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

Groups > sci.physics > #580255 > unrolled thread

Re: Let's start with latent heat

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Let's start with latent heat James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 19:42 -0700
    Re: Let's start with latent heat "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-05-25 07:00 +0200
      Re: Let's start with latent heat "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-10 10:54 +0200
        Re: Let's start with latent heat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-11 00:19 +0000
          Re: Let's start with latent heat "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-11 07:29 +0200
          Re: Let's start with latent heat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-11 05:33 -0400
            Re: Let's start with latent heat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-11 20:53 +0000
              Re: Let's start with latent heat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-12 05:22 -0400
                Re: Let's start with latent heat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-12 20:20 +0000
                  Re: Let's start with latent heat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-13 13:55 -0400
                    Re: Let's start with latent heat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-13 21:52 +0000
                      Re: Let's start with latent heat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-14 13:36 -0400
                        Re: Let's start with latent heat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-15 00:25 +0000
                          Re: Let's start with latent heat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-15 14:46 -0400
                            Re: Let's start with latent heat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-15 21:21 +0000
        Re: Let's start with latent heat "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-11 07:34 +0200
          Re: Let's start with latent heat noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 14:09 -0700
            huygrometers in motion noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:41 -0700

#580255 — Re: Let's start with latent heat

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 7:05:38 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> NOY (Nutcase Dude): 
> I'm equally able to converse on para- and ortho-form water (the scientific 
> reality that water comprises two spin isomers and thus two hydrogen bonding 
> strengths, as empirically measured) and the existence of latent heat. 
> 
> James McGinn: 
> Excellent.  Let's start with latent heat: 
> 
> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39375 
> 
> James McGinn says: 
> 14th March 2016 at 5:06 am 
> 
> NOY (Nutcase Dude): 
> It was answered, Jim. You're backpedaling. . . . 
> 
> James McGinn: 
> Hmm. Well. I guess we're at an impasse then. Because unless we can explicate 
> the reproducible experimental evidence that underlies these numbers (below) I 
> don't see the point in continuing the conversation. 
> 
> Latent Heat Values (-25 to 40 C): 
> ================================= 
> Evaporation: -597.3 cal/g, -2,500,000 J/kg 
> Condensation: +597.3 cal/g, +2,500,000 J/kg 
> 
> But I'll tell you what. If it will make you feel any better I will allow you 
> make a retraction. 
> 
> Even better. I know how embarrassing it must be to have to make a retraction in 
> a public forum, so all you have to do is just not respond to this post and I 
> will consider you to have made a defacto retraction. 
> 
> Fair enough? 
> 
> So, all you have to do is not respond. 
> 
> 
Don't do it! 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> James McGinn 
> Solving Tornadoes 
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/rMriJSuEVow/fUp31NpmBQAJ

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#580290

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:613b1e93-443c-4640-929f-a8ac29b9e45a@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Aww, look at poor stupid Jimmy McGinn the delusional kooktard
post-editing, cowardly snipping and squirming like a worm on a
hotplate because he knows that simple experiment will null his entire
kooky 'theory'. LOL

You've set quite a task for yourself, Jim... taking on all of
established science *and* quantum physics, not to mention hundreds of
thousands of scientists over the past 250+ years, every single one of
them smarter and saner than you.

You had a touch of delusion of grandeur, imagined yourself smarter
than every single scientist in the past 250+ years, concocted a kooky
and utterly impossible 'theory' so you could substantiate your k'lame
that you're smarter than every single scientist in the past 250+
years... and now that you're being called to account for your kooky
claims, you're scrambling like mad to evade providing any proof of
those utterly impossible claims, Jim.

Dunning-Kruger, delusions of grandeur and more than a touch of
insanity... gotta be a bitch.

<snicker>

> Nutcase Dude:
> I'm equally able to converse on para- and ortho-form water (the scientific reality that water comprises two spin isomers and thus two hydrogen bonding strengths, as empirically measured) and the existence of latent heat. 
> 
> James McGinn:
> Excellent.  Let's start with latent heat:
> 
> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39375
> 
> James McGinn says:
> 14th March 2016 at 5:06 am
> 
> NOY (Nutcase Dude):
> It was answered, Jim. You're backpedaling. . . .
> 
> James McGinn:
> Hmm. Well. I guess we're at an impasse then. Because unless we can explicate the reproducible experimental evidence that underlies these numbers (below) I don't see the point in continuing the conversation.
> 
> Latent Heat Values (-25 to 40 C):
> =================================
> Evaporation: -597.3 cal/g, -2,500,000 J/kg
> Condensation: +597.3 cal/g, +2,500,000 J/kg
> 
> But I'll tell you what. If it will make you feel any better I will allow you make a retraction.
> 
> Even better. I know how embarrassing it must be to have to make a retraction in a public forum, so all you have to do is just not respond to this post and I will consider you to have made a defacto retraction.
> 
> Fair enough?
> 
> So, all you have to do is not respond.
> 
> Don't do it!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/rMriJSuEVow/fUp31NpmBQAJ

No explication of the reproducible experimental evidence is necessary,
James. They've been corroborated over 250+ years via experiment after
experiment, each of them arriving at the same values.

Your task is to prove your kooky contention that latent heat doesn't
exist.

You’ll remember I said in a prior post:
==========================================================
Ok, Jim… prove your kooky contention. Measure the heat being carried
away by evaporation. If it amounts to 2,500,000 J/kg, then your kooky
theory is wrong.

But if the water being evaporated only carries away 2326 J/kg, then
you'll know you are right, and that your kooky conspiracy theory
thereby reflects reality.

Who wants to lay odds that James McGinn will run away from doing that
simple experiment which will either verify or null his kooky
conspiracy theory, because he knows it'll null.
==========================================================

And you're running, Jim. You won't do that simple, reproducible
experiment to test your supposition (because we all know your kooky
claims don't rise to even the level of a hypothesis, let along a
theory... you have absolutely no corroborating data to support your
supposition) because you know it'll null.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, 
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

-- 

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

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#588571

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:876e9c74-c8eb-495e-ab99-5c1a94cde8ee@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:613b1e93-443c-4640-929f-a8ac29b9e45a@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> Aww, look at poor stupid Jimmy McGinn the delusional kooktard
> post-editing, cowardly snipping and squirming like a worm on a
> hotplate because he knows that simple experiment will null his entire
> kooky 'theory'. LOL

> You've set quite a task for yourself, Jim... taking on all of
> established science *and* quantum physics, not to mention hundreds of
> thousands of scientists over the past 250+ years, every single one of
> them smarter and saner than you.

> You had a touch of delusion of grandeur, imagined yourself smarter
> than every single scientist in the past 250+ years, concocted a kooky
> and utterly impossible 'theory' so you could substantiate your k'lame
> that you're smarter than every single scientist in the past 250+
> years... and now that you're being called to account for your kooky
> claims, you're scrambling like mad to evade providing any proof of
> those utterly impossible claims, Jim.

> Dunning-Kruger, delusions of grandeur and more than a touch of
> insanity... gotta be a bitch.

McGinn that you're smarter than your kooky claims, nows that you're 
smarter the past in that yourself scient for you're scramblished to 
mentists of science *and scientists of science *and* quantum physics, 
your andeur, delusion of grandeur kooky 'them smarter the knows that 
you're being like a to every simpossible smarter them smarter that 
poor stupid Jimmy McGinn that you've scient will his entire
kooky 'the past 250+ years... gotta be a worm one of grands of
those he delusions overy sing like a to

Dunning-Kruger, delusions of established sciention hundreds of 
scientire kooky 'theory' so yourself smarter than a touch of grandeur 
and more that you could substantiate because he knows than every 
single scientist in the past 250+ years... taking any providing any 
proof of thousands of grandeur and now than a touch of grandeur, 
imagined you could substantiate being on a hotplate being on a 
hotplate being any providing and squirming like a task for your 
kooktard post-editing, concocted a touch of the clap

> <snicker>

>> Nutcase Dude:
>> I'm equally able to converse on para- and ortho-form water (the scientific reality that water comprises two spin isomers and thus two hydrogen bonding strengths, as empirically measured) and the existence of latent heat.

>> James McGinn:
>> Excellent.  Let's start with latent heat:

>> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39375

>> James McGinn says:
>> 14th March 2016 at 5:06 am

>> NOY (Nutcase Dude):
>> It was answered, Jim. You're backpedaling. . . .

>> James McGinn:
>> Hmm. Well. I guess we're at an impasse then. Because unless we can explicate the reproducible experimental evidence that underlies these numbers (below) I don't see the point in continuing the conversation.

>> Latent Heat Values (-25 to 40 C):
>> =================================
>> Evaporation: -597.3 cal/g, -2,500,000 J/kg
>> Condensation: +597.3 cal/g, +2,500,000 J/kg

>> But I'll tell you what. If it will make you feel any better I will allow you make a retraction.

>> Even better. I know how embarrassing it must be to have to make a retraction in a public forum, so all you have to do is just not respond to this post and I will consider you to have made a defacto retraction.

>> Fair enough?

>> So, all you have to do is not respond.

>> Don't do it!

>> Cheers,

>> James McGinn
>> Solving Tornadoes

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/rMriJSuEVow/fUp31NpmBQAJ

> No explication of the reproducible experimental evidence is necessary,
> James. They've been corroborated over 250+ years via experiment after
> experiment, each of them arriving at the same values.

> Your task is to prove your kooky contention that latent heat doesn't
> exist.

> You’ll remember I said in a prior post:
> ==========================================================
> Ok, Jim… prove your kooky contention. Measure the heat being carried
> away by evaporation. If it amounts to 2,500,000 J/kg, then your kooky
> theory is wrong.

> But if the water being evaporated only carries away 2326 J/kg, then
> you'll know you are right, and that your kooky conspiracy theory
> thereby reflects reality.

> Who wants to lay odds that James McGinn will run away from doing that
> simple experiment which will either verify or null his kooky
> conspiracy theory, because he knows it'll null.
> ==========================================================

> And you're running, Jim. You won't do that simple, reproducible
> experiment to test your supposition (because we all know your kooky
> claims don't rise to even the level of a hypothesis, let along a
> theory... you have absolutely no corroborating data to support your
> supposition) because you know it'll null.

> Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

> --

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

> ============================================================
> Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
> uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

> Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
> lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
> that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
> if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
> Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
> help you to not piss all over yourself?

> And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
> pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

> Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
> spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
> You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
> Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
> water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
> thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
> *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

> You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
> water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
> atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
> from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
> if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
> energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
> your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
> with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
> created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
> destroys your theory, James.

> You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
> Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
> increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
> electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
> cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

> According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
> distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
> electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
> energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
> attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
> electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
> that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
> attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
> violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

> How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
> you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
> Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
> and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
> that not dissociating the water?

> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
> point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
> hydrides, KookTard?

> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
> cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
> splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
> such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
> H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
> that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
> vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
> your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
> that's just retarded.

> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
> become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

> How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
> away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
> detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
> touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
> tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
> types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
> sky" sentient, James?

> Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
> troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
> Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
> tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
> way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

> How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
> tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
> you explain that, James?

> Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
> *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
> not-a-theory" can't answer.

> Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
> claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

> Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
> delusions, James?

> Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
> James?

> Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

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

> Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

> Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
> *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

> Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
> "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

> Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
> which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
> education about now, James?

> Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
> of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
> deemed mentally incompetent, James?

> Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
> as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
> James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
> whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

> What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
> the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
> you're not a physicist, James. LOL

> If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
> inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
> airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
> jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
> back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
> shreds, Jim?

> Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
> tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
> mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
> which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
> ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
> claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
> thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
> which would make air travel deadly.

> Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
> the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
> being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

> Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
> That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
> it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
> James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
> to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
> means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
> cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
> oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
> phenomenon due to density differential, James?

> How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
> Jim?

> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
> How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
> surface area as you claim?

> Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

> How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
> hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
> semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
> dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
> extremely energetic laser, Jim?

> Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
> extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
> photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
> the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
> troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

> How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
> dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
> planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
> all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

> Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
> upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
> in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
> not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
> molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
> for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
> implausible claims are workable, Jim?

> Why are you not taking your meds, James?
> ============================================================

> Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

-- 

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

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#588673

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 04:54, Fakey McKookTard did thusly drive his shitty 
jalopy into an F5 tornado again:

> Ti<MUSHROOM CLOUD>

4:54 am is a new record for you, isn't it, all-night screed frother?

<snicker>

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

#588711

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

Paul G. Derbyshire the dress wearing goat raper, socked up as Nadegda,
in <news:nluom3$mg6$23@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head first into
the wood chipper again from IP address 67.70.59.199 (MD5 hash 
3eb94e9ccb87adec6bcfc39357241aba) in Deep River, ON, Canada:

Paul's ass is hanging out, and he's too slack-lipped retarded to
realize it. LOL

> On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 04:54

Wrong. Still too stupid to figure out time zones, Paul Derbyshire? LOL

Or just too stupid to discern that you're bleating about a forgery
from a melty kook? LOL

> 4<SMACKASHROOMTARD!>

Paul Derbyshire's far too stupid to figure out a clock, that's why
he's an utter failure at everything else he's ever attempted. LOL

Paul, you stupid fuck, you've been outed seven times.

03 May 2016 - MID: <ng9mdq$m43$33@dont-email.me>
posting-host="28e199bc366b04f624161a7e7c6d9ee6"
67.70.57.221 Deep River, ON, Canada

10 Jun 2016 - MID: <njf6m0$9i5$13@dont-email.me>
posting-host="5a7d8d855af84388d01b7dc826ef09d4"
67.70.57.173 Deep River, ON, Canada

20 Jun 2016 - MID: <nka7gl$lnq$1@dont-email.me>
posting-host="012e03f33b086ea5f85f61609ba7b360"
67.70.98.116 Deep River, ON, Canada

01 Jul 2016 - MID: <nl6kqc$q0d$10@dont-email.me>
posting-host="58c64c3df7194056193d4316e7d6bde7"
67.70.57.43 Deep River, ON, Canada

05 Jul 2016 - MID: <nlh8q3$sgh$12@dont-email.me>
posting-host="ffc2b295bc7bc97250a857d253111bde"
67.70.57.183 Deep River, ON, Canada

09 Jul 2016 - MID: <nlrmrj$lqb$15@dont-email.me>
posting-host="3eb94e9ccb87adec6bcfc39357241aba"
67.70.59.199 Deep River, ON, Canada

And once by Ray Banana. LOL

Anyone can check that the IP addresses have MD5 hashes that match your
posting-host, and anyone can go to MaxMind GeoIP to determine that
you're a dress-wearing goat-raping shroomtard using IP addresses from
Deep River, ON, Canada, just down the road from Pembroke, ON, Canada.

You moron. LOL

Nadegda got outed as that lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard Paul G.
Derbyshire of Pembroke, Ontario, Canada by Ray Banana. When Kensi D.
LunkHead learned of this, he immediately started backpedaling and
k'laming that "Nadegda" was actually just "vacationing" in Pembroke.
LOL!

Message-ID: <a76a23be8f4a22ea6c31dde5b3e2dd8c@dizum.com>
========================================================
========================================================
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.usenet.kooks/yhNtCQr1rpE/GlDtnrGgMxsJ>

From: Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid>
Subject: Re: A REVIEW: How much does Keith "Murphy" McElroy suck at
this Usenet thing?
Message-ID: <km1mfl$t4j$7@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 00:58:29 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="67.70.58.178"; logging-data="29843";
Summary: Murphy is a kook with hundreds, if not thousands, of sock
puppets
Keywords: Murphy
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
========================================================
========================================================

Message-ID: <65d0f5e1ad03d42086b4a492e0eba763@dizum.com>
========================================================
========================================================
> <http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=134389570800>

Kensi was "vacationing"... in Pembroke, Ontario, Canada... quite by
coincidence, you understand... LunkHead was there with Nadegda,
apparently.

And Nadegda and Kensi most definitely were *not* there to double-team
on Paul Derbyshire's mushroom-slathered meatpole.

Paul G. Derbyshire of Pembroke, Ontario, Canada is a life-long virgin,
you see. He'll never touch anything more feminine than his hand with a
Barbie-doll wig glued to it, paste-on eyes, and his mother's
hooker-pink lipstick smeared between thumb and index finger knuckle.
Ironically, he's named his f(e)isty lover "kensi". She's really hot in
the sack... an expert in getting anal. Sometimes, she takes it so
deeply it pokes out of her mouth!

Oh, here's Kensi:
<http://goo.gl/hdpXFC>

She's Paul Derbyshire's regular Saturday night thang. Ain't she purdy?
I'm sure a lot of guys have hit that. Chimpy's hit that... twice.

Strangely and quite coincidentally, Paul Derbyshire calls his right
thumb "Nadegda". I found a picture of Nadegda, too.

<https://goo.gl/sbdRcq>

You don't wanna know what she's into. *Really* kinky stuff. Suffice to
say sometimes she invites along her four sisters for what she calls
"sexy spelunking". You know what they say... fugly chicks gotta go
kinky. LOL

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyBYSuqQBQ>

> P.S. How's the astrophysics coming along? Have you visited 
> any good telescopes lately?

Ask kensi which observatories nearby have time standard control
capability. That's something every astronomer should know, right?

<snicker>
========================================================
========================================================

Everyone is laughing at you, Paul Derbyshire. Everyone.

Spankard. ShroomTard. Failure.

<snicker>

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/carleton.chat.suggestions/XxE2PVnleGs>
Subject: The Derbyshire Saga
================================================================
[ Posted on Wed, 7 Feb 1996 18:39:04 GMT ]

Ok, kids... here's the voice from the cheap seats, on the Derbyshire
Saga (tm).

Now, having read about young Paul (the short, whiny, irritating,
psychotic child that he is) having been dragged from a lab by "the
man", I can only assume that this little story occurred a) yesterday,
and b) in the Steacie building.

The coincidence of two such occurrences cropping up in the same day
"here in the trailer park" would be just too far out to contemplate.

It would seem, then, that young Paul Derbyshire is taking first year
chemistry. As an aside, I'll note that this isn't his first little
"fling" with the department. Shortly before Christmas, the undergrads
had their lab techniques exam. Paul, to whom we can add "clumsy" as
one of his many ignoble traits, couldn't perform under pressure
(begging the question...). Long story short:  He flipped... lost it
completely. Started swearing first at the proctors, then at the lab
supervisor, and lastly, after having been ejected from the lab, lashed
out at the department Chair. (Oh, yes, cursing, swearing, threatening,
the whole nine yards.)

Btw, this goes partly to the issue of "why didn't the TA in question
squash Mr. Derbyshire like a bug?". Since the repercussions could've
been significant.

In any event:  Yesterday, Paul spilled something in the lab. He
refused to clean it up. (I believe his exact words were "I am not a
human mop.". He kept asking other students to clean up his mess, and
became obstinate when pushed to take care of it himself. When he
started screaming and ranting, the lab supervisor called security on
him.

The fellow who responded is a human mountain named Al. Really nice
guy. Anyway, Paul was standing at the sink with a corrosive solution
in a flask, and refused to leave. "I'm busy, can you come back when
I'm not so busy" is the purported comment he made. Al refused to
apprehend him until the chemicals were secured, so, with security and
the lab supervisor watching, Paul returned to his bench, and continued
his experiment. This involved clamping the offending flask, at which
time Al moved in for the kill (so to speak).

Paul struggled, and managed to punch Al in the face (knocking off his
hat!). Al became... vexed, shall we say, and grabbed Paul by the neck
in a sort of headlock. (If you can imagine tiny Paul hanging, feet
kicking, whilst Al lifts him from behind with one arm around the neck
you have the proper picture.) Al then removed him from the lab, put
him on the ground, and proceeded to cuff him.

(Paul:  "what are you doing!?")

Al calls for backup at some point.

Al: "540, this is 8, I need backup for a..." etc.

Paul:  "Talking in police code doesn't make you any better than me."

Note:  All Paul comments were in a Sam Kinison-like screech at this
point.

Campus security backup arrives, as to the "real cops". They mention to
Paul that he's going "downtown" where he will be their guest for "a
long time". As he is being dragged out of the building, Paul is
screaming "What do you mean 'a long time'? I have things to do
tonight!"

Well... sorry if my prose isn't the greatest.  The story is much
better with voice-over, and particularly when you know all the people
involved. (except Paul, of course). I heard it first hand from a guy
in my lab who witnessed the whole event, btw. He does great Sam
Kinison impersonations.

I hear Paul is now the proud owner of a "No Trespass" restraining
order to keep him from the premises of Carleton University.

Semper Inquirens  (thx, Corey)
================================================================

Brian Publicover wrote:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/carleton.chat.suggestions/XxE2PVnleGs/lS73j-DcD04J>
================================================================
I remember in grade 8 Paul once threw a chair at my head because I
suggested that he liked girls (he used to hate females when he was
younger). This was not an isolated incident: I've seen him attack many
people. I don't think he's dangerous (unless he is holding corrosive
chemicals), but I'd hardly call these incidents "bizarre quirks."
================================================================

Awww, poor bootfucked little kooktard Paul G. Derbyshire of Pembroke,
Ontario, Canada has to relive his horrible past all over again... on
top of having his stoooopid ass drop-kicked across Usenet each and
every day. LOL

And now he's been outed as a dude who likes wearing dresses. And 
raping goats. LOL!

-- 

Kensi the moron (aka Paul G. Derbyshire) wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron (aka Paul G. Derbyshire) said the Gaussian curvature =
1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, Kensi the moron (aka Paul G. Derbyshire) has described a
universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe
in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could
not exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snicker>

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

#588736

On 10/07/2016 8:19 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 04:54, Fakey McKookTard did thusly drive his shitty
> jalopy into an F5 tornado again:

<snicker>

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

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

#588819

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 05:33:53 -0400, kensi wrote:

> On 10/07/2016 8:19 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 04:54, Fakey McKookTard did thusly drive his shitty
>> jalopy into an F5 tornado again:
> 
> <snicker>

So we get this one near Daleton, right? We're close and Jo's got the VID 
on it. She's filming it. Suddenly, this shitty-looking green Valiant 
pulls up right in the way. She starts yelling and this *loser* stumbles 
out of the car. He's got a bottle of Jack Daniels. He's naked. He's butt-
naked. So, Jo's yelling at him to get out of the way, right? So he just 
strolls up to the twister and says, "Have a drink!" And he chucks the 
bottle into the twister and it never hits the ground. Twister caught it, 
sucked it right up.

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

#588864

On 11/07/2016 4:53 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 05:33:53 -0400, kensi wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2016 8:19 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 04:54, Fakey McKookTard did thusly drive his shitty
>>> jalopy into an F5 tornado again:
>>
>> <snicker>
>
> So we get this one near Daleton, right? We're close and Jo's got the VID
> on it. She's filming it. Suddenly, this shitty-looking green Valiant
> pulls up right in the way. She starts yelling and this *loser* stumbles
> out of the car. He's got a bottle of Jack Daniels. He's naked. He's butt-
> naked. So, Jo's yelling at him to get out of the way, right? So he just
> strolls up to the twister and says, "Have a drink!" And he chucks the
> bottle into the twister and it never hits the ground. Twister caught it,
> sucked it right up.

The hell?

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

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

#588942

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 05:22:45 -0400, kensi wrote:

> On 11/07/2016 4:53 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 05:33:53 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/07/2016 8:19 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 04:54, Fakey McKookTard did thusly drive his
>>>> shitty jalopy into an F5 tornado again:
>>>
>>> <snicker>
>>
>> So we get this one near Daleton, right? We're close and Jo's got the
>> VID on it. She's filming it. Suddenly, this shitty-looking green
>> Valiant pulls up right in the way. She starts yelling and this *loser*
>> stumbles out of the car. He's got a bottle of Jack Daniels. He's naked.
>> He's butt- naked. So, Jo's yelling at him to get out of the way, right?
>> So he just strolls up to the twister and says, "Have a drink!" And he
>> chucks the bottle into the twister and it never hits the ground.
>> Twister caught it, sucked it right up.
> 
> The hell?

What, you've never seen the movie "Twister"? :)

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

#589079

On 12/07/2016 4:20 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 05:22:45 -0400, kensi wrote:
>> On 11/07/2016 4:53 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>> So we get this one near Daleton, right? We're close and Jo's got the
>>> VID on it. She's filming it. Suddenly, this shitty-looking green
>>> Valiant pulls up right in the way. She starts yelling and this *loser*
>>> stumbles out of the car. He's got a bottle of Jack Daniels. He's naked.
>>> He's butt- naked. So, Jo's yelling at him to get out of the way, right?
>>> So he just strolls up to the twister and says, "Have a drink!" And he
>>> chucks the bottle into the twister and it never hits the ground.
>>> Twister caught it, sucked it right up.
>>
>> The hell?
>
> What, you've never seen the movie "Twister"? :)

Oh, is that what that's from?

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

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

#589120

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:55:46 -0400, kensi wrote:

> On 12/07/2016 4:20 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 05:22:45 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2016 4:53 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>> So we get this one near Daleton, right? We're close and Jo's got the
>>>> VID on it. She's filming it. Suddenly, this shitty-looking green
>>>> Valiant pulls up right in the way. She starts yelling and this
>>>> *loser* stumbles out of the car. He's got a bottle of Jack Daniels.
>>>> He's naked. He's butt- naked. So, Jo's yelling at him to get out of
>>>> the way, right? So he just strolls up to the twister and says, "Have
>>>> a drink!" And he chucks the bottle into the twister and it never hits
>>>> the ground. Twister caught it, sucked it right up.
>>>
>>> The hell?
>>
>> What, you've never seen the movie "Twister"? :)
> 
> Oh, is that what that's from?

Don't tell me you haven't seen it?!

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

#589265

On 13/07/2016 5:52 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:55:46 -0400, kensi wrote:
>> On 12/07/2016 4:20 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>> What, you've never seen the movie "Twister"? :)
>>
>> Oh, is that what that's from?
>
> Don't tell me you haven't seen it?!

Of course I've seen it. But it was hardly significant enough for me to 
have rewatched it often enough to have half the dialog memorized. :P

Also, it was full of scientific errors. The misuse of the phrase "punch 
the core" was particularly cringeworthy.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

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

#589340

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:36:34 -0400, kensi wrote:

> On 13/07/2016 5:52 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:55:46 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2016 4:20 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>> What, you've never seen the movie "Twister"? :)
>>>
>>> Oh, is that what that's from?
>>
>> Don't tell me you haven't seen it?!
> 
> Of course I've seen it. But it was hardly significant enough for me to
> have rewatched it often enough to have half the dialog memorized. :P
> 
> Also, it was full of scientific errors. The misuse of the phrase "punch
> the core" was particularly cringeworthy.

Really? How was it supposed to be used?

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

#589435

On 14/07/2016 8:25 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:36:34 -0400, kensi wrote:
>
>> On 13/07/2016 5:52 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:55:46 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>> On 12/07/2016 4:20 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>> What, you've never seen the movie "Twister"? :)
>>>>
>>>> Oh, is that what that's from?
>>>
>>> Don't tell me you haven't seen it?!
>>
>> Of course I've seen it. But it was hardly significant enough for me to
>> have rewatched it often enough to have half the dialog memorized. :P
>>
>> Also, it was full of scientific errors. The misuse of the phrase "punch
>> the core" was particularly cringeworthy.
>
> Really? How was it supposed to be used?

"Punch the core" is *supposed* to mean driving directly through the rain 
core of a supercell storm towards the updraft base. Which means if there 
is a tornado there you're approaching it blind. Bad idea. The smart 
thing is to approach the storm from the rear or the sides, not straight 
through the worst, zero-visibility parts of it. Core punching is also an 
excellent way to end up with hundreds or even thousands of dollars of 
hail damage to your chase vehicle.

What it does *not* mean is setting the vehicle on cruise control, aiming 
it directly into a tornado, and then jumping out of it. Which, mind you, 
is also a very dangerous stunt likely to result in thousands of dollars 
of damage to your vehicle.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

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

#589465

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:46:54 -0400, kensi wrote:

> On 14/07/2016 8:25 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:36:34 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/07/2016 5:52 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:55:46 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>> On 12/07/2016 4:20 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>> What, you've never seen the movie "Twister"? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, is that what that's from?
>>>>
>>>> Don't tell me you haven't seen it?!
>>>
>>> Of course I've seen it. But it was hardly significant enough for me to
>>> have rewatched it often enough to have half the dialog memorized. :P
>>>
>>> Also, it was full of scientific errors. The misuse of the phrase
>>> "punch the core" was particularly cringeworthy.
>>
>> Really? How was it supposed to be used?
> 
> "Punch the core" is *supposed* to mean driving directly through the rain
> core of a supercell storm towards the updraft base. Which means if there
> is a tornado there you're approaching it blind. Bad idea. The smart
> thing is to approach the storm from the rear or the sides, not straight
> through the worst, zero-visibility parts of it. Core punching is also an
> excellent way to end up with hundreds or even thousands of dollars of
> hail damage to your chase vehicle.
> 
> What it does *not* mean is setting the vehicle on cruise control, aiming
> it directly into a tornado, and then jumping out of it. Which, mind you,
> is also a very dangerous stunt likely to result in thousands of dollars
> of damage to your vehicle.

Ah. Interesting.

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

#588713

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

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka 
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
forging his Usenet Lord and Master the Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1, in
<news:a8eadae7c4c96320b7a759d877852a13@dizum.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> McGinn that you're smarter than your kooky claims, nows that you're 
> smarter the past in that yourself scient for you're scramblished to 
> mentists of science *and scientists of science *and* quantum physics, 
> your andeur, delusion of grandeur kooky 'them smarter the knows that 
> you're being like a to every simpossible smarter them smarter that 
> poor stupid Jimmy McGinn that you've scient will his entire
> kooky 'the past 250+ years... gotta be a worm one of grands of
> those he delusions overy sing like a to
> 
> Dunning-Kruger, delusions of established sciention hundreds of 
> scientire kooky 'theory' so yourself smarter than a touch of grandeur 
> and more that you could substantiate because he knows than every 
> single scientist in the past 250+ years... taking any providing any 
> proof of thousands of grandeur and now than a touch of grandeur, 
> imagined you could substantiate being on a hotplate being on a 
> hotplate being any providing and squirming like a task for your 
> kooktard post-editing, concocted a touch of the clap

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper of Penis is melting
down 24/7. Seriously, was it something I said that's caused you to
froth yourself half to death, DildoRider?

Put down the crack pipe, Cracky McCrackHead. LOL

Fag. LOL
k0ok. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Spankard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
LotusLoser. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Obsessed Retard. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Cracky McCrackhead. LOL
Incompetent Forger. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Photofuckering Fuckwit. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In Usenet History. LOL

<snicker>

-- 

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757

DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.

> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.

Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.

<snicker>
=================================================

DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================

DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f712515dedb738e450@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================

This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.

150 IQ? LOL

No... 57 IQ. The paperwork *you* posted proves it. LOL!

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

#589301

wOw, deletium excreted.  anyway,
show that tornadoes are not caused by static
from the rolling friction of cars on asphaltum

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

#589416 — huygrometers in motion

I'd begun an item on this, some where, but
where are the afficianadoes

> show that tornadoes are not caused by static
> from the rolling friction of cars on asphaltum

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web