Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #564089 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-21 01:13 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-03-27 13:02 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 01:13 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:31 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:55 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:41 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 22:11 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:52 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:10 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:17 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:57 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 21:32 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 17:47 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:24 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 06:46 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 23:11 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 19:18 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 13:03 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 06:52 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 04:28 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 18:08 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 10:36 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-26 07:29 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 00:30 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-26 17:10 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 12:45 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 07:27 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 23:01 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 18:27 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 10:05 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:19 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:58 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 08:49 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:28 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:09 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 22:45 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 20:05 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-30 02:46 +0800
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-29 18:11 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-30 05:31 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-30 05:02 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 11:12 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 11:40 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 11:44 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-30 17:19 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 13:10 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:22 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 13:24 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:21 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 13:22 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:31 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 15:33 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 16:10 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 16:52 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 17:01 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-30 15:04 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 17:53 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 17:45 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 07:04 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-30 19:24 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-30 19:45 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-31 03:30 +0800
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 15:36 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 07:04 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:19 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 13:20 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-30 17:18 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-30 17:55 +0000
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 11:55 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-31 05:45 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 21:58 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-03-30 22:01 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-31 18:35 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-31 10:56 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-31 13:04 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-31 04:17 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:22 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 08:07 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:54 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:25 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 22:49 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 19:21 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:27 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-07 08:11 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 09:20 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 09:05 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 14:19 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 10:16 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 07:06 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 18:28 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 10:54 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 07:27 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 20:20 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 00:23 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 19:53 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-07 08:11 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 09:21 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 08:54 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 12:51 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 07:11 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 00:14 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 15:45 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:33 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:40 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:37 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-23 00:00 +0800
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 10:38 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 13:02 -0700
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 07:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <73a51a68c8f27c20e98cb46eb8b70d2e@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #565507 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:cb8b5534-8826-4614-a61d-c37a8577ea2f@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 10:18:52 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually >>>> states because you're desperate to twist scientific reality to support >>>> your paranoid schizophrenia, Jim. You're a lying scientific fraud. >>>> Your moronic "theory" will never get through the peer review process, >>>> it'll never be believed by anyone but the most retarded and insane. >>>> You're spinning your wheels and going nowhere. All you're proving is >>>> that there's a *reason* you've lived at home with mommy and daddy your >>>> entire life... because they have to protect you from your own >>>> stupidity and insanity. LOL >>> Nope. >> You're backpedaling, James. > So, uh, if your only argument is to put words in your opponents mouth what does that indicate to our audience. > > Maybe you should think about that. You're still backpedaling, James. That's a sign you know you're defeated. James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled: Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com> ======================================================== > Retracted: > Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces) > the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen > bonds with adjoining water molecules. ======================================================== James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled: Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com> ======================================================== > In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's > Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water > droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes > these droplets to elongate into chains of partially > reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with > structural integrity. It is important to note that > without the concept that is the subject of this post > (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen > Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this > would not be possible. ======================================================== Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your "boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma" forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory" just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and suppositions, James. Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong. You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL Thanks for playing, but you lose. That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 00:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6008532b-91ea-40fa-80d8-406075b38cd5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #565696 |
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:40:22 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > So, uh, if your only argument is to put words in your opponents mouth what does that indicate to our audience. > > > > Maybe you should think about that. > > You're still backpedaling, I knew you wouldn't answer that question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <910b8a289d17ab3b7d3ddaad7e38485d@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #565704 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:6008532b-91ea-40fa-80d8-406075b38cd5@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:40:22 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> So, uh, if your only argument is to put words in your opponents >>> mouth what does that indicate to our audience. >>> >>> Maybe you should think about that. >> You're still backpedaling, James. That's a sign you know you're defeated. > I knew you wouldn't answer that question. You're still backpedaling, James. That's a sign you know you're defeated. James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled: Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com> ======================================================== > Retracted: > Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces) > the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen > bonds with adjoining water molecules. ======================================================== James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled: Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com> ======================================================== > In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's > Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water > droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes > these droplets to elongate into chains of partially > reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with > structural integrity. It is important to note that > without the concept that is the subject of this post > (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen > Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this > would not be possible. ======================================================== Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your "boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma" forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory" just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and suppositions, James. Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong. You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL Thanks for playing, but you lose. That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 12:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31deffd9-1a03-416d-8aa7-0b50ec2a5a19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #565755 |
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:20:56 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in > <news:6008532b-91ea-40fa-80d8-406075b38cd5@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:40:22 PM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>> So, uh, if your only argument is to put words in your opponents > >>> mouth what does that indicate to our audience. > >>> > >>> Maybe you should think about that. > > >> You're still backpedaling, James. That's a sign you know you're defeated. > > > I knew you wouldn't answer that question. > > You're still backpedaling, James. That's a sign you know you're > defeated. > > James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled: > Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com> > ======================================================== > > Retracted: > > Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces) > > the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen > > bonds with adjoining water molecules. > ======================================================== > > James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled: > Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com> > ======================================================== > > In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's > > Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water > > droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes > > these droplets to elongate into chains of partially > > reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with > > structural integrity. It is important to note that > > without the concept that is the subject of this post > > (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen > > Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this > > would not be possible. > ======================================================== > > Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim > (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls. And > without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your "boundaries and > structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma" forms which > drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory" just came > crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build your > "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and suppositions, > James. > > Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap > patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong. > You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or > understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL > > Thanks for playing, but you lose. > > That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with > distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an > electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher > energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic > attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the > electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, > that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic > attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just > violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density > differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That > less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your > giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly > appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? It seems like you forgot to address the issue I brought up at the beginning of this thread. Coulomb's law assumes a force. Right? And so, if there is no force then it's not applicable. Right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 07:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f973b7ab3063ecfe264043252a71032c@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #565963 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:31deffd9-1a03-416d-8aa7-0b50ec2a5a19@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:20:56 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>> So, uh, if your only argument is to put words in your opponents >>>>> mouth what does that indicate to our audience. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe you should think about that. >>>> You're still backpedaling, James. That's a sign you know you're defeated. >>> I knew you wouldn't answer that question. >> You're still backpedaling, James. That's a sign you know you're >> defeated. >> >> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled: >> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com> >> ======================================================== >> > Retracted: >> > Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces) >> > the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen >> > bonds with adjoining water molecules. >> ======================================================== >> >> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled: >> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com> >> ======================================================== >> > In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's >> > Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water >> > droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes >> > these droplets to elongate into chains of partially >> > reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with >> > structural integrity. It is important to note that >> > without the concept that is the subject of this post >> > (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen >> > Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this >> > would not be possible. >> ======================================================== >> >> Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim >> (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls. And >> without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your "boundaries and >> structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma" forms which >> drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory" just came >> crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build your >> "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and suppositions, >> James. >> >> Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap >> patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong. >> You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or >> understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL >> >> Thanks for playing, but you lose. >> >> That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL > It seems like you forgot to address the issue I brought up at the > beginning of this thread. Coulomb's law assumes a force. Right? > And so, if there is no force then it's not applicable. Right? Coulomb's Law most certainly is applicable, James. Coulomb's Law states that electrostatic attraction *decreases* by the inverse square of distance. Your delusional blather states that H bonds yield energy when they break, but real scientists know it *requires* energy to break H bonds, it doesn't *yield* energy. Do you have any proof that H bonds yield energy when they break, James? No? You're just blathering moronic stupidity in trying to explain a world that both confuses and confounds you? LOL So yet again you're violating the Law of Conservation of Energy, James. You're claiming Coulomb's Law to state the exact opposite of what it actually states. IOW, you're now denying all of particle physics, which means you deny the underlying basis for how the entire universe works the way it does... do you believe the entire universe is conspiring against you to subvert your delusional blather, James? Are you going to sue *science*, *reality*, *photons*, *electrons* and the *universe* in your crayon-scribbled "class-action" kooksoot, James? LOL Where is that kooksoot, James? Did you break a crayon, thereby delaying the filing of your delusional kooksoot? LOL Or did your mommy not give you the money yet to file your crayon-scribbled kooksoot? LOL You sad pathetic lackwit. You are James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA... you're a scientific fraud and the laughingstock of the entire world. I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. Now you do your very best to contain your murderous impotent tard-rage, Tardnado Jim. Whatever you do, don't pick up that AR-15 you ordered over the internet in your mommy's name and shoot up a mall, as you delusional morons so often do. Innocent people don't need to die just because you're a moron... unless you *want* to go out to news stories of a halfwit babbling about the giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream which told you to shoot up a mall. LOL Halfwit. Moron. Tardnado. LOL -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 23:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cef082b2-da4f-484a-b059-7f29a5bd721a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #566088 |
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:38:28 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > It seems like you forgot to address the issue I brought up at the > > beginning of this thread. Coulomb's law assumes a force. Right? > > And so, if there is no force then it's not applicable. Right? > > Coulomb's Law most certainly is applicable, James. Coulomb's Law > states that electrostatic attraction *decreases* by the inverse square > of distance. You can't grasp the distinction between a law and a mechanism?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 18:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bb0945073ebad3aa67aaf303347c9573@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #566095 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:cef082b2-da4f-484a-b059-7f29a5bd721a@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:38:28 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> It seems like you forgot to address the issue I brought up at the >>> beginning of this thread. Coulomb's law assumes a force. Right? >>> And so, if there is no force then it's not applicable. Right? >> Coulomb's Law most certainly is applicable, James. Coulomb's Law >> states that electrostatic attraction *decreases* by the inverse square >> of distance. >> >> Your delusional blather states that H bonds yield energy when they >> break, but real scientists know it *requires* energy to break H bonds, >> it doesn't *yield* energy. >> >> Do you have any proof that H bonds yield energy when they break, >> James? No? You're just blathering moronic stupidity in trying to >> explain a world that both confuses and confounds you? LOL >> >> So yet again you're violating the Law of Conservation of Energy, >> James. You're claiming Coulomb's Law to state the exact opposite of >> what it actually states. >> >> IOW, you're now denying all of particle physics, which means you deny >> the underlying basis for how the entire universe works the way it >> does... do you believe the entire universe is conspiring against you >> to subvert your delusional blather, James? >> >> Are you going to sue *science*, *reality*, *photons*, *electrons* and >> the *universe* in your crayon-scribbled "class-action" kooksoot, >> James? LOL >> >> Where is that kooksoot, James? Did you break a crayon, thereby >> delaying the filing of your delusional kooksoot? LOL >> >> Or did your mommy not give you the money yet to file your >> crayon-scribbled kooksoot? LOL >> >> You sad pathetic lackwit. >> >> You are James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA... you're >> a scientific fraud and the laughingstock of the entire world. >> >> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. >> >> Now you do your very best to contain your murderous impotent >> tard-rage, Tardnado Jim. Whatever you do, don't pick up that AR-15 you >> ordered over the internet in your mommy's name and shoot up a mall, as >> you delusional morons so often do. Innocent people don't need to die >> just because you're a moron... unless you *want* to go out to news >> stories of a halfwit babbling about the giant sentient tornado monster >> in the jet stream which told you to shoot up a mall. LOL >> >> Halfwit. Moron. Tardnado. LOL > You can't grasp the distinction between a law and a mechanism? You can't grasp the distinction between reality and your moronic reality-denying blather, James. Get right on explaining how your "mechanism not-a-mechanism" wouldn't cancel out the electrostatic attraction effect of Coulomb's Law, thereby causing all water to immediately dissociate, you halfwit. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ce79409-e825-4166-9f61-1d407cd3fd89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #566176 |
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:38:20 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > You can't grasp the distinction between a law and a mechanism? > > You can't grasp the distinction between reality and your moronic > reality-denying blather, James. LOL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 07:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f5c9f69d62867028406d592ded0ddb41@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #566189 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:6ce79409-e825-4166-9f61-1d407cd3fd89@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:38:20 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> You can't grasp the distinction between a law and a mechanism? >> You can't grasp the distinction between reality and your moronic >> reality-denying blather, James. >> >> Get right on explaining how your "mechanism not-a-mechanism" wouldn't >> cancel out the electrostatic attraction effect of Coulomb's Law, >> thereby causing all water to immediately dissociate, you halfwit. > LOL. Your insane laughter in lieu of explaining how your "mechanism not-a-mechanism" wouldn't cancel out the electrostatic attraction effect of Coulomb's Law, thereby causing all water to immediately dissociate is noted, James. You're a dishonest fact-twisting reality-denying scientific fraud, James. You live at home with mommy and daddy because you've legally been deemed to be mentally incompetent, you can't live independently. Your broken little schizo monkey brain simply can't process reality sufficiently to allow you to be anything other than a lifelong ward of your parents. When they die, you'll be put in a home for mental retards. Perhaps James, Sr. and Constance should be contacted and informed that you're not taking your meds again, James. Perhaps if they revoked your internet privileges, you'd take your meds and stop making such a fool of yourself. Do you think that'd help your situation, James? <snicker> -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 11:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6c21bd9-e7e0-4912-afd7-41ee6f2261c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #566176 |
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:38:20 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > >>> It seems like you forgot to address the issue I brought up at the > >>> beginning of this thread. Coulomb's law assumes a force. Right? > >>> And so, if there is no force then it's not applicable. Right? > > >> Coulomb's Law most certainly is applicable, James. Coulomb's Law > >> states that electrostatic attraction *decreases* by the inverse square > >> of distance. > >> > >> Your delusional blather states that H bonds yield energy when they > >> break, but real scientists know it *requires* energy to break H bonds, > >> it doesn't *yield* energy. > >> > >> Do you have any proof that H bonds yield energy when they break, > >> James? No? You're just blathering moronic stupidity in trying to > >> explain a world that both confuses and confounds you? LOL > >> > >> So yet again you're violating the Law of Conservation of Energy, > >> James. You're claiming Coulomb's Law to state the exact opposite of > >> what it actually states. > >> > >> IOW, you're now denying all of particle physics, which means you deny > >> the underlying basis for how the entire universe works the way it > >> does... do you believe the entire universe is conspiring against you > >> to subvert your delusional blather, James? > >> > >> Are you going to sue *science*, *reality*, *photons*, *electrons* and > >> the *universe* in your crayon-scribbled "class-action" kooksoot, > >> James? LOL > >> > >> Where is that kooksoot, James? Did you break a crayon, thereby > >> delaying the filing of your delusional kooksoot? LOL > >> > >> Or did your mommy not give you the money yet to file your > >> crayon-scribbled kooksoot? LOL > >> > >> You sad pathetic lackwit. > >> > >> You are James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA... you're > >> a scientific fraud and the laughingstock of the entire world. > >> > >> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. > >> > >> Now you do your very best to contain your murderous impotent > >> tard-rage, Tardnado Jim. Whatever you do, don't pick up that AR-15 you > >> ordered over the internet in your mommy's name and shoot up a mall, as > >> you delusional morons so often do. Innocent people don't need to die > >> just because you're a moron... unless you *want* to go out to news > >> stories of a halfwit babbling about the giant sentient tornado monster > >> in the jet stream which told you to shoot up a mall. LOL > >> > >> Halfwit. Moron. Tardnado. LOL > > > You can't grasp the distinction between a law and a mechanism? > > You can't grasp the distinction between reality and your moronic > reality-denying blather, James. So, let me get this straight. You are saying that if we pretend a mechanism and a law are the same thing my hypothesis is refuted. Right? Okay but, what if we don't pretend like something is something it is not. Then what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 08:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dad5f5b9c3b493da3e919fa214f808dc@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #566242 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in <news:e6c21bd9-e7e0-4912-afd7-41ee6f2261c5@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:38:20 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>> It seems like you forgot to address the issue I brought up at the >>>>> beginning of this thread. Coulomb's law assumes a force. Right? >>>>> And so, if there is no force then it's not applicable. Right? >>>> Coulomb's Law most certainly is applicable, James. Coulomb's Law >>>> states that electrostatic attraction *decreases* by the inverse square >>>> of distance. >>>> >>>> Your delusional blather states that H bonds yield energy when they >>>> break, but real scientists know it *requires* energy to break H bonds, >>>> it doesn't *yield* energy. >>>> >>>> Do you have any proof that H bonds yield energy when they break, >>>> James? No? You're just blathering moronic stupidity in trying to >>>> explain a world that both confuses and confounds you? LOL >>>> >>>> So yet again you're violating the Law of Conservation of Energy, >>>> James. You're claiming Coulomb's Law to state the exact opposite of >>>> what it actually states. >>>> >>>> IOW, you're now denying all of particle physics, which means you deny >>>> the underlying basis for how the entire universe works the way it >>>> does... do you believe the entire universe is conspiring against you >>>> to subvert your delusional blather, James? >>>> >>>> Are you going to sue *science*, *reality*, *photons*, *electrons* and >>>> the *universe* in your crayon-scribbled "class-action" kooksoot, >>>> James? LOL >>>> >>>> Where is that kooksoot, James? Did you break a crayon, thereby >>>> delaying the filing of your delusional kooksoot? LOL >>>> >>>> Or did your mommy not give you the money yet to file your >>>> crayon-scribbled kooksoot? LOL >>>> >>>> You sad pathetic lackwit. >>>> >>>> You are James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA... you're >>>> a scientific fraud and the laughingstock of the entire world. >>>> >>>> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. >>>> >>>> Now you do your very best to contain your murderous impotent >>>> tard-rage, Tardnado Jim. Whatever you do, don't pick up that AR-15 you >>>> ordered over the internet in your mommy's name and shoot up a mall, as >>>> you delusional morons so often do. Innocent people don't need to die >>>> just because you're a moron... unless you *want* to go out to news >>>> stories of a halfwit babbling about the giant sentient tornado monster >>>> in the jet stream which told you to shoot up a mall. LOL >>>> >>>> Halfwit. Moron. Tardnado. LOL >>> You can't grasp the distinction between a law and a mechanism? >> You can't grasp the distinction between reality and your moronic >> reality-denying blather, James. > So, let me get this straight. You are saying that if we pretend a > mechanism and a law are the same thing my hypothesis is refuted. > Right? Besides the fact that you've provided no proof for your wholly manufactured "mechanism", you've yet to explain how your kooky world is going to prevent your "mechanism" and the electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law from mutually canceling and thus dissociating all water, James. You were caught trying to twist Coulomb's Law to state the exact opposite of what it actually states, in order that you could fit it to your fraudulent "theory not-a-theory". When called on it, you made up your even more retarded "mechanism". Because you're a scientific fraud desperately slapping patches on your moronic "theory not-a-theory" as fast as I kick it full of holes. > Okay but, what if we don't pretend like something is something it > is not. Then what? Then you're still wrong, James. And delusional. And defeated. That's reality, James. Deal with it. Your sanity is cracking under the weight of all those unanswered questions, James. I told you, the longer you run from reality, the worse it'll get for you... and we've only just begun. Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? Why are you not taking your meds, James? Why are you *still* running away from answering those tough questions in my .sig which highlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions in your moronic "theory not-a-theory", James? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 11:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e695a05c-fb3b-4835-b556-5f0cdb55ad6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #566088 |
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:38:28 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > It seems like you forgot to address the issue I brought up at the > > beginning of this thread. Coulomb's law assumes a force. Right? > > And so, if there is no force then it's not applicable. Right? > > Coulomb's Law most certainly is applicable, James. So, are you saying it's applicable even when there is no force to apply it to? Can you explain this. Or is your explanation another one of your special secrets? Coulomb's Law > states that electrostatic attraction *decreases* by the inverse square > of distance. > > Your delusional blather states that H bonds yield energy when they > break, but real scientists know it *requires* energy to break H bonds, > it doesn't *yield* energy. > > Do you have any proof that H bonds yield energy when they break, > James? No? You're just blathering moronic stupidity in trying to > explain a world that both confuses and confounds you? LOL > > So yet again you're violating the Law of Conservation of Energy, > James. You're claiming Coulomb's Law to state the exact opposite of > what it actually states. > > IOW, you're now denying all of particle physics, which means you deny > the underlying basis for how the entire universe works the way it > does... do you believe the entire universe is conspiring against you > to subvert your delusional blather, James? > > Are you going to sue *science*, *reality*, *photons*, *electrons* and > the *universe* in your crayon-scribbled "class-action" kooksoot, > James? LOL > > Where is that kooksoot, James? Did you break a crayon, thereby > delaying the filing of your delusional kooksoot? LOL > > Or did your mommy not give you the money yet to file your > crayon-scribbled kooksoot? LOL > > You sad pathetic lackwit. > > You are James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA... you're > a scientific fraud and the laughingstock of the entire world. > > I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. > > Now you do your very best to contain your murderous impotent > tard-rage, Tardnado Jim. Whatever you do, don't pick up that AR-15 you > ordered over the internet in your mommy's name and shoot up a mall, as > you delusional morons so often do. Innocent people don't need to die > just because you're a moron... unless you *want* to go out to news > stories of a halfwit babbling about the giant sentient tornado monster > in the jet stream which told you to shoot up a mall. LOL > > Halfwit. Moron. Tardnado. LOL > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with > distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an > electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher > energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic > attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the > electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, > that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic > attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just > violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density > differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That > less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your > giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly > appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 07:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c0da21b9a1cbe1270b14cdcd5bf18051@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #566226 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in <news:e695a05c-fb3b-4835-b556-5f0cdb55ad6c@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:38:28 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> It seems like you forgot to address the issue I brought up at the >>> beginning of this thread. Coulomb's law assumes a force. Right? >>> And so, if there is no force then it's not applicable. Right? >> Coulomb's Law most certainly is applicable, James. > So, are you saying it's applicable even when there is no force to > apply it to? I'm saying your claiming that electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance is exactly the opposite of how electrostatic attraction is known to work, and a dishonest attempt on your part to twist Coulomb's Law to fit your delusion. When you were called on it, you invented an entirely new "mechanism" apart from Coulomb's Law, which operated exactly opposite to Coulomb's Law. You've thus far failed to provide any proof for this claim, nor have you addressed the fact that the two mechanisms would mutually cancel and all water would immediately dissociate. So yet again, we see you shifting your moronic "theory not-a-theory" as I kick holes in it, because you're a scientific fraud. Especially given that you've retracted the central premise of your "theory not-a-theory" upon which your retarded take on electrostatic attraction is based... James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled: Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com> ======================================================== > Retracted: > Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces) > the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen > bonds with adjoining water molecules. ======================================================== James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled: Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com> ======================================================== > In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's > Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water > droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes > these droplets to elongate into chains of partially > reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with > structural integrity. It is important to note that > without the concept that is the subject of this post > (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen > Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this > would not be possible. ======================================================== Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your "boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma" forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory" just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and suppositions, James. Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong. You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL Thanks for playing, but you lose. That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL > Can you explain this. Or is your explanation another one of your > special secrets? Already explained above and below, James. Your psychotic denial of reality doesn't negate reality. >> Coulomb's Law states that electrostatic attraction *decreases* by >> the inverse square of distance. >> >> Your delusional blather states that H bonds yield energy when they >> break, but real scientists know it *requires* energy to break H bonds, >> it doesn't *yield* energy. >> >> Do you have any proof that H bonds yield energy when they break, >> James? No? You're just blathering moronic stupidity in trying to >> explain a world that both confuses and confounds you? LOL >> >> So yet again you're violating the Law of Conservation of Energy, >> James. You're claiming Coulomb's Law to state the exact opposite of >> what it actually states. >> >> IOW, you're now denying all of particle physics, which means you deny >> the underlying basis for how the entire universe works the way it >> does... do you believe the entire universe is conspiring against you >> to subvert your delusional blather, James? >> >> Are you going to sue *science*, *reality*, *photons*, *electrons* and >> the *universe* in your crayon-scribbled "class-action" kooksoot, >> James? LOL >> >> Where is that kooksoot, James? Did you break a crayon, thereby >> delaying the filing of your delusional kooksoot? LOL >> >> Or did your mommy not give you the money yet to file your >> crayon-scribbled kooksoot? LOL >> >> You sad pathetic lackwit. >> >> You are James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA... you're >> a scientific fraud and the laughingstock of the entire world. >> >> I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. >> >> Now you do your very best to contain your murderous impotent >> tard-rage, Tardnado Jim. Whatever you do, don't pick up that AR-15 you >> ordered over the internet in your mommy's name and shoot up a mall, as >> you delusional morons so often do. Innocent people don't need to die >> just because you're a moron... unless you *want* to go out to news >> stories of a halfwit babbling about the giant sentient tornado monster >> in the jet stream which told you to shoot up a mall. LOL >> >> Halfwit. Moron. Tardnado. LOL No reply, James? Is your embarrassment over your being utterly unable to answer those tough questions causing you undue consternation, Tardnado McGinn? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? Why are you not taking your meds, James? Why are you *still* running away from answering those tough questions in my .sig which highlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions in your moronic "theory not-a-theory", James? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 22:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24467246-df45-49a3-94fd-1e2fa416f313@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #566406 |
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > So, are you saying it's applicable even when there is no force to > > apply it to? > > I'm saying your claiming that electrostatic attraction increases with > increasing distance is exactly the opposite of how electrostatic > attraction is known to work, Well,that's true. Except they are two different things. One is a mechanism. The other is a law. > and a dishonest attempt on your part to > twist Coulomb's Law to fit your delusion. You are so emotional. Like a little kid. > When you were called on it, > you invented an entirely new "mechanism" apart from Coulomb's Law, I wrote the paper in November. You are just confused. Don't blame me for your confusion. Be an adult and take responsibility for your own comprehension. It's clearly explained in the paper. I suppose you saw what Soper said, got confused, and went on your little tirade. > which operated exactly opposite to Coulomb's Law. You've thus far > failed to provide any proof for this claim, nor have you addressed the > fact that the two mechanisms would mutually cancel and all water would > immediately dissociate. When you throw a hissy fit you stop learning. > So yet again, we see you shifting your moronic "theory not-a-theory" > as I kick holes in it, because you're a scientific fraud. You have very little experience dealing with abstract concepts and instead of rolling with the punches and trying to learn you embarrass yourself and throw a temper tantrum. Grow up and take responsibility for your own comprehension and don't expect me to do all the heavy lifting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 20:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f6809c89fb32dca4a8ab50f0d721afcd@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #566414 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:24467246-df45-49a3-94fd-1e2fa416f313@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> So, are you saying it's applicable even when there is no force to >>> apply it to? >> I'm saying your claiming that electrostatic attraction increases with >> increasing distance is exactly the opposite of how electrostatic >> attraction is known to work, > Well,that's true. Except they are two different things. One is a mechanism. The other is a law. Oh, that's not the only difference, James. Whereas Coulomb's Law exists and reflects reality, your "mechanism" is the fairy tale product of a badly broken schizo-brain flailing about as it attempts to make sense of a world that utterly perplexes it. >> and a dishonest attempt on your part to >> twist Coulomb's Law to fit your delusion. > You are so emotional. Like a little kid. You're projecting again, James. You're the one getting all emotional and telling people to piss off, remember? You're the delusional moron who is so emotional over your inability to process reality that you're scribbling up a "class-action" kooksoot against *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* and the *universe* for their part in the massive conspiracy to thwart your attempts to remodel all of reality to fit your delusions. LOL >> When you were called on it, >> you invented an entirely new "mechanism" apart from Coulomb's Law, > I wrote the paper in November. So? Then you attempted to hijack Coulomb's Law and twist it to fit your delusion. When called on it, you instead made the insane claim that you'd come up with an entirely new mechanism separate from Coulomb's Law and which operated exactly opposite to Coulomb's Law... while providing no proof of your claim, and not explaining how your "mechanism" and the electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law wouldn't mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water. Because you're a schizo-brained mental incompetent. > You are just confused. Don't blame me for your confusion. Be an > adult and take responsibility for your own comprehension. It's > clearly explained in the paper. I suppose you saw what Soper said, > got confused, and went on your little tirade. There is no confusion on my part, Tardnado. The only confusion resides within your skull. >> which operated exactly opposite to Coulomb's Law. You've thus far >> failed to provide any proof for this claim, nor have you addressed the >> fact that the two mechanisms would mutually cancel and all water would >> immediately dissociate. > When you throw a hissy fit you stop learning. Non sequitur again because you know you're cornered, trapped like a rat. You can't answer those questions or even attempt to explain your moronic delusion without me kicking holes in it, necessitating that you take huge swaths of your day bleating out non sequiturs and backpedaling. You forget that I type faster than you can think, and I think far faster than you could ever imagine, James. You're shut down, locked out, blocked from spewing more retardation about your "theory not-a-theory" because every claim you make you'll be called on, every retarded thing you blather will result in endless attacks upon your moronic illogic. You're slowly being crushed under the unrelenting wheels of truth and reality. That's reality, James. Deal with it. >> So yet again, we see you shifting your moronic "theory not-a-theory" >> as I kick holes in it, because you're a scientific fraud. > You have very little experience dealing with abstract concepts and > instead of rolling with the punches and trying to learn you > embarrass yourself and throw a temper tantrum. Grow up and take > responsibility for your own comprehension and don't expect me to do > all the heavy lifting. You've done *no* "heavy lifting", James. No experimentation, no mathematical modeling, not even any deep thinking. You blather whatever burbles to the surface of that festering mound you call a brain and think it's true. That is why, after all, you've been deemed legally mentally incompetent, a lackwit who can't even take care of himself. Why can't you answer those questions, James? -- 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. 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. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrstatic 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? 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, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 02:46 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <41jlfbpkk7iv1m6ic325qoat7omfe8as2s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #566515 |
Fakey wrote: > You're projecting again, James. You're the one getting all emotional > and telling people to piss off, remember? You're the delusional moron > who is so emotional over your inability to process reality that you're Why have you run away from the FLotus threads, fakey? Are you so emotional over your inability to get away with plagiarizing photos of other people's Lotii, that you have to take it out on another kook? -- "Gee, and that wouldn't be because the same shop did that Lotus and mine, right? DUUURRRHHH!" --Fakey gets busted lying about his imaginary Lotus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 18:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3164c79725aab56c98cc31@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #566519 |
In article <41jlfbpkk7iv1m6ic325qoat7omfe8as2s@4ax.com>, bender@the.future says... > > Fakey wrote: > > > You're projecting again, James. You're the one getting all emotional > > and telling people to piss off, remember? You're the delusional moron > > who is so emotional over your inability to process reality that you're > > Why have you run away from the FLotus threads, fakey? > > Are you so emotional over your inability to get away with > plagiarizing photos of other people's Lotii, that you > have to take it out on another kook? Squirm, Fakey, SQUIRM! LOL -- Mustaffa Sheboygan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 05:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ae21337421ad418addefc65db51263c8@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #566519 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in <news:41jlfbpkk7iv1m6ic325qoat7omfe8as2s@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: >> You're projecting again, James. You're the one getting all emotional >> and telling people to piss off, remember? You're the delusional moron >> who is so emotional over your inability to process reality that you're > Why have you run away from the FLotus threads, fakey? Run away? I've proven that DildoRider got caught red-handed being a compulsive liar and obsessive-compulsive crack-fueled 24/7 stalking image-editing photofuckering "speckle"-pasting shitbag. LOL > Are you so emotional over your inability to get away with Have you figured out that cross correlation can be used with Fourier transforms yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL > plagiarizing photos of other people's Lotii, that you Have you figured out that a sinusoid is a transform of a circle yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL > have to take it out on another kook? Have you figured out that sin^2 is a sinusoid yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL I'm not "taking it out on" you, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. I'm laughing raucously at your stupidity. Again. LOL > -- > "Gee, and that wouldn't be because the same shop did that > Lotus and mine, right? DUUURRRHHH!" > --Fakey gets busted lying about his imaginary Lotus ===================================== "All you've shown us is graphs of formulas. No equal signs, no maths done." - Shiny Tinfoil Brain demonstrates his Mathematical Moronism and gets caught in his "no equal sign, no math" lie. ===================================== Have you figured out that formulas are math yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL -- Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== MID: <13d33d0638e0ec690b63393d0710f658@dizum.com> MID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com> 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*). MID: <ff81cb60204ffbd777cd15a6261cfb67@dizum.com> 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 the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective nuclear charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842% margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F. That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames. That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes into account molar volume. That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error". That water can be plasmized. That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge. MID: <382fa822c6dbca9a6f88cab5a104bf62@dizum.com> That formulas *are* math. How to use a graphing calculator. MID: <8e4e21f5748d85599f700ee8ff174611@dizum.com> What LaTeX notation is. MID: <8e4e21f5748d85599f700ee8ff174611@dizum.com> That LaTeX notation *is* "plain text", not a script. MID: <c1c02875af2c6615bd30ab20416b75b5@dizum.com> That a formula in LaTeX notation is still a formula. That scientific notation and LaTeX notation are not the same. DUURRRHH! GoogleTard. LOL That LaTeX notation can be copy-n-pasted into a LaTeX compatible program to view the formula. That image size != image resolution. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== Shiny Tinfoil Spankard the Mathematical Moron maunders and mewls: ===================================== "All you've shown us is graphs of formulas. No equal signs, no maths done." - Shiny Tinfoil Brain demonstrates his Mathematical Moronism. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 05:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <5icnfb1pjisu9g5icrhipm7p3bgg9cuol6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #566578 |
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:31:44 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > Why have you run away from the FLotus threads, 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 | 2016-03-30 11:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.ye48jobktm21m2@benson.localhost> |
| In reply to | #566615 |
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:02:31 -0400, Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:31:44 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>> Why have you run away from the FLotus threads, fakey?
he's surely just busy "taking a picture of his exige emblem" but this time
at a different angle.
--
the never-ending saga of fakey's "lotus"...
https://web.archive.org/web/20160324102816/http://i.imgur.com/S1Xr5PO.png
-
"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. it says that you're in denial
about the inversion of your AC legs.
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.</GROUCHO MARX>
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 that are archived FOREVER.
*/
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
<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">
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
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web