Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #562149 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-13 13:42 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-04-12 09:42 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 161 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 13:42 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-13 16:58 -0500
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 23:14 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-13 20:59 -0500
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:06 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:29 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-16 17:37 -0500
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 04:34 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 21:24 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:43 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:12 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 07:07 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 00:37 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 16:24 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:32 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-14 12:55 -0500
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 19:17 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-14 21:15 +0000
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-15 05:27 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-15 00:52 -0400
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-15 16:52 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-15 17:43 -0400
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 05:34 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-16 11:37 -0400
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 17:09 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-16 15:12 -0400
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 05:50 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 16:19 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-17 13:06 -0400
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-18 05:32 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-18 06:19 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-18 14:16 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-18 17:24 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-19 02:08 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 05:52 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-19 17:14 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 18:24 +0100
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-21 02:44 +0800
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-20 11:50 -0700
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-21 03:05 +0800
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-20 13:53 -0700
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-20 20:40 +0000
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-20 13:51 -0700
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 20:31 +0100
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-20 20:46 +0000
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-21 04:52 +0800
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 05:52 +0100
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-21 15:56 +0800
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:46 +0100
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-21 11:21 -0600
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-22 02:12 +0800
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:31 +0100
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-22 16:19 +0800
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 15:45 +0100
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:36 -0600
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-22 17:50 +0000
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-21 16:34 +0800
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-21 09:26 +0000
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:09 +0100
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-21 09:35 -0600
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-21 13:02 -0400
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-22 02:17 +0800
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 06:01 +0100
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-22 16:09 +0800
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:46 +0100
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-21 15:38 +0000
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-21 12:57 -0400
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-21 13:22 -0400
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-21 13:29 -0400
oinky declareth noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:39 -0700
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-20 14:41 -0600
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-21 05:16 +0800
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-21 21:24 +0000
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-21 17:29 -0400
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-22 16:20 +0800
Re: Fakey proclaims he's a proudly ignorant mathematical maroon Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 15:56 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 18:48 +0200
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-28 13:23 -0600
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-28 15:57 -0400
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-18 14:11 -0600
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-18 16:14 -0400
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-18 06:04 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-19 06:38 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-18 22:48 +0000
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 05:36 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-19 17:18 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 18:09 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-31 06:27 +0200
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 21:46 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 07:07 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-01 00:39 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-31 12:51 -0400
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-01 01:03 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-31 13:05 -0400
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-31 11:22 -0600
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-31 10:55 -0600
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-31 13:02 -0400
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-01 08:17 +0200
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-01 01:04 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 18:16 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-31 11:16 -0600
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2016-03-31 12:35 -0500
HOH noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:02 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:36 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 05:41 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 10:40 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 19:23 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 12:25 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 21:20 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:04 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 07:14 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 23:34 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 19:27 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-20 14:47 -0600
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-20 13:56 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-20 21:14 +0000
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 05:37 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-21 15:23 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:36 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-21 11:25 -0600
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:36 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-22 17:39 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-22 02:20 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:46 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-22 17:34 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:52 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 17:11 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-06 07:09 +0200
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 01:12 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-06 17:16 +0200
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 13:24 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-07 09:02 +0200
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 15:05 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-16 17:19 -0500
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 04:46 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 21:18 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-16 23:26 -0500
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 06:43 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 23:00 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 16:09 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:35 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-18 06:24 +0100
HOH vs OCO noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 10:52 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:57 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:41 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-22 02:24 +0800
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:25 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 06:17 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 22:51 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 15:56 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 10:00 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-26 06:58 +0100
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 14:09 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 08:19 +0200
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 01:22 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 17:39 +0200
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 10:11 -0700
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:36 +0200
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-28 13:22 -0600
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 06:54 +0200
Re: PSI: Reassessing H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 09:42 -0700
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 05:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8ae9dde0afd883c70c08c5f2c403905d@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564191 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Trailer Trash Tony the Law-Breaking Scam-Running Drug-Dealing Wife-Beating Child-Endangering Tax-Evading Unemployable Racist High-School-Dropout Needle-Tracked Drug-Addled Alcoholic Pissbum (aka Tony Ray Rawlings, aka Anton Ray Eaks of 600 Raintree Blvd #58, Lamplighter Trailer Park, Canon City, CO), socked up as Skeet, in <news:nib0fbt234pljjsb2mavqtf4l5m5539fgm@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:36:38 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood > Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in >> <news:q38veb1fcee0m02uhc55ap2h5v58g8btor@4ax.com> did thusly jump head >> first into the wood chipper again: >>> Fakey, did you solve for 'd' in dy/dx yet? >> Oh, you mean d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x)? >> >> Bwahahahaa! I've primed your foam pump and now you're all eager to >> barf foam for me again... and now you can get drop-kicked across >> Usenet all over again. LOL >> >> Now, you've been blathering hard as means of covering up the fact that >> you failed to grasp vector summation and constructive/destructive >> interference for three months, to include your defending DildoRider's >> kooky sinewave subtraction equation... and all that while you found >> yourself utterly unable to produce even *one* graph. >> >> And now that I've primed the pump and I've got you bleating out your >> froth at a steady pace, you'll get right on addressing that giant >> whomping drop-kick you received for being such a fucking moron... >> >> Here, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard... how about you take another crack at >> refuting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H backpedaling from that giant whomping >> drop-kick you just received, which you screamed "KOOK!", snipped like >> a coward and ran away from. >> >> If Gerald Newton is such a "kook", Shiny Tinfoil Spankard, why is he >> smarter than you? You can't even figure out vector summation, because >> you're Usenet's Mathematical Moron who claims formulas are not math. > All that foam and you still didnt answer the question. Lying Pissbum. LOL > <http://imgur.com/xt9bcTq> > > I were a execyootive reegunal sailes man making deleverys. > Now I are a toofless unemployalbe pissbum. <snicker> > I just found out today. Maybe a year. I love you all. > My shits fucked up anyboby givs a damn? No. Lying Drug-Abusing Woman-Beating Pissbum Trailer Trash Tony Ray Eaks. <snicker> -- Proof that Lamey (aka Skeeter) is Anton Ray Eaks: Message-ID: <kus7dj$bh0$1@news.mixmin.net> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/alt.usenet.kooks/messageid$3Akus7dj$24bh0$241@news.mixmin.net/alt.usenet.kooks/MLAQo_O73UM> Pissbum hard at work to earn his drug-money: <http://i.imgur.com/hr4eMvS.jpg> <--- LOL! Just say no to drugs and alcohol, kids! <http://i.imgur.com/uoZbsGI.jpg> <--- LOL! It's Howdy Doody Time!: <http://i.imgur.com/1myBylb.jpg> <--- LOL! The Pissbum Clan: <http://i.imgur.com/cixImyq.jpg> <--- LOL! MID: <81670ab47076fa4432bc62e70914ee31@dizum.com> Thanks for admitting you live in single-wide trailer #58 at the Lamp Lighter Mobile Home Park on Raintree Boulevard in Canon City, Colorado, Pissbum. LOL <https://web.archive.org/web/20150301045717/http://coloradovoters.info/by_number/0005/59023_anton_ray_eaks.html> <https://web.archive.org/web/20150224004840/http://coloradovoters.info/by_address/81212.html> 600 Raintree Blvd. #58 Canon City, CO 81212 Another single-wide? Of course it is... the Lamp Lighter Mobile Home Park only has single-wide trailers. LOL And you get caught in your "I don't do FaceBook" lie again, not to mention your "I'm not Tony Eaks" lie: A drug-addled loserly pissbum wrote: Message-ID: <c30abe10716ad5092ff377450c199bae@dizum.com> "It's dump day today, woke up to fire trucks across the street, seems the house caught fire. What a view I have now...LOL" <https://www.facebook.com/CanonCityDailyRecord?hc_location=timeline> "Tony Eaks - Right across the street from me, Woke up to flames and lights." <https://web.archive.org/web/20150122055700/http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/ci_27053304/early-morning-fire-destroys-home-at-lamp-lighter> And before he was a Canon City, CO single-wide trailer-dwelling unemployable pissbum, he was a Fairplay, CO single-wide trailer-dwelling unemployable pissbum. LOL In Fairplay, CO he mooched his mother to an early death... now he's mooching his ultra-ugly transsexual Howdy Doody wife Beverly Jean Johnson-Eaks, who is forced to work two minimum-wage jobs (cashier at Alco, cashier at Dollar Tree) to support Trailer Trash Tony's drug habit. LOL Message-ID: <96a8a62d10d76cd522bcf86bbaef274d@dizum.com> Message-ID: <91a9d7e35f68d22eef5b72f79ef505c0@dizum.com> Unit 66. Trailer Trash Tony is a single-wide pissbum! Bwahahahaaa! ============================================================ Trailer Trash Tony wrote: > Can you prove this single wide trailer thing? Or is it > just another attempt to try and "act" better than me? LOL Yeah, I can now prove "this single wide trailer thing", Trailer Trash Tony. Which by your own admission makes me better than you. LOL So I was right about everything I wrote about you... which makes you a pissbum, Pissbum. LOL <https://web.archive.org/web/20140724093727/http://coloradovoters.info/0005/59023.html> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Anton Ray Eaks was born in 1953 and he registered to vote, giving his address as 21980 HWY 285 UNIT 66, FAIRPLAY, PARK COUNTY, COLORADO 80440. His telephone number is 1-719-477-3574. His voting status is: Active. He is unaffiliated. RESIDENTIAL_ADDRESS: 21980 HWY 285 UNIT 66 RESIDENTIAL_CITY: FAIRPLAY RESIDENTIAL_STATE: CO RESIDENTIAL_ZIP_CODE: 80440 REGISTRATION_DATE: 07/31/2012 BIRTH_YEAR: 1953 PHONE_NUM: 719-477-3574 MAILING_ADDRESS_1: PO BOX 473 MAILING_CITY: FAIRPLAY MAILING_STATE: CO MAILING_ZIP_CODE: 80440 MAILING_ZIP_PLUS: 0473 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NOTE: That phone number is the Alcoholics Anonymous hot-line at South Park Christian Chapel: <https://web.archive.org/web/20150131161807/http://www.southparkevents.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48:on-going-activities-for-the-month-&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=54> "Alcoholics Anonymouis meeting 7-8pm at So Pk Christian Chapel 719-477-3574" Trailer Trash Tony is *such* a drunkard that when he registered to vote, he put down the AA DrunkieLine as his phone number! LOL A map of the gravel quarry / junkyard / trailer park where Trailer Trash Tony rented his shitty single-wide trailer for only $675 / month (and still couldn't pay the rent, and got evicted! LOL): <https://www.google.com/maps/place/21980+Hwy+285+%2366,+Fairplay,+CO+80440/@39.2157874,-105.9922529,346m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x876ae8155a400885:0xfb9ff5490348163d> Unit 66: This is a 3 bd/2ba single-wide trailer. <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.318572058245476.1073741834.131803693588981&type=1&_fb_noscript=1> SPANKY-SPANKY! (tm) <snicker> ============================================================ Lamey (aka Skeeter) the alcoholic wife-beating outer-filthing drug-addict: Message-ID: <lfjfe7$b3t$4@news.mixmin.net> Message-ID: <1b7ef90407a4295786c3f1338e80d553@dizum.com> Message-ID: <c39bc1cce43a9e6860b642e72943f3ce@dizum.com> Message-ID: <ae39676e2ac093e5259ccf8210ecbb25@dizum.com> Trailer Trash Tony makes a multi-pronged confession: MID: <k9m2ca5g26l46qb2t9h05ff87skcjiov1o@4ax.com> "Yup, I can take 4 or 5 percs and roof your house. It's called the paradoxical affect." Pissbum groveled. LOL Pissbum lost. LOL! Message-ID: <lchuas$q96$4@news.mixmin.net> Message-ID: <c92bbbbfefed840db0563eb29f2d6498@dizum.com> Cowardly Pissbum gets caught in lie after lie. LOL! Message-ID: <l0rfde$hv8$2@news.mixmin.net> Message-ID: <l0smsq$fcq$2@news.mixmin.net> Lamey (aka Skeeter) the forger, busted and scrambling for cover like a coward: <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.usenet.kooks/2oWKmfnSPEA/RE_35HZp8qAJ> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.usenet.kooks/2oWKmfnSPEA/-RZxQp6TAe4J> Message-ID: <db92667a7bac368fab1b8ff5085f8b2e@dizum.com> Pissbum gets kicked so hard he's *still* bouncing around Usenet like a SuperBall: ============================================ Message-ID: <kv42gb$vd8$1@news.mixmin.net> <https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.usenet.kooks/ZyzzhJiku3c/Q0c2J9_Jc5YJ> Message-ID: <kuatrj$b2g$1@news.mixmin.net> <https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.usenet.kooks/N91lSABoN2s/JYDwKwwIZn4J> ============================================ Trailer Trash Tony the Single-Wide Trailer-Dwelling Pissbum is driven so insane by my truthiness that he's forced by his psychiatric professional to take Seroquel, a strong anti-psychotic that its maker (Astra Zeneca) only indicates for use in treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: ================================================== Lamey (aka Skeeter) admits he now takes Seroquel "to sleep"... it's a prescription medication for the treatment of mania and depression associated with bipolar disease and schizophrenia. I've driven him mad. LOL Pissbum tries to k'lame his doctor-recommended dosage is only half of the smallest tablet Astra Zeneca produces for Seroquel: MID: <3elg2aduthcn6j92jlledhg6sa4ibnbro1@4ax.com>: "Just like seriquil, I take it for sleep at night, 12.5 mg" I shred Pissbum Tony's lies and prove he's gone batty: MID: <0c4a46b95e1b8983104047001ec4e05f@dizum.com> MID: <11715d7d5e802fb4248513f981621812@dizum.com> MID: <3bb2754531e630d89eb7330623ee6281@dizum.com> MID: <8bc988e4842e4338432ad962f84a89d4@dizum.com> ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 17:39 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <4f42fb9m5qvd50jgbv491cr5d4vt2q8rus@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #564379 |
Fakey wrote: > Trailer Trash Tony the Law-Breaking Scam-Running Drug-Dealing > > All that foam and you still didnt answer the question. > > Lying Pissbum. LOL > Proof that Lamey (aka Skeeter) is Anton Ray Eaks: All that foam and you still didnt answer the question. -- "Wrong. 2sin(x)cos(x) will never coincide with cos(x) when 2sin(x)=1" --Fakey denies that 1*cos(x) = cos(x)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 02:20 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <pme0fbheps1doj9lk9jc8lk8v8tjfsdlam@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #564157 |
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > <news:q38veb1fcee0m02uhc55ap2h5v58g8btor@4ax.com> did thusly jump head > first into the wood chipper again: > > > Fakey, did you solve for 'd' in dy/dx yet? > > Oh, you mean d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x)? Yeah, ersatzia, that 'd'. Did you figger out what it is? ROFL! -- "But a derivative is dy/dx, you halfwitted Mathematical Moron. So one would *have* to solve for 'd' in your moronic equation because it's not a derivative, but you didn't define 'd'." --Fakezoid bleats his unabashed ignorance
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 05:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ae1728688094e1367843ed0caabc45eb@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564215 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
<news:pme0fbheps1doj9lk9jc8lk8v8tjfsdlam@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
>> <news:q38veb1fcee0m02uhc55ap2h5v58g8btor@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>> first into the wood chipper again:
>>> Fakey, did you solve for 'd' in dy/dx yet?
>> Oh, you mean d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x)?
> Yeah, ersatzia, that 'd'.
You mean d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x)? Your desperate backpedaling strawman
which you propped up and kicked down as means of diverting attention
away from that giant whomping SPNAK! you took because you'd proved
you're a Mathematical Moron... and in so doing, proved *again* that
you're a Mathematical Moron? LOL!!
> Did you figger out what it is?
>
> ROFL!
Awww, look at the spankard backpedaling and running away at a full
sprint from his having yet again proven himself to be a Mathematical
Moron. LOL
SPNAK! #1:
=========================================================
>> He says, using Euler's Formula and not knowing it. LOL
> It's not Euler's Theorem, faketard. I realize phasors
> totally mystify you, so you think it's all magic. It's not.
> Did you see any complex numbers?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms#Relation_with_complex_exponentials>
"The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
Formula"
Some Mathematical Moron wrote:
> = A[cos(0°)x^ + sin(0°)y^] -A[cos(-120°)x^ + sin(-120°)y^]
Euler wrote:
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/4/2/e4285d1d4bd15710afcc2753c9ed3095.png>
SPNAK! on the Mathematical Moron, who didn't even realize he was using
Euler's Formula. Bwahahahaaa! That's going into the SPNAK!-pile from
which you'll run away.
=========================================================
SPNAK! #2:
=========================================================
> Does 2sin(x)cos(x) = cos(x) ?
>
> Oh yes... yes, it does, for the fortuitous case of
> 2sin(x)=1, which, like a broken clock, and like you, is
> right twice per cycle.
Wrong. 2sin(x)cos(x) will never coincide with cos(x) when 2sin(x)=1:
<http://i.imgur.com/8mSBxeg.png>
SPNAK!
Shiny Tinfoil Spankard's response?
> Who cares what you can graph, or if you can even graph it
> right. You can't understand any of it.
Translation:
"I'm wrong. Who cares? I'm a Mathematical Moron. Who cares? I can't
understand any of it, let alone graph it. Who cares? <backpedal>
<backpedal> <backpedal> <backpedal>"
SPNAK!
=========================================================
SPNAK! #3:
=========================================================
Keep proving you're a mathematical moron, Mathematical Moron. Why are
you running scared from that giant whomping SPNAK! as detailed below,
Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL
Here, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard... how about you take another crack at
refuting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H backpedaling from that giant whomping
drop-kick you just received, which you screamed "KOOK!", snipped like
a coward and ran away from.
If Gerald Newton is such a "kook", Shiny Tinfoil Spankard, why is he
smarter than you? You can't even figure out vector summation, because
you're Usenet's Mathematical Moron who claims formulas are not math.
<snicker>
===============================================================
Bwahahahaaa! The Mathematical Moron sticks up for the Mathematical
Mega-Moron. And that makes them both *wrong*.
<http://www.electrician2.com/electa1/electa4htm.html>
<http://www.electrician2.com/electa1/electa3htm.htm>
=====================================================
Mathematically, we can precisely *add* the three vectors for the line
currents by converting vectors into their horizontal and vertical
components by using trigonometry. We can *add* the horizontal
components, then *add* the vertical components, then convert this to
polar coordinates to find the *sum* of the vectors. This is called
algebraic *vector* *addition*.
=====================================================
And that all goes back to you moron's inability to grok the
Superposition Principle, and thus the Additivity and Homogeneity
properties of same... mostly you... you k'lamed that superposition and
wave constructive/destructive interference were different things, and
that constructive/destructive interference worked differently for
standing waves and traveling waves... so you're especially moronic on
this topic...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle>
"Note that when vectors or vector fields are involved, a superposition
is interpreted as a vector sum."
There's not a minus sign in an equation on that entire page. Morons.
Here, you fecking *morons*... let me demonstrate it a way you halfwits
will hopefully understand...
<http://i.imgur.com/cuw4gus.png>
Red: 100 volt, 0 degree phase
Green: 100 volt, 120 degree phase
Blue: Red + Green
See where the Red and Green lines cross? What's that voltage? Oh, it's
50 volts. What's 50 + 50, you fucking *morons*? Oh, so when you sum
two like sinewaves, you shift the resultant to exactly between the two
tributaries, with the same amplitude as the tributaries.
Hence the resultant is 180 degrees phase from the remaining third
phase, hence the sum of the three phases of 3-phase AC must always
equal zero.
Now, let's look at what you morons are doing...
<http://i.imgur.com/zdNCScp.png>
Same exact graph, but the third phase has been added in Orange to show
the Blue Line is 180 degrees phase from that Orange line, and a Purple
line has been added to reflect DildoRider's moronic sinewave
subtraction equation... now remember, we're figuring out the
superposition (the constructive and destructive interference) of the
Red and the Green lines.
In that image, at the X axis where the Purple line peaks, the Red line
has an amplitude of 87 volts. The green line has an amplitude of -87
volts.
Now, you *fucking* *morons*... what is the wave interference result
when two waves interfere that have exactly opposite amplitudes? Oh...
that's right, its ZERO. Which is also why the Blue line is at ZERO at
that point on the X axis.
Where's that 173.205 volts coming from in DildoRider's kooky sinewave
subtraction equation, you *fucking* *morons*?
But wait! It gets even better!
<http://i.imgur.com/0l0SQjy.png>
That's the same exact graph, but with DildoRider's kooky sinewave
subtraction equation as purple and black lines... the purple line has
the 0 degree phase as the first part of the equation, the black line
has the 120 degree phase as the first part of the equation.
And one can see that the result is flipped. According to DildoRider's
kooky sinewave subtraction equation, he can convert 87 volts directly
into either 173 *or* -173 volts!
Because you're both Mathematical Morons.
SPNAK!
<dances a jig on the brains of the morons because I've irrefutably
proven myself right, and proven the two *morons* are indeed huge
fucking *Mathematical* *Morons*>
Why are you *so* *stupid*, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL
And the above proves DildoRider *and* Shiny Tinfoil Spankard have been
*wrong* about every fucking thing they've been blathering.
Bwahahaaaaa! Once again your Usenet Lord and Master drop-kicks your
moronic asses across Usenet.
I'ma just add another SPNAK! here...
SPNAK!
I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.
<snicker>
And just so you SPNAK!ards can't bleat that I didn't show the
formulas used:
100\left(\sin \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot 60+\left(0\cdot \frac{\pi
}{180}\right)\right)\right)
100\left(\sin \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot 60+\left(120\cdot
\frac{\pi }{180}\right)\right)\right)
100\left(\sin \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot 60+\left(240\cdot
\frac{\pi }{180}\right)\right)\right)
\left(\left(100\left(\sin \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot
60+\left(0\cdot \frac{\pi }{180}\right)\right)\right)+100\left(\sin
\left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot 60+\left(120\cdot \frac{\pi
}{180}\right)\right)\right)\right)\right)
\left(\left(100\left(\sin \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot
60+\left(0\cdot \frac{\pi }{180}\right)\right)\right)-100\left(\sin
\left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot 60+\left(120\cdot \frac{\pi
}{180}\right)\right)\right)\right)\right)
\left(\left(100\left(\sin \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot
60+\left(120\cdot \frac{\pi }{180}\right)\right)\right)-100\left(\sin
\left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot 60+\left(0\cdot \frac{\pi
}{180}\right)\right)\right)\right)\right)
And I'll just drop another SPNAK! in here for added effect...
SPNAK!
You may begin backpedaling in 3... 2... 1... GO!
<snicker>
===============================================================
Your inability to understand, let alone refute, that reality stands as
your tacit admission that you are Usenet's Mathematical Moron.
SPNAK!
RUN! SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!
--
Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
MID: <13d33d0638e0ec690b63393d0710f658@dizum.com>
MID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).
That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.
That superposition is the same as wave interference.
That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.
That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.
That RMS isn't a DC voltage.
That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.
That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.
The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.
That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.
What a positive or negative vector is.
That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.
That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".
That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.
That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.
What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.
That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.
That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.
That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.
That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.
That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".
That water can be plasmized.
That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.
And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================
Shiny Tinfoil Spankard the Mathematical Moron maunders and mewls:
=====================================
"All you've shown us is graphs of formulas. No equal signs, no maths
done." - Shiny Tinfoil Brain demonstrates his Mathematical Moronism.
=====================================
SPNAK!
<snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 17:34 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <g042fbtn2183oqkt14uqtldo4l7qfhl6ue@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #564383 |
Fakey wrote: > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in > > > Fakey wrote: > > >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > >>> Fakey, did you solve for 'd' in dy/dx yet? > > >> Oh, you mean d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x)? > > > Yeah, ersatzia, that 'd'. > > You mean d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x)? Yeah, ersatzia, that 'd'. Did you figger out what it is? ROFL! > > Awww, look at the spankard backpedaling and running away at a full Nope, i guess you still don't know what it is. Or, you are pretending you still don't know what it is. > Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: > ===================================== Fakey, you said you were going to start supplying MIDs for all these stupid things i allegedly said. Where are they, fakey? -- "But that squared sinewave function is still a sinewave." --Fakey lectures on trig identities
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 16:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4165a04838e15949a894036ed58a7f08@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564417 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
<news:g042fbtn2183oqkt14uqtldo4l7qfhl6ue@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:
> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
>> You mean d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x)?
> Yeah, ersatzia, that 'd'.
Did you figure out that sin^2 is a sinusoid yet, Mathematical Moron?
LOL
> Did you figger out what it is?
It's you desperately propping up straw men so you can knock them down
as means of diverting attention away from your running away from the
four SPNAK!s below (not to mention all your demonstrations of
stupidity in my .sig), thereby proving you're a desperate spankard.
LOL
> ROFL!
Did you figure out that you've yet again proven you're a Mathematical
Moron yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>> Awww, look at the spankard backpedaling and running away at a full
> Nope, i guess you still don't know what it is.
Have you figured out that "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic" yet,
Mathematical Moron? LOL
> Or, you are pretending you still don't know what it is.
Cowardly snipping of those SPNAK!s noted, Spankard. LOL
>> Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
>> =====================================
> Fakey, you said you were going to start supplying MIDs for
> all these stupid things i allegedly said. Where are they,
> fakey?
Awww, look at the Spankard begging to get SPNAK!d even harder. Being a
lonely pathetic shut-in, a drop-kick across Usenet is the only
attention he can get. LOL
Now, prove to the world that you're Usenet's biggest coward by running
away from your stupidity. Again. Spankard.
SPNAK! #1:
=========================================================
A Mathematical Moron wrote:
===========================
> "Sin^2 is a sine"... what a moroon. LOL.
===========================
FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
===========================
<http://i.imgur.com/SU4YXB0.png>
Gee, that *sinusoid* sure looks like a *sinusoid*. LOL
===========================
=========================================================
SPNAK! #2:
=========================================================
>> Some Mathematical Moron wrote:
>>> = A[cos(0°)x^ + sin(0°)y^] -A[cos(-120°)x^ + sin(-120°)y^]
> Right, some maffemagickal maroon wrote that.
Right. You wrote that. LOL
SPNAK!
> What I wrote was
>
> = A[cos(0°)x^ + sin(0°)y^] -A[cos(-120°)x^ + sin(-120°)y^]
That's what you wrote, and that's Euler's Formula, Spankard.
But you've yet again fucked it up:
170\left(\cos \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot 60+\left(0\cdot \frac{\pi
}{180}\right)\right)+\sin \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot
60+\left(0\cdot \frac{\pi }{180}\right)\right)\right)-170\left(\cos
\left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot 60+\left(-120\cdot \frac{\pi
}{180}\right)\right)+\sin \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot
60+\left(-120\cdot \frac{\pi }{180}\right)\right)\right)
<http://i.imgur.com/veVLHuI.png>
Whaaaaaat??? Your kooky sinewave subtraction equation got 416.413
volts L-L from 170 volt peak L-N, Shiny Tinfoil Brain! Obviously
you're a Mathematical Moron blathering on about shit you don't
understand. LOL
Uh-oh... take a look at this, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard:
<http://i.imgur.com/nWBbVbS.png>
You'll note your fucked up equation gets ~294 volts RMS L-L from 120
volt RMS L-N. How's *that* work, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL
Did... did I just fix your fucked up equation *and* derive the correct
~208 volts RMS L-L from 120 volts RMS L-N? With the *correct* 30
degree lead phase shift? Yeah... yeah I did, Mathematical Moron. LOL
And you have no idea how I fixed it, huh, Mathematical Moron. LOL
SPNAK!
=========================================================
SPNAK! #3:
=========================================================
>> He says, using Euler's Formula and not knowing it. LOL
> It's not Euler's Theorem, faketard. I realize phasors
> totally mystify you, so you think it's all magic. It's not.
> Did you see any complex numbers?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms#Relation_with_complex_exponentials>
"The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
Formula"
Some Mathematical Moron wrote:
> = A[cos(0°)x^ + sin(0°)y^] -A[cos(-120°)x^ + sin(-120°)y^]
Euler wrote:
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/4/2/e4285d1d4bd15710afcc2753c9ed3095.png>
SPNAK! on the Mathematical Moron, who didn't even realize he was using
Euler's Formula. Bwahahahaaa!
=========================================================
SPNAK! #4:
=========================================================
Here, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard... how about you take another crack at
refuting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H backpedaling from that giant whomping
drop-kick you just received, which you screamed "KOOK!", snipped like
a coward and ran away from.
If Gerald Newton is such a "kook", Shiny Tinfoil Spankard, why is he
smarter than you? You can't even figure out vector summation, because
you're Usenet's Mathematical Moron who claims formulas are not math.
<snicker>
===================================
Bwahahahaaa! The Mathematical Moron sticks up for the Mathematical
Mega-Moron. And that makes them both *wrong*.
<http://www.electrician2.com/electa1/electa4htm.html>
<http://www.electrician2.com/electa1/electa3htm.htm>
===================================
Mathematically, we can precisely *add* the three vectors for the line
currents by converting vectors into their horizontal and vertical
components by using trigonometry. We can *add* the horizontal
components, then *add* the vertical components, then convert this to
polar coordinates to find the *sum* of the vectors. This is called
algebraic *vector* *addition*.
===================================
And that all goes back to you moron's inability to grok the
Superposition Principle, and thus the Additivity and Homogeneity
properties of same... mostly you... you k'lamed that superposition and
wave constructive/destructive interference were different things, and
that constructive/destructive interference worked differently for
standing waves and traveling waves... so you're especially moronic on
this topic...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle>
"Note that when vectors or vector fields are involved, a superposition
is interpreted as a vector sum."
There's not a minus sign in an equation on that entire page. Morons.
Here, you fecking *morons*... let me demonstrate it a way you halfwits
will hopefully understand...
<http://i.imgur.com/cuw4gus.png>
Red: 100 volt, 0 degree phase
Green: 100 volt, 120 degree phase
Blue: Red + Green
See where the Red and Green lines cross? What's that voltage? Oh, it's
50 volts. What's 50 + 50, you fucking *morons*? Oh, so when you sum
two like sinewaves, you shift the resultant to exactly between the two
tributaries, with the same amplitude as the tributaries.
Hence the resultant is 180 degrees phase from the remaining third
phase, hence the sum of the three phases of 3-phase AC must always
equal zero.
Now, let's look at what you morons are doing...
<http://i.imgur.com/zdNCScp.png>
Same exact graph, but the third phase has been added in Orange to show
the Blue Line is 180 degrees phase from that Orange line, and a Purple
line has been added to reflect DildoRider's moronic sinewave
subtraction equation... now remember, we're figuring out the
superposition (the constructive and destructive interference) of the
Red and the Green lines.
In that image, at the X axis where the Purple line peaks, the Red line
has an amplitude of 87 volts. The green line has an amplitude of -87
volts.
Now, you *fucking* *morons*... what is the wave interference result
when two waves interfere that have exactly opposite amplitudes? Oh...
that's right, its ZERO. Which is also why the Blue line is at ZERO at
that point on the X axis.
Where's that 173.205 volts coming from in DildoRider's kooky sinewave
subtraction equation, you *fucking* *morons*?
But wait! It gets even better!
<http://i.imgur.com/0l0SQjy.png>
That's the same exact graph, but with DildoRider's kooky sinewave
subtraction equation as purple and black lines... the purple line has
the 0 degree phase as the first part of the equation, the black line
has the 120 degree phase as the first part of the equation.
And one can see that the result is flipped. According to DildoRider's
kooky sinewave subtraction equation, he can convert 87 volts directly
into either 173 *or* -173 volts!
Because you're both Mathematical Morons.
SPNAK!
<dances a jig on the brains of the morons because I've irrefutably
proven myself right, and proven the two *morons* are indeed huge
fucking *Mathematical* *Morons*>
Why are you *so* *stupid*, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL
And the above proves DildoRider *and* Shiny Tinfoil Spankard have been
*wrong* about every fucking thing they've been blathering.
Bwahahaaaaa! Once again your Usenet Lord and Master drop-kicks your
moronic asses across Usenet.
I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.
And I'll just drop another SPNAK! in here for added effect...
SPNAK!
You may begin backpedaling in 3... 2... 1... GO!
<snicker>
===============================================================
Your inability to understand, let alone refute, that reality stands as
your tacit admission that you are Usenet's Mathematical Moron.
SPNAK!
RUN! SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!
--
Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
MID: <13d33d0638e0ec690b63393d0710f658@dizum.com>
MID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).
MID: <ff81cb60204ffbd777cd15a6261cfb67@dizum.com>
That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.
That superposition is the same as wave interference.
That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.
That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.
That RMS isn't a DC voltage.
That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.
That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.
The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.
That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.
What a positive or negative vector is.
That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.
That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".
That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.
That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.
What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.
That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.
That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.
That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.
That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.
That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".
That water can be plasmized.
That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.
And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================
Shiny Tinfoil Spankard the Mathematical Moron maunders and mewls:
=====================================
"All you've shown us is graphs of formulas. No equal signs, no maths
done." - Shiny Tinfoil Brain demonstrates his Mathematical Moronism.
=====================================
SPNAK!
<snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f794f24-577b-4bd2-9455-d8590eb19477@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #563682 |
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:33:43 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon > energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the lesser the > photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here: > https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156 Yes, this is correct. As we've discussed about 3 times now. So, as I explained to you, we are not actually measuring the distance of H atom to the O atom. Right? We/they are inferring the distance based on assumptions. Right? And if these assumptions are wrong or incomplete then so will be the inferences. Right? And if the data (distances and, therefore, conclusions about state/phase) are erroneous then the data will be erroneous. Right
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 07:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <b62636e13dc8b1dbe224c6b97dad7efa@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #567963 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:5f794f24-577b-4bd2-9455-d8590eb19477@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:33:43 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon >> energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the lesser the >> photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here: >> https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156 > Yes, this is correct. As we've discussed about 3 times now. Great, then you agree that Nilsson was measuring gaseous-phase water. Had the water been H-bonded, it would have been liquid water, with a photon spectra of liquid water. Thus humidity is monomolecular, no H bonding, as Nilsson's study proved. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory" is destroyed, James. Again. You're not very good at this, are you, TornadoTard? > So, as I explained to you, we are not actually measuring the distance > of H atom to the O atom. Right? We/they are inferring the distance > based on assumptions. Right? No, it's a direct measurement of photon energy, which is affected by H bond length and thus H bond strength, James. H bonding is an electrostatic bonding, after all. Thus, for closely-bonded H bonds, as in ice, the electron shells are closer together, giving a lower photon energy upon electron shell descent. Thus, for *no* H bonds, as in steam, the electron shells are further apart, giving a higher photon energy upon electron shell descent. Nilsson measured a photon energy higher than that for liquid water. Had the humidity he was measuring been H bonded, it would have been liquid water, with an identical spectra to liquid water. > And if these assumptions are wrong or incomplete then so will be the > inferences. Right? The measurements prove the science, James. Whereas the science above has now been measured and corroborated several times, you have *no* corroborating studies, because delusional blather wholly disconnected from reality has no proof. Nilsson's study: <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156> If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James. Nilsson measured a higher photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is monomolecular with no H bonding. Water In The Gas Phase - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/ Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous phase. 16 referenced papers. Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation. http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/ Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere. Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You delusional reality-denying kooktard. > And if the data (distances and, therefore, conclusions about state/phase) > are erroneous then the data will be erroneous. Right Wrong. There are no errors in the science, James. The only error is in your faulty brain. Again, if the humidity Nilsson was measuring the photon energy of had been H bonded, it would have been liquid water with an identical photon energy to that of liquid water. The photon energy was higher, meaning there was no H bonding, James. Prove the study wrong, James. Go on, do your own study. Oh... wait... that's right, you're the insane broken-brained basement-dwelling retard living at home with mommy and daddy because you're too insane to live alone... an atomic force spectroscope or advanced infrared spectroscope wouldn't fit in your mommy's basement. Is that why you've done the sum total of *zero* experiments to prove your delusional blather, James? LOL Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, TornadoTard McGinn? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 01:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23333559-d383-4f40-95b2-d7509bafad69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568198 |
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 10:20:20 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > <news:5f794f24-577b-4bd2-9455-d8590eb19477@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:33:43 AM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon > >> energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the lesser the > >> photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here: > >> https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156 > > > Yes, this is correct. As we've discussed about 3 times now. > > Great, then you agree that Nilsson was measuring gaseous-phase water. Refer to my previous comments. > Had the water been H-bonded, it would have been liquid water, with a > photon spectra of liquid water. Thus humidity is monomolecular, no H > bonding, as Nilsson's study proved. Thus your entire "theory > not-a-theory" is destroyed, James. Again. > > You're not very good at this, are you, TornadoTard? > > > So, as I explained to you, we are not actually measuring the distance > > of H atom to the O atom. Right? We/they are inferring the distance > > based on assumptions. Right? > > No, it's a direct measurement of photon energy, which is affected by H > bond length and thus H bond strength, James. H bonding is an > electrostatic bonding, after all. > > Thus, for closely-bonded H bonds, as in ice, the electron shells are > closer together, giving a lower photon energy upon electron shell > descent. > > Thus, for *no* H bonds, as in steam, the electron shells are further > apart, giving a higher photon energy upon electron shell descent. > > Nilsson measured a photon energy higher than that for liquid water. > Had the humidity he was measuring been H bonded, it would have been > liquid water, with an identical spectra to liquid water. > > > And if these assumptions are wrong or incomplete then so will be the > > inferences. Right? > > The measurements prove the science, James. Whereas the science above > has now been measured and corroborated several times, you have *no* > corroborating studies, because delusional blather wholly disconnected > from reality has no proof. > > Nilsson's study: > <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156> > > If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James. > Nilsson measured a higher photon energy from electron orbital descent > in gaseous-phase water than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been > liquid-phase water as you claim, the photon energy would have been > identical to that of liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous > phase water is monomolecular with no H bonding. > > Water In The Gas Phase - > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/ > Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos > LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous > phase. 16 referenced papers. > > Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research > http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation > Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation. > > http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/ > Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to > directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere. > > Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You > delusional reality-denying kooktard. > > > And if the data (distances and, therefore, conclusions about state/phase) > > are erroneous then the data will be erroneous. Right > > Wrong. There are no errors in the science, James. The only error is in > your faulty brain. > > Again, if the humidity Nilsson was measuring the photon energy of had > been H bonded, it would have been liquid water with an identical > photon energy to that of liquid water. The photon energy was higher, > meaning there was no H bonding, James. > > Prove the study wrong, James. Go on, do your own study. Oh... wait... > that's right, you're the insane broken-brained basement-dwelling > retard living at home with mommy and daddy because you're too insane > to live alone... an atomic force spectroscope or advanced infrared > spectroscope wouldn't fit in your mommy's basement. Is that why you've > done the sum total of *zero* experiments to prove your delusional > blather, James? LOL > > Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, > TornadoTard McGinn? > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant > uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? > > Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a > lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating > that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself > if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? > Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and > help you to not piss all over yourself? > > And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a > pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. > > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's > Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction > increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and > electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually > cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? > > According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with > distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an > electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher > energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic > attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the > electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, > that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic > attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just > violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. > > How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even > you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli > Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, > and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is > that not dissociating the water? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling > point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded > hydrides, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's > cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* > splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have > such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same > H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron > that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of > vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that > your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and > that's just retarded. > > If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not > become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient > tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't > you explain that, James? > > Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is > *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory > not-a-theory" can't answer. > > Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your > claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? > > Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your > delusions, James? > > Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, > James? > > Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? > > Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, > James? > > Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? > > Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being > *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? > > Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as > "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? > > Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in > which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of > education about now, James? > > Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out > of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been > deemed mentally incompetent, James? > > Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class > as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", > James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, > whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? > > What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was > the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then > you're not a physicist, James. LOL > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? > How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their > surface area as you claim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > > Why are you not taking your meds, James? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 17:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <0ae2f255428fa8a64a4aadc7210b9c07@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #568221 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:23333559-d383-4f40-95b2-d7509bafad69@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 10:20:20 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in >> <news:5f794f24-577b-4bd2-9455-d8590eb19477@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:33:43 AM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon >>>> energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the lesser the >>>> photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here: >>>> https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156 >>> Yes, this is correct. As we've discussed about 3 times now. >> Great, then you agree that Nilsson was measuring gaseous-phase water. > Refer to my previous comments. Your previous comments denied that your claimed H-bonded water in the atmosphere had an identical photon spectra to liquid-phase water anywhere else, James. How does that work? Magic? Or just your stupidity and insanity? >> Had the water been H-bonded, it would have been liquid water, with a >> photon spectra of liquid water. Thus humidity is monomolecular, no H >> bonding, as Nilsson's study proved. Thus your entire "theory >> not-a-theory" is destroyed, James. Again. James? No reply, James? >> You're not very good at this, are you, TornadoTard? James? No reply, James? >>> So, as I explained to you, we are not actually measuring the distance >>> of H atom to the O atom. Right? We/they are inferring the distance >>> based on assumptions. Right? >> No, it's a direct measurement of photon energy, which is affected by H >> bond length and thus H bond strength, James. H bonding is an >> electrostatic bonding, after all. >> >> Thus, for closely-bonded H bonds, as in ice, the electron shells are >> closer together, giving a lower photon energy upon electron shell >> descent. >> >> Thus, for *no* H bonds, as in steam, the electron shells are further >> apart, giving a higher photon energy upon electron shell descent. >> >> Nilsson measured a photon energy higher than that for liquid water. >> Had the humidity he was measuring been H bonded, it would have been >> liquid water, with an identical spectra to liquid water. James? No reply, James? >>> And if these assumptions are wrong or incomplete then so will be the >>> inferences. Right? >> The measurements prove the science, James. Whereas the science above >> has now been measured and corroborated several times, you have *no* >> corroborating studies, because delusional blather wholly disconnected >> from reality has no proof. >> >> Nilsson's study: >> <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156> >> >> If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James. >> Nilsson measured a higher photon energy from electron orbital descent >> in gaseous-phase water than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been >> liquid-phase water as you claim, the photon energy would have been >> identical to that of liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous >> phase water is monomolecular with no H bonding. >> >> Water In The Gas Phase - >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/ >> Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos >> LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous >> phase. 16 referenced papers. >> >> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research >> http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation >> Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation. >> >> http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/ >> Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to >> directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere. >> >> Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You >> delusional reality-denying kooktard. James? No reply, James? >>> And if the data (distances and, therefore, conclusions about state/phase) >>> are erroneous then the data will be erroneous. Right >> Wrong. There are no errors in the science, James. The only error is in >> your faulty brain. >> >> Again, if the humidity Nilsson was measuring the photon energy of had >> been H bonded, it would have been liquid water with an identical >> photon energy to that of liquid water. The photon energy was higher, >> meaning there was no H bonding, James. >> >> Prove the study wrong, James. Go on, do your own study. James? No reply, James? >> Oh... wait... that's right, you're the insane broken-brained >> basement-dwelling retard living at home with mommy and daddy >> because you're too insane to live alone... an atomic force >> spectroscope or advanced infrared spectroscope wouldn't fit in >> your mommy's basement. Is that why you've done the sum total of >> *zero* experiments to prove your delusional blather, James? LOL James? No reply, James? Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <47d00bdf-475a-40f7-ad47-814b0453f3d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562207 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:45:06 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:be0fc7e6-7f12-40f5-a4ff-0d94f61bd42a@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > http://principia-scientific.org/reassessing-climate-role-carbon-dioxide/#comments > > > > JM: Up to this point everything you say is both true and irrelevant > > to my point. > > > > MH: So, water exist in gaseous form at all temperatures above and > > below its 1 atmosphere boiling point of 100 C. > > > > JM: This is false. At the ambient temperatures/pressures of the > > atmosphere, and in accordance with the same chart you mentioned, > > H2O cannot be gaseous. Thus it can only be liquid H2O suspended > > in air. As with their application to CO2 in climatology, the > > application of the Laws of Thermodynamics to H2O in meteorology > > are not optional. Consequently meteorology's notion that storms > > are caused by the convective upwelling of gaseous H2O and subsequent > > release of "latent heat" is refuted. > > No, it's not "refuted", Jim. Your saying so doesn't make it so. Right, and so, just saying convection causes storms doesn't make it true, right? You've > presented nothing but a demonstrably false fairy tale, the > machinations of a badly bent mind which cannot grasp reality, and has > thus scampered off into the brush, creating a kooky conspiracy theory > that has been proven via more than a half-dozen different avenues to > be utter hogwash. > > Meanwhile, there are several satellites operated by several agencies > watching latent heat of condensation release from clouds, Jim. Why do > you continue to deny reality? > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/sci.physics/james$20mcginn$20gaseous$20latent%7Csort:date > > http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39222 > > https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114103 > > Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous > phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully > explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has > been utterly demolished. > > You postulate the following: > > 1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere, > which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can > continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory. > > 2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source > that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without > dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear > binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water > will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely > energetic laser. > > 3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only > atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound > water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the > *minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be > equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just > 3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the > problem inherent in your contention, James. > > 4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except > it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than > ~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to > ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the > overwhelming majority of all water is. > > 5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which > direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why? > Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus > convects upward. > > 6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air, > except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and > molar volume... > > \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than > humidity. > > The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of > the atomic masses of its constituent atoms. > > The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, > 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP. > > Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous > phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar > mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the > same volume of 22.414 liters at STP. > > The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas > the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP. > > Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: > 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase > 28.57 g for dry air > > Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore > air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air. > > Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its > gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant. > > Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude > decreases. > > At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water > partial pressure will have the same density. > > At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous > water partial pressure will have higher density. > > At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous > water partial pressure will have lower density. > > For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure, > air at a higher altitude will have lower density. > > (1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative > humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3. > > Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative > humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C, > the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3. > > Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to > increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the > air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the > air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or > the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater > than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity. > > Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas > relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that > temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather > systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions. > > IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which > requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air > itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of > monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of > higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density). > > It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is > "heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard. > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ > > And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not > applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the > calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in > agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even > with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same > relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and > more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der > Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and > increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the > difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der > Waals equation... notice the converging trend? > > Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with > gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error > to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't > understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf. > > 7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding... > which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties, > and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim. > You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there > are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths: > > <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156> > They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron > orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's > photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is > due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two > phases. > > <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304> > You'll note the double peak of liquid water. > > Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory: > ==================================================== > Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of > water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the > peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to > the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules. > ==================================================== > > You betcha... para and ortho-form water. > > <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html> > ==================================================== > Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated > with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2), > the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess > parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are > parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a > magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three > symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three > states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state > always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7 > J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1) > H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a]. > > When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called > para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin > state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in > this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room > temperature. > > Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but > ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden > for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular > species. They can change spin state on interaction with another > particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of > these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where > the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting > to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative > amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures > (>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish > itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It > is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much > closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076]. > This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of > non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or > para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two > forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186], > which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water > clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due > to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835]. > > The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a > significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin > interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural > rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion > [1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O, > possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than > hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that > ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150] > with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally > coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density > clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated. > Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a > strong dc electric field [2156]. > ==================================================== > > The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when > water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water > clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily > broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be > ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is > very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray > spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration > temperature and phase. > > Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than > the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated > removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm > thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice. > > <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> > ===================================================== > Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable > structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just > under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less > with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the > water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and > more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a > lower temperature). > ===================================================== > > As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in > which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer > of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is > happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with > other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving > off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially > condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note > above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same > properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the > difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and > phase. > > For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater > water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the > condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O > gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of > ice is melted. > > So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the > water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because > there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two > different hydrogen bonding strengths. > > Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by > scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done > utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL > > <http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html> > ============================================== > A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable > to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the > nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined > in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric > wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called > para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called > ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is > "forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin > isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as > collisions. > ============================================== > > Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and > para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen > atoms, also has two spin isomers? > > <https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e> > <http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif> > > In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at > low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously > converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has > implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by > this spin isomer conversion. > > In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to > para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via > partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which > would cause spin isomer conversion. > > Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking, > Jim... > > How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're > plasma, Jim? > > How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding > energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the > water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules > account for the different H bonding strengths which account for > evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky > conspiracy theory is workable, Jim? > > Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? > > Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does > not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will, > Jim. > > Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with > the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to > protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity. > I note you are doing the same. > > I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet > Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never > forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live. > > <snicker> > > -- > > Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: > ===================================== > The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier > Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which > should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create > *sinusoids*). > > That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms. > > That superposition is the same as wave interference. > > That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves. > > That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things. > > That RMS isn't a DC voltage. > > That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 > volts RMS L-L. > > That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1. > > The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave. > > That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical > engineering, physics and control systems engineering. > > What a positive or negative vector is. > > That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per > Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero. > > That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic". > > That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 > positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. > > That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective > nuclear charge. > > What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. > > That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. > > That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the > atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842% > margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F. > > That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of > a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does > *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames. > > That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes > into account molar volume. > > That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error". > > That water can be plasmized. > > That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge. > > And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. > ===================================== > > SPNAK! > > <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 09:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6807f87f4d922f66e19d076c7e82a57c@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #568391 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:47d00bdf-475a-40f7-ad47-814b0453f3d1@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:45:06 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> Consequently meteorology's notion that storms are caused by >>> the convective upwelling of gaseous H2O and subsequent >>> release of "latent heat" is refuted. >> No, it's not "refuted", Jim. Your saying so doesn't make it so. > Right, and so, just saying convection causes storms doesn't make it > true, right? Correct. It's the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies over 250+ years that prove the science, James. How many studies have you done, James? *Zero*?! How many experiments have you done, James? *Zero*?! How many corroborating studies back up your blather, James? *Zero*?! Well, that says it all, doesn't it, TornadoTard McGinn? >> You've presented nothing but a demonstrably false fairy tale, the >> machinations of a badly bent mind which cannot grasp reality, and has >> thus scampered off into the brush, creating a kooky conspiracy theory >> that has been proven via more than a half-dozen different avenues to >> be utter hogwash. >> >> Meanwhile, there are several satellites operated by several agencies >> watching latent heat of condensation release from clouds, Jim. Why do >> you continue to deny reality? >> Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous >> phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully >> explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has >> been utterly demolished. >> >> You postulate the following: >> >> 1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere, >> which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can >> continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory. >> >> 2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source >> that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without >> dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear >> binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water >> will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely >> energetic laser. >> >> 3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only >> atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound >> water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the >> *minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be >> equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just >> 3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the >> problem inherent in your contention, James. >> >> 4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except >> it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than >> ~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to >> ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the >> overwhelming majority of all water is. >> >> 5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which >> direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why? >> Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus >> convects upward. >> >> 6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air, >> except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and >> molar volume... >> >> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ >> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than >> humidity. >> >> The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of >> the atomic masses of its constituent atoms. >> >> The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, >> 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP. >> >> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous >> phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar >> mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the >> same volume of 22.414 liters at STP. >> >> The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas >> the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP. >> >> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: >> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase >> 28.57 g for dry air >> >> Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore >> air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air. >> >> Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its >> gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant. >> >> Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude >> decreases. >> >> At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water >> partial pressure will have the same density. >> >> At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous >> water partial pressure will have higher density. >> >> At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous >> water partial pressure will have lower density. >> >> For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure, >> air at a higher altitude will have lower density. >> >> (1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative >> humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3. >> >> Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative >> humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C, >> the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3. >> >> Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to >> increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the >> air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the >> air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or >> the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater >> than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity. >> >> Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas >> relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that >> temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather >> systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions. >> >> IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which >> requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air >> itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of >> monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of >> higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density). >> >> It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is >> "heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard. >> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ >> >> And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not >> applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the >> calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in >> agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even >> with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same >> relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and >> more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der >> Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and >> increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the >> difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der >> Waals equation... notice the converging trend? >> >> Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with >> gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error >> to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't >> understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf. >> >> 7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding... >> which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties, >> and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim. >> You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there >> are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths: >> >> <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156> >> They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron >> orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's >> photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is >> due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two >> phases. >> >> <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304> >> You'll note the double peak of liquid water. >> >> Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory: >> ==================================================== >> Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of >> water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the >> peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to >> the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules. >> ==================================================== >> >> You betcha... para and ortho-form water. >> >> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html> >> ==================================================== >> Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated >> with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2), >> the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess >> parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are >> parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a >> magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three >> symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three >> states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state >> always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7 >> J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1) >> H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a]. >> >> When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called >> para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin >> state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in >> this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room >> temperature. >> >> Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but >> ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden >> for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular >> species. They can change spin state on interaction with another >> particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of >> these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where >> the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting >> to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative >> amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures >> (>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish >> itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It >> is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much >> closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076]. >> This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of >> non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or >> para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two >> forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186], >> which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water >> clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due >> to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835]. >> >> The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a >> significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin >> interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural >> rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion >> [1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O, >> possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than >> hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that >> ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150] >> with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally >> coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density >> clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated. >> Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a >> strong dc electric field [2156]. >> ==================================================== >> >> The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when >> water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water >> clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily >> broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be >> ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is >> very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray >> spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration >> temperature and phase. >> >> Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than >> the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated >> removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm >> thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice. >> >> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> >> ===================================================== >> Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable >> structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just >> under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less >> with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the >> water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and >> more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a >> lower temperature). >> ===================================================== >> >> As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in >> which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer >> of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is >> happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with >> other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving >> off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially >> condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note >> above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same >> properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the >> difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and >> phase. >> >> For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater >> water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the >> condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O >> gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of >> ice is melted. >> >> So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the >> water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because >> there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two >> different hydrogen bonding strengths. >> >> Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by >> scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done >> utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL >> >> <http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html> >> ============================================== >> A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable >> to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the >> nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined >> in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric >> wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called >> para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called >> ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is >> "forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin >> isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as >> collisions. >> ============================================== >> >> Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and >> para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen >> atoms, also has two spin isomers? >> >> <https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e> >> <http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif> >> >> In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at >> low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously >> converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has >> implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by >> this spin isomer conversion. >> >> In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to >> para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via >> partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which >> would cause spin isomer conversion. Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 15:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <187a83cd-91ab-4472-8669-8f5d3c104abf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562149 |
He didn't show that. He assumed it. In fact it has never been shown, it's been assumed through all of human history. As with the thermodynamic realities of CO2 the thermodynamic realities of H2O are not a matter of opinion. It is impossible for H2O to exist as a gas at temperatures above and pressures below those delineated in steam tables. It doesn't matter that most people assume clear moist air contains gaseous H2O. It matters that the laboratory evidence indisputably proves that the moisture in clear moist air must consist of droplets/clusters that are too small to be visible. The laws of thermodynamics are not optional.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 17:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nccm6k$k2j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #562939 |
On 3/16/2016 5:05 PM, James McGinn wrote:
<snip crap>
nothing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 04:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4057d040fed54382ec64a0da4530cea6@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #562939 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:187a83cd-91ab-4472-8669-8f5d3c104abf@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > He didn't show that. He assumed it. In fact it has never been shown, > it's been assumed through all of human history. As with the > thermodynamic realities of CO2 the thermodynamic realities of H2O are > not a matter of opinion. It is impossible for H2O to exist as a gas > at temperatures above and pressures below those delineated in steam > tables. Bwahahahaa! James McGinn the anti-science moron uses the steam tables on the atmosphere. Are you confused, Jim? Why yes, you most certainly are... you demonstrate that fact each and every day. LOL > It doesn't matter that most people assume clear moist air contains > gaseous H2O. It's not an assumption, James. I've provided two peer-reviewed studies which prove that monomer water is all that is evaporating unless the water is boiling. You ran away from them because they prove you wrong. > It matters that the laboratory evidence Which you don't have. All you have is your kooky little 4th grade level uncontrolled experiment, James. > indisputably proves that the moisture in clear moist air must > consist of droplets/clusters that are too small to be visible. And how, exactly, does your kooky little 4th grade level uncontrolled experiment show that, James? You've provided *no* results of *any* kind... likely because your margin of error is so large your results are essentially random. > The laws of thermodynamics are not optional. No indeed they are not. That's why they explain exactly what is happening in terms of latent heat of evaporation, James. You can't tout the Laws of Thermodynamics on one hand, and deny them on the other, James... doing that makes you look like a kooktard. Here you go, James... another chance for you to run away from scientific reality... ========================================================== Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly demolished. You postulate the following: 1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere, which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory. 2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely energetic laser. 3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the *minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just 3.32 nm wavelength away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the problem inherent in your contention, James. 4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than ~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of all water is. 5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why? Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus convects upward. 6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air, except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and molar volume... \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than humidity. The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of the atomic masses of its constituent atoms. The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP. Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the same volume of 22.414 liters at STP. The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP. Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase 28.57 g for dry air Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air. Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant. Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude decreases. At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure will have the same density. At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous water partial pressure will have higher density. At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous water partial pressure will have lower density. For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure, air at a higher altitude will have lower density. (1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3. Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C, the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3. Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity. Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions. IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density). It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is "heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der Waals equation... notice the converging trend? Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf. 7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding... which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties, and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim. You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths: <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156> They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two phases. <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304> You'll note the double peak of liquid water. Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory: ==================================================== Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules. ==================================================== You betcha... para and ortho-form water. <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html> ==================================================== Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2), the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7 J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1) H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a]. When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room temperature. Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular species. They can change spin state on interaction with another particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures (>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076]. This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186], which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835]. The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion [1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O, possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150] with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated. Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a strong dc electric field [2156]. ==================================================== The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and phase. Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice. <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> ===================================================== Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a lower temperature). ===================================================== As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and phase. For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of ice is melted. So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two different hydrogen bonding strengths. Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL <http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html> ============================================== A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is "forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as collisions. ============================================== Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, also has two spin isomers? <https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e> <http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif> In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by this spin isomer conversion. In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which would cause spin isomer conversion. 8) Your kooky claim that the jet stream is a "giant tornado in the sky" which sends its tendrils down through the troposphere, at distances that can reach to hundreds of miles from the jet stream, to drop down tornadoes... but how does the jet stream always know to send its tendril *only* to cumulonimbus clouds, Jim? How does it know to avoid nearly every other cloud type, *and* avoid dropping down tornadoes out of the clear blue sky, James? How does it know to avoid dropping down a tornado if the ground or water below that cloud is cooler than the air in the cloud, Jim? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? And why have those tendrils never been detected, either by satellite, Doppler radar _or_ by planes being ripped to shreds on a regular basis when they fly into those hundreds of mile long vortexes, James? Do you see now how ridiculous your patchwork 'theory' is becoming, James? You've made yourself a scientific laughingstock. Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking, Jim... ============================================================ If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet, James? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel hundreds of miles away from the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your k'laming that convection doesn't exist means you're further k'laming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in order that your claims have even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? -- Cipher (aka Dave A. Howard the Coward) is an ancient mainframe Usenet bot that never got shut off. He walkered his way back into AUK after an eternity spent in an infinite loop, started clacking his dentures and bragging about what a big man he *used* to be and how we kids should get the hell off his lawn, promptly outed himself, slipped in the urine dribbling down his leg from his over-full Depends, his walker went flying, his dentures clattered to the floor, and he lay there, hearing aid squealing, stabbing an arthritic finger at his Life-Alert pendant and crying "Help, I've soiled myself and I can't get up!" as we youngsters laughed raucously at him. Don't ask him about the Port-A-Potty that drove him so bonkers that he ended up in a tight-white jacket in a rubber room in a mental institution... that wasn't Dave, man. He's blocked all that out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 21:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f39e34fd-9b6e-4c40-9572-9b5257aad886@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #563000 |
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:56:25 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > He didn't show that. He assumed it. In fact it has never been shown, > > it's been assumed through all of human history. As with the > > thermodynamic realities of CO2 the thermodynamic realities of H2O are > > not a matter of opinion. It is impossible for H2O to exist as a gas > > at temperatures above and pressures below those delineated in steam > > tables. > > Bwahahahaa! James McGinn the anti-science moron uses the steam tables > on the atmosphere. What did you use?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 23:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ncdblr$1eg7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #563003 |
On 3/16/2016 11:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:56:25 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >>> He didn't show that. He assumed it. In fact it has never been shown, >>> it's been assumed through all of human history. As with the >>> thermodynamic realities of CO2 the thermodynamic realities of H2O are >>> not a matter of opinion. It is impossible for H2O to exist as a gas >>> at temperatures above and pressures below those delineated in steam >>> tables. >> Bwahahahaa! James McGinn the anti-science moron uses the steam tables >> on the atmosphere. > > What did you use? > Steam Tables are for cooking clams, James. Everyone was in on the Steam Table joke, jokes on you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 06:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <648829b2bedb3ea8d39a4e3ec2724acf@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #563003 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:f39e34fd-9b6e-4c40-9572-9b5257aad886@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:56:25 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> He didn't show that. He assumed it. In fact it has never been shown, >>> it's been assumed through all of human history. As with the >>> thermodynamic realities of CO2 the thermodynamic realities of H2O are >>> not a matter of opinion. It is impossible for H2O to exist as a gas >>> at temperatures above and pressures below those delineated in steam >>> tables. >> Bwahahahaa! James McGinn the anti-science moron uses the steam tables >> on the atmosphere. > What did you use? What every sane person uses, James, a Mollier diagram. That diagram which is based upon empirically-observed data over the past 250+ years which disproves your blather that latent heat of evaporation exists. That diagram which is based upon empirically-observed data over the past 250+ years which utterly destroys your kooky 'theory'. That diagram which is based upon empirically-observed data over the past 250+ years which you continue to demonstrate you lack the cranial capacity to grasp. <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Mollier.pdf> Now, on to those questions you keep ducking that highlight the logical inconsistencies in your kooky 'theory' which is really nothing more than the mad ramblings of a moron, James: ============================================================ If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet, James? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel hundreds of miles away from the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your k'laming that convection doesn't exist means you're further k'laming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in order that your claims have even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*). That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms. That superposition is the same as wave interference. That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves. That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things. That RMS isn't a DC voltage. That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L. That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1. The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave. That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering. What a positive or negative vector is. That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero. That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic". That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective nuclear charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842% margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F. That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames. That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes into account molar volume. That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error". That water can be plasmized. That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 23:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9599fff-15bc-442a-b0e4-e7a0da7772b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #563016 |
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:53:35 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > >> Bwahahahaa! James McGinn the anti-science moron uses the steam tables > >> on the atmosphere. > > > What did you use? > > What every sane person uses, James, a Mollier diagram. > > That diagram which is based upon empirically-observed data Too bad you can't prove that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 16:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <597a0c212654f13ac8661a211b0815d0@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #563018 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:b9599fff-15bc-442a-b0e4-e7a0da7772b1@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:53:35 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> Bwahahahaa! James McGinn the anti-science moron uses the steam tables >>>> on the atmosphere. >>> What did you use? >> What every sane person uses, James, a Mollier diagram. >> >> That diagram which is based upon empirically-observed data over the >> past 250+ years which disproves your blather that latent heat of >> evaporation exists. >> >> That diagram which is based upon empirically-observed data over the >> past 250+ years which utterly destroys your kooky 'theory'. >> >> That diagram which is based upon empirically-observed data over the >> past 250+ years which you continue to demonstrate you lack the cranial >> capacity to grasp. >> >> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Mollier.pdf> > Too bad you can't prove that. Your attempt to turn reality on its head as a pathetic attempt to continue your kooky claim that you are somehow smarter than every single scientist in the past 250+ years fails, Jim. The onus is upon you to prove your contention of the Mollier diagram being incorrect, and thus the 250+ years of rigorous scientific inquiry upon which the Mollier diagram is based being incorrect. Your continued inability to do so is noted. Now, on to those questions you keep ducking, which highlight the logical inconsistencies in your kooky 'theory' which is really nothing more than the mad ramblings of a moron, James: ============================================================ If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? How do your "jet stream vortices" travel hundreds of miles away from the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your k'laming that convection doesn't exist means you're further k'laming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in order that your claims have even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? -- Cipher (aka Dave A. Howard the Coward) is an ancient mainframe Usenet bot that never got shut off. He walkered his way back into AUK after an eternity spent in an infinite loop, started clacking his dentures and bragging about what a big man he *used* to be and how we kids should get the hell off his lawn, promptly outed himself, slipped in the urine dribbling down his leg from his over-full Depends, his walker went flying, his dentures clattered to the floor, and he lay there, hearing aid squealing, stabbing an arthritic finger at his Life-Alert pendant and crying "Help, I've soiled myself and I can't get up!" as we youngsters laughed raucously at him. Don't ask him about the Port-A-Potty that drove him so bonkers that he ended up in a tight-white jacket in a rubber room in a mental institution... that wasn't Dave, man. He's blocked all that out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web