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

Groups > sci.physics > #565765 > unrolled thread

The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 10:06 -0700
    Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-27 06:34 +0200
      Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 22:35 -0700
        Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-27 18:24 +0200
          Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 10:08 -0700
            the fOAh noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 13:43 -0700
            Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 08:19 +0200
              Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 23:42 -0700
                Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 18:43 +0200
                  Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 10:23 -0700
                    Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:30 +0200
          Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-27 18:14 -0500
            Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 16:23 -0700
              plus nineteen noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 19:40 -0700
            Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 07:07 +0200
              Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 08:13 -0700
                Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 18:12 +0200
                  Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 10:21 -0700
                    Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 10:50 -0700
                    Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:14 +0200
                      Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 23:00 -0700
                        Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 19:21 +0200
                          Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-29 14:22 -0600
                            Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-29 18:13 -0700
                              Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 18:32 -0700
                  Re: The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-28 13:16 -0600
                Snell's laW etc. ad vomitorium noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 10:16 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#565765 — The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/30/how-plasma-connects-the-sun-to-the-climate/ 

It's recently been recognised that the atmosphere below the ionosphere is also a weak plasma due to the ionisation caused primarily by cosmic rays. So it's plasma all the way down! The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun; even the air we breathe is all part of the same system. 


http://www.sis-group.org.uk/event/2015-04-25/2015-spring-meeting-agm.htm 

Bob discusses the variability of the Sun and stars of a similar type. He looks at the Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Coupling mechanism by which events on the Sun directly influence the Earth's magnetopause, ionosphere and lower atmosphere. 

Text and slides available to read here.    High quality version here. 

Also viewable on Youtube, under the title "Our Variable Sun and Climate Change". 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#565848

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:a58847f3-02bf-4319-879a-80f8d697b5fc@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/30/how-plasma-connects-the-sun-to-the-climate/ 
> 
> It's recently been recognised that the atmosphere below the ionosphere is also a weak plasma due to the ionisation caused primarily by cosmic rays. So it's plasma all the way down! The weather regions are directly connected to the Sun; even the air we breathe is all part of the same system. 
> 
> http://www.sis-group.org.uk/event/2015-04-25/2015-spring-meeting-agm.htm 
> 
> Bob discusses the variability of the Sun and stars of a similar type. He looks at the Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Coupling mechanism by which events on the Sun directly influence the Earth's magnetopause, ionosphere and lower atmosphere. 
> 
> Text and slides available to read here.    High quality version here. 
> 
> Also viewable on Youtube, under the title "Our Variable Sun and Climate Change".

Bwaahahaaa! James 'Tardnado' McGinn believes, truly believes, the
nitwittery spewed at the sis-group.org.uk site.

TornadoTard is the anti-science nitwit who thinks the jet stream and
tornadoes are the same thing, and in fact thinks the jet stream
burrows down through the atmosphere to form tornadoes. His "giant
sentient tornado monster in the jet stream with noodly appendages
which it stretches thousands of miles through the troposphere to touch
down tornadoes" somehow continues to evade detection, though. LOL

Tardnado is the moronic kooktard who's fabricated an impossible
"plasma not-a-plasma" that cannot exist because water won't plasmize
unless hit with extremely energetic lasers because its nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus
water preferentially dissociates into hydrogen and oxygen. And he's
retracted the central premise of his "theory not-a-theory", upon which
his "plasma not-a-plasma" was predicated. LOL

Jimbo the Dumbo is the dimwitted nong who believes there exists in the
troposphere an energy source so energetic it can plasmize all the
water in the troposphere, yet it somehow magically doesn't dissociate
or plasmize all water on the planet (and kill all life). LOL

Tardnado is the braindead idiot who believes warmer air is heavier
than cooler air, but can't provide any math or research to back up his
moronity. LOL

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. is the uneducated shortbus window licker
who cannot grasp molar volume and molar mass, and thus believes water
vapor is heavier than air, and thus that air with water vapor in it is
heavier than dry air. LOL

TornadoTard Jim is the crayon-eating kook who dismisses 250+ years of
empirical experimental evidence proving he's delusional, yet won't do
a few simple experiments which will most definitely null his kooky
claims. LOL

Tardnado is the kooktard who can't get his fantastical fairy tale
claims through the peer-review process, and in fact can't even get his
kooky rambling writings on a pre-print server, and in fact, his "book"
reviews include such gems as "insane rambling", "waste of time",
"makes no physical sense", "Totally without merit.", "This book
misleads the reader", "offers a silly idea that confuses metaphors
with reality". LOL

Juuuuuuhhhhhames is the moron who has to "publish" his "discoveries
not-discoveries", which are nothing more than suppositions built upon
suppositions pulled straight from his ass, on a website that
specializes in topics such as:

"The Expanding Earth" - Earth expands, plate tectonics doesn't exist

"The Place of Reason in Botanical Life" - Genetic mutation doesn't
account for evolutionary change, plants have consciousness!

"Genetic Memory" - Evolution doesn't exist, reproductive systems have
their own consciousness and can intelligently change the offspring.

"An Alternative To Plate Tectonics" - Earth is hollow!

Yeah, this is the level of "science" that James McGinn's kooky claims
rise to. LOL

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
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?

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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#565865

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:45:04 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

Nutcase Dude:
You should stop evading the fact that you've killed your moronic 
"theory not-a-theory", James. 

James McGinn:
I tried to kill it, and failed.  And, apparently, you did too. 

Be sure to let us know if you ever come up with an explanation for how convections and/or latent heat, somehow, pushes jet streams into existence.  I'm sure that, if nothing else, your explanation will be the source of some amusement.

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

#565935

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:852c9e4a-5e5a-4c9f-ab6d-8f15fe99b92f@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:45:04 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> Nutcase Dude:
> You should stop evading the fact that you've killed your moronic 
> "theory not-a-theory", James. 
> 
> James McGinn:
> I tried to kill it, and failed.  And, apparently, you did too. 
> 
> Be sure to let us know if you ever come up with an explanation for how convections and/or latent heat, somehow, pushes jet streams into existence.  I'm sure that, if nothing else, your explanation will be the source of some amusement.

Density differential, James. Be sure to let us know when you come up
with an explanation for how your sentient tornado monster in the jet
stream dances around on your "structures and barriers" created by your
"plasma not-a-plasma" so it can huff and puff to create the winds...
when it's not extending its noodly appendages thousand of miles
through the troposphere to touch down tornadoes, while somehow
magically evading all detection. LOL

Especially considering that you've retracted the central premise of
your "theory not-a-theory", thus destroying it.

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

Thanks for playing, but you lose.

That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

You pathetic off-meds moron. You're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn,
Jr., that halfwit who failed out of a Basic Meteorology class, who
denies heat rises because of convection, who can't explain why hot air
balloons work, who denies the empirical evidence that he's delusional
despite it constantly slapping his stupid face. LOL

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
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?

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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#565944

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 9:34:46 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:852c9e4a-5e5a-4c9f-ab6d-8f15fe99b92f@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:45:04 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > 
> > Nutcase Dude:
> > You should stop evading the fact that you've killed your moronic 
> > "theory not-a-theory", James. 
> > 
> > James McGinn:
> > I tried to kill it, and failed.  And, apparently, you did too. 
> > 
> > Be sure to let us know if you ever come up with an explanation for how convections and/or latent heat, somehow, pushes jet streams into existence.  I'm sure that, if nothing else, your explanation will be the source of some amusement.
> 
> Density differential, James. 

As I predicted, your explanation is laughable.

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

#565979 — the fOAh

teh southern polar vortex is the father of all hurricanes;
it is anticyclonic

> > Density differential, James. 
> 
> As I predicted, your explanation is laughable.

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

#566104

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:498637f3-fbf8-46a7-b354-2f385d1552b2@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 9:34:46 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:852c9e4a-5e5a-4c9f-ab6d-8f15fe99b92f@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:45:04 PM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> You should stop evading the fact that you've killed your moronic 
>>>> "theory not-a-theory", James. 

>>> I tried to kill it, and failed.  And, apparently, you did too. 
>>> 
>>> Be sure to let us know if you ever come up with an explanation for how convections and/or latent heat, somehow, pushes jet streams into existence.  I'm sure that, if nothing else, your explanation will be the source of some amusement.

>> Density differential, James. Be sure to let us know when you come up
>> with an explanation for how your sentient tornado monster in the jet
>> stream dances around on your "structures and barriers" created by your
>> "plasma not-a-plasma" so it can huff and puff to create the winds...
>> when it's not extending its noodly appendages thousand of miles
>> through the troposphere to touch down tornadoes, while somehow
>> magically evading all detection. LOL

> As I predicted, your explanation is laughable.

As I've proven, your explanation is nonexistent, the mad ranting of a
badly broken brain, not backed up empirically or mathematically,
whereas I've got a veritable mountain of scientific proof to back up
my explanation.

Remember, James, you were stupid enough to let yourself get trapped by
your own illogic, and in attempting to evade your having been proven
wrong, you stupidly publicly retracted the main premise of your
"theory not-a-theory", and thus your entire fabrication came crashing
down around you.

I did that to you, James. I predicted it'd happen, then I made it
happen. You're far too stupid, uneducated and insane to even
understand or acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it.

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

Thanks for playing, but you lose.

That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
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?

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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#566106

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 11:30:06 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > As I predicted, your explanation is laughable.
> 
> As I've proven, your explanation is nonexistent, the mad ranting of a
> badly broken brain, not backed up empirically or mathematically,
> whereas I've got a veritable mountain of scientific proof to back up
> my explanation.

I guess that explains why you are so calm and rational.

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

#566180

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

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:170b5f10-7d6a-4bc8-8c62-cb7d8c40ce61@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 11:30:06 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> As I predicted, your explanation is laughable.

>> As I've proven, your explanation is nonexistent, the mad ranting of a
>> badly broken brain, not backed up empirically or mathematically,
>> whereas I've got a veritable mountain of scientific proof to back up
>> my explanation.

> I guess that explains why you are so calm and rational.

Exactly so, Tardnado McGinn. Whereas I'm providing irrefutable
scientific proof that you're a moronic uneducated ignorant lying
loser, you're now constantly on the defensive, yet without a defense
of your "theory not-a-theory". All you can do is backpedal away via
diversion and non sequitur, because you can't prove even one of your
delusional claims.

So as you sit there in your mommy's basement, blathering on about how
"smart" you are as you're proven wrong on every single thing you've
ever blathered, you're being proven to be an insane reality-rejecting
ignorant lying fraud.

That's reality, Jim. _Deal_ _with_ _it_.

Tardnado.

<snicker>

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
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?

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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#566203

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:53:50 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >> As I've proven, your explanation is nonexistent, the mad ranting of a
> >> badly broken brain, not backed up empirically or mathematically,
> >> whereas I've got a veritable mountain of scientific proof to back up
> >> my explanation.
> 
> > I guess that explains why you are so calm and rational.
> 
> Exactly so, 

Yeah, you don't seem desperate at all.

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

#566413

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:1beb2e43-3042-47fa-a1ba-4cda19c59299@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:53:50 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> As I've proven, your explanation is nonexistent, the mad ranting of a
>>>> badly broken brain, not backed up empirically or mathematically,
>>>> whereas I've got a veritable mountain of scientific proof to back up
>>>> my explanation.

>>> I guess that explains why you are so calm and rational.

>> Exactly so, Tardnado McGinn. Whereas I'm providing irrefutable
>> scientific proof that you're a moronic uneducated ignorant lying
>> loser, you're now constantly on the defensive, yet without a defense
>> of your "theory not-a-theory". All you can do is backpedal away via
>> diversion and non sequitur, because you can't prove even one of your
>> delusional claims.
>> 
>> So as you sit there in your mommy's basement, blathering on about how
>> "smart" you are as you're proven wrong on every single thing you've
>> ever blathered, you're being proven to be an insane reality-rejecting
>> ignorant lying fraud.
>> 
>> That's reality, Jim. _Deal_ _with_ _it_.
>> 
>> Tardnado.
>> 
>> <snicker>

> Yeah, you don't seem desperate at all.

Your sanity is cracking under the weight of all those unanswered
questions, James. I told you, the longer you run from reality, the
worse it'll get for you... and we've only just begun.

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.

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 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 are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, 
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?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?

Why are you *still* running away from answering those tough questions 
in my .sig which highlight the logical inconsistencies and 
contradictions in your moronic "theory not-a-theory", James?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
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?

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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#566016

On 3/27/2016 11:24 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:852c9e4a-5e5a-4c9f-ab6d-8f15fe99b92f@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:45:04 PM UTC-7, Friendly
>> Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>
>> Nutcase Dude: You should stop evading the fact that you've killed
>> your moronic "theory not-a-theory", James.
>>
>> James McGinn: I tried to kill it, and failed.  And, apparently, you
>> did too.
>>
>> Be sure to let us know if you ever come up with an explanation for
>> how convections and/or latent heat, somehow, pushes jet streams
>> into existence.  I'm sure that, if nothing else, your explanation
>> will be the source of some amusement.
>
> Density differential, James.

James does not understand density, or the concept of density, nor most
other physics, weather, chemistry, or metorology.


> Be sure to let us know when you come up with an explanation for how
> your sentient tornado monster in the jet stream dances around on your
> "structures and barriers" created by your "plasma not-a-plasma"

James McGinn's BREAKTHROUGH IDEA "plasma not-a-plasma", is attempting to
fix the "retard not-a-retard" label he has on his forehead.



> ========================================================
>> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's Atmosphere I
>> describe how the spinning of water droplets/clusters--a direct
>> result of wind shear--causes these droplets to elongate into chains
>> of partially reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
>> structural integrity. It is important to note that

that James McGinn is under the care of Dr. Smoke-um Dope-um at the time
of his writings.

the Dr also sells:

	reactivated H2O molecules, singles or batch
	water plasma not-a-plasma
	spinning water droplets/cluster bars


<snip and time to finish with re-Tardnado>

>
> Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
> (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
> your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim,
> your "boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma
> not-a-plasma" forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory
> not-a-theory" just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens
> when you build your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies
> and suppositions, James.

> Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
> patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
> You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
> understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
>
> Thanks for playing, but you lose.
>
> That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

> You pathetic off-meds moron. You're James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn,
> Jr., that halfwit who failed out of a Basic Meteorology class, who
> denies heat rises because of convection, who can't explain why hot
> air balloons work, who denies the empirical evidence that he's
> delusional despite it constantly slapping his stupid face. LOL
>

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

#566018

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:14:30 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:

> James does not understand density, or the concept of density, nor most
> other physics, weather, chemistry, or metorology.

LOL.  Really?  That is your argument?  

So, you see it as your role to come on to newsgroups to inform the
world that you suspect people don't understand certain basic concepts?

Well, at least now I understand what you are here for because up until 
now I couldn't figure it out.

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

#566050 — plus nineteen

HOH is ... different from air, but
it has a partial pressure at nineteen deegrees centigrade
(if that is rOOm t., cOOl

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

#566082

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

Sergio, in <news:nd9pgf$ift$2@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:

> James McGinn's BREAKTHROUGH IDEA "plasma not-a-plasma", is attempting to
> fix the "retard not-a-retard" label he has on his forehead.

Thus far, Tardnado McGinn has only succeeded in scribbling over the
"not-a-retard" part of that label, much to his consternation. LOL

He's run from doing three simple experiments that even a fourth-grader
could do, and which would definitively disprove his entire "theory
not-a-theory", because he knows that'd trigger his having to pay me
the $100,000 from his challenge, and I'd end up suing his parents for
the money, given that he's a ward of his mommy and daddy because he's
too mentally incapacitated to live independently.

Perhaps someone should contact James Sr. and Constance and have them
revoke Tardnado Jim's internet privileges until he starts taking his
meds again.

<snicker>

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
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?

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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#566156

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:17:52 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> He's run from doing three simple experiments that even a fourth-grader
> could do, and which would definitively disprove his entire "theory
> not-a-theory", because he knows that'd trigger his having to pay me
> the $100,000 from his challenge, 

So, let me get this straight, you are aware of three experiments any one of which will win you the money but instead doing the experiments yourself you are going to try to insult the person offering the reward.


Did I get this right?

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

#566169

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:6592a424-195f-483e-b270-0c72b6c649d3@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:17:52 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> He's run from doing three simple experiments that even a fourth-grader
>> could do, and which would definitively disprove his entire "theory
>> not-a-theory", because he knows that'd trigger his having to pay me
>> the $100,000 from his challenge, 

> So, let me get this straight, you are aware of three experiments any
> one of which will win you the money but instead doing the experiments
> yourself you are going to try to insult the person offering the reward.
> 
> Did I get this right?

No, James. You're supposed to do the experiment. I know that if I do
the experiment, you'll dismiss the findings as flawed, so you'll do
the hard work to disprove your moronity. Not as though it needs any
further disproving than your having retracted the main premise as you
squirmed to escape being proven wrong yet again.

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

Thanks for playing, but you lose.

That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
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?

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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

#566202

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:22:50 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> No, James. You're supposed to do the experiment. 

You mean the experiment that has already been done tens of thousands of times the details of which you refuse to present/discuss?

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

#566219

partial pressure is an easy calculation, although
I've ne'er done that

> You mean the experiment that has already been done tens of thousands of times the details of which you refuse to present/discuss?

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

#566409

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:c0d3d2c5-014b-4c72-a693-45f3b5b62805@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:22:50 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> No, James. You're supposed to do the experiment. I know that if I do
>> the experiment, you'll dismiss the findings as flawed, so you'll do
>> the hard work to disprove your moronity. Not as though it needs any
>> further disproving than your having retracted the main premise as you
>> squirmed to escape being proven wrong yet again.
>> 
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
>> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
>> ========================================================
>> > Retracted:
>> > Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
>> > the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
>> > bonds with adjoining water molecules.
>> ========================================================
>> 
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
>> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
>> ========================================================
>> > In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
>> > Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
>> > droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
>> > these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
>> > reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
>> > structural integrity. It is important to note that
>> > without the concept that is the subject of this post
>> > (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
>> > Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
>> > would not be possible.
>> ========================================================
>> 
>> Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
>> (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
>> your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
>> "boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
>> forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
>> just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
>> your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
>> suppositions, James.
>> 
>> Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
>> patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
>> You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
>> understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
>> 
>> Thanks for playing, but you lose.
>> 
>> That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

> You mean the experiment that has already been done tens of thousands
> of times the details of which you refuse to present/discuss?

Oh, but I have presented the results of those experiments, James. I
even did that math for you. You rejected it all because you reject all
of reality.

Thus, the only proof you'll apparently accept is from yourself. So you
cannot run from doing those simple experiments. To do so means your
tacit admission that you know you're wrong, and that you're too
cowardly to admit it. Because everyone including you knows the
experiments will null your moronic blather.

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.

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 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 are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, 
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?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?

Why are you *still* running away from answering those tough questions 
in my .sig which highlight the logical inconsistencies and 
contradictions in your moronic "theory not-a-theory", James?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
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?

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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web