Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #560474 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-08 12:38 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-23 18:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 131 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 12:38 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 12:54 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:59 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 21:33 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:37 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 00:47 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:14 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:30 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:51 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 01:55 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:58 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 11:56 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 04:54 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 20:52 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:34 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 20:54 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:16 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 22:00 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 00:05 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 20:55 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-09 23:57 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 07:04 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 22:19 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:01 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 08:11 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 16:29 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:26 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 01:54 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:40 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 21:44 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 15:02 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 23:08 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 15:20 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 10:03 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 10:03 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 18:05 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 10:14 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 11:29 -0700
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-12 02:13 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 18:52 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:29 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 16:27 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:54 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-14 16:00 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 17:16 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-15 19:18 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-16 03:30 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:27 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 20:35 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 09:53 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:47 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 20:57 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:49 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 22:11 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 07:24 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:10 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:46 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:16 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 09:03 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 00:52 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 05:48 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-13 01:49 -0700
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 01:12 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:24 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 01:22 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:00 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 21:33 -0700
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 06:32 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 23:00 -0700
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 08:43 +0100
there is no warmal globing per se noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 12:20 -0700
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 21:29 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 05:54 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:30 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:39 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:46 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 20:40 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 18:46 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:56 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:01 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:41 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:49 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:38 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:58 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:49 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:34 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"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> - 2016-03-11 01:45 -0500
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:48 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:24 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-14 01:11 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:05 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-14 23:46 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-14 15:53 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-15 00:17 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-14 16:27 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-15 00:51 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"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> - 2016-03-14 12:42 -0400
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-15 00:54 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 18:09 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-15 01:42 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-15 06:14 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"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> - 2016-03-15 01:26 -0400
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-15 18:39 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"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> - 2016-03-15 17:45 -0400
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 05:27 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"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> - 2016-03-16 11:39 -0400
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 18:16 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"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> - 2016-03-16 15:16 -0400
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 05:50 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"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> - 2016-03-15 05:18 -0400
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-15 17:29 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 21:53 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:34 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 16:20 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:12 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:11 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:26 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 09:54 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:19 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"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> - 2016-03-10 00:03 -0500
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:12 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:25 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 23:30 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 03:31 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 23:31 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:43 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 11:33 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:04 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:45 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-09 08:22 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 18:22 -0700
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 12:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology |
| Message-ID | <a678955b-7929-400f-a8c0-a00a4ad0827c@googlegroups.com> |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:41:03 AM UTC-8, pipp...@gmail.com wrote: James McGinn: Whatever the case, your argument is contrived. You are mixing metaphors and being deceptive. LipperF: Like I said, this is the most direct example I can find of published data showing that moist air is less dense than dry air. James McGinn: There is zero data involving the direct measurement of the weight of moist air versus dry air. Yet meteorologists continue to maintain the BELIEF that moist air is lighter than dry air as THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT IN ALL OF METEOROLOGY'S STORM THEORY. The fact that this fact is casually dismissed by you and by all meteorologists is all anybody needs to conclude that meteorology is not a real science like physics or chemistry. LipperF: Since air is a fluid, it really doesn't make sense to talk about its weight James McGinn: LOL. It's you meteorologists that assert that weight/buoyancy/convections is what powers all storms. So your words sound funny coming from the mouth of a meteorologist. It's like you don't know what you think from one minute to the next. LipperF: So if there are any publications that address your question directly (by reporting a weight rather than a mass or a density) they are not easy to locate: http://www.imeko.org/publications/tc3-2002/IMEKO-TC3-2002-038.pdf James McGinn: As you eluded, your reference is worthless. The details of meteorology's convection model of storm theory are IMPOSSIBLE to locate. Meteorologists don't discuss these details. It is strictly a taboo subject--literally. You have as much chance to get a meteorologist to discuss the mathematical details of convection as you do getting a priest to discuss the details of the inquisition. LipperF: But since the weight of the sample is directly proportional to the density and the mass of the sample, both of which are reported in the reference(s) above, I find the publications to be thoroughly convincing. James McGinn: I find your claim that the sample is directly proportional to density to be absurd--plainly. And I find the fact that you find this convincing to be evidence that you are not a real scientists and, by association, meteorology is not a real science. LipperF: Nonsense. Meteorologists (as well as physicists, chemists, mathematicians, engineers, etc) spend a considerable amount of time and ink talking about how clouds, dust devils, thunderstorms, winter storms, supercell thunderstorms, monsoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes form. The conceptual and numerical models we use to analyze, simulate, and predict these systems are constantly analyzed for inconsistencies and improved when possible. James McGinn: As you just eluded, meteorology is a conversational science. It's not an empirical science. Listening to you is like listening to two clergy discussing a passage in the bible. Meteorologists make observations. They/you don't do experiments. The basic assumptions of their/your most fundamental models are mathematically absurd/inept. So they/you can't actually solve problems. It's all talk and phoney math used to create the illusion that they/you understand what they/you do not. Before there was global warming there was meteorology.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 12:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6ce0e771-15f0-413d-aca0-2f4f0353cba6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560474 |
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQSIApZxgVk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 05:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <da6b6261b23e26489f96a8b8184503b2@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560487 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:6ce0e771-15f0-413d-aca0-2f4f0353cba6@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQSIApZxgVk Translation: "I realize there can exist no plasma in the troposphere, where 91.43% of all water in the atmosphere exists, mainly because the conditions for plasma to exist include high solar flux and a dominant species consisting of hydrogen ions, not oxygen and nitrogen as in the troposphere... which is why the plasmasphere exists so far above the planet's surface, and no plasma can be created further down in the atmosphere. So I'll make my blathering video private... it doesn't provide any evidence of plasma in the troposphere anyway. I'm just a delusional kooktard promulgating a conspiracy theory." <snicker> I've seen no proof from you that plasma *does* exist anywhere in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, Jim. Because you *have* no proof... and a large corpus of evidence that you're a blathering moron for even suggesting such a thing. Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere exists so high above the planet's surface is because it takes a lot of energy to generate and sustain a plasma? Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere has plasma is because at that altitude, the predominant species is hydrogen ions, not oxygen and nitrogen, said hydrogen ions *required* for the plasma to form? Do you not understand that the atmospheric reflection and absorption of sunlight as it descends through the atmosphere means the troposphere doesn't have the solar flux *nor* the hydrogen ions necessary to generate plasma? Do you not understand that clouds top out at the tropopause, and therefore the *only* place you can claim there exists plasma for your kooky conspiracy theory to work is in the troposphere? Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist, when really you're just a delusional kooktard? So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. <snicker> Two peer-reviewed studies, empirically-derived data, proving monomer water in the atmosphere, Jim: Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> ================================================= A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. ================================================= "one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been utterly destroyed, meaning you owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, Jim. <snicker> Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous water exists in the atmosphere: <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/> ========================================================= Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains controversial. ========================================================= That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves you're a moronic kooktard, Jim. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 21:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d93c0c0-9cc7-4162-8047-0ef59062dccd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560662 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:09:36 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:6ce0e771-15f0-413d-aca0-2f4f0353cba6@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQSIApZxgVk > > Translation: > "I realize there can exist no plasma in the troposphere, where 91.43% > of all water in the atmosphere exists, mainly because the conditions > for plasma to exist include high solar flux and a dominant species > consisting of hydrogen ions, not oxygen and nitrogen as in the > troposphere... which is why the plasmasphere exists so far above the > planet's surface, and no plasma can be created further down in the > atmosphere. So I'll make my blathering video private... it doesn't > provide any evidence of plasma in the troposphere anyway. I'm just a > delusional kooktard promulgating a conspiracy theory." > > <snicker> > > I've seen no proof from you that plasma *does* exist anywhere in our > atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, Jim. Because you *have* no > proof... and a large corpus of evidence that you're a blathering moron > for even suggesting such a thing. > > Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere exists so high > above the planet's surface is because it takes a lot of energy to > generate and sustain a plasma? > > Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere has plasma is > because at that altitude, the predominant species is hydrogen ions, > not oxygen and nitrogen, said hydrogen ions *required* for the plasma > to form? > > Do you not understand that the atmospheric reflection and absorption > of sunlight as it descends through the atmosphere means the > troposphere doesn't have the solar flux *nor* the hydrogen ions > necessary to generate plasma? > > Do you not understand that clouds top out at the tropopause, and > therefore the *only* place you can claim there exists plasma for your > kooky conspiracy theory to work is in the troposphere? > > Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the > troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting > of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist, when > really you're just a delusional kooktard? > > So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky > conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. > > <snicker> > > Two peer-reviewed studies, empirically-derived data, proving monomer > water in the atmosphere, Jim: > > Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research > <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> > ================================================= > A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in > the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number > is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least > one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the > obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain > sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, > the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, > and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that > an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise > interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent > collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the > liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was > interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the > evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation > process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's > cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a > well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. Did you not notice this phrase: " . . . according to computer simulations."? What do you think that phrase means?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 19:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edf224cd7e3a9afcb3af6a33a42b01e5@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560674 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:1d93c0c0-9cc7-4162-8047-0ef59062dccd@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:09:36 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James McGinn, in >> <news:6ce0e771-15f0-413d-aca0-2f4f0353cba6@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQSIApZxgVk >> Translation: >> "I realize there can exist no plasma in the troposphere, where 91.43% >> of all water in the atmosphere exists, mainly because the conditions >> for plasma to exist include high solar flux and a dominant species >> consisting of hydrogen ions, not oxygen and nitrogen as in the >> troposphere... which is why the plasmasphere exists so far above the >> planet's surface, and no plasma can be created further down in the >> atmosphere. So I'll make my blathering video private... it doesn't >> provide any evidence of plasma in the troposphere anyway. I'm just a >> delusional kooktard promulgating a conspiracy theory." >> >> <snicker> >> >> I've seen no proof from you that plasma *does* exist anywhere in our >> atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, Jim. Because you *have* no >> proof... and a large corpus of evidence that you're a blathering moron >> for even suggesting such a thing. >> >> Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere exists so high >> above the planet's surface is because it takes a lot of energy to >> generate and sustain a plasma? >> >> Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere has plasma is >> because at that altitude, the predominant species is hydrogen ions, >> not oxygen and nitrogen, said hydrogen ions *required* for the plasma >> to form? >> >> Do you not understand that the atmospheric reflection and absorption >> of sunlight as it descends through the atmosphere means the >> troposphere doesn't have the solar flux *nor* the hydrogen ions >> necessary to generate plasma? >> >> Do you not understand that clouds top out at the tropopause, and >> therefore the *only* place you can claim there exists plasma for your >> kooky conspiracy theory to work is in the troposphere? >> >> Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the >> troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting >> of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist, when >> really you're just a delusional kooktard? >> >> So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky >> conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. >> >> <snicker> >> >> Two peer-reviewed studies, empirically-derived data, proving monomer >> water in the atmosphere, Jim: >> >> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research >> <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation> >> ================================================= >> A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in >> the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number >> is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least >> one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the >> obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain >> sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, >> the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, >> and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that >> an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise >> interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent >> collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the >> liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was >> interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the >> evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation >> process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's >> cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a >> well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule. > Did you not notice this phrase: " . . . according to computer simulations."? > > What do you think that phrase means? Did *you* notice the fact that no ultraviolet of sufficient energy can make its way through the atmosphere to the troposphere to create your kooky "water plasma", Jim? That utterly destroys your kooky conspiracy theory, right there. And that's besides all the other avenues which I've destroyed it, Jim. Your kooky conspiracy theory is dead, Jim. As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the atmosphere: <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html> ========================================================= It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of energy about 12 electron volts of higher. That means the water molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to make such a plasma. ========================================================= Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet light, nearly in the x-ray range. And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere is plasma. Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm. In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim. Yet again, and via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky little conspiracy theory. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 00:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <13bf5e57-731a-4211-958b-afaa71d61120@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560662 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:09:36 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > I've seen no proof from you that plasma *does* exist I think people who argue semantics are nitwits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 06:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3b30aba297661cdca1914c24c4960061@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561465 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in <news:13bf5e57-731a-4211-958b-afaa71d61120@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:09:36 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> I've seen no proof from you that plasma *does* exist > I think people who argue semantics are nitwits. I think people who k'lame there is a magical "plasma not-a-plasma" made from water, which can still form droplets, and which is "plasmized not-plasmized" by an energy source which, if it existed in the troposphere, would dissociate all water on the planet and kill off all life, are insane retards, Jim. How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim? Where is the energy coming from to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? <snicker> -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*); That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms; That superposition is the same as wave interference; That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves; That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things; That RMS isn't a DC voltage; That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave; That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering; What a positive or negative vector is; That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero; That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic"; That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. 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. That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 07:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <323719d8a0ffc7eeeb81d09b5da2b252@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560474 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:a678955b-7929-400f-a8c0-a00a4ad0827c@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:41:03 AM UTC-8, pipp...@gmail.com wrote: > > James McGinn: > Whatever the case, your argument is contrived. You are mixing metaphors and being deceptive. > > LipperF: > Like I said, this is the most direct example I can find of published data showing that moist air is less dense than dry air. > > James McGinn: > There is zero data involving the direct measurement of the weight of moist air versus dry air. Yet meteorologists continue to maintain the BELIEF that moist air is lighter than dry air as THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT IN ALL OF METEOROLOGY'S STORM THEORY. > > The fact that this fact is casually dismissed by you and by all meteorologists is all anybody needs to conclude that meteorology is not a real science like physics or chemistry. > > LipperF: > Since air is a fluid, it really doesn't make sense to talk about its weight > > James McGinn: > LOL. It's you meteorologists that assert that weight/buoyancy/convections is what powers all storms. So your words sound funny coming from the mouth of a meteorologist. It's like you don't know what you think from one minute to the next. > > LipperF: > So if there are any publications that address your question directly (by reporting a weight rather than a mass or a density) they are not easy to locate: > http://www.imeko.org/publications/tc3-2002/IMEKO-TC3-2002-038.pdf > > James McGinn: > As you eluded, your reference is worthless. The details of meteorology's convection model of storm theory are IMPOSSIBLE to locate. Meteorologists don't discuss these details. It is strictly a taboo subject--literally. > > You have as much chance to get a meteorologist to discuss the mathematical details of convection as you do getting a priest to discuss the details of the inquisition. > > LipperF: > But since the weight of the sample is directly proportional to the density and the mass of the sample, both of which are reported in the reference(s) above, I find the publications to be thoroughly convincing. > > James McGinn: > I find your claim that the sample is directly proportional to density to be absurd--plainly. And I find the fact that you find this convincing to be evidence that you are not a real scientists and, by association, meteorology is not a real science. > > LipperF: > Nonsense. Meteorologists (as well as physicists, chemists, mathematicians, engineers, etc) spend a considerable amount of time and ink talking about how clouds, dust devils, thunderstorms, winter storms, supercell thunderstorms, monsoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes form. The conceptual and numerical models we use to analyze, simulate, and predict these systems are constantly analyzed for inconsistencies and improved when possible. > > James McGinn: > As you just eluded, meteorology is a conversational science. It's not an empirical science. Listening to you is like listening to two clergy discussing a passage in the bible. Meteorologists make observations. They/you don't do experiments. The basic assumptions of their/your most fundamental models are mathematically absurd/inept. So they/you can't actually solve problems. It's all talk and phoney math used to create the illusion that they/you understand what they/you do not. > > Before there was global warming there was meteorology. Still denying Avogadro's Law, Jim? The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of the atomic masses of its constituent atoms. The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP. Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the same volume of 22.414 liters at STP. The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP. Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase 28.57 g for air Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore air with water in its gaseous phase in it is lighter than dry air. Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant. Ergo, your entire basis of argument is invalid, and you'll be forwarding the $100,000 to my BitCoin account immediately. Now, I'm sure you'll blather something like "that only applies if the polarity of water is constant, it is not", as you've done in the past, so let's just destroy that kooky little duck-n-weave right now, shall we? The solvent properties of water depend upon the hydrogen bonding of water. If the polarity of the water molecule varied, the hydrogen bond length would vary, and therefore the solvent properties of water would vary. We know it does not change randomly, only from temperature. <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/solacid.gif> M. H. Abraham and W. E. Acree Jr., The hydrogen bond properties of water from 273 K to 573 K; equations for the prediction of gas-water partition coefficients, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 14 (2012) 7433-7440. The solvent properties of water changing with temperature are explained by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Jim... a more energetic environment would cause those hydrogen bonds to be separated more often, thus affecting the solvent properties as a measure of temperature, *not* as a result of "variable polarity of water", you kooktard: <http://preparatorychemistry.com/Bishop_solubility_temperature.htm> Thus, for any given temperature, the solvent properties of water will not change, Jim, and thus the polarity of the water molecule does not change, Jim. It is such a bedrock of all chemical processes involving water that it can be graphed, as shown above. Oh look, proof that the polarity of a water molecule does not change unless *induced* to do so via application of electric charge: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/dielectric_constant.html#polar> The only way one can force the polarity of water to vary, given that the polarization of water is, by definition, its electric dipole moment density, is to apply an electric field to the water, you kooktard. Thus, if you're going to argue that the change in solvent properties of water as a result of temperature change is a result of change in polarity of the water molecule (an utter impossibility, but let's entertain Jim the Moron for a bit), then according to your kooky theory, water is an electrocaloric fluid! A change in polarity of the molecule due to temperature would entail a change in the electric dipole moment density, thus when that purported polarity change occurred, your kooky theory says that, by necessity due to the Law of Conservation of Energy, water *must* give off an electric charge! And that, Jim, is just silly. As is your kooky conspiracy theory. As are you, Jim. Your theory has been demolished, Jim. It does not reflect reality, it cannot reflect reality. Now you get to backpedaling, Jim. You backpedal just as hard and fast as you can... your delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted state demands that you do so. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 22:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6d07f1b3-228c-44f8-8e0d-176293938b21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560698 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:a678955b-7929-400f-a8c0-a00a4ad0827c@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:41:03 AM UTC-8, pipp...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > James McGinn: > > Whatever the case, your argument is contrived. You are mixing metaphors and being deceptive. > > > > LipperF: > > Like I said, this is the most direct example I can find of published data showing that moist air is less dense than dry air. > > > > James McGinn: > > There is zero data involving the direct measurement of the weight of moist air versus dry air. Yet meteorologists continue to maintain the BELIEF that moist air is lighter than dry air as THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT IN ALL OF METEOROLOGY'S STORM THEORY. > > > > The fact that this fact is casually dismissed by you and by all meteorologists is all anybody needs to conclude that meteorology is not a real science like physics or chemistry. > > > > LipperF: > > Since air is a fluid, it really doesn't make sense to talk about its weight > > > > James McGinn: > > LOL. It's you meteorologists that assert that weight/buoyancy/convections is what powers all storms. So your words sound funny coming from the mouth of a meteorologist. It's like you don't know what you think from one minute to the next. > > > > LipperF: > > So if there are any publications that address your question directly (by reporting a weight rather than a mass or a density) they are not easy to locate: > > http://www.imeko.org/publications/tc3-2002/IMEKO-TC3-2002-038.pdf > > > > James McGinn: > > As you eluded, your reference is worthless. The details of meteorology's convection model of storm theory are IMPOSSIBLE to locate. Meteorologists don't discuss these details. It is strictly a taboo subject--literally. > > > > You have as much chance to get a meteorologist to discuss the mathematical details of convection as you do getting a priest to discuss the details of the inquisition. > > > > LipperF: > > But since the weight of the sample is directly proportional to the density and the mass of the sample, both of which are reported in the reference(s) above, I find the publications to be thoroughly convincing. > > > > James McGinn: > > I find your claim that the sample is directly proportional to density to be absurd--plainly. And I find the fact that you find this convincing to be evidence that you are not a real scientists and, by association, meteorology is not a real science. > > > > LipperF: > > Nonsense. Meteorologists (as well as physicists, chemists, mathematicians, engineers, etc) spend a considerable amount of time and ink talking about how clouds, dust devils, thunderstorms, winter storms, supercell thunderstorms, monsoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes form. The conceptual and numerical models we use to analyze, simulate, and predict these systems are constantly analyzed for inconsistencies and improved when possible. > > > > James McGinn: > > As you just eluded, meteorology is a conversational science. It's not an empirical science. Listening to you is like listening to two clergy discussing a passage in the bible. Meteorologists make observations. They/you don't do experiments. The basic assumptions of their/your most fundamental models are mathematically absurd/inept. So they/you can't actually solve problems. It's all talk and phoney math used to create the illusion that they/you understand what they/you do not. > > > > Before there was global warming there was meteorology. > > Still denying Avogadro's Law, Jim? > > The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of > the atomic masses of its constituent atoms. Except if the average drop size is 20 moles. Then what number should we employ. Hmm. 20 x 18 = 360. Plug that into your equation and see what you get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 01:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <defdc6bf-5ad0-45d2-8cf2-7d49fdcd5a7b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560702 |
Dne středa 9. března 2016 7:51:54 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a): > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > Still denying Avogadro's Law, Jim? > > > > The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of > > the atomic masses of its constituent atoms. > > Except if the average drop size is 20 moles. Then what number should we employ. Hmm. 20 x 18 = 360. > > Plug that into your equation and see what you get. It seems like somebody have no clue what the mol is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 19:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <c49a74db62e18eddf44a4169317e9b72@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560702 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:6d07f1b3-228c-44f8-8e0d-176293938b21@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> Still denying Avogadro's Law, Jim? >> >> The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of >> the atomic masses of its constituent atoms. > Except if the average drop size is 20 moles. Then what number > should we employ. Hmm. 20 x 18 = 360. > > Plug that into your equation and see what you get. I get a fucking moron named James McGinn who doesn't understand molar mass or molar volume. "if the average drop size is 20 moles" LOL! You're no physicist, Jim. You're an uneducated kooktard. Now, let's explore my latest destruction of your kooky conspiracy theory, shall we? ================================================ I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory, James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on. I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. That's, what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory? Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled you. Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different updraft speeds) cause different types of rain. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further proves this fact. Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger. So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right? As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds): <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html> ========================================================= It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of energy about 12 electron volts of higher. That means the water molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to make such a plasma. ========================================================= Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet light, nearly in the x-ray range. And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere is plasma. Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm. In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim. Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're just a delusional kooktard? So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. <snicker> See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a fucking moron. -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*); That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms; That superposition is the same as wave interference; That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves; That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things; That RMS isn't a DC voltage; That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave; That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering; What a positive or negative vector is; That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero; That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic"; That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 11:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #560868 |
Do the math, dumbass. Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense: 20 x 18 = 360 10 x 18 = 180 2 x 18 = 36 N2 = 28 O2 = 32 Convection Versus Plasma https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk James McGinn Solving Tornadoes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 04:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3919a6785d3b0da0da5c8f2bef582441@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #560890 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > Do the math, dumbass. You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL > Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense: Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to altitude, Jim? > 20 x 18 = 360 > > 10 x 18 = 180 > > 2 x 18 = 36 > > N2 = 28 > > O2 = 32 > > Convection Versus Plasma > https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk > > James McGinn > Solving Tornadoes Still struggling with the fact that cooler drier air can sit above warmer moister air because of the pressure differential of altitude creating an energetic hurdle that the lower-atmosphere air must surmount in order to rise due to buoyancy, Jim? I've already explained it to you, even did the calculations for you... your inability to grasp the concept means you're too retarded and insane to grasp reality, Jim. Therefore you're too insane and retarded to construct a theory that reflects reality, which is why you've instead constructed your kooky conspiracy theory. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of the atomic masses of its constituent atoms. The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP. Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the same volume of 22.414 liters at STP. The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP. Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase 28.57 g for dry air Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air. Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant. Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude decreases. At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure will have the same density. At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous water partial pressure will have higher density. At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous water partial pressure will have lower density. For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure, air at a higher altitude will have lower density. (1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3. Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C, the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3. Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity. Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions. IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density). It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is "heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard, it's because density of the air varies with altitude, as does temperature. Or are you going to deny the existence of gravity the same as you've denied the existence of evaporation and sublimation? These factors cause air to flow from higher pressure regions to lower pressure regions. But once you get near the top of the troposphere, the temperature no longer goes down, it goes up, thus air finds it more difficult to continue rising (especially considering that as it rises and expands through the troposphere due to decreasing pressure at altitude, it gets cooler and thus more dense due to the Ideal Gas Law). This generally balances out at the tropopause. Above this, the jet stream winds decrease in speed. This horizontally flowing air at the tropopause is affected by planetary rotation, causing the air to turn to the right (in the Northern Hemisphere) in a phenomenon known as the Coriolis Effect. This causes a spiraling around the cold and warm air masses which induced the jet stream to begin with, thus causing those cold and warm air masses to spiral. This wind shear between warm and cold air masses is how hurricanes form, Jim. You'll note the jet stream runs at the top and slightly above the tropopause for the polar jets, thus they don't "deliver energy and activity to top of the thunderclouds", given that the tropopause ranges from an average of 5.6 miles at the poles to 11 miles at the equator, whereas the highest clouds are thin wispy cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus clouds, and they are the *only* types of clouds at the top of the troposphere, except for the occasional unusually strong weather system forming cumulus, cumulonimbus or nimbostratus clouds all the way up to the top of the tropopause. Because remember, it's the updraft which forms the clouds in the first place, and the speed of the updraft which determines what type of cloud is formed. And that updraft is caused by a combination of warmer air and air with higher gaseous water content creating air with greater buoyancy, carrying that gaseous water content upward, where the temperature drops, causing that gaseous water to condense and / or nucleate into clouds and eventually fall as rain under the right conditions. And that destroys yet another of your kooky contentions... because you're a low-information uneducated moron trying to argue a subject about which you know very little, while k'laming yourself to be a 'physicist' because you once took a Basic Meteorology elective class... a rather pathetic appeal to authority fallacy whilst trying to establish yourself as that authority. You are not an authority, Jim, you're just a delusional kooktard spouting a kooky and discredited conspiracy theory. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ That's one means by which I utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. I've destroyed the central tenets of your kooky conspiracy theory, James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on. I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. That's... what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory? Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even *begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic photons reaching throughout the troposphere. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled you. Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different updraft speeds) cause different types of rain. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further proves this fact. Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, thus the Triboelectric Effect is stronger. So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right? As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds): <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html> ========================================================= It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to make such a plasma. ========================================================= Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet light, nearly in the x-ray range. And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere is plasma. Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm. In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim. Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're just a delusional kooktard? Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim. So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. <snicker> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a fucking moron. Go back and finish high school, Jim. You'll be the better for it, and likely the saner, too. <snicker> -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*); That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms; That superposition is the same as wave interference; That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves; That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things; That RMS isn't a DC voltage; That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave; That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering; What a positive or negative vector is; That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero; That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic"; That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 20:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f3f1d6a3-b895-4e7e-bd42-989d7e22dd05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561006 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > Do the math, dumbass. > > You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL > > > Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense: > > Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to > altitude, Jim? Irelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 06:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5e829d302a8914c7c8a93ffe56acd1f8@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561016 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:f3f1d6a3-b895-4e7e-bd42-989d7e22dd05@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James McGinn, in >> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> Do the math, dumbass. >> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL >>> Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense: >> Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to >> altitude, Jim? > Irelevant. Bwahahahaa! That's it, Jim, do exactly as I'd predicted you'd do, as every other Dunning-Kruger afflicted moron has ever done... keep insisting that your kooky conspiracy theory *must* be right because damn it!, you said so! despite that mountain of evidence crushing your skull. You're right on the verge of utter insanity, Jim, and you're too stupid to even see it. And just as with every other Dunning-Kruger sufferer, you'll continue crashing headlong through the brambles of stupidity and insanity towing your kooky little theory behind you, rather than going back to examine your underlying premise. In short, Jim, you are my stock in trade on Usenet. You make the job of driving you insane so easy... because my kooks always do my work for me. <snicker> Now, let's reexamine that reality you deny, Jim, shall we? ========================================================== \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of the atomic masses of its constituent atoms. The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP. Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the same volume of 22.414 liters at STP. The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP. Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase 28.57 g for dry air Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air. Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant. Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude decreases. At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure will have the same density. At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous water partial pressure will have higher density. At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous water partial pressure will have lower density. For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure, air at a higher altitude will have lower density. (1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3. Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C, the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3. Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity. Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions. IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density). It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is "heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard, it's because density of the air varies with altitude, as does temperature. Or are you going to deny the existence of gravity the same as you've denied the existence of evaporation and sublimation? These factors cause air to flow from higher pressure regions to lower pressure regions. But once you get near the top of the troposphere, the temperature no longer goes down, it goes up, thus air finds it more difficult to continue rising (especially considering that as it rises and expands through the troposphere due to decreasing pressure at altitude, it gets cooler and thus more dense due to the Ideal Gas Law). This generally balances out at the tropopause. Above this, the jet stream winds decrease in speed. This horizontally flowing air at the tropopause is affected by planetary rotation, causing the air to turn to the right (in the Northern Hemisphere) in a phenomenon known as the Coriolis Effect. This causes a spiraling around the cold and warm air masses which induced the jet stream to begin with, thus causing those cold and warm air masses to spiral. This wind shear between warm and cold air masses is how hurricanes form, Jim. You'll note the jet stream runs at the top and slightly above the tropopause for the polar jets, thus they don't "deliver energy and activity to top of the thunderclouds", given that the tropopause ranges from an average of 5.6 miles at the poles to 11 miles at the equator, whereas the highest clouds are thin wispy cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus clouds, and they are the *only* types of clouds at the top of the troposphere, except for the occasional unusually strong weather system forming cumulus, cumulonimbus or nimbostratus clouds all the way up to the top of the tropopause. Because remember, it's the updraft which forms the clouds in the first place, and the speed of the updraft which determines what type of cloud is formed. And that updraft is caused by a combination of warmer air and air with higher gaseous water content creating air with greater buoyancy, carrying that gaseous water content upward, where the temperature drops, causing that gaseous water to condense and / or nucleate into clouds and eventually fall as rain under the right conditions. And that destroys yet another of your kooky contentions... because you're a low-information uneducated moron trying to argue a subject about which you know very little, while k'laming yourself to be a 'physicist' because you once took a Basic Meteorology elective class... a rather pathetic appeal to authority fallacy whilst trying to establish yourself as that authority. You are not an authority, Jim, you're just a delusional kooktard spouting a kooky and discredited conspiracy theory. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ That's one means by which I utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. I've destroyed the central tenets of your kooky conspiracy theory, James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on. I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. That's... what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory? Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even *begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic photons reaching throughout the troposphere. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled you. Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different updraft speeds) cause different types of rain. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further proves this fact. Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, thus the Triboelectric Effect is stronger. So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right? As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds): <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html> ========================================================= It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to make such a plasma. ========================================================= Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet light, nearly in the x-ray range. And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere is plasma. Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm. In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim. Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're just a delusional kooktard? Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim. So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. <snicker> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a fucking moron. Go back and finish high school, Jim. You'll be the better for it, and likely the saner, too. <snicker> -- Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey) 5907 Stanton Ave. Pittsburgh, PA (412) 853-6395 (412) 799-0532 (412) 665-8289 (412) 404-8757 DildoRider admits he's stoooopid: MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com> ================================================= >> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's >> damaged your brain, DildoRider. > then it appears that you like shooting fish in > barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are. Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell. <snicker> ================================================= DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com> ================================================= > so what you're saying is that your targets for attack > have to be really stupid or else you can't manage? ================================================= DildoRider admits much more about himself: MID: <36c6802852caf4f712515dedb738e450@dizum.com> ================================================= "absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly, toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless" ================================================= This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake. 150 IQ? LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 20:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <534aa80a-684f-4816-b659-0d6f70660f7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561006 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > Do the math, dumbass. > > You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL > > > Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense: > > Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to > altitude, Jim? > > > 20 x 18 = 360 > > > > 10 x 18 = 180 > > > > 2 x 18 = 36 > > > > N2 = 28 > > > > O2 = 32 > > > > Convection Versus Plasma > > https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk > > > > James McGinn > > Solving Tornadoes > > Still struggling with the fact that cooler drier air can sit above > warmer moister air because of the pressure differential \\\\ Relevance?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 06:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a91eb5d26158517293a2fa42bd9d8ee5@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561018 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:534aa80a-684f-4816-b659-0d6f70660f7c@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James McGinn, in >> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> Do the math, dumbass. >> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL >>> Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense: >> Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to >> altitude, Jim? >>> 20 x 18 = 360 >>> >>> 10 x 18 = 180 >>> >>> 2 x 18 = 36 >>> >>> N2 = 28 >>> >>> O2 = 32 >>> >>> Convection Versus Plasma >>> https://youtu.be/LvSyalcoRAk >>> >>> James McGinn >>> Solving Tornadoes >> Still struggling with the fact that cooler drier air can sit above >> warmer moister air because of the pressure differential > Relevance? The relevance is contained within that which you cowardly snipped out, Jim. Here it is again, so you can run away from reality again, Jim. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of the atomic masses of its constituent atoms. The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP. Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the same volume of 22.414 liters at STP. The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP. Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase 28.57 g for dry air Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air. Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant. Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude decreases. At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure will have the same density. At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous water partial pressure will have higher density. At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous water partial pressure will have lower density. For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure, air at a higher altitude will have lower density. (1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3. Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C, the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3. Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity. Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions. IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density). It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is "heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard, it's because density of the air varies with altitude, as does temperature. Or are you going to deny the existence of gravity the same as you've denied the existence of evaporation and sublimation? These factors cause air to flow from higher pressure regions to lower pressure regions. But once you get near the top of the troposphere, the temperature no longer goes down, it goes up, thus air finds it more difficult to continue rising (especially considering that as it rises and expands through the troposphere due to decreasing pressure at altitude, it gets cooler and thus more dense due to the Ideal Gas Law). This generally balances out at the tropopause. Above this, the jet stream winds decrease in speed. This horizontally flowing air at the tropopause is affected by planetary rotation, causing the air to turn to the right (in the Northern Hemisphere) in a phenomenon known as the Coriolis Effect. This causes a spiraling around the cold and warm air masses which induced the jet stream to begin with, thus causing those cold and warm air masses to spiral. This wind shear between warm and cold air masses is how hurricanes form, Jim. You'll note the jet stream runs at the top and slightly above the tropopause for the polar jets, thus they don't "deliver energy and activity to top of the thunderclouds", given that the tropopause ranges from an average of 5.6 miles at the poles to 11 miles at the equator, whereas the highest clouds are thin wispy cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus clouds, and they are the *only* types of clouds at the top of the troposphere, except for the occasional unusually strong weather system forming cumulus, cumulonimbus or nimbostratus clouds all the way up to the top of the tropopause. Because remember, it's the updraft which forms the clouds in the first place, and the speed of the updraft which determines what type of cloud is formed. And that updraft is caused by a combination of warmer air and air with higher gaseous water content creating air with greater buoyancy, carrying that gaseous water content upward, where the temperature drops, causing that gaseous water to condense and / or nucleate into clouds and eventually fall as rain under the right conditions. And that destroys yet another of your kooky contentions... because you're a low-information uneducated moron trying to argue a subject about which you know very little, while k'laming yourself to be a 'physicist' because you once took a Basic Meteorology elective class... a rather pathetic appeal to authority fallacy whilst trying to establish yourself as that authority. You are not an authority, Jim, you're just a delusional kooktard spouting a kooky and discredited conspiracy theory. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ That's one means by which I utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. I've destroyed the central tenets of your kooky conspiracy theory, James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on. I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. That's... what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory? Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even *begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic photons reaching throughout the troposphere. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled you. Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different updraft speeds) cause different types of rain. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further proves this fact. Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, thus the Triboelectric Effect is stronger. So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right? As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds): <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html> ========================================================= It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to make such a plasma. ========================================================= Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet light, nearly in the x-ray range. And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere is plasma. Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm. In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim. Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're just a delusional kooktard? Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim. So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. <snicker> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a fucking moron. Go back and finish high school, Jim. You'll be the better for it, and likely the saner, too. <snicker> -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*); That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms; That superposition is the same as wave interference; That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves; That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things; That RMS isn't a DC voltage; That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave; That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering; What a positive or negative vector is; That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero; That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic"; That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 22:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0ad3cd75-3c47-4e19-90d5-bb642abfd773@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561036 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:26:28 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:534aa80a-684f-4816-b659-0d6f70660f7c@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> James McGinn, in > >> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> did > >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>> Do the math, dumbass. > > >> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL > > >>> Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense: > > >> Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to > >> altitude, Jim? > > >>> 20 x 18 = 360 > >>> > >>> 10 x 18 = 180 > >>> > >>> 2 x 18 = 36 > >>> > >>> N2 = 28 > >>> > >>> O2 = 32 > >>> > >>> Convection Versus Plasma > >>> https://youtu.be/LvSyalcoRAk > >>> > >>> James McGinn > >>> Solving Tornadoes > > >> Still struggling with the fact that cooler drier air can sit above > >> warmer moister air because of the pressure differential > > > Relevance? > > The relevance is contained within that You lost me. Sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 00:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbr2s0$19f8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #561046 |
On 3/10/2016 12:00 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:26:28 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >> James McGinn, in >> <news:534aa80a-684f-4816-b659-0d6f70660f7c@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> James McGinn, in >>>> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> did >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >> >>>>> Do the math, dumbass. >> >>>> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL >> >>>>> Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense: >>>> Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to >>>> altitude, Jim? >> >>>>> 20 x 18 = 360 >>>>> >>>>> 10 x 18 = 180 >>>>> >>>>> 2 x 18 = 36 >>>>> >>>>> N2 = 28 >>>>> >>>>> O2 = 32 >>>>> Convection Versus Plasma >>>>> https://youtu.be/LvSyalcoRAk >>>>> >>>>> James McGinn >>>>> Solving Tornadoes >> >>>> Still struggling with the fact that cooler drier air can sit above >>>> warmer moister air because of the pressure differential >>> Relevance? >> >> The relevance is contained within that > > You lost me. > > Sorry. > of course your lost, you are not a scientist, not a physicist, not a chemist, you are unable to follow simplistic equations. You are all airy-fairy la de da flippin AIRHEAD !!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 20:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <df281cd1-872f-49d2-8aa3-eba5a5f3ddac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561006 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in. > <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > Do the math, dumbass. > > You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, It's pretty simple
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web