Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #559812 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-06 11:14 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-07 10:58 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 135 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 11:14 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-06 13:25 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 11:50 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 00:57 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 16:27 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-06 19:40 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 03:52 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 20:52 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:13 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:11 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 17:45 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:35 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 20:14 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:37 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 17:30 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:55 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 22:18 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 08:15 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 05:36 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:34 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 18:01 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 10:04 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 17:39 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 09:30 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:54 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 21:22 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:11 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 04:09 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:12 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 20:23 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 20:21 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:23 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:59 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 17:59 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:21 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:19 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:55 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 21:58 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 10:07 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:17 +0100
pretty clouds in cOOl shapes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:04 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-03-09 08:43 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:30 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 23:26 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:53 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:56 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 09:04 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:28 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 02:34 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 13:47 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 03:33 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:05 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-09 05:39 -0700
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 22:44 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 08:51 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 17:21 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 02:03 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 10:13 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 18:17 +0000
Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 15:50 -0500
Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:24 -0800
Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:28 -0500
Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:37 -0800
Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:39 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 12:36 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 02:06 +0800
HOH is lighter than OO and NN noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 12:28 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 12:57 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 12:59 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:04 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:20 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:24 -0800
two molecules of HOH is not lighter than OO and NN noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:01 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 17:46 -0600
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 16:03 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 19:19 -0600
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:50 +0100
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 22:03 -0800
Re: HOH is lighter than OO and NN Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 08:26 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 00:25 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-07 08:39 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 00:46 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 18:12 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-07 12:27 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 10:09 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 14:33 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:18 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 21:49 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 09:03 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 00:57 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 00:30 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 17:29 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:50 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:59 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 00:14 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:18 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-09 23:43 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 18:58 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 04:43 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-09 23:53 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 09:44 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:26 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 17:59 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:03 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 08:29 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 07:48 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:54 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-13 08:20 +0000
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:27 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 21:25 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-08 23:45 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Ty Foyd <death@spank.666> - 2016-03-07 05:27 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 08:25 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 10:54 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 05:15 +0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 17:03 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-07 17:35 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 17:56 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:40 +0100
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 22:05 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-07 20:08 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 17:56 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-07 20:58 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 18:27 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-07 21:30 -0500
Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 18:34 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 10:05 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 17:18 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 19:49 +1100
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 01:04 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 21:34 +1100
Re: Clouds are made of water Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:04 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:12 -0600
Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:44 -0800
Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 10:58 -0600
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 19:04 -0800 |
| Subject | pretty clouds in cOOl shapes |
| Message-ID | <ae46f0e9-47e6-44be-a11b-428d7dd78a56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561171 |
hey, gOOd observation; can solvinGTomatoes, read > Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen > with that of the oxygen atom in a water molecule and prove that PhD > professor of applied sciences wrong, eh, Moron? LOL > > <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html> > London South Bank University - Physics Department > Martin Chaplin BSc PhD CChem FRSC > Emeritus Professor of Applied Science > 111 peer-reviewed studies published > 3 books published > 3 patents granted > ================================================== > Due to the relatively large positive charge on the oxygen atom nucleus > (8+) and the closeness of its electrons, the oxygen atom attracts > electrons much more strongly (i.e. is much more electronegative) than > the hydrogen atoms (1+). This results in a charge transfer from the > hydrogen atoms towards the oxygen atom and, hence, the polarity of the > water molecule. > > Early 5-point molecular models, with explicit negative charge where > the lone pairs are purported to be, fared poorly in describing > hydrogen bonding, but more recent models show some promise. Although > there is no apparent consensus of opinion [116], such descriptions of > substantial sp3-hybridized lone pairs in the isolated water molecule > should perhaps be avoided [117], as an sp2-hybridized structure (plus > a pz orbital) is indicated. > > The molecule H2O has 10 electrons associated, 8 from the oxygen atom > and one each from the two hydrogen atoms. > ================================================== > > And all of the above backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies by people > far smarter and saner than you, Moron. > > SPNAK! > > I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron. > > <snicker> > > -- > > Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: > ===================================== > The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier > Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which > should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create > *sinusoids*); > > That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms; > > That superposition is the same as wave interference; > > That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves; > > That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things; > > That RMS isn't a DC voltage; > > That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 > volts RMS L-L; > > That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; > > The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave; > > That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical > engineering, physics and control systems engineering; > > What a positive or negative vector is; > > That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per > Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero; > > That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic"; > > That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 > positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. > > That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an > electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+. > > That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge. > > What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. > > That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. > > And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. > ===================================== > > SPNAK! > > <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 08:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A |
| Message-ID | <1mju5gv.polzrytx4ngjN%on!on@anon.invalid> |
| In reply to | #560655 |
Snickerturd the Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> consulted his Tricorder then wrote: > life, Jim... ... but not as we know it. -- \|/ (((Ï))) Mr On!on, earnest seeker after truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 07:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B |
| Message-ID | <deef586f0db89cc6d8cc5b17af613eee@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560371 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:8d251d04-1985-4e03-8cb6-29552ed00ae0@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:49:50 AM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> Wrong. Any vapor below its Critical Temperature will have both vapor >>>> *and* gaseous phase. >>> Too bad you can't prove this. >> Sure I can prove it... in fact, that's how weather forecasters and >> climate researchers determine cloud depth. > Why don't you see if Al Gore can help you then. LOL. Non sequiturs are the *best* James McGinn can come up with as defense of his kooky conspiracy theory... his tacit admission of defeat. >> Oh, Jim didn't realize that >> water in its gaseous phase, water in its liquid phase and water in its >> solid phase would reflect and refract different wavelengths, did he? >> >> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation >> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus >> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity. > If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect? I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used for years by NASA, Jim. > But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted. Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas. >> Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous >> phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and >> nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim? > Yes: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0 Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric intervention, Jim. >> Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing >> temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet not >> immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its gaseous >> phase... individual molecules... > Wrong. It' is always liquid or solid (ice). It is never gaseous. Wrong. I've presented *two* peer-reviewed studies proving the existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim. Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> ================================================= A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. ================================================= "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, meaning you owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, Jim. <snicker> Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous water exists in the atmosphere: <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/> ========================================================= Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains controversial. ========================================================= That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves you're a moronic kooktard, Jim. <snicker> >> According to you, since you k'lame >> all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air >> and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its >> downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft... > I address this point in my videos. Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky conspiracy theory. >> thus >> rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would >> perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface >> would be perpetually covered with a film of water. > Right. Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of > the sky like bricks. Right? But they don't. Why do you think that is? Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's assumptions. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger. >> Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at all, >> Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky little >> theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your "discovery" without >> fully testing its premises, Jim? > You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions. That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you* are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right. Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right? Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit. >>>> Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these >>>> so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope? >>> So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence? >> I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study > Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right? I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't... you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit. >>> Ever heard of the scientific method? >> Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of >> peer reviewed studies... > Peer review is consensus. Consensus is politics. (I am not a > climate scientist.) Only empirical evidence is valid if you > want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble. I thought > this was obvious. Sorry if you got the wrong idea. Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well, it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be paying up. Now. >>>> Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two >>>> *different* water molecules. >>> No duh. >> Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard. > It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass. No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond, shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you snipped out and ran away from, Jim. <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance" Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger) than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent bonds. You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do? <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html> "The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2 'hydrogen' bond." Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water. Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you (which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other D-K sufferer. <snicker> >>> You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect. >> You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim, > Look into VESPR theory. Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VESPR theory. You're still misusing the word 'symmetry', Jim. >>> I understand polarity better than anybody >> No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted >> kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody, >> but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim. > Actually I do. Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim. >>>> In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose. >>> Surface tension proves you wrong and me right. >> You've already been proven wrong below, Jim. > Explain surface tension using your model. Go ahead. > What are you waiting for? The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you don't know about it. <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> ===================================================== Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a lower temperature). ===================================================== So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet not know a single fact *about* water, Jim? >>> If what you are saying is true H2O would have no surface tension. >> The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you >> don't know about it. >> >> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> >> ===================================================== >> Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable >> structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just >> under 4 ?C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less >> with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the >> water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 ?C and >> more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a >> lower temperature). >> ===================================================== >> >> So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the >> interfacial water, > Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic. > You just tacked it on. It's worthless. That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit. >>> That's a model, dumbass. That is not reality. >>> That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed. >>> So, only a loon would employ that as proof. >> That model happens to be the model that is accepted > It's still just a model, dumbass. Model's are not evidence. > That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness. It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim. Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim? Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit. >>> Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass. >>> Then do the experiment that prove it. >> Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known >> for a very long time... > As you are revealing, none of it is definitive. It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. >> I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea >> level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is >> sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure. >> >> Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is >> insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so >> boiling does not occur, > Boiling stops below 100, dumbass. Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet. >> yet evaporation does occur. > Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass. Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation? >> Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt. >> Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will >> again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being >> 70 C. > You're an idiot. I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot. >> Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process, > Surreal. I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity. You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip. I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 23:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B |
| Message-ID | <ed889e28-9a3a-4a6f-b026-274444437473@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560699 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW > violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has > been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas. There are thousands of peer review studies that say CO2 causes global warming, right? As you have realized, peer review without substance is worthless. Do you agree? So stop telling me you have peer-review and admit you have no substance. You've presented no definitive evidence that H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere. All you have is general ignorance of the subject matter, (worthless) anecdotal-based peer-review, unrestrained imagination, and a bad attitude. To me you are indistinguishable from a believer in global warming--honestly. You talk just like them. Facts are facts. And the facts are that nobody has ever detected gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. Nobody. As Feynman said, it doesn't matter what people believe or what their title is or how many of them there are, if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. The best experimental evidence we have clearly delineates the boiling point of water. And our atmosphere is too cool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 08:53 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B |
| Message-ID | <WeOdnUXFp4dnpX3LnZ2dnUU7-XkAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #560707 |
On 3/9/16 1:26 AM, James McGinn wrote: > Facts are facts. And the facts are that nobody has ever detected gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. Don't be silly, James. Gaseous H2O is a major player in the Earth's Troposphere. Remember: "A measure of the water vapor content of the air is called humidity. It is most often expressed as a ratio of the amount of water vapor present in a given volume (parcel) of air compared to the total amount of water vapor which that same unit of air could actually hold. This ratio we call relative humidity and it is always expressed as a percentage. When the relative humidity reaches 100%, the air has become saturated and water vapor will begin to condense into liquid water or ice crystals". "Relative humidity can be measured with a hygrometer or a psychrometer. Hygrometers designed for home use are often found mounted together with two other weather instruments, a thermometer to measure room air temperature and a barometer to measure air pressure". -- 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]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 08:56 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B |
| Message-ID | <WeOdnUTFp4c0pH3LnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #560707 |
On 3/9/16 1:26 AM, James McGinn wrote: > Facts are facts. And the facts are that nobody has ever detected gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. NIST 'Combs' the Atmosphere to Measure Greenhouse Gases > http://www.nist.gov/pml/div686/20141029_greenhouse_comb.cfm > In the recent demonstration, NIST's pair of laser frequency combs > measured the simultaneous signatures of several greenhouse > gases—including carbon dioxide, methane and *water vapor* along a > 2-kilometer path between a NIST laboratory roof in Boulder, Colo., > and a nearby mesa. -- 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]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 09:04 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B |
| Message-ID | <WeOdnUfFp4fvpn3LnZ2dnUU7-XkAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #560707 |
On 3/9/16 1:26 AM, James McGinn wrote: > Facts are facts. And the facts are that nobody has ever detected gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. Greenhouse gases > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_gases > Greenhouse gases are those that absorb and emit infrared radiation in > the wavelength range emitted by Earth. In order, the most abundant > greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are: > > Water vapor (H2O) > Carbon dioxide (CO2) > Methane (CH4) > Nitrous oxide (N2O) > Ozone (O3) > Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) -- 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]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 20:28 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B |
| Message-ID | <0d6b1332baad53f3e37672c6c4d115ef@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560707 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:ed889e28-9a3a-4a6f-b026-274444437473@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW >> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has >> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas. > Th<SMACKAKOOK!> Poor stupid James McGinn is bleating again because he has no defense against my latest destruction of his kooky conspiracy theory. LOL ================================================ I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory, James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on. I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. That's, what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory? Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled you. Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different updraft speeds) cause different types of rain. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further proves this fact. Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger. So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right? As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds): <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html> ========================================================= It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of energy about 12 electron volts of higher. That means the water molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to make such a plasma. ========================================================= Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet light, nearly in the x-ray range. And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere is plasma. Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm. In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim. Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're just a delusional kooktard? So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. <snicker> See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a fucking moron. -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*); That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms; That superposition is the same as wave interference; That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves; That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things; That RMS isn't a DC voltage; That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave; That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering; What a positive or negative vector is; That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero; That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic"; That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 02:34 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I |
| Message-ID | <hh6udbh2774fu7dh6vt65tvi4dier3qaet@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #560359 |
Fakey wrote: > Why are you so stupid, Jim? People far smarter than you have figured > all this out long before you conceived of your kooky discredited > theory, Jim. Do you really think that heaping abuse on your fellow kook will persuade him to give you $100,000? Why are you so stupid, Fakey?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 13:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I |
| Message-ID | <op.yd0rtsuztm21m2@benson.localhost> |
| In reply to | #560399 |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 13:34:08 -0500, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
<bender@the.future> wrote:
> Fakey wrote:
>
>> Why are you so stupid, Jim? People far smarter than you have figured
>> all this out long before you conceived of your kooky discredited
>> theory, Jim.
>
> Do you really think that heaping abuse on your fellow kook
> will persuade him to give you $100,000?
>
> Why are you so stupid, Fakey?
i'm sure if anybody knows it would be him. he can explain it all in
another frothy bleatfest.
--
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu
-
FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>
">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>> phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>> voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)
Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking
*moron*?
"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""
it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png
http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf
on page 2:
** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)
*COUGH*
SPNAK!!
-
i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>
-
snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:
- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:
http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html
place those files in a directory and save this file as
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.
compiles with:
gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++
run with:
./a.out
enjoy the LULZ ;)
*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>
using namespace std;
int main(){
//float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
//float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);
float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
float_precision t=float_precision(0); // time variable
float_precision sum=float_precision(0); // sum of SnickerTurd's
ridiculous sinewave mess
float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25); //
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
float_precision PI;
PI =_float_table(_PI,25);
// this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
while(sum < snickerPrediction){
// fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))
+
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));
// perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh
snickerTurds
if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
}
t = t+STEP;
}
/*
Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"
Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves
never reaches that. They never reach their max values at the same time.
That's how stupid you are.
Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"
Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when
summed.
the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.
*/
cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
-
Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>
-
Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
<snicker>
Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. 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 The History Of Usenet. LOL
on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*
*hell doesn't exist. hope everybody is having a productive evening.
-
http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg
http://cafepress.com/kooktown
http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg
-
If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)
if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2
-
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd
-
Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:
$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!
(just as useful as the original!)
-
snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden
service. It's not rocket science.
_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._ (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a
kiddie pr0n network.)
That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 03:33 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I |
| Message-ID | <t6audb19qbefhhttlvml2659kahm6mop4t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #560403 |
"\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote: > On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 13:34:08 -0500, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass > <bender@the.future> wrote: > > > Fakey wrote: > > > >> Why are you so stupid, Jim? People far smarter than you have figured > >> all this out long before you conceived of your kooky discredited > >> theory, Jim. > > > > Do you really think that heaping abuse on your fellow kook > > will persuade him to give you $100,000? > > > > Why are you so stupid, Fakey? > > i'm sure if anybody knows it would be him. he can explain it all in > another frothy bleatfest. That's right. Fakey's stupidity is all your fault!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 07:05 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I |
| Message-ID | <b533b5b0be55a1092cc60a5f5c1c5973@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560399 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in <news:hh6udbh2774fu7dh6vt65tvi4dier3qaet@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: >> Why are you so stupid, Jim? People far smarter than you have figured >> all this out long before you conceived of your kooky discredited >> theory, Jim. > Do you really think that heaping abuse on your fellow kook You mean *your* fellow kook. You are, after all, the reality-denying kooktard whom I drop-kicked across Usenet repeatedly. LOL > will persuade him to give you $100,000? Of course it will... he'll either pay up as promised for my having not only met the conditions of his kooky challenge, but also having utterly decimated the underlying precepts of his kooky theory, or I'll take payment in the form of his sanity. <snicker> > Why are you so stupid, Fakey? Says the documented moron. LOL -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*); That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms; That superposition is the same as wave interference; That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves; That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things; That RMS isn't a DC voltage; That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave; That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering; What a positive or negative vector is; That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero; That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic"; That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 05:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I |
| Message-ID | <3c60ebpid49fpnrg404l8vn9npi8bblle7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #560687 |
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:05:01 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >Of course it will... he'll either pay up as promised for my having not >only met the conditions of his kooky challenge, but also having >utterly decimated the underlying precepts of his kooky theory, or I'll >take payment in the form of his sanity. Says the
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 22:44 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I |
| Message-ID | <9md0eblj7her1dq5ha5k202j0ja70v132m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #560725 |
Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:05:01 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote > Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > > >Of course it will... he'll either pay up as promised for my having not > >only met the conditions of his kooky challenge, but also having > >utterly decimated the underlying precepts of his kooky theory, or I'll > >take payment in the form of his sanity. > > > > Says the guru of
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 08:51 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3149f4534271df1798cac3@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #560745 |
In article <9md0eblj7her1dq5ha5k202j0ja70v132m@4ax.com>, bender@the.future says... > > Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:05:01 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote > > Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > > > > >Of course it will... he'll either pay up as promised for my having not > > >only met the conditions of his kooky challenge, but also having > > >utterly decimated the underlying precepts of his kooky theory, or I'll > > >take payment in the form of his sanity. > > > > > > > > Says the > > guru of cafe brawlers -- Mustaffa Sheboygan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 17:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I |
| Message-ID | <1mjutgr.136s4quhaaervN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #560802 |
Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: > In article <9md0eblj7her1dq5ha5k202j0ja70v132m@4ax.com>, > bender@the.future says... > > > Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:05:01 +0100 (CET), Farty Neighborhood > > > Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> carefully printed: > > > > > > >Of course it will... he'll either pay up as promised for my having not > > > >only met the conditions of his kooky challenge, but also having > > > >utterly decimated the underlying precepts of his kooky theory, or I'll > > > >take payment in the form of his sanity. > > > > > > Says the > > > > guru of > > cafe brawlers In Wankertown, Ontario -- ^Ï^. Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts. My pet rock Gordon wants out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 02:03 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I |
| Message-ID | <uap0eb594kkghvt18teq218au1n9vq1qc5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #560818 |
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote: > Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: > > > In article <9md0eblj7her1dq5ha5k202j0ja70v132m@4ax.com>, > > bender@the.future says... > > > > > Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:05:01 +0100 (CET), Farty Neighborhood > > > > Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> carefully printed: > > > > > > > > >Of course it will... he'll either pay up as promised for my having not > > > > >only met the conditions of his kooky challenge, but also having > > > > >utterly decimated the underlying precepts of his kooky theory, or I'll > > > > >take payment in the form of his sanity. > > > > > > > > Says the > > > > > > guru of > > > > cafe brawlers > > In Wankertown, Ontario where, but for the
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 10:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I |
| Message-ID | <MPG.314a07a74a463f4998cac9@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #560838 |
In article <uap0eb594kkghvt18teq218au1n9vq1qc5@4ax.com>, bender@the.future says... > > snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote: > > > Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: > > > > > In article <9md0eblj7her1dq5ha5k202j0ja70v132m@4ax.com>, > > > bender@the.future says... > > > > > > > Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:05:01 +0100 (CET), Farty Neighborhood > > > > > Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> carefully printed: > > > > > > > > > > >Of course it will... he'll either pay up as promised for my having not > > > > > >only met the conditions of his kooky challenge, but also having > > > > > >utterly decimated the underlying precepts of his kooky theory, or I'll > > > > > >take payment in the form of his sanity. > > > > > > > > > > Says the > > > > > > > > guru of > > > > > > cafe brawlers > > > > In Wankertown, Ontario > > where, but for the grace of allah the pitiful -- Mustaffa Sheboygan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 18:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I |
| Message-ID | <1mjuw4c.1ewg7ex1woha7bN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #560843 |
Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: > In article <uap0eb594kkghvt18teq218au1n9vq1qc5@4ax.com>, > bender@the.future says... > > > > > > snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote: > > > > > Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <9md0eblj7her1dq5ha5k202j0ja70v132m@4ax.com>, > > > > bender@the.future says... > > > > > > > > > Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:05:01 +0100 (CET), Farty Neighborhood > > > > > > Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> carefully printed: > > > > > > > > > > > > >Of course it will... he'll either pay up as promised for my > > > > > > >having not only met the conditions of his kooky challenge, but > > > > > > >also having utterly decimated the underlying precepts of his > > > > > > >kooky theory, or I'll take payment in the form of his sanity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Says the > > > > > > > > > > guru of > > > > > > > > cafe brawlers > > > > > > In Wankertown, Ontario > > > > where, but for the > > grace of allah the pitiful Shr00mheads cavort in the forest -- ^Ï^. Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts. My pet rock Gordon wants out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 15:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I |
| Message-ID | <56e08c81$0$29552$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #560843 |
On 3/9/2016 1:13 PM, Mustaffa Sheboygan wrote: <...> > grace of allah the pitiful > Where in hell did you come up with this nym, Mustaffa? 8^) -- buZZard, AUK DoW #7
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web