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

Groups > sci.physics > #638484 > unrolled thread

Re: How dumb and stupid is Moroney in physics?

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: How dumb and stupid is Moroney in physics? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 01:46 -0700
    Re: How dumb and stupid is Archimedes Plutonium in physics? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-02 15:24 +0000
      Re: How dumb and stupid is Archimedes Plutonium in physics? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-03 15:25 -0400

#638484 — Re: How dumb and stupid is Moroney in physics?

So there they were-- This Old House explaining geothermal 

And there was the science failure of Moroney bad mouthing geothermal just because he is a worthless moron of science

On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> <snip crap>
> 
> So all you have is insults, no actual science?  Typical for you.
> 
> Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they
> use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any
> better.
> 
> Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why
> is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real
> geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#638508 — Re: How dumb and stupid is Archimedes Plutonium in physics?

Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails yet again as he writes:

>So there they were-- This Old House explaining geothermal 

And once again, you have no science.  Unfortunately, This Old House had
very little science, mostly because they have to dumb things down for
people like Archimedes Plutonium, who know very little science.

>On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

Wow, you bring up one of your older failures of physics. Does this mean
you aren't doing any new failures now? Does that mean that you are now
actually failing at failing???

>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> <snip crap>
>> 
>> So all you have is insults, no actual science?  Typical for you.

And you still have nothing but insults, no science at all.
Why don't you ever have any science, none since 1993?

>> Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they
>> use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any
>> better.
>> 
>> Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why
>> is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real
>> geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees?

So can you answer this question yet, after a half year?  How about 
answering why if you dig down in Alaska, you find ICE - permafrost! What
kind of geothermal energy is that?  (Your repeated failure to answer that
question is noted)

Speaking of permafrost, we went to a museum last week. We saw a mastodon
skeleton.  It wasn't one frozen in permafrost however, just a regular
skeleton.

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

#638653 — Re: How dumb and stupid is Archimedes Plutonium in physics?

On 7/2/2017 11:24 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails yet again as he writes:
> 
>> So there they were-- This Old House explaining geothermal
> 
> And once again, you have no science.  Unfortunately, This Old House had
> very little science, mostly because they have to dumb things down for
> people like Archimedes Plutonium, who know very little science.
> 
>> On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
> Wow, you bring up one of your older failures of physics. Does this mean
> you aren't doing any new failures now? Does that mean that you are now
> actually failing at failing???
> 
>>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> <snip crap>
>>>
>>> So all you have is insults, no actual science?  Typical for you.
> 
> And you still have nothing but insults, no science at all.
> Why don't you ever have any science, none since 1993?
> 
>>> Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they
>>> use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any
>>> better.
>>>
>>> Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why
>>> is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real
>>> geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees?
> 
> So can you answer this question yet, after a half year?  How about
> answering why if you dig down in Alaska, you find ICE - permafrost! What
> kind of geothermal energy is that?  (Your repeated failure to answer that
> question is noted)
> 
> Speaking of permafrost, we went to a museum last week. We saw a mastodon
> skeleton.  It wasn't one frozen in permafrost however, just a regular
> skeleton.
> 
IF it wasn't frozen, then it probably wasn't good to eat.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web