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

Groups > sci.physics > #556748 > unrolled thread

the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience

Started byJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
First post2016-02-25 18:16 -0800
Last post2016-02-26 12:09 -0800
Articles 8 on this page of 28 — 7 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:16 -0800
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:33 -0600
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 23:53 -0800
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:29 -0600
          Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 09:50 -0800
            Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:44 -0600
              Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:01 -0800
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 13:07 -0600
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:11 -0600
                  Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:15 -0800
                    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:25 -0600
                      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 19:33 +0000
                      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:48 -0800
                        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:03 -0600
                          Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 20:39 +0000
                        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:27 -0600
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:45 -0800
          Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:57 -0500
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:43 -0800
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 12:52 -0600
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 21:15 -0600
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:59 -0800
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:04 -0600
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:06 +0000
          Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:27 -0800
            Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:40 +0000
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 03:13 +0000
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:09 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#556761

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-02-25 21:15 -0600
Message-ID<naog11$1oo5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#556748
On 2/25/2016 8:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>

>
> The convection model is vague.  The observation that warm,
> moist air stays along the surface and does not constantly rush up
> through the cool, dry air above IS evidence.

that is a lie.



I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is
completely dry.  there was no wet spot under the shirt at all.

how did the water get out ?

No "smoke" came off it at all.

did my shirt out-gas ?  did the water come out as a gas ?

water gas ?  Water Vapor ?  Humidity ?


so How can that happen when you say there is no such thing on earth ?

a counter example you refuse to answer ?

did you make a mistake ?

It blows a HUGE hole in you.

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

#557050

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-26 14:59 -0800
Message-ID<6eea65ae-c8b6-403f-a9c7-a64a5c59bf47@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#556761
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:15:50 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 2/25/2016 8:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:

> > The convection model is vague.  The observation that warm,
> > moist air stays along the surface and does not constantly rush up
> > through the cool, dry air above IS evidence.
> 
> that is a lie.

Where is your argument, shirt boy?

This simple observation refutes the convection model.

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

#557058

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-26 17:04 -0600
Message-ID<n8udnVYVceN-RE3LnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#557050
On 2/26/16 4:59 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> This simple observation refutes the convection model.


   Observation show that convection is a major player in weather
   phenomena.

   Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
   gas. There is nothing to see.

 > Water vapour (H2O molecules)

 > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
 > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
 > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
 > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
 > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
 > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
 > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
 > lead to clouds.




-- 

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]

#557068

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-02-26 23:06 +0000
Message-ID<hd27qc-qka.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#557050
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:15:50 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 2/25/2016 8:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> > The convection model is vague.  The observation that warm,
>> > moist air stays along the surface and does not constantly rush up
>> > through the cool, dry air above IS evidence.
>> 
>> that is a lie.
> 
> Where is your argument, shirt boy?
> 
> This simple observation refutes the convection model.

What simple observation?

Do you mean the one with Schlieren imaging where one can see convection
in real time showing warm air goes up and cold air goes down?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557074

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-26 15:27 -0800
Message-ID<074beccd-656d-4bf0-9359-77cbe363a708@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#557068
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:15:50 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 2/25/2016 8:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > 
> >> > The convection model is vague.  The observation that warm,
> >> > moist air stays along the surface and does not constantly rush up
> >> > through the cool, dry air above IS evidence.
> >> 
> >> that is a lie.
> > 
> > Where is your argument, shirt boy?
> > 
> > This simple observation refutes the convection model.
> 
> What simple observation?
> 
> Do you mean the one with Schlieren imaging where one can see convection
> in real time showing warm air goes up and cold air goes down?

Even if convection is true you can't see it, dumbass.  Seeing air move doesn't tell you why, you simpleton.

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

#557082

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-02-26 23:40 +0000
Message-ID<tc47qc-3sa.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#557074
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:15:50 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> >> On 2/25/2016 8:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> > 
>> >> > The convection model is vague.  The observation that warm,
>> >> > moist air stays along the surface and does not constantly rush up
>> >> > through the cool, dry air above IS evidence.
>> >> 
>> >> that is a lie.
>> > 
>> > Where is your argument, shirt boy?
>> > 
>> > This simple observation refutes the convection model.
>> 
>> What simple observation?
>> 
>> Do you mean the one with Schlieren imaging where one can see convection
>> in real time showing warm air goes up and cold air goes down?
> 
> Even if convection is true you can't see it, dumbass.  Seeing air move
> doesn't tell you why, you simpleton.

Schlieren imaging allows one to watch convection occur in real time.

Schlieren imaging makes it all blazingly obvious, even to little kids.

And it is easy enough to do that kids do it for science fairs.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556767

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-02-26 03:13 +0000
Message-ID<ngs4qc-pc3.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#556748
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> You talk like an engineer, not a scientist. For a scientific notion to be

Who are you talking to and when are you going to learn how to format a
line of text to no more than 78 characters?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556972

FromnoTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-26 12:09 -0800
Message-ID<45404ed7-6b24-4a63-8de9-dc636e23e45a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#556767
twice 39; cOOl

> line of text to no more than 78 characters?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web