Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #564015 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-20 18:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-03-23 04:45 +0100 |
| Articles | 19 on this page of 39 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
NOY, did you watch these videos? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 18:18 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 04:47 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 21:36 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 21:48 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 14:24 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 04:35 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 20:56 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:01 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:41 -0600
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 05:22 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-23 06:29 -0600
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:42 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:09 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:09 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 06:06 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 22:45 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:16 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:42 -0600
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 05:53 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-23 06:30 -0600
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:49 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:50 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 21:31 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 18:13 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:32 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 07:19 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-24 07:54 +0000
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 01:28 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 19:44 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 13:09 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 06:21 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 22:40 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 18:34 +0100
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-22 17:31 +0000
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? "\"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> - 2016-03-22 13:47 -0400
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-22 11:03 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 12:29 -0600
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-22 11:45 -0700
Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:45 +0100
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 08:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7b939c4-4336-421c-a1f6-e6a8c0e5fea5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564484 |
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:c023b250-52b6-43c5-9ba5-273e1702cf1a@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 10:17:24 PM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>> Using your own words, explain how my model is different from the > >>>>> standard model. > > >>>> The Standard Model has been rigorously tested > > >>> LOL. That is not the question I asked, you evasive twit. > > >> You cowardly snipping evasive piece of shit. You deny that H bonding > >> strength diminishes by the inverse square of distance, therefore you > >> deny how electrostatic interactions work in *all* instances, including > >> electron orbit. Thereby you deny the Standard Model, thereby you deny > >> the mechanism by which the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear > >> forces work, thereby you deny all of particle physics. > >> > >> That you were too fucking stupid to realize that your simple denial > >> would open such a can of worms and prove that you're a psychotic > >> uneducated moron shows just what a psychotic uneducated moron you are, > >> James. > > > This must be like a bad dream for you. > > Oh, no. I quite enjoy drop-kicking moronic lackwits like you, Jim. I > could do this for years and years and years. In fact, for other > moronic lackwits, I have... I drove one so insane he couldn't even > form sentences anymore. Another got so apoplectic he *died*. > > This continues until you face reality, James. > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with > distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an > electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher > energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic > attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the > electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, > that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic > attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just > violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density > differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That > less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your > giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly > appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? You've become incredibly boring.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 04:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4502c7c6b62570d3dc434a307436cde3@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564501 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:f7b939c4-4336-421c-a1f6-e6a8c0e5fea5@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James McGinn, in >> <news:c023b250-52b6-43c5-9ba5-273e1702cf1a@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 10:17:24 PM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>> Using your own words, explain how my model is different from the >>>>>>> standard model. >>>>>> The Standard Model has been rigorously tested >>>>> LOL. That is not the question I asked, you evasive twit. >>>> You cowardly snipping evasive piece of shit. You deny that H bonding >>>> strength diminishes by the inverse square of distance, therefore you >>>> deny how electrostatic interactions work in *all* instances, including >>>> electron orbit. Thereby you deny the Standard Model, thereby you deny >>>> the mechanism by which the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear >>>> forces work, thereby you deny all of particle physics. >>>> >>>> That you were too fucking stupid to realize that your simple denial >>>> would open such a can of worms and prove that you're a psychotic >>>> uneducated moron shows just what a psychotic uneducated moron you are, >>>> James. >>> This must be like a bad dream for you. >> Oh, no. I quite enjoy drop-kicking moronic lackwits like you, Jim. I >> could do this for years and years and years. In fact, for other >> moronic lackwits, I have... I drove one so insane he couldn't even >> form sentences anymore. Another got so apoplectic he *died*. >> >> This continues until you face reality, James. > You've become incredibly boring. The only people who say that are those who know they're wrong, James, and they're seriously considering running away to escape the rapid-fire bootfucking they're receiving. That's one of the 7 Stages of SPNAK!. Yeah, James, I'm so damn good at driving morons like you insane that I've got it all mapped out. I've seen it a thousand times. I've predicted several of your backpedaling attempts at writhing away so you can continue your delusion unmauled. You're *that* prototypically kook. You'll demonstrate yet again that you're an insane kooktard too retarded and off-meds to substantively address those gaping logic holes in your "theory", all laid out in my .sig, thereby proving what I say is true. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 21:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca83e7a8-41ba-4970-bf87-1ccf3926e861@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564703 |
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9:01:31 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:f7b939c4-4336-421c-a1f6-e6a8c0e5fea5@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-7, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> James McGinn, in > >> <news:c023b250-52b6-43c5-9ba5-273e1702cf1a@googlegroups.com> did > >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 10:17:24 PM UTC-7, > >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>>>>>> Using your own words, explain how my model is different from the > >>>>>>> standard model. > > >>>>>> The Standard Model has been rigorously tested > > >>>>> LOL. That is not the question I asked, you evasive twit. > > >>>> You cowardly snipping evasive piece of shit. You deny that H bonding > >>>> strength diminishes by the inverse square of distance, therefore you > >>>> deny how electrostatic interactions work in *all* instances, including > >>>> electron orbit. Thereby you deny the Standard Model, thereby you deny > >>>> the mechanism by which the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear > >>>> forces work, thereby you deny all of particle physics. > >>>> > >>>> That you were too fucking stupid to realize that your simple denial > >>>> would open such a can of worms and prove that you're a psychotic > >>>> uneducated moron shows just what a psychotic uneducated moron you are, > >>>> James. > > >>> This must be like a bad dream for you. > > >> Oh, no. I quite enjoy drop-kicking moronic lackwits like you, Jim. I > >> could do this for years and years and years. In fact, for other > >> moronic lackwits, I have... I drove one so insane he couldn't even > >> form sentences anymore. Another got so apoplectic he *died*. > >> > >> This continues until you face reality, James. > > > You've become incredibly boring. > > The only people who say that are those who know they're wrong, James, > and they're seriously considering running away to escape the > rapid-fire bootfucking they're receiving. That's one of the 7 Stages > of SPNAK!. > > Yeah, James, I'm so damn good at driving morons like you insane that > I've got it all mapped out. I've seen it a thousand times. I've > predicted several of your backpedaling attempts at writhing away so > you can continue your delusion unmauled. You're *that* prototypically > kook. > > You'll demonstrate yet again that you're an insane kooktard too > retarded and off-meds to substantively address those gaping logic > holes in your "theory", all laid out in my .sig, thereby proving what > I say is true. > > -- > > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions > inherent in your "theory": > > ============================================================ > Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a > spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. > You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was > Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase > water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, > thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby > *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. > > You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from > water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the > atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come > from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" > if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport > energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates > your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin > with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've > created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly > destroys your theory, James. > > According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with > distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an > electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher > energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic > attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the > electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, > that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic > attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just > violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. > > How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles > away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without > detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to > touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than > tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other > types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the > sky" sentient, James? > > Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the > troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, > Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant > tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that > way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? > > If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while > inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an > airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient > jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its > back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to > shreds, Jim? > > Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the > tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the > mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon > which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the > ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you > claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially > hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, > which would make air travel deadly. > > Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if > the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado > being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? > > Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? > That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is > it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, > James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due > to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist > means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire > cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of > oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced > phenomenon due to density differential, James? > > How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density > differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That > less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your > giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly > appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? > > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, > Jim? > > Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? > > How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a > hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a > semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and > dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an > extremely energetic laser, Jim? > > Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, > extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except > photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above > the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the > troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? > > How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not > dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the > planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly > all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? > > Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change > upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes > in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do > not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water > molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account > for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your > implausible claims are workable, Jim? > ============================================================ > > Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? video: https://youtu.be/iDv2RoUrHTY?t=4m10s https://youtu.be/WSGv08Rb_Lo ) Did you watch these? Do you understand how this is distinctive from the standard model that Nilsson, Saykally, and Soper assume? If you don't understand this then you don't understand my model, the underlying assumptions/mechanics of which are explained in my paper. I'm not saying you have to agree with my model. But it's kind of ridiculous to dispute my model before you understand it. It's also kind of ridiculous to dispute my model based on the fact that it does not match up exactly with the standard model when the purpose of my paper and these videos is to establish how and why my model is distinctive from the standard model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 18:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cd28859159cc985719568e4999c0de44@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564713 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:ca83e7a8-41ba-4970-bf87-1ccf3926e861@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9:01:31 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James McGinn, in >> <news:f7b939c4-4336-421c-a1f6-e6a8c0e5fea5@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> James McGinn, in >>>> <news:c023b250-52b6-43c5-9ba5-273e1702cf1a@googlegroups.com> did >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 10:17:24 PM UTC-7, >>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>>>>>> Using your own words, explain how my model is different from the >>>>>>>>> standard model. >>>>>>>> The Standard Model has been rigorously tested >>>>>>> LOL. That is not the question I asked, you evasive twit. >>>>>> You cowardly snipping evasive piece of shit. You deny that H bonding >>>>>> strength diminishes by the inverse square of distance, therefore you >>>>>> deny how electrostatic interactions work in *all* instances, including >>>>>> electron orbit. Thereby you deny the Standard Model, thereby you deny >>>>>> the mechanism by which the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear >>>>>> forces work, thereby you deny all of particle physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> That you were too fucking stupid to realize that your simple denial >>>>>> would open such a can of worms and prove that you're a psychotic >>>>>> uneducated moron shows just what a psychotic uneducated moron you are, >>>>>> James. >>>>> This must be like a bad dream for you. >>>> Oh, no. I quite enjoy drop-kicking moronic lackwits like you, Jim. I >>>> could do this for years and years and years. In fact, for other >>>> moronic lackwits, I have... I drove one so insane he couldn't even >>>> form sentences anymore. Another got so apoplectic he *died*. >>>> >>>> This continues until you face reality, James. >>> You've become incredibly boring. >> The only people who say that are those who know they're wrong, James, >> and they're seriously considering running away to escape the >> rapid-fire bootfucking they're receiving. That's one of the 7 Stages >> of SPNAK!. >> >> Yeah, James, I'm so damn good at driving morons like you insane that >> I've got it all mapped out. I've seen it a thousand times. I've >> predicted several of your backpedaling attempts at writhing away so >> you can continue your delusion unmauled. You're *that* prototypically >> kook. >> >> You'll demonstrate yet again that you're an insane kooktard too >> retarded and off-meds to substantively address those gaping logic >> holes in your "theory", all laid out in my .sig, thereby proving what >> I say is true. > video: > https://youtu.be/iDv2RoUrHTY?t=4m10s > https://youtu.be/WSGv08Rb_Lo ) > > Did you watch these? Do you understand how this is distinctive from > the standard model that Nilsson, Saykally, and Soper assume? I understand perfectly well. Whereas their experimentation is uncovering the reality behind how water behaves, your retarded psychotic blather denies reality and well-established science. > If you don't understand this then you don't understand my model, No one understands your model, James, not even you. Because it doesn't reflect reality. It's just a lie you tell yourself so you can tell yourself the other lie of you being smarter than every scientist in the past 250+ years. But you're not, James. You're just insane. > the underlying assumptions/mechanics of which are explained in my paper. > > I'm not saying you have to agree with my model. But your model has to agree with reality. It does not and cannot. > But it's kind of ridiculous to dispute my model before you > understand it. It's also kind of ridiculous to dispute my > model based on the fact that it does not match up exactly > with the standard model when the purpose of my paper and > these videos is to establish how and why my model is distinctive > from the standard model. Your "model not-a-model" is distinctive from the incredibly accurate empirical experimentation and elegant computer models of water behavior in that yours does not reflect reality. Referring back to your own retarded reality-denying anti-science nitwittery isn't proof, James. Experimental data, corroborating studies, empirical examples based in reality... that's proof. None of which you have. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33c25dbb-9b4d-439c-aefb-85c4ee15edf5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564854 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:23:59 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > Did you watch these? Do you understand how this is distinctive from > > the standard model that Nilsson, Saykally, and Soper assume? > > I understand perfectly well. Well, uh. I'm an expert on water structure. I'm a physicist. I actually wrote a paper on it. What did you do? You did a few Google searches. My paper outlines a sharp departure from the standard model of water structure. Undoubtedly you have no idea what I mean by this or why it's significant. Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are all at odds with each other. They haven't figured out what I figured out. They are arguing with each other as to why there is so much space between water molecules when their model--based on polarity being a constant--predicts there should be little or no space. They are perplexed. The evidence is inconsistent with what Coulomb's Law predicts. I am not perplexed. I figured it out. I kind of figured it out by accident. H2O polarity is a variable. They overlooked the importance of asymmetry to polarity. I didn't. They also (or instead) overlooked the fact that H bonds achieve symmetry. I didn't. Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are all carrying assumptions that were in existence before the importance of symmetry was realized. (And the thing that really has them trapped is this notion that ice is a lattice. They, most likely, will never overcome this mistaken notion.) Nilsson, Soper, and Saykally are academics. People in academia are very sheepish. They are very good at following rules. They are not very good at making discoveries. They have done such a good job of writing papers that confirmed the validity of the standard model that it is incomprehensible to them that they missed something. They missed something huge. I'm very good at making discoveries. The trick is not to lie to yourself. Most people pretend to understand complex things when they don't really quite understand. They lie to themselves. They pretend they have a full understanding when, in reality, they only have a partial understanding. Intellectual honesty is not something that can be taught. You either have it or you do not. You do not. That is why you cry all the time. That is why you act like a child. Your phony expertise with Coulomb's Law make you look ridiculous to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 07:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3bee70a759e9f38a95db6af1c8e78a01@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564863 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:33c25dbb-9b4d-439c-aefb-85c4ee15edf5@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:23:59 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> Did you watch these? Do you understand how this is distinctive from >>> the standard model that Nilsson, Saykally, and Soper assume? >> I understand perfectly well. Whereas their experimentation is >> uncovering the reality behind how water behaves, your retarded >> psychotic blather denies reality and well-established science. > Wel<SMACKAMORON!> You're too ignorant to even explain why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere, Jim. You're far too stupid, uneducated and insane to ever model the entire atmosphere. Go back to your crayon-scribbled "class-action" kooksoot against *science*, James... let's get the raucous laughter started already. And don't forget that you should also scribble up a "class-action" kooksoot against *reality*. That's been kicking the living shit out of you your entire ignorant life. LOL And those electrons and photons you can likely sue in a "class-action" kooksoot under the RICO statutes... they're a universal cabal who are subverting your attempt to explain electrostatic attraction. LOL Why are you so ignorant, James? You're no physicist, you're an uneducated laughingstock, a psychotic scientific fraud. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 07:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1mklv86.1wrebly1fc9dpkN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #565036 |
Fakey Neighborhood Monkey Spnaker Ersatzus
<FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:33c25dbb-9b4d-439c-aefb-85c4ee15edf5@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:23:59 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >>> Did you watch these? Do you understand how this is distinctive from
> >>> the standard model that Nilsson, Saykally, and Soper assume?
>
> >> I understand perfectly well. Whereas their experimentation is
> >> uncovering the reality behind how water behaves, your retarded
> >> psychotic blather denies reality and well-established science.
>
> > Wel<SMACKAMORON!>
And there it is again, Fakey's favoured tactic of last resort: delete
the question that he can't answer and run away, casting trite insults
and aspersions over his shoulder as he retreats in confusion.
Pffft, what a fake.
>
> You're too ignorant to even explain why there is a "boundary" between
> the troposphere and the stratosphere, Jim. You're far too stupid,
> uneducated and insane to ever model the entire atmosphere. Go back to
> your crayon-scribbled "class-action" kooksoot against *science*,
> James... let's get the raucous laughter started already.
>
> And don't forget that you should also scribble up a "class-action"
> kooksoot against *reality*. That's been kicking the living shit out of
> you your entire ignorant life. LOL
>
> And those electrons and photons you can likely sue in a "class-action"
> kooksoot under the RICO statutes... they're a universal cabal who are
> subverting your attempt to explain electrostatic attraction. LOL
>
> Why are you so ignorant, James? You're no physicist, you're an
> uneducated laughingstock, a psychotic scientific fraud.
--
^Ï^. Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com>
My pet rock Gordon wants home rule for England.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 01:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a131807-2349-4bc6-b0d6-172cb421180c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #565036 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 11:30:19 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > You're too ignorant to even explain why there is a "boundary" between > the troposphere and the stratosphere, Hmm. Have you tried googling it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 19:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <188a1d5554af15a7dd197662ea12270b@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #565050 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in <news:6a131807-2349-4bc6-b0d6-172cb421180c@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 11:30:19 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> You're too ignorant to even explain why there is a "boundary" between >> the troposphere and the stratosphere, > Hmm. Have you tried googling it? No, Jim. We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you don't know. Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant? Jim can't even explain everyday phenomena. He's simply not smart or sane enough to model the atmosphere. He's uneducated and ignorant. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b796db2d-3207-4ca5-bc53-b466e60eb744@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #565217 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:55:07 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > Hmm. Have you tried googling it? > > No, Jim. We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a > "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Why don't you tell us what you think and I'll see if I can help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 06:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <58fd5fe9eaa54895645522b2414c7773@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #565230 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in <news:b796db2d-3207-4ca5-bc53-b466e60eb744@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:55:07 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> Hmm. Have you tried googling it? >> No, Jim. We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a >> "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. > Why don't you tell us what you think and I'll see if I can help. Stop begging for help, James. We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you don't know. Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant? Uneducated? Insane? All of the above? Jim can't even explain everyday phenomena. He's simply not smart or sane enough to model the atmosphere. He's uneducated, ignorant and insane. As proof that what I write above is true, James 'Tardnado' McGinn will yet again evade answering the question, and he'll run screaming in terror from addressing those gaping inconsistencies and contradictions in his "theory not-a-theory", as outlined in my .sig. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 22:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d6a1d117-3f92-4f5f-bb05-4ed10e203101@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #565354 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:32:15 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > >> No, Jim. We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a > >> "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. > > > Why don't you tell us what you think and I'll see if I can help. > > Stop begging for help, James. > > We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a "boundary" > between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you don't know. > Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant? Uneducated? Insane? All of > the above? http://goo.gl/7OWkBB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 18:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <48c256ee407e8059f1a987db274729e1@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #565360 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:d6a1d117-3f92-4f5f-bb05-4ed10e203101@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:32:15 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> No, Jim. We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a >>>> "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. >>> Why don't you tell us what you think and I'll see if I can help. >> Stop begging for help, James. >> >> We need to know what *your* take is on why there is a "boundary" >> between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you don't know. >> Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant? Uneducated? Insane? All of >> the above? > http://goo.gl/7OWkBB Referring back to your own insane babbling isn't proof of anything, James, except that you're insane. You've not spoken to this topic at all, making your referring back to your own blather especially insane. What is *your* take is on why there is a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Unless you don't know. Why don't you know, Jim? Are you ignorant? Uneducated? Insane? All of the above? Remember, it cannot be your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim. James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled: Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com> ======================================================== > Retracted: > Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces) > the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen > bonds with adjoining water molecules. ======================================================== James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled: Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com> ======================================================== > In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's > Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water > droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes > these droplets to elongate into chains of partially > reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with > structural integrity. It is important to note that > without the concept that is the subject of this post > (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen > Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this > would not be possible. ======================================================== Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your "boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma" forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory" just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and suppositions, James. Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong. You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL Thanks for playing, but you lose. That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 17:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1mkiweo.12pxgh31oulku8N%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #564484 |
Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> (Snickerturd) wrote: > I could do this for years and years and years. May the gods help us all. -- ^Ï^. Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> My pet rock Gordon wants home rule for England.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 13:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.yeqmdsyvtm21m2@benson.localhost> |
| In reply to | #564549 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:31:44 -0400, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
> (Snickerturd) wrote:
>
>> I could do this for years and years and years.
>
> May the gods help us all.
>
he's going to continue calmly and level-headedly explaining AC power
systems.
--
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu
-
FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>
">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>> phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>> voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)
Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking
*moron*?
"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""
it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds. it says that you're in denial
about the inversion of your AC legs.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png
http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf
on page 2:
** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)
*COUGH*
SPNAK!!
-
i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII
art if you ask nicely.</GROUCHO MARX>
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>
-
snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:
- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:
http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html
place those files in a directory and save this file as
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.
compiles with:
gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++
run with:
./a.out
enjoy the LULZ ;)
*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>
using namespace std;
int main(){
//float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
//float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);
float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
float_precision t=float_precision(0); // time variable
float_precision sum=float_precision(0); // sum of SnickerTurd's
ridiculous sinewave mess
float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25); //
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
float_precision PI;
PI =_float_table(_PI,25);
// this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
while(sum < snickerPrediction){
// fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))
+
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));
// perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh
snickerTurds
if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
}
t = t+STEP;
}
/*
Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"
Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves
never reaches that. They never reach their max values at the same time.
That's how stupid you are.
Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"
Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when
summed.
the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages that are archived FOREVER.
*/
cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
-
Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>
-
Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
<snicker>
Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL
<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">
on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*
*hell doesn't exist. hope everybody is having a productive evening.
-
http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg
http://cafepress.com/kooktown
http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg
-
If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)
if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2
-
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd
-
Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:
$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!
(just as useful as the original!)
-
snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden
service. It's not rocket science.
_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._ (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a
kiddie pr0n network.)
That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.315b28de1367524598cbaf@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #564549 |
In article <1mkiweo.12pxgh31oulku8N%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, snipeco.2 @gmail.com says... > > Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> > (Snickerturd) wrote: > > > I could do this for years and years and years. > > May the gods help us all. The power of Ass Burgers! -- Mustaffa Sheboygan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 12:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pn33fblor8ecqf7hr9t10bcvgs2cnpkjma@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #564549 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:31:44 +0000, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote: >Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> >(Snickerturd) wrote: > >> I could do this for years and years and years. > >May the gods help us all. At least he admits to having no life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 11:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.315b32a8c6d770d598cbb0@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #564583 |
In article <pn33fblor8ecqf7hr9t10bcvgs2cnpkjma@4ax.com>, invalid@invalid.invalid says... > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:31:44 +0000, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote: > > >Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> > >(Snickerturd) wrote: > > > >> I could do this for years and years and years. > > > >May the gods help us all. > > > At least he admits to having no life. At least he admits to being an obsessive, easily-trolled and CONtrolled ko0Ok. It is to laugh... -- Mustaffa Sheboygan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 04:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <65eaab315213ccd49878608930d8f37d@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #564583 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Trailer Trash Tony the Law-Breaking Scam-Running Drug-Dealing Wife-Beating Child-Endangering Tax-Evading Unemployable Racist High-School-Dropout Needle-Tracked Drug-Addled Alcoholic Pissbum (aka Tony Ray Rawlings, aka Anton Ray Eaks of 600 Raintree Blvd #58, Lamplighter Trailer Park, Canon City, CO), socked up as Skeet, in <news:pn33fblor8ecqf7hr9t10bcvgs2cnpkjma@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again on Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:29:35 -0600: No life to go to, Pissbum? LOL > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:31:44 +0000, Tr!pe the Hypoxic > ChickenFucker (aka Steve Hall) <snipeco.2@gmail.com> > squawked as he pulled it to poultry porn. >> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus >> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> drop-kicked a retard: >>> I could do this for years and years and years. >> May the gods help us all. LOL! > At least he admits to having no life. Says the single-wide trailer-monkey pissbum, at a time when he should be... when he should be... um... erm... do Pissbums *have* lives? <snicker> > <http://imgur.com/xt9bcTq> > > I were a execyootive reegunal sailes man making deleverys. > Now I are a toofless unemployalbe pissbum. <snicker> > I just found out today. Maybe a year. I love you all. > My shits fucked up anyboby givs a damn? No. Lying Drug-Abusing Woman-Beating Pissbum Trailer Trash Tony Ray Eaks. <snicker> -- Proof that Lamey (aka Skeeter) is Anton Ray Eaks: Message-ID: <kus7dj$bh0$1@news.mixmin.net> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/alt.usenet.kooks/messageid$3Akus7dj$24bh0$241@news.mixmin.net/alt.usenet.kooks/MLAQo_O73UM> Pissbum hard at work to earn his drug-money: <http://i.imgur.com/hr4eMvS.jpg> <--- LOL! Just say no to drugs and alcohol, kids! <http://i.imgur.com/uoZbsGI.jpg> <--- LOL! It's Howdy Doody Time!: <http://i.imgur.com/1myBylb.jpg> <--- LOL! The Pissbum Clan: <http://i.imgur.com/cixImyq.jpg> <--- LOL! MID: <81670ab47076fa4432bc62e70914ee31@dizum.com> Thanks for admitting you live in single-wide trailer #58 at the Lamp Lighter Mobile Home Park on Raintree Boulevard in Canon City, Colorado, Pissbum. LOL <https://web.archive.org/web/20150301045717/http://coloradovoters.info/by_number/0005/59023_anton_ray_eaks.html> <https://web.archive.org/web/20150224004840/http://coloradovoters.info/by_address/81212.html> 600 Raintree Blvd. #58 Canon City, CO 81212 Another single-wide? Of course it is... the Lamp Lighter Mobile Home Park only has single-wide trailers. LOL And you get caught in your "I don't do FaceBook" lie again, not to mention your "I'm not Tony Eaks" lie: A drug-addled loserly pissbum wrote: Message-ID: <c30abe10716ad5092ff377450c199bae@dizum.com> "It's dump day today, woke up to fire trucks across the street, seems the house caught fire. What a view I have now...LOL" <https://www.facebook.com/CanonCityDailyRecord?hc_location=timeline> "Tony Eaks - Right across the street from me, Woke up to flames and lights." <https://web.archive.org/web/20150122055700/http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/ci_27053304/early-morning-fire-destroys-home-at-lamp-lighter> And before he was a Canon City, CO single-wide trailer-dwelling unemployable pissbum, he was a Fairplay, CO single-wide trailer-dwelling unemployable pissbum. LOL In Fairplay, CO he mooched his mother to an early death... now he's mooching his ultra-ugly transsexual Howdy Doody wife Beverly Jean Johnson-Eaks, who is forced to work two minimum-wage jobs (cashier at Alco, cashier at Dollar Tree) to support Trailer Trash Tony's drug habit. LOL Message-ID: <96a8a62d10d76cd522bcf86bbaef274d@dizum.com> Message-ID: <91a9d7e35f68d22eef5b72f79ef505c0@dizum.com> Unit 66. Trailer Trash Tony is a single-wide pissbum! Bwahahahaaa! ============================================================ Trailer Trash Tony wrote: > Can you prove this single wide trailer thing? Or is it > just another attempt to try and "act" better than me? LOL Yeah, I can now prove "this single wide trailer thing", Trailer Trash Tony. Which by your own admission makes me better than you. LOL So I was right about everything I wrote about you... which makes you a pissbum, Pissbum. LOL <https://web.archive.org/web/20140724093727/http://coloradovoters.info/0005/59023.html> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Anton Ray Eaks was born in 1953 and he registered to vote, giving his address as 21980 HWY 285 UNIT 66, FAIRPLAY, PARK COUNTY, COLORADO 80440. His telephone number is 1-719-477-3574. His voting status is: Active. He is unaffiliated. RESIDENTIAL_ADDRESS: 21980 HWY 285 UNIT 66 RESIDENTIAL_CITY: FAIRPLAY RESIDENTIAL_STATE: CO RESIDENTIAL_ZIP_CODE: 80440 REGISTRATION_DATE: 07/31/2012 BIRTH_YEAR: 1953 PHONE_NUM: 719-477-3574 MAILING_ADDRESS_1: PO BOX 473 MAILING_CITY: FAIRPLAY MAILING_STATE: CO MAILING_ZIP_CODE: 80440 MAILING_ZIP_PLUS: 0473 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NOTE: That phone number is the Alcoholics Anonymous hot-line at South Park Christian Chapel: <https://web.archive.org/web/20150131161807/http://www.southparkevents.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48:on-going-activities-for-the-month-&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=54> "Alcoholics Anonymouis meeting 7-8pm at So Pk Christian Chapel 719-477-3574" Trailer Trash Tony is *such* a drunkard that when he registered to vote, he put down the AA DrunkieLine as his phone number! LOL A map of the gravel quarry / junkyard / trailer park where Trailer Trash Tony rented his shitty single-wide trailer for only $675 / month (and still couldn't pay the rent, and got evicted! LOL): <https://www.google.com/maps/place/21980+Hwy+285+%2366,+Fairplay,+CO+80440/@39.2157874,-105.9922529,346m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x876ae8155a400885:0xfb9ff5490348163d> Unit 66: This is a 3 bd/2ba single-wide trailer. <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.318572058245476.1073741834.131803693588981&type=1&_fb_noscript=1> SPANKY-SPANKY! (tm) <snicker> ============================================================ Lamey (aka Skeeter) the alcoholic wife-beating outer-filthing drug-addict: Message-ID: <lfjfe7$b3t$4@news.mixmin.net> Message-ID: <1b7ef90407a4295786c3f1338e80d553@dizum.com> Message-ID: <c39bc1cce43a9e6860b642e72943f3ce@dizum.com> Message-ID: <ae39676e2ac093e5259ccf8210ecbb25@dizum.com> Trailer Trash Tony makes a multi-pronged confession: MID: <k9m2ca5g26l46qb2t9h05ff87skcjiov1o@4ax.com> "Yup, I can take 4 or 5 percs and roof your house. It's called the paradoxical affect." Pissbum groveled. LOL Pissbum lost. LOL! Message-ID: <lchuas$q96$4@news.mixmin.net> Message-ID: <c92bbbbfefed840db0563eb29f2d6498@dizum.com> Cowardly Pissbum gets caught in lie after lie. LOL! Message-ID: <l0rfde$hv8$2@news.mixmin.net> Message-ID: <l0smsq$fcq$2@news.mixmin.net> Lamey (aka Skeeter) the forger, busted and scrambling for cover like a coward: <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.usenet.kooks/2oWKmfnSPEA/RE_35HZp8qAJ> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.usenet.kooks/2oWKmfnSPEA/-RZxQp6TAe4J> Message-ID: <db92667a7bac368fab1b8ff5085f8b2e@dizum.com> Pissbum gets kicked so hard he's *still* bouncing around Usenet like a SuperBall: ============================================ Message-ID: <kv42gb$vd8$1@news.mixmin.net> <https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.usenet.kooks/ZyzzhJiku3c/Q0c2J9_Jc5YJ> Message-ID: <kuatrj$b2g$1@news.mixmin.net> <https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.usenet.kooks/N91lSABoN2s/JYDwKwwIZn4J> ============================================ Trailer Trash Tony the Single-Wide Trailer-Dwelling Pissbum is driven so insane by my truthiness that he's forced by his psychiatric professional to take Seroquel, a strong anti-psychotic that its maker (Astra Zeneca) only indicates for use in treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: ================================================== Lamey (aka Skeeter) admits he now takes Seroquel "to sleep"... it's a prescription medication for the treatment of mania and depression associated with bipolar disease and schizophrenia. I've driven him mad. LOL Pissbum tries to k'lame his doctor-recommended dosage is only half of the smallest tablet Astra Zeneca produces for Seroquel: MID: <3elg2aduthcn6j92jlledhg6sa4ibnbro1@4ax.com>: "Just like seriquil, I take it for sleep at night, 12.5 mg" I shred Pissbum Tony's lies and prove he's gone batty: MID: <0c4a46b95e1b8983104047001ec4e05f@dizum.com> MID: <11715d7d5e802fb4248513f981621812@dizum.com> MID: <3bb2754531e630d89eb7330623ee6281@dizum.com> MID: <8bc988e4842e4338432ad962f84a89d4@dizum.com> ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web