
                                          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:46 -0800
                                            Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 13:07 -0600
                                              Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:15 -0800
                                            Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 13:47 -0600
                                              Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:08 -0800
                                                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-17 19:52 -0800
                                                  Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 22:40 -0800
                                                    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-18 11:35 -0800
                                                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:03 -0600
                                                  Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:56 -0800
                                                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:17 -0600
                                                  Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:58 -0800
                                                    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 12:09 -0600
                                                      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:40 -0800
                                                        Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 14:10 -0600
                                                          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 12:41 -0800
                                                            Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 16:09 -0600
                                                              Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 14:13 -0800
                                                                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-18 17:55 -0600
                                                  Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 00:08 -0800
                                                    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 07:46 -0600
                                                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 12:43 -0800
                                                  Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 20:48 -0500
          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:10 -0600
            Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:01 -0800
              Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 20:58 -0600
                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 19:11 -0800
                  Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 22:12 -0600
                    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 21:31 -0800
                      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 10:39 -0600
                        Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:10 -0800
                          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:12 -0600
                            Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:16 -0800
                              Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:52 -0600
                                Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:47 -0800
                          Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 12:57 -0600
                            Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:09 -0800
                              Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 13:17 -0600
      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:24 -0500
      Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-16 13:53 -0800
    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:43 -0600
    Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 00:04 -0800

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#553730

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-02-16 20:58 -0600
Message-ID<na0nkv$rcq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#553719
On 2/16/2016 8:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 5:57:24 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 2/16/2016 6:07 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2016 5:45 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-8, reber
>>>>> g=emc^2 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Water is heavy
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course water is heavy.  Moist air is heavier than dry
>>>>> air.
>>>>
>>>> wrong, it is moist is less dense, therefore lighter than dry
>>>> air, everybody knows that
>>>
>>> Look up gas laws, you idiot.  And look up boiling temp/press of
>>> H2O.
>>
>> does gas law apply to water vapor in air  ?

answer the question !

>>
>> on the BP of water, I am sure you can find it on the internet
>> somewhere, I do not want to take my time to learn you, as you just
>> do not know the fundamentals, pupa.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how did
>>>> the water get up there?
>>>

answer the Question !

>>>
>>> If moist air is heavier then it couldn't be due to convection,
>>> right. So what other process do you suggest?  (BTW, this is my
>>> area of expertise.)
>>>
>>
>> you failed to answer my question.
>>
>> Again "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how
>> did the water get up there ?"

you failed to answer my question again, this is the THIRD TIME I tell 
you to answer the simple Question.

you cannot.  Because your thinking cannot explain Clouds, or Fog.

  Because you use your imagination for your "heavy moist air" and your 
"books".  your theories are science fiction, your imagination.

You imagination confused with reality.



>>
>> kind of simple question blows a HUGE HOLE in your "heavy moisture"
>> idea,
>>
>> I am waiting for your answer.  (you are trapped)
>>
>>

I am waiting.............

put up or shut up.

you are so hosed !

Trapped !



>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (crickets................................)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Water is in clumps/droplets at ambient temps.

at what temp, and pressure ?

>>>>
>>>> not all temps, and at what pressure ? what density ?
>>>
>>> Steam tables.
>>
>> got any URLs ? or are you just making stuff up ?
>>
>> steam tables or Psychrometric chart ?

no URLs ??

>>
>> http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif
>>
>> sorry to get way ahead of you so quick, but you need to start
>> learning now.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Only idiots believe it turns to gas below its boiling point.
>>>>
>>>> at what pressure ?  what density ?
>>>
>>> Depends.  There are other factors that you are ignorant of.
>>> Crawl before you walk.  First get it straight in your little mind
>>> that convection is not the only explanation and is plainly
>>> refuted by the ten cent observation that moist aid is heavier.
>>
>> no need to get angry, just answer this question, "how does the
>> water get up into the clouds ?"
>>
>> I am waiting.....
>>
>>
>> (crickets.......................................)
>>
>>

still no answer ?

again " how does the water get up into the clouds ? "

you can use google.

>>>
>>> What other process do you think might be involved?
>>>
>>> Think real hard.
>>
>> flipping the question to me is childish, and diversionary.
>>
>> You have trapped yourself and demonstrated to all, to the world,
>> that *you cannot explain why there are clouds*.
>
> Since I can't imagine
> anything else causing H2O to get high in the atmosphere therefore
> it's alright to pretend it's a gas when the facts clearly demonstrate
> it is impossible.

what facts ?  see the cloud ?  how did the water get up there ? simple 
stuff,

again *you have no answer to why clouds exist*.  you cannot explain it 
at all using your failed idea of "heavy moist air",

I demote you from pupa, to .dot.

.dot gets a SPANK!! SPANK !! You bad boy, you fail to study, you cannot 
answer why clouds are there.

you should re think your moistness, better yet, accept the fact that 
water vapor it is too difficult for you, and change fields, try coloring 
on some paper, and show somebody.  you could trace and then color a 
water molecule ! (wiki for it)

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

#553734

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-16 19:10 -0800
Message-ID<28e2af1a-a9e8-49ec-b011-2e7d9371682a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#553730
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 6:58:46 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 2/16/2016 8:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 5:57:24 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 2/16/2016 6:07 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >>>> On 2/16/2016 5:45 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-8, reber
> >>>>> g=emc^2 wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Water is heavy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course water is heavy.  Moist air is heavier than dry
> >>>>> air.
> >>>>
> >>>> wrong, it is moist is less dense, therefore lighter than dry
> >>>> air, everybody knows that
> >>>
> >>> Look up gas laws, you idiot.  And look up boiling temp/press of
> >>> H2O.
> >>
> >> does gas law apply to water vapor in air  ?
> 
> answer the question !

Be more specific.


> 
> >>
> >> on the BP of water, I am sure you can find it on the internet
> >> somewhere, I do not want to take my time to learn you, as you just
> >> do not know the fundamentals, pupa.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how did
> >>>> the water get up there?
> >>>
> 
> answer the Question !

I answered this question in other posts on this NG.  (Hint: It has nothing to do with convection.)

> 
> >>>
> >>> If moist air is heavier then it couldn't be due to convection,
> >>> right. So what other process do you suggest?  (BTW, this is my
> >>> area of expertise.)
> >>>
> >>
> >> you failed to answer my question.
> >>
> >> Again "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how
> >> did the water get up there ?"
> 
> you failed to answer my question again, this is the THIRD TIME I tell 
> you to answer the simple Question.

You should never ask a question that you are unwilling to answer yourself.


> 
> you cannot.  Because your thinking cannot explain Clouds, or Fog.
> 
>   Because you use your imagination for your "heavy moist air" and your 
> "books".  your theories are science fiction, your imagination.
> 
> You imagination confused with reality.

If that is what you think you should make an argument to that effect.

> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >> kind of simple question blows a HUGE HOLE in your "heavy moisture"
> >> idea,
> >>
> >> I am waiting for your answer.  (you are trapped)
> >>
> >>
> 
> I am waiting.............
> 
> put up or shut up.
> 
> you are so hosed !
> 
> Trapped !
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (crickets................................)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Water is in clumps/droplets at ambient temps.
> 
> at what temp, and pressure ?
> 
> >>>>
> >>>> not all temps, and at what pressure ? what density ?
> >>>
> >>> Steam tables.
> >>
> >> got any URLs ? or are you just making stuff up ?
> >>
> >> steam tables or Psychrometric chart ?
> 
> no URLs ??
> 
> >>
> >> http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif
> >>
> >> sorry to get way ahead of you so quick, but you need to start
> >> learning now.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Only idiots believe it turns to gas below its boiling point.
> >>>>
> >>>> at what pressure ?  what density ?
> >>>
> >>> Depends.  There are other factors that you are ignorant of.
> >>> Crawl before you walk.  First get it straight in your little mind
> >>> that convection is not the only explanation and is plainly
> >>> refuted by the ten cent observation that moist aid is heavier.
> >>
> >> no need to get angry, just answer this question, "how does the
> >> water get up into the clouds ?"
> >>
> >> I am waiting.....
> >>
> >>
> >> (crickets.......................................)
> >>
> >>
> 
> still no answer ?
> 
> again " how does the water get up into the clouds ? "

What is your answer?

> 
> you can use google.

I don't need google.  I'm an expert on this subject.

> 
> >>>
> >>> What other process do you think might be involved?
> >>>
> >>> Think real hard.
> >>
> >> flipping the question to me is childish, and diversionary.
> >>
> >> You have trapped yourself and demonstrated to all, to the world,
> >> that *you cannot explain why there are clouds*.
> >
> > Since I can't imagine
> > anything else causing H2O to get high in the atmosphere therefore
> > it's alright to pretend it's a gas when the facts clearly demonstrate
> > it is impossible.
> 
> what facts ?  see the cloud ?  how did the water get up there ? simple 
> stuff,

Crawl before you walk.  Do you accept that convection is impossible?

> 
> again *you have no answer to why clouds exist*.  you cannot explain it 
> at all using your failed idea of "heavy moist air",

I already have explained it.  No convection needed.  There is no spritiualism in my thinking.  I leave that to pretenders like you.

> 
> I demote you from pupa, to .dot.
> 
> .dot gets a SPANK!! SPANK !! You bad boy, you fail to study, you cannot 
> answer why clouds are there.
> 
> you should re think your moistness, better yet, accept the fact that 
> water vapor it is too difficult for you, and change fields, try coloring 
> on some paper, and show somebody.  you could trace and then color a 
> water molecule ! (wiki for it)

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

#553742

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-02-16 22:12 -0600
Message-ID<na0rvr$10hj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#553734
On 2/16/2016 9:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 6:58:46 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 2/16/2016 8:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 5:57:24 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2016 6:07 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2016 5:45 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-8, reber
>>>>>>> g=emc^2 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Water is heavy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course water is heavy.  Moist air is heavier than dry
>>>>>>> air.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrong, it is moist is less dense, therefore lighter than dry
>>>>>> air, everybody knows that
>>>>>
>>>>> Look up gas laws, you idiot.  And look up boiling temp/press of
>>>>> H2O.
>>>>
>>>> does gas law apply to water vapor in air  ?
>>
>> answer the question !
>
> Be more specific.

sure =>  "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how
  did the water get up there ?"  using your "theory"

the clock is ticking..........

>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> on the BP of water, I am sure you can find it on the internet
>>>> somewhere, I do not want to take my time to learn you, as you just
>>>> do not know the fundamentals, pupa.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
"Dry air is composed of mostly of heavy oxygen (O2) and nitrogen
(N2) molecules. However in moist air, some molecules are the
lighter weight water molecules (H2O), rather than heavier O2 or N2
molecules.

Not at all, that is a common mistake by novices. Take some time and 
think about dry air is composed of mostly of heavy oxygen (O2) and
nitrogen (N2) Molecules. However in moist air, some molecules are the
lighter weight water molecules (H2O), rather than heavier O2 or N2 
molecules.

what is the weight of H2O ?  MM of 18.0152 g/mol
Weight of O2 ?   MM of 31.9988 g/mol
Weight of N2 ?   MM of 28.01340 g/mol

clearly water, H2O is light weight, everybody already knows this, and 
can easily verify this fact online in thousands of places.  Too bad you 
continue to fool yourself.

  H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere.  Consult steam tables, or any 
Psychrometric chart http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif

  Therefore, the *air is less dense in moist air* and this decrease in
  density equates to less resistance to the ball's motion through air.

So, for two baseballs hit with equal force, the one in the moist air
would  travel much much farther than the one hit in dry air.

>>>>>> if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how did
>>>>>> the water get up there?
>>>>>
>>
>> answer the Question !
>
> I answered this question in other posts on this NG.  (Hint: It has nothing to do with convection.)

no, you avoided it.  *Now answer the question*.  Or admit your "theory" 
is a failure.

"if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how
did the water get up there ?"


>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If moist air is heavier then it couldn't be due to convection,
>>>>> right. So what other process do you suggest?  (BTW, this is my
>>>>> area of expertise.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you failed to answer my question.
>>>>
>>>> Again "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how
>>>> did the water get up there ?"
>>
>> you failed to answer my question again, this is the THIRD TIME I tell
>> you to answer the simple Question.
>
> You should never ask a question that you are unwilling to answer yourself.
>

again, *answer the question*, "if you look up you see clouds, they are 
made of water, how  did the water get up there ?"

If you cannot answer it, admit your theory is failed.

>
>>
>> you cannot.  Because your thinking cannot explain Clouds, or Fog.
>>
>>    Because you use your imagination for your "heavy moist air" and your
>> "books".  your theories are science fiction, your imagination.
>>
>> You imagination confused with reality.
>
> If that is what you think you should make an argument to that effect.

since you say you are expert, and you say moist air is heavy, then 
answer the question, "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of 
water, how did the water get up there ?"



>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> kind of simple question blows a HUGE HOLE in your "heavy moisture"
>>>> idea,
>>>>
>>>> I am waiting for your answer.  (you are trapped)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> I am waiting.............
>>
>> put up or shut up.
>>
>> you are so hosed !
>>
>> Trapped !
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (crickets................................)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Water is in clumps/droplets at ambient temps.
>>
>> at what temp, and pressure ?
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not all temps, and at what pressure ? what density ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Steam tables.
>>>>
>>>> got any URLs ? or are you just making stuff up ?
>>>>
>>>> steam tables or Psychrometric chart ?
>>
>> no URLs ??
>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif
>>>>
>>>> sorry to get way ahead of you so quick, but you need to start
>>>> learning now.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only idiots believe it turns to gas below its boiling point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> at what pressure ?  what density ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends.  There are other factors that you are ignorant of.
>>>>> Crawl before you walk.  First get it straight in your little mind
>>>>> that convection is not the only explanation and is plainly
>>>>> refuted by the ten cent observation that moist aid is heavier.
>>>>
>>>> no need to get angry, just answer this question, "how does the
>>>> water get up into the clouds ?"
>>>>
>>>> I am waiting.....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (crickets.......................................)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> still no answer ?
>>
>> again " how does the water get up into the clouds ? "
>
> What is your answer?

you have no answer.  your theory cannot explain clouds. It and you are 
bogus.

since you say you are expert, and you say moist air is heavy, then 
answer the question, "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of 
water, how did the water get up there ?"

>
>>
>> you can use google.
>
> I don't need google.  I'm an expert on this subject.

if so, prove it, answer "How does water get up to the clouds ?" using 
your "theories"

If you can't answer such a simple question, you are no expert.

>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What other process do you think might be involved?
>>>>>
>>>>> Think real hard.
>>>>
>>>> flipping the question to me is childish, and diversionary.
>>>>
>>>> You have trapped yourself and demonstrated to all, to the world,
>>>> that *you cannot explain why there are clouds*.
>>>
>>> Since I can't imagine
>>> anything else causing H2O to get high in the atmosphere therefore
>>> it's alright to pretend it's a gas when the facts clearly demonstrate
>>> it is impossible.
>>
>> what facts ?  see the cloud ?  how did the water get up there ? simple
>> stuff,
>
> Crawl before you walk.  Do you accept that convection is impossible?

answer my question, "How does water get up so high to form clouds ?"

>
>>
>> again *you have no answer to why clouds exist*.  you cannot explain it
>> at all using your failed idea of "heavy moist air",
>
> I already have explained it.  No convection needed.
>

liar.

answer my question, "How does water get up so high to form clouds ?"


>>
>> I demote you from pupa, to .dot.
>>
>> .dot gets a SPANK!! SPANK !! You bad boy, you fail to study, you cannot
>> answer why clouds are there.
>>
>> you should re think your moistness, better yet, accept the fact that
>> water vapor it is too difficult for you, and change fields, try coloring
>> on some paper, and show somebody.  you could trace and then color a
>> water molecule ! (wiki for it)
>
  Take some time and think about dry air is composed of mostly of heavy 
oxygen (O2) and
nitrogen (N2) Molecules. However in moist air, some molecules are the
lighter weight water molecules (H2O), rather than heavier O2 or N2 
molecules.

what is the weight of H2O ?  MM of 18.0152 g/mol
Weight of O2 ?   MM of 31.9988 g/mol
Weight of N2 ?   MM of 28.01340 g/mol

clearly water, H2O is light weight, everybody already knows this, and 
can easily verify this fact online in thousands of places.  Too bad you 
continue to fool yourself.

  H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere.  Consult steam tables, or any 
Psychrometric chart http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif

  Therefore, the *air is less dense in moist air* and this decrease in
  density equates to less resistance to the ball's motion through air.

So, for two baseballs hit with equal force, the one in the moist air
would  travel much much farther than the one hit in dry air.

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

#553750

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-16 20:57 -0800
Message-ID<4e9259d8-b433-4e2e-8946-c06339e02624@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#553742
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 8:12:47 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 2/16/2016 9:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 6:58:46 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 2/16/2016 8:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 5:57:24 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >>>> On 2/16/2016 6:07 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2/16/2016 5:45 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-8, reber
> >>>>>>> g=emc^2 wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Water is heavy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Of course water is heavy.  Moist air is heavier than dry
> >>>>>>> air.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> wrong, it is moist is less dense, therefore lighter than dry
> >>>>>> air, everybody knows that
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Look up gas laws, you idiot.  And look up boiling temp/press of
> >>>>> H2O.
> >>>>
> >>>> does gas law apply to water vapor in air  ?
> >>
> >> answer the question !
> >
> > Be more specific.
> 
> sure =>  "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how
>   did the water get up there ?"  using your "theory"
> 
> the clock is ticking..........

If H2O is not a gas.  Then . . . Obviously . . . we can't just apply gas laws . . . right?  Or, at least, not precisely.  Right . . . That doesn't mean we can't make use of gas laws.  But we can't just go by molecular weight . . . right?  Am I going too fast for you?  


> >
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> on the BP of water, I am sure you can find it on the internet
> >>>> somewhere, I do not want to take my time to learn you, as you just
> >>>> do not know the fundamentals, pupa.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> "Dry air is composed of mostly of heavy oxygen (O2) and nitrogen
> (N2) molecules. However in moist air, some molecules are the
> lighter weight water molecules (H2O), rather than heavier O2 or N2
> molecules.

And H2O is not a gas.  Right? 

> 
> Not at all, that is a common mistake by novices. Take some time and 
> think about dry air is composed of mostly of heavy oxygen (O2) and
> nitrogen (N2) Molecules. However in moist air, some molecules are the
> lighter weight water molecules (H2O), rather than heavier O2 or N2 
> molecules.
> 
> what is the weight of H2O ?  MM of 18.0152 g/mol
> Weight of O2 ?   MM of 31.9988 g/mol
> Weight of N2 ?   MM of 28.01340 g/mol

No duh.  Gas laws apply to gases.  Now do you get it?

> 
> clearly water, H2O is light weight, everybody already knows this, and 
> can easily verify this fact online in thousands of places.  Too bad you 
> continue to fool yourself.
> 
>   H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere.

Wrong.  It's a vapor.  Not a gas.  It's a liquid suspended in air by static electricity, dumbass.



  Consult steam tables, or any 
> Psychrometric chart http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif

Useless for this issue.

> 
>   Therefore, the *air is less dense in moist air* and this decrease in
>   density equates to less resistance to the ball's motion through air.
> 
> So, for two baseballs hit with equal force, the one in the moist air
> would  travel much much farther than the one hit in dry air.
> 
> >>>>>> if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how did
> >>>>>> the water get up there?
> >>>>>
> >>
> >> answer the Question !
> >
> > I answered this question in other posts on this NG.  (Hint: It has nothing to do with convection.)
> 
> no, you avoided it.  *Now answer the question*.  Or admit your "theory" 
> is a failure.
> 
> "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how
> did the water get up there ?"

Since we know for a fact that moist air is heavier, we know it's not convection.  Right?

Answer my question you evasive jackass.

> 
> 
> >
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If moist air is heavier then it couldn't be due to convection,
> >>>>> right. So what other process do you suggest?  (BTW, this is my
> >>>>> area of expertise.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> you failed to answer my question.
> >>>>
> >>>> Again "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how
> >>>> did the water get up there ?"
> >>
> >> you failed to answer my question again, this is the THIRD TIME I tell
> >> you to answer the simple Question.
> >
> > You should never ask a question that you are unwilling to answer yourself.
> >
> 
> again, *answer the question*, "if you look up you see clouds, they are 
> made of water, how  did the water get up there ?"

What's your theory?


> 
> If you cannot answer it, admit your theory is failed.

I already have.  Do a search.

> 
> >
> >>
> >> you cannot.  Because your thinking cannot explain Clouds, or Fog.
> >>
> >>    Because you use your imagination for your "heavy moist air" and your
> >> "books".  your theories are science fiction, your imagination.
> >>
> >> You imagination confused with reality.
> >
> > If that is what you think you should make an argument to that effect.
> 
> since you say you are expert, and you say moist air is heavy,

Right.

 then 
> answer the question, "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of 
> water, how did the water get up there ?"


Do a search.  You'll find it.  Do a search under my name and Plasma

> 
> 
> 
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> kind of simple question blows a HUGE HOLE in your "heavy moisture"
> >>>> idea,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am waiting for your answer.  (you are trapped)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> I am waiting.............
> >>
> >> put up or shut up.
> >>
> >> you are so hosed !
> >>
> >> Trapped !
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (crickets................................)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Water is in clumps/droplets at ambient temps.
> >>
> >> at what temp, and pressure ?
> >>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> not all temps, and at what pressure ? what density ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Steam tables.
> >>>>
> >>>> got any URLs ? or are you just making stuff up ?
> >>>>
> >>>> steam tables or Psychrometric chart ?
> >>
> >> no URLs ??
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif
> >>>>
> >>>> sorry to get way ahead of you so quick, but you need to start
> >>>> learning now.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Only idiots believe it turns to gas below its boiling point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> at what pressure ?  what density ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Depends.  There are other factors that you are ignorant of.
> >>>>> Crawl before you walk.  First get it straight in your little mind
> >>>>> that convection is not the only explanation and is plainly
> >>>>> refuted by the ten cent observation that moist aid is heavier.
> >>>>
> >>>> no need to get angry, just answer this question, "how does the
> >>>> water get up into the clouds ?"
> >>>>
> >>>> I am waiting.....
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (crickets.......................................)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> still no answer ?
> >>
> >> again " how does the water get up into the clouds ? "
> >
> > What is your answer?
> 
> you have no answer.

You have no answer.



  your theory cannot explain clouds. It and you are 
> bogus.
> 
> since you say you are expert, and you say moist air is heavy, then 
> answer the question, "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of 
> water, how did the water get up there ?"


Search for my answer.

> 
> >
> >>
> >> you can use google.
> >
> > I don't need google.  I'm an expert on this subject.
> 
> if so, prove it, answer "How does water get up to the clouds ?" using 
> your "theories"
> 
> If you can't answer such a simple question, you are no expert.
> 
> >
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What other process do you think might be involved?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Think real hard.
> >>>>
> >>>> flipping the question to me is childish, and diversionary.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have trapped yourself and demonstrated to all, to the world,
> >>>> that *you cannot explain why there are clouds*.
> >>>
> >>> Since I can't imagine
> >>> anything else causing H2O to get high in the atmosphere therefore
> >>> it's alright to pretend it's a gas when the facts clearly demonstrate
> >>> it is impossible.
> >>
> >> what facts ?  see the cloud ?  how did the water get up there ? simple
> >> stuff,
> >
> > Crawl before you walk.  Do you accept that convection is impossible?
> 
> answer my question, "How does water get up so high to form clouds ?"

I already answered. Do a search.

> 
> >
> >>
> >> again *you have no answer to why clouds exist*.  you cannot explain it
> >> at all using your failed idea of "heavy moist air",
> >
> > I already have explained it.  No convection needed.
> >
> 
> liar.
> 
> answer my question, "How does water get up so high to form clouds ?"
> 
> 
> >>
> >> I demote you from pupa, to .dot.
> >>
> >> .dot gets a SPANK!! SPANK !! You bad boy, you fail to study, you cannot
> >> answer why clouds are there.
> >>
> >> you should re think your moistness, better yet, accept the fact that
> >> water vapor it is too difficult for you, and change fields, try coloring
> >> on some paper, and show somebody.  you could trace and then color a
> >> water molecule ! (wiki for it)
> >
>   Take some time and think about dry air is composed of mostly of heavy 
> oxygen (O2) and
> nitrogen (N2) Molecules. However in moist air, some molecules are the
> lighter weight water molecules (H2O), rather than heavier O2 or N2 
> molecules.

Irrelevant.

> 
> what is the weight of H2O ?  MM of 18.0152 g/mol
> Weight of O2 ?   MM of 31.9988 g/mol
> Weight of N2 ?   MM of 28.01340 g/mol
> 
> clearly water, H2O is light weight, everybody already knows this, and 
> can easily verify this fact online in thousands of places.  Too bad you 
> continue to fool yourself.
> 
>   H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere.

Steam tables indicate otherwise.


  Consult steam tables, or any 
> Psychrometric chart http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif
> 
>   Therefore, the *air is less dense in moist air* and this decrease in
>   density equates to less resistance to the ball's motion through air.
> 
> So, for two baseballs hit with equal force, the one in the moist air
> would  travel much much farther than the one hit in dry air.

Wrong.  Moist air is heavier.

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

#553758

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-16 23:10 -0600
Message-ID<na0vck$136t$6@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#553750
On 2/16/2016 10:57 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 8:12:47 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

>>
>>    H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere.
>
> Steam tables indicate otherwise.
>

Liar. Outright liar.

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

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

#553765

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-16 21:26 -0800
Message-ID<7c798c28-4d8f-4ee9-b3c8-c3a2a2ceceba@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#553758
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:10:47 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/16/2016 10:57 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 8:12:47 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> 
> >>
> >>    H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere.
> >
> > Steam tables indicate otherwise.
> >
> 
> Liar. Outright liar.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

At sea level the boiling point of H2O is 100 C.  Do you dispute this?

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

#553848

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 08:49 -0600
Message-ID<na219k$r1d$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#553765
On 2/16/2016 11:26 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:10:47 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/16/2016 10:57 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 8:12:47 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>     H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere.
>>>
>>> Steam tables indicate otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> Liar. Outright liar.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> At sea level the boiling point of H2O is 100 C.  Do you dispute this?


No, I don't dispute that. That's the temperature of the wholescale phase 
change. This does not mean that there is no gaseous state of H20 below 
100 C at sea level.

Do you know what boiling point means? What do you think it means?



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

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

#553876

Fromdm <pippinese@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 07:39 -0800
Message-ID<9eacfcf4-6cef-465e-bf37-f19023f90eab@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#553848
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 9:49:29 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/16/2016 11:26 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:10:47 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/16/2016 10:57 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 8:12:47 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>     H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere.
> >>>
> >>> Steam tables indicate otherwise.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Liar. Outright liar.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > At sea level the boiling point of H2O is 100 C.  Do you dispute this?
> 
> 
> No, I don't dispute that. That's the temperature of the wholescale phase 
> change. This does not mean that there is no gaseous state of H20 below 
> 100 C at sea level.
> 
> Do you know what boiling point means? What do you think it means?
> 
The rabbit hole is deep on this one.  He believes (without any math, observations, or sensible theory to back it up) that the attractive force due to the hydrogen bond between water molecules is too strong for mono-molecular water to exist below the boiling point.  He chooses to ignore the wealth of evidence to the contrary (radiative properties of gaseous H20, diffusion calculations, etc), and he thinks the latent heat that is absorbed/released when water changes phase below the boiling point is a collective delusion of the entire physics and chemistry community.  He then extrapolates this absurd concept to intuit that all of atmospheric science is wrong because vigorous convection cannot happen without latent heat release and there must be a "simpler" explanation that involves an unobserved (and possible unobservable) plasma-like phenomenon associated with water molecules in the atmosphere.  

There so much to unpack here it boggles the mind.  

And until he produced a video talking about his theories, it was almost possible to believe he was just an unusually energetic troll.  But his video is something to behold:

https://t.co/KurSk1KKVj

It's hard to accept that he could be THAT good an actor. Again, the mind simply boggles.

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

#553882

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 09:50 -0600
Message-ID<lOadnbJYLL4mC1nLnZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#553876
On 2/17/16 9:39 AM, dm wrote:
> And until he produced a video talking about his theories, it was
> almost possible to believe he was just an unusually energetic troll.
> But his video is something to behold:
>
> https://t.co/KurSk1KKVj
>
> It's hard to accept that he could be THAT good an actor. Again, the
> mind simply boggles.


   Seriously -- so many non-scientists never take the time to check their
   assumptions. What a hoot.


-- 

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]

#553901

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-02-17 10:34 -0600
Message-ID<na27ft$17d7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#553882
On 2/17/2016 9:50 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/17/16 9:39 AM, dm wrote:
>> And until he produced a video talking about his theories, it was
>> almost possible to believe he was just an unusually energetic troll.
>> But his video is something to behold:
>>
>> https://t.co/KurSk1KKVj
>>
>> It's hard to accept that he could be THAT good an actor. Again, the
>> mind simply boggles.
>
>
>    Seriously -- so many non-scientists never take the time to check their
>    assumptions. What a hoot.
>
>

scientists and engineers are taught very early to check all assumptions, 
requirements, supposed facts, conjectures, previous work,  etc.  when we 
did design work we heavily used math, complex math....

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

#553920

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 09:04 -0800
Message-ID<d8c7fd79-36b7-4fdd-8b6f-6136e43c25e8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#553901
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:35:14 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> scientists and engineers are taught very early to check all assumptions, 
> requirements, supposed facts, conjectures, previous work,  etc.  when we 
> did design work we heavily used math, complex math....

How did you arrive at the conclusion that clouds are gaseous H2O?

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

#553972

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-02-17 12:49 -0600
Message-ID<na2fbp$1mqm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#553920
On 2/17/2016 11:04 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:35:14 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>> scientists and engineers are taught very early to check all assumptions,
>> requirements, supposed facts, conjectures, previous work,  etc.  when we
>> did design work we heavily used math, complex math....
>
> How did you arrive at the conclusion that clouds are gaseous H2O?
>

that is your thought, not mine.

very simple question, answer now,
	
	"how does the water get up to the clouds ?"

How does that happen Jamie-boy ?

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

#553909

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 08:45 -0800
Message-ID<c79b23c3-3708-4546-9b4c-18fe6bdfa1dc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#553876
And until he produced a video talking about his theories, it was almost possible to believe he was just an unusually energetic troll.  But his video is something to behold: 

https://t.co/KurSk1KKVj 

It's hard to accept that he could be THAT good an actor. Again, the mind simply boggles.
--------------

He obviously suffers from some sort of mental disorder, so you shouldn't make fun of him.

That's MY job

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

#554000

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-02-17 13:14 -0600
Message-ID<na2grf$1po8$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#553909
On 2/17/2016 10:45 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
> And until he produced a video talking about his theories, it was
> almost possible to believe he was just an unusually energetic troll.
> But his video is something to behold:
>
> https://t.co/KurSk1KKVj
>
> It's hard to accept that he could be THAT good an actor. Again, the
> mind simply boggles. --------------
>
> He obviously suffers from some sort of mental disorder, so you
> shouldn't make fun of him.
>
> That's MY job
>

My second couzin is that way, really nuts, twitches too, he belives in
ghosts, remote viewing, nano-molecular dihydrogin oxide, and cant spelt
at all.

He works for the EPA in quality control.

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

#554030

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 15:53 -0500
Message-ID<m55xy.1943$fS.555@fx28.iad>
In reply to#553909
On 02/17/2016 11:45 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
> And until he produced a video talking about his theories, it was almost possible to believe he was just an unusually energetic troll.  But his video is something to behold:
>
> https://t.co/KurSk1KKVj
>
> It's hard to accept that he could be THAT good an actor. Again, the mind simply boggles.
> --------------
>
> He obviously suffers from some sort of mental disorder, so you shouldn't make fun of him.
>
> That's MY job

Well then get with it you lazy ass!

You can start with some comments on his video production values. I'm 
sure someone of your education can handle that one. Nothing like making 
a video in a tornado! The audio wind noise alone convinced me of his 
theory of "heavy air" (If I wasn't already convinced by Herb)

So get up off your lazy ass and take some time from asking me if I 
"believe" in ESP and ghosts and start doing your job!

I am SO obsessed with "you".

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#553917

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 08:55 -0800
Message-ID<e41560b4-0a4c-4dfb-bc86-d55810c2ded7@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#553876
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 7:39:51 AM UTC-8, dm wrote:

He believes that the attractive force due to the hydrogen bond between water molecules is too strong for mono-molecular water to exist below the boiling point.  

Correct.  And you birdbrains believe, (without any math, observations, or sensible theory to back it up) that the attractive force due to the hydrogen bond between water molecules is weak enough to allow for mono-molecular water to exist below the boiling point.  



You choose to ignore the wealth of evidence to the contrary (radiative properties of gaseous H20, diffusion calculations, etc).

And he you thinks the latent heat that is absorbed/released when water changes phase below the boiling point

I think it but a delusion--imagination.


 is a collective delusion of the entire physics and chemistry community.  He then extrapolates this absurd concept to intuit that all of atmospheric science is wrong because vigorous convection cannot happen without latent heat release and there must be a "simpler" explanation that involves an unobserved (and possible unobservable) plasma-like phenomenon associated with water molecules in the atmosphere.  

Plasma is plainly observable in tornadoes. Latent heat is BS.



> 
> There so much to unpack here it boggles the mind.  


Your an idiot that can't distinguish between your imagination and reality.


> 
> And until he produced a video talking about his theories, it was almost possible to believe he was just an unusually energetic troll.  But his video is something to behold:
> 
> https://t.co/KurSk1KKVj

Cool.  And you've no dispute.  Right?

> 
> It's hard to accept that he could be THAT good an actor. Again, the mind simply boggles.

Tell us your theory, simpleton.  You have nothing but a group delusion.

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

#553906

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 08:44 -0800
Message-ID<e67a6b76-e84e-4f63-a806-b6ad34675b58@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#553848
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:49:29 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > At sea level the boiling point of H2O is 100 C.  Do you dispute this?
> 
> 
> No, I don't dispute that. 

Excellent.  Honesty is the important first step.  Keep going.

Is it not true that no part of the atmosphere is warm enough to support the existence of gaseous H2O.  Answer this questions.

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

#553913

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 10:50 -0600
Message-ID<na28cs$18s1$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#553906
On 2/17/2016 10:44 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:49:29 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>> At sea level the boiling point of H2O is 100 C.  Do you dispute this?
>>
>>
>> No, I don't dispute that.
>
> Excellent.  Honesty is the important first step.  Keep going.
>
> Is it not true that no part of the atmosphere is warm enough to support
> the existence of gaseous H2O.  Answer this questions.
>

No that is not true. I've already answered it and you snipped it.
It is NOT true that the boiling point of water being 100 C at sea level 
means that no gaseous H2O exists below 100 C at sea level.

What do you think boiling point means, Jim?


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

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

#553925

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 09:14 -0800
Message-ID<ff80fa70-1504-4c13-94fb-4c745b83633e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#553913
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:50:40 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> >> No, I don't dispute that.
> >
> > Excellent.  Honesty is the important first step.  Keep going.
> >
> > Is it not true that no part of the atmosphere is warm enough to support
> > the existence of gaseous H2O.  Answer this questions.
> >
> 
> No that is not true. 

Aha!  Can you reference any evidence to support this assertion?  Or is this just something you choose to believe despite having no confirmational evidence?  Answer the question, you evasive twit.

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

#553941

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 11:50 -0600
Message-ID<na2bs9$1fvs$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#553925
On 2/17/2016 11:14 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:50:40 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>>> No, I don't dispute that.
>>>
>>> Excellent.  Honesty is the important first step.  Keep going.
>>>
>>> Is it not true that no part of the atmosphere is warm enough to support
>>> the existence of gaseous H2O.  Answer this questions.
>>>
>>
>> No that is not true.
>
> Aha!  Can you reference any evidence to support this assertion?  Or is
> this just something you choose to believe despite having no confirmational
> evidence?  Answer the question, you evasive twit.
>

Answered previously with book references, which you do not and will not 
acknowledge or remember, an artifact of your insanity.

So here's where we are.

You point to steam tables that says that the boiling point of water at 
sea level is 100 C. You *interpret* that to mean that no gaseous water 
exists at temperatures below 100 C, even though there is certainly no 
information in steam tables that makes that claim, and there is no 
written information anywhere about boiling point that claims that no 
gaseous water exists below the boiling point. It's just something you 
believe.

In response to all the information written and freely available out 
there that states that gaseous water exists below the boiling point, you 
say you believe otherwise, and that all other cited information is 
merely parrots echoing parrots. You have no data to present to support 
your belief, while at the same time rejecting any data presented by 
those "parrots".

So, in summary, you have a very unusual view about the meaning of 
"boiling point", which is actually not supported by an evidence, and 
you're not really interested in looking at any evidence to the contrary.

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

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

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web