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

Groups > sci.physics > #562008 > unrolled thread

James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 19:51 -0800
    Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 05:48 +0100
      Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:58 -0700
        Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 05:05 +0100
          Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 21:50 -0700
            Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 08:44 +0100
              Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:34 -0700
                Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 18:27 +0100
                  Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:36 -0700
                    Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 04:35 +0100
                      Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 21:11 -0700
                        Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-16 23:27 -0500
                        Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 06:38 +0100
                          Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 22:54 -0700
                            Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 17:23 +0100
            Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-16 10:38 -0500
    Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-12 23:51 -0600
    Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:12 -0500
    Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:15 -0700
      a\the box noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 18:04 -0700

#562008 — James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:12:59 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

Sergio:
BS, you don't know scientific method, and you 
hate the truth, you "think outside the box"

James McGinn:
I don't think I'm different because I think 
outside of the box.

You believe moist air contains cold steam, making 
it 1% lighter than dry air.  And, as it convects 
up it condenses, releasing latent heat.  And even 
though this latent heat has never actually been 
detected, this is what you believe powers all 
storms and all atmospheric flow, including the jet 
streams.

Do you actually believe this?  I'm going to give 
you the benefit of the doubt and just asssume that, 
like most everybody else, you never actually gave 
it any thought.

I'm not different because I think outside the box.  
I'm different because I think.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#562018

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:f05de7f9-9b54-412a-9961-933720eaf57f@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:12:59 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> Sergio:
> BS, you don't know scientific method, and you 
> hate the truth, you "think outside the box"
> 
> James McGinn:
> I don't think I'm different because I think 
> outside of the box.
> 
> You believe moist air contains cold steam, making
> it 1% lighter than dry air.  And, as it convects 
> up it condenses, releasing latent heat.  And even 
> though this latent heat has never actually been 
> detected, this is what you believe powers all 
> storms and all atmospheric flow, including the jet 
> streams.

Awww, look at the kook deny reality. Again. LOL

James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that
NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent
heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud
formation?

<http://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/meso/index.php?section=21>
============================================================
The circulation of the atmosphere is affected by the horizontal,
vertical, and temporal distribution of atmospheric constituents such
as water vapor, aerosols, clouds, precipitation, and latent heat
released by cloud formation. Improving our ability to predict weather
and climate depends upon accurate representation of these constituents
in the vertical dimension.

Laboratory researchers are developing computer algorithms for
diagnosing precipitation rates, vertical structure, and latent heating
from a combination of the DPR and GMI data; see Grecu et al. (2004,
2009, 2011).
============================================================

Now, Jim... stop running away from those tough questions that expose
your kooky conspiracy theory as the mad ranting of a delusional
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard...

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, 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 water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal 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.

That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#562656

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:59:11 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that
> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent
> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud
> formation?

Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?"  Or should we just take your word on that -- and NASAs?

Maybe you can get Gavin Schmidt to explain it: www.realclimate.org

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

#562762

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:59d41d8d-c502-490e-88b4-c87476275652@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:59:11 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that
>> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent
>> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud
>> formation?

> Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?"

It is quite apparent, James, that you have no clue how energy is
absorbed and released by atoms. I'd suggest you go back to school, but
your Dunning-Kruger affliction and associated psychological
aberrations preclude your ever receiving knowledge from anyone you
deem to be smarter or saner than yourself. Hence, just as are most
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards, you're stuck in a downward spiral
toward clinical psychosis.

> Or should we just take your word on that -- and NASAs?

Or you can educate yourself on the underlying science of cloud
profiling, James. Perhaps you could start by looking at photons, given
that is the key.

Then, when you realize exactly how insane, retarded and uneducated you
truly are, do take a hammer and smash it repeatedly against your skull
in frustration over having spent the last quarter century proving how
insane, retarded and uneducated you are.

<snicker>

> Maybe you can get Gavin Schmidt to explain it: www.realclimate.org

Or, we could look at the multiple agencies I've already listed, which
all have satellites monitoring the clouds... are all those agencies
around the entire world in on your kooky manufactured conspiracy
theory, James?

Or would the more likely explanation be that you suffer from a rapidly
encroaching paranoid schizophrenia induced by your Dunning-Kruger
affliction preventing you from self-correcting your aberrational
thought processes?

Now, on to those questions you've been dodging, James...

============================================================

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 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 so 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 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]

#562772

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:15:35 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that
> >> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent
> >> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud
> >> formation?
> 
> > Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?"
> 
> It is quite apparent, James, that you have no clue how energy is
> absorbed and released by atoms. 

I'll take that as a "no."

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

#562791

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:ea9a4876-fc5f-4b1c-b744-2c9e3d171576@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:15:35 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that
>>>> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent
>>>> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud
>>>> formation?

>>> Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?"

>> It is quite apparent, James, that you have no clue how energy is
>> absorbed and released by atoms. 

> I'll take that as a "no."

No, James, you have no fucking clue... I'd told you to study on
photons, as that is the key... or did you not realize that latent heat
of condensation in water has a specific band of photon wavelengths
emitted?

Which not only proves that latent heat of condensation exists (and
thus latent heat of evaporation *must* exist), it also proves gaseous
phase monomer water is being evaporated, and it proves you're an
insane moron who is so uneducated you can't even fathom how the world
works.

Hence your kooky theory, which has been proven wrong via more than a
half-dozen different avenues.

It's sad that you've been driven so insane that you're now denying the
Laws of Thermodynamics, James. It's sad that you've been driven so
insane that rather than admit you're wrong, you're going to sue
*science*. But it sure is entertaining watching you spiral down into
psychosis.

<snicker>

Now, before you run away again, James, how about you take a crack at
substantively answering those tough questions by providing
corroborable proof of your kooky claims... referring back to your own
retarded blathering just shows how badly afflicted you are with
Dunning-Kruger, exacerbated by your lack of education...

============================================================
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 so 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 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?

-- 

Kadaitcha Man (aka HalfADickRick Mather) is an AUK veteran from way
back. He was actually stupid enough to try to hook up with that AUK
pass-around girl Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries (aka Rhonda Russo), but ended
up booting her to the curb because she's just a cunt hair away from
being that nucking futs cat lady dragging a folding cart filled with
recyclables so she can afford to buy cat food for herself and her
dozen cats. He dodged a bullet, given that she now looks like a reject
from a zombie slasher flick, has cancer, hypothyroidism, bulging neck
goiters, rotting gums, missing teeth, thinning hair, Dissociative
Identity Disorder, Autism and is just plumb nutz. HalfADickRick lost
his better half in a motorcycle accident, so even if he had hooked up
with Rhondumb, he'd have to get a surrogate to bed her. He's got
growling menacingly down to a science, but toothless old dogs have had
plenty of time to practice. He has first-hand experience with gaiety,
given that his oldest son wasn't raised right and turned out to be
light in the loafers... which limits HalfADickRick's trolling
abilities and precludes him laughing at the sissies. So he lost half
his dick *and* now has no balls for trolling.

"Big things are made out of little things."
HalfADickRick Mather's Grand Unified Theory of the Universe.

Message-ID: <d7419da693ffc53a544d5e1569ac9bfc@dizum.com>
"all matter appeared simultaneously in all places at once (i.e.
everywhere at the same time)"
Delusional fuckwit HalfADickRick denying nucleosynthesis, nuclear
transmutation, universal expansion, hydrogen consisting of most
universal mass, cosmic background radiation, 21 cm radiation, the very
means by which matter came to be formed from energy after the big
bang, and most importantly, reality.

Message-ID: <9eb660cc06ece30da6a8e7a947a65dfb@dizum.com>
HalfADickRick believes these two statements mean the same thing...
he's too stupid to realize the contradiction within the statements:
1) "When you touch something, you don't actually touch it because the
negative charge of the electrons in all matter repel each other."
2) "everything you experience is experienced only within your
consciousness. That is, there is no reality apart from consciousness."

MID: <269e51973939871be9eeaaef420f8a6c@dizum.com>
"Who said it's your eyes that see?"
HalfADickRick, yet again displaying his unfathomable stupidity.

"The Turing test is overrated anyway."
HalfADickRick, mad because he's too stupid to pass the Turing test.

"The now you experience now simply moves to this now."
HalfADickRick's excuse for living in the past.

Message-ID: <2e6f960b0b8c4a738b1116b41865cb35@dizum.com>
HalfADickRick projects what he thinks of himself:
"A fairyboy with an inadequate penis."

Message-ID: <d4e79c0adde0074ee812eba8d9023f97@dizum.com>
HalfADickRick tried blaming his own screediness on a Visual Basic bot
he programmed, k'laming it's artificially intelligent and able to hold
contextually-relevant conversations without any assistance... when
challenged to put Fred Tehbot to work producing 5000 intelligent and
contextually relevant replies per day to random posts, an easy task
for a machine, HalfADickRick started backpedaling, evading and hurling
insults. In actuality, he was assisting his tardbot by screeding right
alongside it to lend it the appearance of intelligence (but only the
appearance, because HalfADickRick's pretty retarded LOL). Spanked to
tears yet again by reality, he plonked and ran away, tears streaming,
fright-piss flowing, a plaintive "WHHHHAAAAAAA!" issuing from his
otherwise-dumbstruck mouth.

<snicker>

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

#562851

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 12:55:06 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:ea9a4876-fc5f-4b1c-b744-2c9e3d171576@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:15:35 PM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >>>> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that
> >>>> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent
> >>>> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud
> >>>> formation?
> 
> >>> Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?"
> 
> >> It is quite apparent, James, that you have no clue how energy is
> >> absorbed and released by atoms. 
> 
> > I'll take that as a "no."
> 
> No, James, you have no fucking clue... 

Apparently you don't either.

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

#562875

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:3b17d333-4f18-4eb0-b68a-e308aeba3971@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 12:55:06 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:ea9a4876-fc5f-4b1c-b744-2c9e3d171576@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:15:35 PM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that
>>>>>> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent
>>>>>> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud
>>>>>> formation?

>>>>> Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?"

>>>> It is quite apparent, James, that you have no clue how energy is
>>>> absorbed and released by atoms. 

>>> I'll take that as a "no."

>> No, James, you have no fucking clue... I'd told you to study on
>> photons, as that is the key... or did you not realize that latent heat
>> of condensation in water has a specific band of photon wavelengths
>> emitted?
>> 
>> Which not only proves that latent heat of condensation exists (and
>> thus latent heat of evaporation *must* exist), it also proves gaseous
>> phase monomer water is being evaporated, and it proves you're an
>> insane moron who is so uneducated you can't even fathom how the world
>> works.
>> 
>> Hence your kooky theory, which has been proven wrong via more than a
>> half-dozen different avenues.
>> 
>> It's sad that you've been driven so insane that you're now denying the
>> Laws of Thermodynamics, James. It's sad that you've been driven so
>> insane that rather than admit you're wrong, you're going to sue
>> *science*. But it sure is entertaining watching you spiral down into
>> psychosis.
>> 
>> <snicker>

> Apparently you don't either.

Not true, James. Whereas you've relied upon fairy tale hypotheticals
and suppositions pulled straight from your ass to concoct your wholly
impossible "theory", I'm drawing my knowledge from more than 250 years
of careful and rigorous scientific research, from thousands upon
thousands of peer-reviewed papers, from actual scientists and
physicists, thousands upon thousands of them, each and every one of
them far smarter and saner than you, James.

Whereas I have provided links to corroboration of what I wrote, and
explained in detail the underlying mechanisms of what I wrote, you
have provided no details, explained nothing, hand-waved away the fact
that your kooky "theory" has giant gaping inconsistencies, and run
away from performing an experiment which would either prove you 100%
right, thereby overturning nearly all of established science and
physics... or prove you 100% wrong.

And anyone with even a high school education knows you'll prove
yourself 100% wrong, Jim. That you don't know that, but that you know
the entire rest of the world *does* know that, is the fear that grips
you, James, the fear which prevents you from performing that
experiment and thereby disproving the outrageous claims you've made,
which fly in the face of 250+ years of established science.

Instead, you've waffled, hemmed, hawed, backpedaled, hand-waved,
denied large swaths of reality, dismissed proof that you're a
delusional kooktard and are working furiously on a kooksoot.

James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is going to sue *science*.
All of it. He's *that* fucking delusional. LOL

Now, before you run away again, James, do try to at least take a peek
at those questions which highlight the logical inconsistencies in your
kooky claims... it is painful for you, I'm sure, but do try...

============================================================

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
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.

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 so 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 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]

#562895

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:37:45 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that 
NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent 
heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud 
formation? 

Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?" 

It is quite apparent, James, that you have no clue how energy is 
absorbed and released by atoms. 

I'll take that as a "no." 

No, James, you have no fucking clue... 

Apparently you don't either. 

Not true, James. 

Is it a secret?

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

#562998

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:6aa853db-6314-470f-ba92-3d4a818e1d9f@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:37:45 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that 
> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent 
> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud 
> formation? 
> 
> Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?" 

James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is *so* retarded he not only
doesn't know that when water condenses it gives off a specific band of
wavelength photons, but he apparently cannot Google for it... that's
likely a combination of his being retarded and so afflicted with
Dunning-Kruger that he doesn't dare use Google to search for any
information for fear he'll find proof of his delusional state, thereby
inducing his head to implode.. Lord knows, that black hole Jim calls a
brain is already stressing his cranium to its structural limits.

<snicker>

>>>>>> It is quite apparent, James, that you have no clue how energy is 
>>>>>> absorbed and released by atoms. 

>>>>> I'll take that as a "no." 

>>>> No, James, you have no fucking clue... I'd told you to study on
>>>> photons, as that is the key... or did you not realize that latent heat
>>>> of condensation in water has a specific band of photon wavelengths
>>>> emitted?
>>>> 
>>>> Which not only proves that latent heat of condensation exists (and
>>>> thus latent heat of evaporation *must* exist), it also proves gaseous
>>>> phase monomer water is being evaporated, and it proves you're an
>>>> insane moron who is so uneducated you can't even fathom how the world
>>>> works.
>>>> 
>>>> Hence your kooky theory, which has been proven wrong via more than a
>>>> half-dozen different avenues.
>>>> 
>>>> It's sad that you've been driven so insane that you're now denying the
>>>> Laws of Thermodynamics, James. It's sad that you've been driven so
>>>> insane that rather than admit you're wrong, you're going to sue
>>>> *science*. But it sure is entertaining watching you spiral down into
>>>> psychosis.
>>>> 
>>>> <snicker>

>>> Apparently you don't either. 

>> Not true, James. Whereas you've relied upon fairy tale hypotheticals
>> and suppositions pulled straight from your ass to concoct your wholly
>> impossible "theory", I'm drawing my knowledge from more than 250 years
>> of careful and rigorous scientific research, from thousands upon
>> thousands of peer-reviewed papers, from actual scientists and
>> physicists, thousands upon thousands of them, each and every one of
>> them far smarter and saner than you, James.
>> 
>> Whereas I have provided links to corroboration of what I wrote, and
>> explained in detail the underlying mechanisms of what I wrote, you
>> have provided no details, explained nothing, hand-waved away the fact
>> that your kooky "theory" has giant gaping inconsistencies, and run
>> away from performing an experiment which would either prove you 100%
>> right, thereby overturning nearly all of established science and
>> physics... or prove you 100% wrong.
>> 
>> And anyone with even a high school education knows you'll prove
>> yourself 100% wrong, Jim. That you don't know that, but that you know
>> the entire rest of the world *does* know that, is the fear that grips
>> you, James, the fear which prevents you from performing that
>> experiment and thereby disproving the outrageous claims you've made,
>> which fly in the face of 250+ years of established science.
>> 
>> Instead, you've waffled, hemmed, hawed, backpedaled, hand-waved,
>> denied large swaths of reality, dismissed proof that you're a
>> delusional kooktard and are working furiously on a kooksoot.
>> 
>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is going to sue *science*.
>> All of it. He's *that* fucking delusional. LOL

> Is it a secret?

No, James. It is, in fact, an underlying fundamental of quantum
physics. You know, that large swath of reality that you deny because
you're an uneducated oaf.

It's called phase transition radiation, formally known as Infrared
Characteristic Radiation During First Order Phase Transition, James.
Satellites measure it to determine cloud formation and the associated
energy transfer, and it can be used to determine where hailstones are
forming and hence where tornadic activity is likely.

<http://www.ipme.ru/e-journals/RAMS/no_12009/tatartchenko.pdf#page=6>

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273987462_Phase-Change_Radiation_Enhanced_Infrared_Absorption_in_Vapor-Liquid_Water_Mixtures>

<http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1819226>

<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610212001695>

<https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/31033/Wu_Wei-Hsuan.pdf>

<https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/29706/Wang_Kuo-Ting.pdf>
============================================================
Nichols and Lamar in 1968 compared the infrared view of forming /
dissipating cumulus clouds to the photograph of the same clouds and
found that strong infrared radiation in the spectral range of 8-14
microns was emitted from unknown sources at the bottom sides of the
clouds.
============================================================

Now before you start bleating, James, the source was unknown in
1968... today it is fully explained and understood.

Now, before you run away again, James, do try to at least take a peek
at those questions which highlight the logical inconsistencies in your
kooky claims... it is painful for you, I'm sure, but do try... we all 
know you can't address them, that'd make your poor head implode, but 
do try to at least look at and consider them...

============================================================
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]

#563001

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:45:53 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:6aa853db-6314-470f-ba92-3d4a818e1d9f@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:37:45 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> > James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that 
> > NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent 
> > heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud 
> > formation? 
> > 
> > Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?" 
> 
> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is *so* retarded he not only
> doesn't know that when water condenses it gives off a specific band of
> wavelength photons, 

Do you concede you were unable to confirm the 2,500,000 J/kg?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

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

#563007

On 3/16/2016 11:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:45:53 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:6aa853db-6314-470f-ba92-3d4a818e1d9f@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:37:45 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that
>>> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent
>>> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud
>>> formation?

>>> Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?"
>>
>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is *so* retarded he not only
>> doesn't know that when water condenses it gives off a specific band of
>> wavelength photons,
>
> Do you concede you were unable to confirm the 2,500,000 J/kg?
>
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
>

why cant YOU confirm it, James ?  or calculate a number ?

babe lost in the woods ?

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

#563015

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in 
<news:e38453cf-c113-47cb-a243-8b2906fdc188@googlegroups.com> did 
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:45:53 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:6aa853db-6314-470f-ba92-3d4a818e1d9f@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:37:45 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that 
>>> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent 
>>> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud 
>>> formation? 
>>> 
>>> Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?" 

>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is *so* retarded he not only
>> doesn't know that when water condenses it gives off a specific band of
>> wavelength photons, but he apparently cannot Google for it... that's
>> likely a combination of his being retarded and so afflicted with
>> Dunning-Kruger that he doesn't dare use Google to search for any
>> information for fear he'll find proof of his delusional state, thereby
>> inducing his head to implode.. Lord knows, that black hole Jim calls a
>> brain is already stressing his cranium to its structural limits.
>> 
>> <snicker>

> Do you concede you were unable to confirm the 2,500,000 J/kg?
> 
> A simple yes or no will suffice.

*You* made the claim that latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist, 
James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA... the onus is upon you and 
you alone to prove your claim.

Do you concede that you were unable to disprove the 2,500,000 J/kg 
value, James?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

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?

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so 
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the 
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius 
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the 
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent 
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the 
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you 
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = 
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is 
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original 
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't 
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend 
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's 
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant 
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral 
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry 
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an 
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor 
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general 
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of 
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is 
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was 
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative 
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects 
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is 
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive 
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the 
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby 
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, 
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes 
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon 
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there 
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in 
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of 
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could 
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, 
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature 
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and 
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody 
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow 
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming 
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of 
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron 
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain 
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien 
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron 
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the 
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed 
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven 
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of 
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral 
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how 
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; 
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", 
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on 
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead 
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that 
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared 
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate 
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a 
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second 
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same 
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that 
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three 
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a 
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's 
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that 
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

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

#563017

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:48:35 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in 
> <news:e38453cf-c113-47cb-a243-8b2906fdc188@googlegroups.com> did 
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:45:53 PM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >> James McGinn, in
> >> <news:6aa853db-6314-470f-ba92-3d4a818e1d9f@googlegroups.com> did
> >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> >>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:37:45 AM UTC-7,
> >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >>> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that 
> >>> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent 
> >>> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud 
> >>> formation? 
> >>> 
> >>> Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?" 
> 
> >> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is *so* retarded he not only
> >> doesn't know that when water condenses it gives off a specific band of
> >> wavelength photons, but he apparently cannot Google for it... that's
> >> likely a combination of his being retarded and so afflicted with
> >> Dunning-Kruger that he doesn't dare use Google to search for any
> >> information for fear he'll find proof of his delusional state, thereby
> >> inducing his head to implode.. Lord knows, that black hole Jim calls a
> >> brain is already stressing his cranium to its structural limits.
> >> 
> >> <snicker>
> 
> > Do you concede you were unable to confirm the 2,500,000 J/kg?
> > 
> > A simple yes or no will suffice.
> 
> *You* made the claim

I'll take that as a yes.

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

#563115

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:dfcca7c9-892f-42f3-9f8a-a8001fcf139d@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:48:35 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in 
>> <news:e38453cf-c113-47cb-a243-8b2906fdc188@googlegroups.com> did 
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:45:53 PM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> James McGinn, in
>>>> <news:6aa853db-6314-470f-ba92-3d4a818e1d9f@googlegroups.com> did
>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:37:45 AM UTC-7,
>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that 
>>>>> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent 
>>>>> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud 
>>>>> formation? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?" 

>>>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is *so* retarded he not only
>>>> doesn't know that when water condenses it gives off a specific band of
>>>> wavelength photons, but he apparently cannot Google for it... that's
>>>> likely a combination of his being retarded and so afflicted with
>>>> Dunning-Kruger that he doesn't dare use Google to search for any
>>>> information for fear he'll find proof of his delusional state, thereby
>>>> inducing his head to implode.. Lord knows, that black hole Jim calls a
>>>> brain is already stressing his cranium to its structural limits.
>>>> 
>>>> <snicker>

>>> Do you concede you were unable to confirm the 2,500,000 J/kg?
>>> 
>>> A simple yes or no will suffice.

>> *You* made the claim that latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist, 
>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA... the onus is upon you and 
>> you alone to prove your claim.
>> 
>> Do you concede that you were unable to disprove the 2,500,000 J/kg 
>> value, James?
>> 
>> A simple yes or no will suffice.

> I'll take that as a yes.

Good of you to concede that you were unable to disprove that latent
heat exists, James. Your admission means the destruction of your
entire kooky 'theory'.

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?

-- 

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]

#562833

On 3/15/2016 11:50 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:15:35 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>>>> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that
>>>> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent
>>>> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud
>>>> formation?
>>
>>> Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?"
>>
>> It is quite apparent, James, that you have no clue how energy is
>> absorbed and released by atoms.
>
> I'll take that as a "no."
>

there is no need to explain latent heat you James,
you do not have the capacity, nor the training to be able to understand it.

If you did, you could find out all the information yourself, do you own 
experiments and verify the heat capacity of latent heat, and convince 
yourself.

but you don't, and you won't, and you can't.

Keep thinking outside the box, that is where you are, and you have  yet 
to show any data, experiments, math, urls that make any of your 
imaginatory ideas even close to reality.

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

#562037

On 3/12/2016 9:51 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:12:59 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
> Sergio:
> BS, you don't know scientific method, and you
> hate the truth, you "think outside the box"
>
> James McGinn:
> I don't think I'm different because I think
> outside of the box.

re-read that sentence.

You are thinking outside the box, and you are thinking differently. This 
is called the Citizen Toxie effect, he was always outside the box and 
thinking differently, became a hero and they made a movie after him.

>
> You believe moist air contains cold steam, making
> it 1% lighter than dry air.

you mind reader ?
where did you get 1% lighter ?
did you pullith suchith number outta yer plasma ?


> And, as it convects
> up it condenses, releasing latent heat.

so you are ringing out your air, and you say it releases heat ?
got any evidence? or are you just making stuff up ?

> And even
> though this latent heat has never actually been
> detected,

Wrong. it is measured all the time.
you have latent Brain.


> this is what you believe powers all
> storms and all atmospheric flow, including the jet
> streams.

na, magical plasma mystically magically doo's it.


you are projecting again, so I fix...

> Do I actually believe this?  Your going to give
> me the benefit of the doubt and just asssume that,
> like most everybody else, I never actually gave
> it any thought.
>




 >I'm not different because I think outside the box.
you redefine standard words into some airy-fairy fluff+puff stuff, you 
way outta the box, off this planet for sure.

 >I'm different because I think.

You think that you think, but you thinking munge up things you think you 
know, but dont into a mush of disconnected imagination whorlies with 
cogs missing, airy-fairy non-funny and poop it into newsgroups, videos, 
and books.

Have you had any good reviews on anything ?

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

#562378

   Unfortunately, you don't even understand what's in the box.  :-o



-- 

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

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

#562879

Dne neděle 13. března 2016 4:51:17 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
> 
> James McGinn:

> I'm not different because I think outside the box.  
> I'm different because I think.

You are different because 
you think out of the box of evidences as set of initial and feedback points,
and your hypothesis are air castles without basements. 

And you do not care about it. 
If anybody points it out, you switch to calling names, 
instead of verifying foundations of your hypothesis.

You, not the others, should be the worst enemy of your hypotheses.

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

#562970 — a\the box

the elementary box is a tetrahedron;
find an inequality on the edges of a tetrahedron e.g

> you think out of the box of evidences as set of initial and feedback points,
> and your hypothesis are air castles without basements. 
> 
> And you do not care about it. 
> If anybody points it out, you switch to calling names, 
> instead of verifying foundations of your hypothesis.
> 
> You, not the others, should be the worst enemy of your hypotheses.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web