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

Groups > sci.physics > #560474 > unrolled thread

Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

#561514

On 3/10/16 9:01 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 6:56:35 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>     James, water vapour, doesn't have to behave like an "ideal gas" to
>>     exist. In fact, water vapour (gas) make up about one percent of the
>>     troposphere.
>
> Nobody is disputing the existence of vapor in earth's atmosphere.  We're disputing whether its a gas or a liquid.
>
> How is it you haven't grasped this distinction yet, Sam?
>


   Water Vapour, by definition, is gas. This is something you should
   have learned in school, James.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#561517

Dne pátek 11. března 2016 15:41:11 UTC+1 Sam Wormley napsal(a):
> On 3/10/16 9:01 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 6:56:35 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> >>     James, water vapour, doesn't have to behave like an "ideal gas" to
> >>     exist. In fact, water vapour (gas) make up about one percent of the
> >>     troposphere.
> >
> > Nobody is disputing the existence of vapor in earth's atmosphere.  We're disputing whether its a gas or a liquid.
> >
> > How is it you haven't grasped this distinction yet, Sam?
> >
> 
> 
>    Water Vapour, by definition, is gas. This is something you should
>    have learned in school, James.
> 
> -- 
 
James is still confused and trapped by the technical term steam.

In science, (water) steam is visible aerosol of liquid water, 
being bases of low/medium troposphere clouds 
and of steam above boiling kettle or formed by a breath in cold air.

Vapour is gaseous state of substance, that is liquid at ambient temperature ( its vapour tension is lower than 1atm )

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

#561569

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 6:49:43 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:

> James is still confused and trapped by the technical term steam.

Too funny.  You two birdbrains are presenting definitions as indications of truth, and *I'm* the one that is trapped?

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

#561579

Dne pátek 11. března 2016 17:38:57 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 6:49:43 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> 
> > James is still confused and trapped by the technical term steam.
> 
> Too funny.  You two birdbrains are presenting definitions as indications of truth, and *I'm* the one that is trapped?

Really funny, seeing you to think we present definition
as indication of truth. 

As definition is just conventional assignment of a meaning to a term.

As it is *you* who call "cat"(steam) that barking animal, 
that is called by all others "dog"(vapour),  while the term "cat" ( steam)
is used for that smaller one that catches mice.

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

#561516

On 3/10/16 9:01 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Nobody is disputing the existence of vapor in earth's atmosphere.  We're disputing whether its a gas or a liquid.


Definition for James McGinn | Water Vapor
 > https://www.wordnik.com/words/water%20vapor


 > from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th
 > Edition

 > n. Water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused as a vapor in
 > the atmosphere and at a temperature below boiling point.

 > from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License

 > n. water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused in the
 > atmosphere



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#561426

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

James McGinn, in
<news:e80ac93a-25e3-42d1-aee5-c8d0582dc753@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
>> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
>> 28.57 g for dry air

> Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass.

They are also applicable to gases when their margin of error are
within 10%, as both water vapor and air are.

Air contains:
78.08% nitrogen
20.95% oxygen
0.93% argon
0.038% carbon dioxide
All the above are relatively small, light, non-polar molecules,
characteristics mimicking an ideal gas.

Atmospheric air contains typically less than 3% of water in its
gaseous phase, thus this skews the Ideal Gas Law by a very small
amount. Which is why I also calculated the water vapor partial
pressure for you, Jim.

===========================================================
Another method of debunking your retarded drivel is via the speed of
sound in dry air and air laden with water in its gaseous phase.

The Ideal Gas Model predicts that the speed of sound in a pure gas
will be:
v_sound = SQRT((y * P)/p)

Where:
y = specific heat ratio or adiabatic exponent
P = absolute pressure of gas
p = density of gas

Using the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT (with 'n' constant, ie: the number
of gas molecules is constant), the equation above can be rewritten as:

v_sound = SQRT((y * k_b * T)/M)

Where:
T = temperature (K)
M = mass of one gass molecule
k_b = Boltzmann's constant (converts absolute temperature units to
energy units)

Thus, for typical air at room conditions, the average molecule is
moving at about 500 m/s. Since the Law of Conservation of Energy
states that no energy is lost due to these molecular collisions, the
collisions do not slow down the speed of sound, they simply randomize
the motion resultant from that sound pressure wave... hence sound
waves propagate spherically from their source until they hit an
obstruction.

For air, which is a mixture of molecules, one must use average values
for the adiabatic constant and molecular mass. Air is mostly N2 and
O2, which are both simple diatomic molecules with almost the same
masses. The adiabatic constant will be very close to 1.4 for both
molecules for a wide range of temperatures near room temperature.

Hence the adiabatic constant will also be close to 1.4 for bulk air.
The average molecular mass will depend on the air composition which
changes slightly, for example due to day to day variations in relative
humidity. For 100% relative humidity under normal room conditions,
about 2% of the molecules of air are water molecules. Since the mass
of a water molecule is almost half that of an oxygen or nitrogen
molecule, the larger the humidity the lower the density of the air for
the same pressure and temperature. At or near room temperature the
fraction of air which is water is small, and so the effect will not be
large.

The temperature dependence and the change in density due to changes in
composition, the latter almost entirely due to changes in humidity,
are by far the two largest causes for variations in the speed of sound
in air. Note, however, that humidity is normally expressed as a
percentage of the maximum concentration for the air. That maximum may
change with conditions. What matters for the speed of sound is the
fraction of the air molecules which are water (i.e. the "molar
fraction"). The molar fraction corresponding to 100% humidity will
depend on temperature and pressure. Hence there may be an apparent
dependence on pressure when the water content is expressed as a
percent relative humidity rather than a molar fraction. For example,
if you take 20 C air at 1 atm and 100% humidity and remove half of the
molecules, you end up with air at 0.5 atm and about 50% relative
humidity, not 100% humidity. Hence to look at the changes due only to
changes in pressure, and not molecular composition, you would need to
compare air at 1 atm and 100% humidity with air at 0.5 atm and 50%
humidity.

<http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/SoundSpeedTemp.gif>

As one can easily see, the speed of sound increases with increasing
humidity of air... hence the *only* way that can happen is if air
laden with water in its gaseous phase is less dense than dry air,
given the same temperature and pressure for each.
===========================================================

> They are not applicable to liquids that are suspended in air.

Then it's a good thing the gaseous phase water in the atmosphere isn't
liquid phase, eh?

> It's really that simple, dumbass.

You just love proving yourself to be a moron, don't you?

<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law>
========================================
Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal
gas law applies to within 10% error.

The ideal gas law is derived from a model (the ideal gas), and like
every other model it applies where it's underling assumptions are good
approximations to reality.
========================================

The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water
vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for
using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong.

SPNAK!

-- 

Cipher (aka Dave A. Howard the Coward) is an ancient mainframe Usenet
bot that never got shut off. He walkered his way back into AUK after
an eternity spent in an infinite loop, started clacking his dentures
and bragging about what a big man he *used* to be and how we kids
should get the hell off his lawn, promptly outed himself, slipped in
the urine dribbling down his leg from his over-full Depends, his
walker went flying, his dentures clattered to the floor, and he lay
there, hearing aid squealing, stabbing an arthritic finger at his
Life-Alert pendant and crying "Help, I've soiled myself and I can't
get up!" as we youngsters laughed raucously at him. Don't ask him
about the Port-A-Potty that drove him so bonkers that he ended up in a
tight-white jacket in a rubber room in a mental institution... that
wasn't Dave, man. He's blocked all that out.

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

#561428

jumping jack flash is a gas gas gas


On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 01:34:56 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:e80ac93a-25e3-42d1-aee5-c8d0582dc753@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8,
>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>>> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
>>> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
>>> 28.57 g for dry air
>
>> Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass.
>
> They are also applicable to gases when their margin of error are
> within 10%, as both water vapor and air are.
>
> Air contains:
> 78.08% nitrogen
> 20.95% oxygen
> 0.93% argon
> 0.038% carbon dioxide
> All the above are relatively small, light, non-polar molecules,
> characteristics mimicking an ideal gas.
>
> Atmospheric air contains typically less than 3% of water in its
> gaseous phase, thus this skews the Ideal Gas Law by a very small
> amount. Which is why I also calculated the water vapor partial
> pressure for you, Jim.
>
> ===========================================================
> Another method of debunking your retarded drivel is via the speed of
> sound in dry air and air laden with water in its gaseous phase.
>
> The Ideal Gas Model predicts that the speed of sound in a pure gas
> will be:
> v_sound = SQRT((y * P)/p)
>
> Where:
> y = specific heat ratio or adiabatic exponent
> P = absolute pressure of gas
> p = density of gas
>
> Using the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT (with 'n' constant, ie: the number
> of gas molecules is constant), the equation above can be rewritten as:
>
> v_sound = SQRT((y * k_b * T)/M)
>
> Where:
> T = temperature (K)
> M = mass of one gass molecule
> k_b = Boltzmann's constant (converts absolute temperature units to
> energy units)
>
> Thus, for typical air at room conditions, the average molecule is
> moving at about 500 m/s. Since the Law of Conservation of Energy
> states that no energy is lost due to these molecular collisions, the
> collisions do not slow down the speed of sound, they simply randomize
> the motion resultant from that sound pressure wave... hence sound
> waves propagate spherically from their source until they hit an
> obstruction.
>
> For air, which is a mixture of molecules, one must use average values
> for the adiabatic constant and molecular mass. Air is mostly N2 and
> O2, which are both simple diatomic molecules with almost the same
> masses. The adiabatic constant will be very close to 1.4 for both
> molecules for a wide range of temperatures near room temperature.
>
> Hence the adiabatic constant will also be close to 1.4 for bulk air.
> The average molecular mass will depend on the air composition which
> changes slightly, for example due to day to day variations in relative
> humidity. For 100% relative humidity under normal room conditions,
> about 2% of the molecules of air are water molecules. Since the mass
> of a water molecule is almost half that of an oxygen or nitrogen
> molecule, the larger the humidity the lower the density of the air for
> the same pressure and temperature. At or near room temperature the
> fraction of air which is water is small, and so the effect will not be
> large.
>
> The temperature dependence and the change in density due to changes in
> composition, the latter almost entirely due to changes in humidity,
> are by far the two largest causes for variations in the speed of sound
> in air. Note, however, that humidity is normally expressed as a
> percentage of the maximum concentration for the air. That maximum may
> change with conditions. What matters for the speed of sound is the
> fraction of the air molecules which are water (i.e. the "molar
> fraction"). The molar fraction corresponding to 100% humidity will
> depend on temperature and pressure. Hence there may be an apparent
> dependence on pressure when the water content is expressed as a
> percent relative humidity rather than a molar fraction. For example,
> if you take 20 C air at 1 atm and 100% humidity and remove half of the
> molecules, you end up with air at 0.5 atm and about 50% relative
> humidity, not 100% humidity. Hence to look at the changes due only to
> changes in pressure, and not molecular composition, you would need to
> compare air at 1 atm and 100% humidity with air at 0.5 atm and 50%
> humidity.
>
> <http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/SoundSpeedTemp.gif>
>
> As one can easily see, the speed of sound increases with increasing
> humidity of air... hence the *only* way that can happen is if air
> laden with water in its gaseous phase is less dense than dry air,
> given the same temperature and pressure for each.
> ===========================================================
>
>> They are not applicable to liquids that are suspended in air.
>
> Then it's a good thing the gaseous phase water in the atmosphere isn't
> liquid phase, eh?
>
>> It's really that simple, dumbass.
>
> You just love proving yourself to be a moron, don't you?
>
> <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law>
> ========================================
> Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal
> gas law applies to within 10% error.
>
> The ideal gas law is derived from a model (the ideal gas), and like
> every other model it applies where it's underling assumptions are good
> approximations to reality.
> ========================================
>
> The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water
> vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for
> using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong.
>
> SPNAK!
>


-- 
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

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

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007

 

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

#561453

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:45:04 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:e80ac93a-25e3-42d1-aee5-c8d0582dc753@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
> >> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
> >> 28.57 g for dry air
> 
> > Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass.
> 
> They are also applicable to gases when their margin of error are
> within 10%, as both water vapor and air are.

Convection theory involves a 1% difference, at best.  

Are you some kind of mental retard?

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

#562029

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

James McGinn, in
<news:2522df6e-eb8a-4148-9835-79c22f767db6@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:45:04 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:e80ac93a-25e3-42d1-aee5-c8d0582dc753@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
>>>> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
>>>> 28.57 g for dry air

>>> Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass.

>> They are also applicable to gases when their margin of error are
>> within 10%, as both water vapor and air are.

> Convection theory involves a 1% difference, at best.  

Wrong. I'd tell you to show your math, but you can't, Jim. You're a
prototypical math moron on top of being a delusional Dunning-Kruger
afflicted kooktard. Hence your kooky conspiracy theory that purports a
"plasma not-a-plasma" that does not and cannot exist, plasmized by an
energy source that does not exist in the troposphere or it would
dissociate all water on the planet and kill off all life.

> Are you some kind of mental retard?

Conflating "within 10% margin of error" and "10% error", James McGinn?
Your fawning sphincter-licking acolyte Shiny Tinfoil Brain did the
same. You know what they say... kooks and morons think alike.

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]

#562119

Fakey wrote:

> Wrong. I'd tell you to show your math, but you can't, Jim. You're a
> prototypical math moron on top of being a delusional Dunning-Kruger
> afflicted kooktard. Hence your kooky conspiracy theory that purports a

That's funny, Ersatzia.  People keep telling you to show
your supposed Oiley and Fooly'all transformer maths that you
claim to be using to add up sines (of different frequencies,
yet!).  But you never do.  You just keep cranking out bad
sinewaves until you *finally* understand what people are
telling you about why they are wrong.

Do you have some kind of learning disability?  No need to be
embarrassed, fakey.  It happens all the time.

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

#562214

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:fj7beb9g78bv66k2u1aqj20ns4apvmn1t3@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Wrong. I'd tell you to show your math, but you can't, Jim. You're a
>> prototypical math moron on top of being a delusional Dunning-Kruger
>> afflicted kooktard. Hence your kooky conspiracy theory that purports a

> That's funny, Ersatzia.  People keep telling you to show
> your supposed Oiley and Fooly'all transformer maths that you
> claim to be using to add up sines (of different frequencies,
> yet!).

Awww, Shiny Tinfoil Brain yet again reiterates that he doesn't know
that vector summation can be used on any sinewave of any frequency and
any phase angle.

What about vector summation is causing your poor little brain to melt
down, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? It's as easy as geometry and simple
addition and subtraction, so it's little wonder you can't grasp it.
LOL

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/audio/sumdif.html>
"When you superimpose two sine waves of different frequencies, you get
components at the sum and difference of the two frequencies. This can
be shown by using a *sum* *rule* from trigonometry."

Oh, look... *summation* of sinewaves of different frequency, phase and
amplitude:
<http://astro.pas.rochester.edu/~aquillen/phy103/Lectures/D_Fourier.pdf#page=31>
<http://astro.pas.rochester.edu/~aquillen/phy103/Lectures/D_Fourier.pdf#page=83>

Oh, look... *more* _summation_ of sinewaves of different frequency:
<https://linsysneuro.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/adding-sine-waves/>

Oh, look... *even* *more* _summation_ of sinewaves of different
frequency:
<https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Trigonometry/Beat_Frequencies>
"We've expressed the sum of two sine waves in terms of a product of
sine and cosine."

And just for you, since you've demonstrated your stupidity by k'laming
that wave superposition and constructive/destructive interference
aren't the same things, and that wave interference for standing and
traveling waves aren't the same things:
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/trawvcon.html>
<http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/superposition/superposition.html>

So it's little wonder you, Shiny Tinfoil Brain, have *never* posted a
graph of a sum of sinewaves... you are simply incapable of doing so.

SPNAK! on the moronic kooktards who for nearly 3 months have
demonstrated their utter stupidity.

<snicker>

> But you never do.

Liar. I have several times. But don't let reality get in the way of
you stomping your little feetz and ranting like a retard, Shiny
Tinfoil Brain.

It's never stopped you before.

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

<snicker>

> You just keep cranking out bad sinewaves

You mean the completely correct sinewaves I graphed, utilizing 170
volt peak-voltage L-N, from which I derived 120 volt RMS L-N, from
which I derived 208 volt RMS L-L, all with the correct phase shift?
That which you morons have demonstrated your inability to accomplish?

I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.

<snicker>

> until you *finally* understand what people are

Still having trouble grasping vector summation, are you, Shiny Tinfoil
Brain?

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

<snicker>

> telling you about why they are wrong.

Except they're not. Contrast that with DildoRider's kooky sinewave
subtraction equation, which he used to graph sinewaves which showed:

1) A higher RMS voltage than the peak voltage the RMS voltage was
derived from.

2) A *doubling* of voltage as a result of all three phases of 3-phase
AC, akin to shorting all three phases together.

3) A result of 0 volts when deriving the difference between any two
phases of 3-phase AC.

4) He demonstrated his inability to grasp why two phases *summed* gave
a sinewave of the same voltage but phase shifted 60 degrees from each
of the tributary sinewaves, such that the resultant is 180 degrees
phase from the remaining third phase.

5) He demonstrated his inability to grasp why all three phases of
3-phase AC *summed* together gives a result of 0 volts (as have
*you*).

6) He k'lamed he was feeding 240 volts to the *primary* of a
*substation* transformer, deriving 120 volts from the *primary* side,
then feeding that 240 volts to a 120/208 volt electrical feed... he
even went so far as to justify it with his kooky math, showing he was
deriving 208 volts from 240 volts. Then he backpedaled and k'lamed he
was instead feeding the primary with a voltage of "12 kVA"
(DildoRider's blather), proving he doesn't know the difference between
voltage and apparent power.

> Do you have some kind of learning disability?  No need to be
> embarrassed, fakey.  It happens all the time.

Awww, look at the backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moronic
kooktard project.

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

<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 the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#562317

Fakey wrote:

<snippage of misinformed blather>

Actually, fakey, you don't get sum & difference frequencies
simply by adding 2 frequencies together.  You do it by
mixing them in a non-linear element, like a diode.

The explanation would be wasted on you.  If there are any
*sane* people here who actually want to hear the explanation
(doubtful), i will.  But you have proven yourself incapable
of grasping simple concepts, let alone harder ones.

Bleat like a good sheepie.

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

#562318

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:

> Snickerturd Fakey wrote:
> 
> <snippage of misinformed blather>
> 
> Actually, fakey, you don't get sum & difference frequencies
> simply by adding 2 frequencies together.  You do it by
> mixing them in a non-linear element, like a diode.
> 

Indeed, that's fundamental to heterodyne mixing.
I wonder what our "expert" correspondent knows 
about intermediate frequencies and sidebands.

>
> The explanation would be wasted on you.  If there are any
> *sane* people here who actually want to hear the explanation
> (doubtful), i will.  But you have proven yourself incapable
> of grasping simple concepts, let alone harder ones.
> 
> Bleat like a good sheepie.
>

# Baa, baa, Black Sheep, have you any credibility?  ;D

[saunters off chortling, stage left]

-- 
^Ï^.       Sn!pe       <snipeco.1@gmail.com>

My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.
My pet rock Gordon wants home rule for England.

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

#562322

snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:

> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:
> 
> > Snickerturd Fakey wrote:
> > 
> > <snippage of misinformed blather>
> > 
> > Actually, fakey, you don't get sum & difference frequencies
> > simply by adding 2 frequencies together.  You do it by
> > mixing them in a non-linear element, like a diode.
> > 
> 
> Indeed, that's fundamental to heterodyne mixing.
> I wonder what our "expert" correspondent knows 
> about intermediate frequencies and sidebands.
> 
> >
> > The explanation would be wasted on you.  If there are any
> > *sane* people here who actually want to hear the explanation
> > (doubtful), i will.  But you have proven yourself incapable
> > of grasping simple concepts, let alone harder ones.
> > 
> > Bleat like a good sheepie.
> >
> 
> # Baa, baa, Black Sheep, have you any credibility?  ;D
> 
> [saunters off chortling, stage left]

Is this anyone we know?

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNMq8XS4LhE>

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

#562325

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:

> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
> 
> > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:
> > 
> > > Snickerturd Fakey wrote:
> > > 
> > > <snippage of misinformed blather>
> > > 
> > > Actually, fakey, you don't get sum & difference frequencies
> > > simply by adding 2 frequencies together.  You do it by
> > > mixing them in a non-linear element, like a diode.
> > > 
> > 
> > Indeed, that's fundamental to heterodyne mixing.
> > I wonder what our "expert" correspondent knows 
> > about intermediate frequencies and sidebands.
> > 
> > >
> > > The explanation would be wasted on you.  If there are any
> > > *sane* people here who actually want to hear the explanation
> > > (doubtful), i will.  But you have proven yourself incapable
> > > of grasping simple concepts, let alone harder ones.
> > > 
> > > Bleat like a good sheepie.
> > >
> > 
> > # Baa, baa, Black Sheep, have you any credibility?  ;D
> > 
> > [saunters off chortling, stage left]
> >
>
> Is this anyone we know?
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNMq8XS4LhE>
>

An oldie but a goodie; it always makes me laugh like a drain, 
that one. Snickerturd considered as a sheep-shagger, ho-ho!

This one's quite amusing too:  <https://youtu.be/eVcKRDnSuts>

-- 
^Ï^.       Sn!pe       <snipeco.1@gmail.com>

My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.
My pet rock Gordon wants home rule for England.

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

#562333

snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:

> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:
> 
> > snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
> > 
> > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Snickerturd Fakey wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > <snippage of misinformed blather>
> > > > 
> > > > Actually, fakey, you don't get sum & difference frequencies
> > > > simply by adding 2 frequencies together.  You do it by
> > > > mixing them in a non-linear element, like a diode.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Indeed, that's fundamental to heterodyne mixing.
> > > I wonder what our "expert" correspondent knows 
> > > about intermediate frequencies and sidebands.
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > The explanation would be wasted on you.  If there are any
> > > > *sane* people here who actually want to hear the explanation
> > > > (doubtful), i will.  But you have proven yourself incapable
> > > > of grasping simple concepts, let alone harder ones.
> > > > 
> > > > Bleat like a good sheepie.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > # Baa, baa, Black Sheep, have you any credibility?  ;D
> > > 
> > > [saunters off chortling, stage left]
> > >
> >
> > Is this anyone we know?
> > 
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNMq8XS4LhE>
> >
> 
> An oldie but a goodie; it always makes me laugh like a drain, 
> that one. Snickerturd considered as a sheep-shagger, ho-ho!

Yeah, I got it from usenet somewhere, prolly afa-b :)

Sheep may have better taste than to seduce fakey.

> This one's quite amusing too:  <https://youtu.be/eVcKRDnSuts>

Bajoingers slovenlicken!

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

#562331

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:53:58 -0400, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:
>
>> Snickerturd Fakey wrote:
>>
>> <snippage of misinformed blather>
>>
>> Actually, fakey, you don't get sum & difference frequencies
>> simply by adding 2 frequencies together.  You do it by
>> mixing them in a non-linear element, like a diode.
>>
>
> Indeed, that's fundamental to heterodyne mixing.
> I wonder what our "expert" correspondent knows
> about intermediate frequencies and sidebands.

well, he has no idea how to measure and calculate a voltage, doesn't know  
what RMS means, thinks he can vector sum sine waves of mixed frequency by  
summing amplitudes...

i'd say the chances are slim to nada.

>
>>
>> The explanation would be wasted on you.  If there are any
>> *sane* people here who actually want to hear the explanation
>> (doubtful), i will.  But you have proven yourself incapable
>> of grasping simple concepts, let alone harder ones.
>>
>> Bleat like a good sheepie.
>>
>
> # Baa, baa, Black Sheep, have you any credibility?  ;D
>
> [saunters off chortling, stage left]
>
fakey's credibility -> gerg's bucket.

-- 
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

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

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007

 

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

#562334

"\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave.,
Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907
Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:53:58 -0400, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:
> >
> >> Snickerturd Fakey wrote:
> >>
> >> <snippage of misinformed blather>
> >>
> >> Actually, fakey, you don't get sum & difference frequencies
> >> simply by adding 2 frequencies together.  You do it by
> >> mixing them in a non-linear element, like a diode.
> >>
> >
> > Indeed, that's fundamental to heterodyne mixing.
> > I wonder what our "expert" correspondent knows
> > about intermediate frequencies and sidebands.
> 
> well, he has no idea how to measure and calculate a voltage, doesn't know  
> what RMS means, thinks he can vector sum sine waves of mixed frequency by  
> summing amplitudes...
> 
> i'd say the chances are slim to nada.

He may not have any idea now, but experthood is but a
googleclick away.

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

#562349

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:ljmdebtpae3jgch3m409rqo97rdieck3v5@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

> <snippage of misinformed blather>

Translation:
"<snippage of all that which proves me to be a moron... which is
everything. Why am I so stupid?!>"

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

<snicker>

> Actually, fakey, you don't get sum & difference frequencies
> simply by adding 2 frequencies together.  You do it by
> mixing them in a non-linear element, like a diode.

Look at the backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moron mewling
out his latest Google-rape in hopes of salvaging his pride and proving
himself "not-a-moron". LOL

Still don't understand constructive and destructive interference, eh,
Moron? LOL

Moron k'lames the air contains trillions upon trillions of "non-linear
elements, like a diode", which is how constructive and destructive
interference in air works in MoronWorld. LOL

And in MoronWorld water, they're Schottky diodes, which explains why
the speed of sound is faster in water. LOL

> The explanation would be wasted on you.  If there are any
> *sane* people here who actually want to hear the explanation
> (doubtful), i will.  But you have proven yourself incapable
> of grasping simple concepts, let alone harder ones.

Translation:
"I raped Google hard enough to be able to explain something for once.
I think. Don't anybody call me on that, or I'll prove myself a moron.
Again."

<snicker>

> Bleated like a good sheepie.

Indeed.

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

<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 the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

#562357

Fakey wrote:

> I'll prove myself a moron. Again.

yawn.......

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

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web