Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #555614 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-22 12:37 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-22 21:48 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 64 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:37 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 15:03 -0600
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 13:38 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:07 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:35 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:03 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:12 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:32 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:54 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 17:22 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 02:21 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:48 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 03:36 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 20:26 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:19 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:39 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 13:05 -0600
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:12 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 15:56 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:13 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:17 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:05 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 21:56 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:21 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:46 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:14 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 08:34 -0600
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-23 06:05 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:14 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:23 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:50 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:25 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:46 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 13:06 -0600
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:15 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:19 -0600
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-23 18:01 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:03 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:19 +0000
he gave the limit of a stage of suction pumping of water, at sea level noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 17:02 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-23 06:16 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:52 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:34 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 19:46 -0500
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 08:04 -0600
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:34 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:21 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:52 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 15:31 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 15:57 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 00:42 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 16:57 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 00:38 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 16:53 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 01:15 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:09 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:20 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:38 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:51 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:30 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 03:50 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 16:04 -0800
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 00:53 +0000
Re: Penino's continuing lunace about Schlieren Imaging jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 21:48 +0000
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 16:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b7065ad6-b3e0-454d-8299-dae95e069d83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555680 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:56:17 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > You're an idiot, and in no way are you an actual physicist. The fact it took you two days to reveal such a fundamental assumption as the fact that you assume moist air is visible shows that you, certainly, are not a physicist. Non-scientist often make the mistake of assuming that their assumptions are obvious. I must have asked you five times about this and you were so caught up in your hysteria you never answered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 21:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b66d27f5-f2a0-4864-829c-1bbbfa43c9b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555685 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 4:17:17 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:56:17 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > You're an idiot, and in no way are you an actual physicist. > > The fact it took you two days to reveal such a fundamental assumption as the fact that you assume moist air is visible shows that you, certainly, are not a physicist. I never claimed to be a physicist... even though I have a bachelor's degree in physics... and math... and astronomy... I never actually was employed as any of them... so what? Anyone with half a brain can see that you are far, far from being a physicist! You are just so wrong about a LOT of the basics... Nowhere have I claimed that "moist air" is visible, idiot. In fact, air is invisible, whatever its humidity. And, just for the record, "Steam is invisible; however, 'steam' often refers to wet steam, the visible mist or aerosol of water droplets formed as this water vapor condenses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam You wouldn't recognize a 'fact' if it bit you on the ass. You don't know the first thing about the atmosphere, virtually everything you have claimed can be demonstrated to be incorrect. Get a life, the one you have now is going nowhere at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 21:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4e485be5-d995-4f1a-9881-cfa15c7688c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555749 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:05:11 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 4:17:17 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:56:17 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > You're an idiot, and in no way are you an actual physicist. > > > > The fact it took you two days to reveal such a fundamental assumption as the fact that you assume moist air is visible shows that you, certainly, are not a physicist. > > I never claimed to be a physicist... even though I have a bachelor's degree in physics... and math... and astronomy... I never actually was employed as any of them... so what? Anyone with half a brain can see that you are far, far from being a physicist! You are just so wrong about a LOT of the basics... > > Nowhere have I claimed that "moist air" is visible, idiot. In fact, air is invisible, whatever its humidity. And, just for the record, "Steam is invisible; however, 'steam' often refers to wet steam, the visible mist or aerosol of water droplets formed as this water vapor condenses. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam > > You wouldn't recognize a 'fact' if it bit you on the ass. You don't know the first thing about the atmosphere, virtually everything you have claimed can be demonstrated to be incorrect. > > Get a life, the one you have now is going nowhere at all. You believe if air moist air is invisible it contains gaseous H2O. I'm saying you are wrong. You say you have presented evidence to substantiate this. I'm saying you have not. I realize almost everybody BELIEVES clear moist air contains gaseous H2O. I'm saying they are all wrong. I am a physicist. I don't fall for the dumb things that everybody falls for. I don't care how many claim otherwise. I am not a sheep. I don't follow other sheep. I follow evidence. All of the reproducible experimental evidence indicates the atmosphere is too cool and its pressure is too high to support the existence of gaseous H2O. You do as you please. Go ahead, follow the sheep. I am a physicist. I will follow the evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 07:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <atdtpc-9i7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555762 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:05:11 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 4:17:17 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:56:17 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > > You're an idiot, and in no way are you an actual physicist. >> > >> > The fact it took you two days to reveal such a fundamental assumption as the fact that you assume moist air is visible shows that you, certainly, are not a physicist. >> >> I never claimed to be a physicist... even though I have a bachelor's degree in physics... and math... and astronomy... I never actually was employed as any of them... so what? Anyone with half a brain can see that you are far, far from being a physicist! You are just so wrong about a LOT of the basics... >> >> Nowhere have I claimed that "moist air" is visible, idiot. In fact, air is invisible, whatever its humidity. And, just for the record, "Steam is invisible; however, 'steam' often refers to wet steam, the visible mist or aerosol of water droplets formed as this water vapor condenses. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam >> >> You wouldn't recognize a 'fact' if it bit you on the ass. You don't know the first thing about the atmosphere, virtually everything you have claimed can be demonstrated to be incorrect. >> >> Get a life, the one you have now is going nowhere at all. > > You believe if air moist air is invisible it contains gaseous H2O. > I'm saying you are wrong. You have no evidence of anything. All you have is an invalid conclusion based on ignorant and faulty thinking. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 10:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <77f70de1-7671-43e1-84b6-6f228b0b16a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555835 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:05:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > You believe if air moist air is invisible it contains gaseous H2O. > > I'm saying you are wrong. > > You have no evidence of anything. All you have is an invalid conclusion > based on ignorant and faulty thinking. Everybody I talk to about this gets real emotional, like I was disproving the existence of Jesus. What do you think that indicates? The first step is to be honest with yourself about acknowledging that your belief that moist air that is invisible indicates gaseous H2O is a belief and not something you know. You are still struggling with that. You probably will never get beyond that. That is just the first step. And it doesn't get easier from that point on. Physics is simple. Being honest with yourself is hard. Sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 20:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p6rupc-v6c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555928 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:05:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > You believe if air moist air is invisible it contains gaseous H2O. >> > I'm saying you are wrong. >> >> You have no evidence of anything. All you have is an invalid conclusion >> based on ignorant and faulty thinking. > > Everybody I talk to about this gets real emotional, like I was disproving > the existence of Jesus. > > What do you think that indicates? The only person getting emotional over this is you and it indicates your delusions are being threatened. > The first step is to be honest with yourself about acknowledging that your > belief that moist air that is invisible indicates gaseous H2O is a > belief and not something you know. You are still struggling with that. > You probably will never get beyond that. I have now given you two reproducible experiments you can do at home to disprove your "theories". -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 08:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nahqnc$11bt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555762 |
On 2/22/2016 11:56 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:05:11 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com > wrote: >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 4:17:17 PM UTC-8, James McGinn >> wrote: >>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:56:17 PM UTC-8, >>> pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> You're an idiot, and in no way are you an actual physicist. >>> >>> The fact it took you two days to reveal such a fundamental >>> assumption as the fact that you assume moist air is visible shows >>> that you, certainly, are not a physicist. >> >> I never claimed to be a physicist... even though I have a >> bachelor's degree in physics... and math... and astronomy... I >> never actually was employed as any of them... so what? Anyone with >> half a brain can see that you are far, far from being a physicist! >> You are just so wrong about a LOT of the basics... >> >> Nowhere have I claimed that "moist air" is visible, idiot. In fact, >> air is invisible, whatever its humidity. And, just for the record, >> "Steam is invisible; however, 'steam' often refers to wet steam, >> the visible mist or aerosol of water droplets formed as this water >> vapor condenses. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam >> >> You wouldn't recognize a 'fact' if it bit you on the ass. You don't >> know the first thing about the atmosphere, virtually everything you >> have claimed can be demonstrated to be incorrect. >> >> Get a life, the one you have now is going nowhere at all. > > You believe if air moist air is invisible it contains gaseous H2O. > I'm saying you are wrong. You say you have presented evidence to > substantiate this. I'm saying you have not. I realize almost > everybody BELIEVES clear moist air contains gaseous H2O. I'm saying > they are all wrong.I am a physicist. Liar. >I don't fall for the dumb > things that everybody falls for. I don't care how many claim > otherwise. I am not a sheep. I don't follow other sheep. I follow > evidence. Liar. > All of the reproducible experimental evidence indicates > the atmosphere is too cool and its pressure is too high to support > the existence of gaseous H2O. Liar. > You do as you please. Go ahead, > follow the sheep. I am a physicist. Liar. > I will follow the evidence. > Liar. Good James, you have 5 lies in a row ! you are graduated to Climate Researcher of Pupa class ! now, "Air" is invisable like "water vapor", is it really air ? or not ? do you have any evidence their is "air" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 06:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nagsqo$c0r$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #555680 |
pnalsing@gmail.com writes: >On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> > You don't really know much physics at all, >> I am a physicist. >Bullshit. This is virtually impossible! He even claims to be a "trained meteorologist"! Bwahahahahahaha! Sorry, Jim, flunking a meteorology course does not a meteorologist make.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a941ba99-2cd2-4b62-a847-aa44a8d8943d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555765 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:05:33 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > pnalsing@gmail.com writes: > > >On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > >> > You don't really know much physics at all, > > >> I am a physicist. > > >Bullshit. This is virtually impossible! > > He even claims to be a "trained meteorologist"! > > Bwahahahahahaha! > > Sorry, Jim, flunking a meteorology course does not a meteorologist make. You morons believe in gaseous H2O BELOW ITS BOILING TEMPERATURE/PRESSURE. You believe this because you believe anything that fits your preconceptions. You believe what everybody believes just because everybody believes it. I am a physicist. Never believe what everybody believes unless it has been verified through reproducible experiments. Never. What everybody believes is almost always based on what appeals to the lowest common denominator of what is easy to explain or that creates drama, like global warming. When I first looked into it it took about half and hour to realize it was all nonsense. Intellectually humans are sheep.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ee14ef9e-a105-4ccb-aac6-28165c07e5e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555768 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:14:24 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:05:33 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > > pnal...@gmail.com writes: > > > > >On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > > >> > You don't really know much physics at all, > > > > >> I am a physicist. > > > > >Bullshit. This is virtually impossible! > > > > He even claims to be a "trained meteorologist"! > > > > Bwahahahahahaha! > > > > Sorry, Jim, flunking a meteorology course does not a meteorologist make. > > You morons believe in gaseous H2O BELOW ITS BOILING TEMPERATURE/PRESSURE. You believe this because you believe anything that fits your preconceptions. You believe what everybody believes just because everybody believes it. > > I am a physicist. Never believe what everybody believes unless it has been verified through reproducible experiments. Never. > > What everybody believes is almost always based on what appeals to the lowest common denominator of what is easy to explain or that creates drama, like global warming. When I first looked into it it took about half and hour to realize it was all nonsense. I'll claim that this was a half an hour wasted. You are clearly no physicist. Good grief, you have almost all of it totally backwards!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f2bdf1ac-618c-42ed-bf49-7c024bd51ab1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555776 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:24:05 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:14:24 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:05:33 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > pnal...@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > >On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > >> > You don't really know much physics at all, > > > > > > >> I am a physicist. > > > > > > >Bullshit. This is virtually impossible! > > > > > > He even claims to be a "trained meteorologist"! > > > > > > Bwahahahahahaha! > > > > > > Sorry, Jim, flunking a meteorology course does not a meteorologist make. > > > > You morons believe in gaseous H2O BELOW ITS BOILING TEMPERATURE/PRESSURE. You believe this because you believe anything that fits your preconceptions. You believe what everybody believes just because everybody believes it. > > > > I am a physicist. Never believe what everybody believes unless it has been verified through reproducible experiments. Never. > > > > What everybody believes is almost always based on what appeals to the lowest common denominator of what is easy to explain or that creates drama, like global warming. When I first looked into it it took about half and hour to realize it was all nonsense. > > I'll claim that this was a half an hour wasted. > > You are clearly no physicist. Good grief, you have almost all of it totally backwards! Spoken like a true sheep.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 07:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i3etpc-9i7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555768 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:05:33 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> pnalsing@gmail.com writes: >> >> >On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> >> >> > You don't really know much physics at all, >> >> >> I am a physicist. >> >> >Bullshit. This is virtually impossible! >> >> He even claims to be a "trained meteorologist"! >> >> Bwahahahahahaha! >> >> Sorry, Jim, flunking a meteorology course does not a meteorologist make. > > You morons believe in gaseous H2O BELOW ITS BOILING TEMPERATURE/PRESSURE. As does any sane person who has studied the subject. > You believe this because you believe anything that fits your preconceptions. Nope, because thousands of reproducible experiments all come to the same conclusion. > I am a physicist. Never believe what everybody believes unless it has > been verified through reproducible experiments. Never. And all the reproducible experiments show that gaseous H2O exists below the boiling point of H2O. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 10:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de520967-c4dc-46b3-90e7-7612f55443f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555836 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > And all the reproducible experiments show that gaseous H2O exists below > the boiling point of H2O. And you can't find one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 13:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naiak9$1vqn$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555929 |
On 2/23/2016 12:46 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> And all the reproducible experiments show that gaseous H2O exists below >> the boiling point of H2O. > > And you can't find one. > speak for yourself, you cant find one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 20:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <s8rupc-v6c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555929 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> And all the reproducible experiments show that gaseous H2O exists below >> the boiling point of H2O. > > And you can't find one. I have now given you two reproducible experiments you can do at home that disprove your "theories". -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 10:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <cNqdnaLdkdw8G1HLnZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #555768 |
On 2/23/16 12:14 AM, James McGinn wrote: > You morons believe in gaseous H2O BELOW ITS BOILING TEMPERATURE/PRESSURE. Yup, measured in the earth's atmosphere and interstellar space. Why do you have trouble accepting this fact, James? -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 18:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nai6q6$5tn$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #555768 |
On 2/23/16 12:14 AM, James McGinn wrote: > You morons believe in gaseous H2O BELOW ITS BOILING TEMPERATURE/PRESSURE. Question: Do you believe in gaseous isopropanol below its boiling point? Gaseous perfume? Gaseous gasoline? Gaseous toluene? All of these are liquids at STP (do you even know what STP is?) yet all of them will evaporate if left in an open container. Plus if you do so, you can SMELL them. They exist as a gas mixed with the air. Many liquids have finite vapor pressure at ordinary pressure below their boiling temperatures. Water vapor is the same except for one difference, you can't smell it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 11:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <60083a4b-f2db-463d-bfb2-26ebea9df89b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555903 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 10:02:01 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 2/23/16 12:14 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > You morons believe in gaseous H2O BELOW ITS BOILING TEMPERATURE/PRESSURE. > > Question: Do you believe in gaseous isopropanol below its boiling point? No. > Gaseous perfume? No. Gaseous gasoline? No. Gaseous toluene? No. All of these are > liquids at STP (do you even know what STP is?) Yes. yet all of them will > evaporate if left in an open container. Right. Plus if you do so, you can SMELL > them. They exist as a gas mixed with the air. Wrong. > Many liquids have finite > vapor pressure at ordinary pressure below their boiling temperatures. Right. > Water vapor is the same except for one difference, you can't smell it! As I've explained in previous posts, there is another difference also. Hint: Look up the definition of a gas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kerupc-v6c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555935 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 10:02:01 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 2/23/16 12:14 AM, James McGinn wrote: >> > You morons believe in gaseous H2O BELOW ITS BOILING TEMPERATURE/PRESSURE. >> >> Question: Do you believe in gaseous isopropanol below its boiling point? > > No. > >> Gaseous perfume? > > No. > > Gaseous gasoline? > > No. > > Gaseous toluene? > > No. > > All of these are >> liquids at STP (do you even know what STP is?) > > Yes. > > yet all of them will >> evaporate if left in an open container. > > Right. > > > Plus if you do so, you can SMELL >> them. > > > > > They exist as a gas mixed with the air. > > Wrong. > >> Many liquids have finite >> vapor pressure at ordinary pressure below their boiling temperatures. > > Right. > >> Water vapor is the same except for one difference, you can't smell it! > > As I've explained in previous posts, there is another difference also. > > Hint: Look up the definition of a gas. Even more delusional than previously thought. And is also seems we can add the word "gas" to the ever increasing list of words for which you have no clue. I guess by your reasoning, looking up the meanings of the things you don't know would be anecdotal. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 17:02 -0800 |
| Subject | he gave the limit of a stage of suction pumping of water, at sea level |
| Message-ID | <09b24ca5-602a-4da2-914b-b37fab536992@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555903 |
as far as I know, Pascval did not dyscover the concept of partial pressures, unless he did that, after dyscovering a gOOd vacuum, using glass tucing etc. > > You morons believe in gaseous H2O BELOW ITS BOILING TEMPERATURE/PRESSURE. > > Question: Do you believe in gaseous isopropanol below its boiling point? > Gaseous perfume? Gaseous gasoline? Gaseous toluene? All of these are > liquids at STP (do you even know what STP is?) yet all of them will > evaporate if left in an open container. Plus if you do so, you can SMELL > them. They exist as a gas mixed with the air. Many liquids have finite > vapor pressure at ordinary pressure below their boiling temperatures. > Water vapor is the same except for one difference, you can't smell it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web