Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #555283 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-21 11:25 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-01 15:42 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 11:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:41 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-21 19:55 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:04 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 15:05 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 21:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:00 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:18 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:34 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:37 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:48 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:05 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:39 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 06:53 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:25 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:32 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:57 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 23:19 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:41 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:39 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 09:31 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness dm <pippinese@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 08:14 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:30 -0800
moistly noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:30 -0800
Re: moistly James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:45 -0800
my assumptions are easy to explain noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:00 -0800
Re: moistly Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 14:01 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:38 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:54 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:12 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:21 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:05 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:19 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:49 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:56 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:59 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 22:44 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 23:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 08:27 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 12:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 17:27 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:55 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 17:09 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:04 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:26 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 21:59 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:15 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:46 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:59 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:51 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:36 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 17:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 10:41 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 11:31 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 16:39 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:34 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 17:25 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:24 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:54 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:40 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:47 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:10 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:35 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:56 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:03 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:33 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:06 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 01:05 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:01 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 22:45 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:19 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:43 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 17:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 19:43 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:02 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:18 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 21:12 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 03:11 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:07 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:09 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 19:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:27 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 17:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:30 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 19:41 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:07 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:23 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:23 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 20:38 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:36 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-26 13:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-26 21:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:09 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:23 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:26 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:22 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:48 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 23:25 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:18 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:35 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:50 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 17:22 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 02:14 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 21:03 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 03:33 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 20:21 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:14 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:24 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 13:11 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:10 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:56 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:36 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:46 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:38 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:56 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 22:58 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:28 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:36 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 00:13 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 03:50 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 23:55 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 18:01 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 15:28 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 14:50 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:50 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:38 -0800
haha, none noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:53 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 15:42 -0600
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 17:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fbf7778d-a730-44ea-a7b3-5ff6d21bd043@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556725 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:11:31 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > Gaseous H2O and evaporate are one and the same... Not by my definition. > > "Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice." - Wiki LOL. If it's in wiki it must be true?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 19:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naoalc$1ik6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #556730 |
On 2/25/2016 7:25 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:11:31 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Gaseous H2O and evaporate are one and the same... > > Not by my definition. who the fuck care what you say, troll. I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is completely dry. there was no wet spot under the shirt at all. how did the water get out ? No "smoke" came off it at all. did my shirt out-gas ? did the water come out as a gas ? water gas ? Water Vapor ? Humidity ? so How can that happen when you say there is no such thing on earth ? a counter example you refuse to answer ? did you make a mistake ? It blows a HUGE hole in you. > >> >> "Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of >> liquid water or from the sublimation of ice." - Wiki > > LOL. If it's in wiki it must be true? > prove it is not true, dill weed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 02:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jao4qc-rv2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556730 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:11:31 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Gaseous H2O and evaporate are one and the same... > > Not by my definition. > >> >> "Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice." - Wiki > > LOL. If it's in wiki it must be true? And thousands and thousands of other places; are you saying they are all wrong and have been wrong for hundreds of years? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 18:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b89dda70-16e7-4905-a69d-a3d69d79cb9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556745 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:11:31 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> Gaseous H2O and evaporate are one and the same... > > > > Not by my definition. > > > >> > >> "Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice." - Wiki > > > > LOL. If it's in wiki it must be true? > > And thousands and thousands of other places; are you saying they are > all wrong and have been wrong for hundreds of years? Sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 21:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naofrf$1o7b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #556750 |
On 2/25/2016 8:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:11:31 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> Gaseous H2O and evaporate are one and the same... >>> >>> Not by my definition. >>> >>>> >>>> "Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice." - Wiki >>> >>> LOL. If it's in wiki it must be true? >> >> And thousands and thousands of other places; are you saying they are >> all wrong and have been wrong for hundreds of years? > > Sure. > James "Target" McGinn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 03:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ocs4qc-pc3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556750 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:11:31 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> >> Gaseous H2O and evaporate are one and the same... >> > >> > Not by my definition. >> > >> >> >> >> "Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice." - Wiki >> > >> > LOL. If it's in wiki it must be true? >> >> And thousands and thousands of other places; are you saying they are >> all wrong and have been wrong for hundreds of years? > > Sure. Then you must have some proof in the form of an experiment that has reproducible results and can be done by others. What is your experiment? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 13:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6acb6b2e-91be-43be-98a9-56949e0673f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556766 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:11:31 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> Gaseous H2O and evaporate are one and the same... > >> > > >> > Not by my definition. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> "Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice." - Wiki > >> > > >> > LOL. If it's in wiki it must be true? > >> > >> And thousands and thousands of other places; are you saying they are > >> all wrong and have been wrong for hundreds of years? > > > > Sure. > > Then you must have some proof in the form of an experiment that has > reproducible results and can be done by others. So, let me get this straight. My beliefs require proof. But yours don't?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 19:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7e38d405-6fa2-48ea-b33f-fcbc0d655a3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556730 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:25:17 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:11:31 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Gaseous H2O and evaporate are one and the same... > > Not by my definition. LOL. OK, Mr. physicist, give us your very own definition of "gaseous H2O" and "evaporate"... if you dare! And, while you are at it, give us also your personal definition of "water vapor". I claim that all 3 are exactly the same thing, as does mainstream physics, so prove me wrong! YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT!!! I'll bet you ignore this request, as it would be in your own best interest not to respond.. we'll see... > > "Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice." - Wiki > > LOL. If it's in wiki it must be true? Wiki can have its issues, but not in this case. Prove Wiki wrong, if you can... which you can't. Science is on my side. You, on the other hand, got nuttin' but your own ill-advised bullshit...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 19:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2edc3ce1-ff6f-413c-be45-9fc6623dca7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556758 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:09:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:25:17 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:11:31 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Gaseous H2O and evaporate are one and the same... > > > > Not by my definition. > > LOL. OK, Mr. physicist, give us your very own definition of "gaseous H2O" and "evaporate"... if you dare! And, while you are at it, give us also your personal definition of "water vapor". I claim that all 3 are exactly the same thing, as does mainstream physics, so prove me wrong! YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT!!! I'll bet you ignore this request, as it would be in your own best interest not to respond.. we'll see... > > > > "Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice." - Wiki > > > > LOL. If it's in wiki it must be true? > > Wiki can have its issues, but not in this case. Prove Wiki wrong, if you can... which you can't. Science is on my side. You, on the other hand, got nuttin' but your own ill-advised bullshit... Gaseous H2O is monomolecular. Vapor is not, it is a liquid. It involves molecules sharing hydrogen bonds. It's that simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 19:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <93d8ac74-feb9-404e-a902-e2db90a74bf2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556760 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:14:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:09:51 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:25:17 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:11:31 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > Gaseous H2O and evaporate are one and the same... > > > > > > Not by my definition. > > > > LOL. OK, Mr. physicist, give us your very own definition of "gaseous H2O" and "evaporate"... if you dare! And, while you are at it, give us also your personal definition of "water vapor". I claim that all 3 are exactly the same thing, as does mainstream physics, so prove me wrong! YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT!!! I'll bet you ignore this request, as it would be in your own best interest not to respond.. we'll see... > > > > > > "Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice." - Wiki > > > > > > LOL. If it's in wiki it must be true? > > > > Wiki can have its issues, but not in this case. Prove Wiki wrong, if you can... which you can't. Science is on my side. You, on the other hand, got nuttin' but your own ill-advised bullshit... > > Gaseous H2O is monomolecular. Vapor is not, it is a liquid. It involves molecules sharing hydrogen bonds. > > It's that simple. You didn't exactly rise to the challenge, now did you. I repeat myself... give us your very own definition of "gaseous H2O" and "evaporate"... if you dare!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 17:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dd608018-0b95-49c0-9f4c-bed4268bf0c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556706 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:20:18 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > and the reason to do it is to > > prove that humidity in air is gaseous to any doubters that do the experiment. > > Maybe your understanding of proof is different from that of science? As is yours. So far, you have failed to prove that humid air is heavier than dry air. I offered you $100,000 to do so, but you have run away...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 17:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <08e7c6dd-ea56-4004-b6a5-179ae7aa672b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556726 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:13:38 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:20:18 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > and the reason to do it is to > > > prove that humidity in air is gaseous to any doubters that do the experiment. > > > > Maybe your understanding of proof is different from that of science? > > As is yours. So far, you have failed to prove that humid air is heavier than dry air. I offered you $100,000 to do so, but you have run away... Really? I'm willing to put together and event, do the experiment. Are you willing to put the money in escrow? Are there any other stipuations? Do you accept these methods: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Rxuy9dTlldQ/D4bhj4mNemQJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 19:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naoaia$1ik6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #556731 |
On 2/25/2016 7:30 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:13:38 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com > wrote: >> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:20:18 PM UTC-8, James McGinn >> wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, >>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> and the reason to do it is to >>>> prove that humidity in air is gaseous to any doubters that do >>>> the experiment. >>> >>> Maybe your understanding of proof is different from that of >>> science? >> >> As is yours. So far, you have failed to prove that humid air is >> heavier than dry air. I offered you $100,000 to do so, but you have >> run away... > > Really? I'm willing to put together and event, do the experiment. > Are you willing to put the money in escrow? > "blowhard" McGinn useless skin bag of water... I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is completely dry. there was no wet spot under the shirt at all. how did the water get out ? No "smoke" came off it at all. did my shirt out-gas ? did the water come out as a gas ? water gas ? Water Vapor ? Humidity ? so How can that happen when you say there is no such thing on earth ? a counter example you refuse to answer ? did you make a mistake ? It blows a HUGE hole in you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 02:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oko4qc-rv2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #556731 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:13:38 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:20:18 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> > and the reason to do it is to >> > > prove that humidity in air is gaseous to any doubters that do the experiment. >> > >> > Maybe your understanding of proof is different from that of science? >> >> As is yours. So far, you have failed to prove that humid air is heavier than dry air. I offered you $100,000 to do so, but you have run away... > > Really? I'm willing to put together and event, do the experiment. > Are you willing to put the money in escrow? Learn to format lines to no more than 78 characters. > Are there any other stipuations? > > Do you accept these methods: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Rxuy9dTlldQ/D4bhj4mNemQJ > Childish at best. I would suggest setting up a Schlieren imaging system inside some baffles to prevent outside air currents from effecting anything with a pan of water inside. Then you can watch what comes off the water either rise or fall. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 19:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b9227181-f638-4e8a-bffc-22c6a7a6d62d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556731 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:30:50 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:13:38 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:20:18 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > > > and the reason to do it is to > > > > prove that humidity in air is gaseous to any doubters that do the experiment. > > > > > > Maybe your understanding of proof is different from that of science? > > > > As is yours. So far, you have failed to prove that humid air is heavier than dry air. I offered you $100,000 to do so, but you have run away... > > Really? I'm willing to put together and event, do the experiment. Are you willing to put the money in escrow? Are you? > Are there any other stipuations? Spell checker is your friend, idiot. No 'stipuations" at all. But of course it is my desire that you show existing experiments that show that humid air is heavier than dry air. Since there is no way that you can show any experiment(s) that proves this, my money is safe. You don't really expect me to just take your word for it, do you? Your word, as far as I can see, is fatally flawed, since virtually NO PHYSICIST agrees with you. > Do you accept these methods: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Rxuy9dTlldQ/D4bhj4mNemQJ No. That post is a bunch of word salad. If you are actually a physicist, you would know exactly what is meant by a 'proof'. An experiment that is repeatable by anyone with adequate equipment. Repeatable. You have zero chance of success. Run away again, save face while you can.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 20:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <01e44eea-7c56-4b2f-a440-ad5e13cf1aee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556762 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:24:05 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > As is yours. So far, you have failed to prove that humid air is heavier than dry air. I offered you $100,000 to do so, but you have run away... > > > > Really? I'm willing to put together and event, do the experiment. Are you willing to put the money in escrow? > > Are you? Answer my question. > > Are there any other stipuations? > > Spell checker is your friend, idiot. > > No 'stipuations" at all. But of course it is my desire that you show existing experiments that show that humid air is heavier than dry air. I guarantee you that you will lose. Still want to do it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 20:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cbc832b4-17bd-43e5-9461-c005108fe2aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556776 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 8:23:03 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:24:05 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > As is yours. So far, you have failed to prove that humid air is heavier than dry air. I offered you $100,000 to do so, but you have run away... > > > > > > Really? I'm willing to put together and event, do the experiment. Are you willing to put the money in escrow? > > > > Are you? > > Answer my question. > > > > Are there any other stipuations? > > > > Spell checker is your friend, idiot. > > > > No 'stipuations" at all. But of course it is my desire that you show existing experiments that show that humid air is heavier than dry air. > > I guarantee you that you will lose. Still want to do it? Sure... I have scores of evidence on my side, but you have nothing at all! your guarantees are nothing but bluster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 12:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <29ce9338-376d-490d-a633-f23b0474429d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556778 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 8:38:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > Sure... I have scores of evidence on my side, but you have nothing at all! your guarantees are nothing but bluster. All you have is anecdote from people, like Sam and Sergio, who are too simple to realize that evaporate is a liquid that is often (usually) invisible. I guarantee you will lose. Are you willing to put the money in escrow?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 13:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c0a4f32a-91df-41aa-962e-a40bcfb168b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556994 |
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:37:04 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 8:38:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Sure... I have scores of evidence on my side, but you have nothing at all! your guarantees are nothing but bluster. > > All you have is anecdote from people, like Sam and Sergio, who are too simple to realize that evaporate is a liquid that is often (usually) invisible. > > I guarantee you will lose. Are you willing to put the money in escrow? Are you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 13:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <81a3f1a1-2931-4d26-a152-b907477800b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #557025 |
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 1:42:41 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > Are you? No. Are you saying your offer depends on mine? Why? Are you not confident?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web