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

Groups > sci.physics > #562667 > unrolled thread

Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:08 -0700
    Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-15 16:19 -0500
    Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 04:59 +0100
      Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 21:44 -0700
      Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 05:58 -0700
        Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 18:34 +0100
          Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 11:55 -0700
            Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-26 07:44 +0100
              Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 00:39 -0700
                Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-26 17:20 +0100
              Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 21:00 -0700
                Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 07:27 +0200
                  Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 14:02 -0700
                    Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-01 08:05 +0200
                      Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 23:30 -0700
                        Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-01 19:18 +0200
                          Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 12:48 -0700
                            Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 07:34 +0200
                              Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 23:19 -0700
                                Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 17:53 +0200
                          Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-01 19:30 -0600
                        Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-04 12:09 -0700
                          Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-05 11:26 -0500
                      Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 22:18 -0700
                        Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 17:48 +0200
                          Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-03 00:39 +0800
                            Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-04-02 10:08 -0700
                              Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-04-02 18:38 +0100
                                Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-03 07:51 +0200
                            Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-03 07:35 +0200
                          Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 10:35 -0700
                            Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-03 07:14 +0200
                      Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-02 15:27 +0800
                        Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-04-02 05:59 -0700
                        Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 17:33 +0200
                          Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-03 00:34 +0800
                            Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-03 08:02 +0200
                              Our very own "chinese room" vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-03 07:11 +0000
                                Re: Our very own "chinese room" Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-04-03 00:23 -0700
                                Re: Our very own "chinese room" Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-04 03:40 +0800
                                  Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-04 07:06 +0200
                                Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-04 08:59 +0200
                                  Re: How to make faketard foam. Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-04 06:12 -0600
                                  Re: Our very own "chinese room" Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-05 00:46 +0800
                                  Re: Our very own "chinese room" vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-04 18:49 +0000
                                    Re: Our very own "chinese room" "\"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> - 2016-04-04 15:36 -0400
                                      Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-06 07:46 +0200
                                        Re: Our very own "chinese room" Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-04-06 07:49 +0000
                                          Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 08:59 +0200
                                        Re: Our very own "chinese room" "\"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> - 2016-04-06 12:51 -0400
                                          Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-07 08:52 +0200
                                            Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 18:00 +0200
                                              Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 08:00 +0200
                                    Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-06 07:30 +0200
                                      Re: Our very own "chinese room" vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-06 07:04 +0000
                                        Re: Our very own "chinese room" Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-04-06 05:57 -0700
                                          Re: Our very own "chinese room" Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-07 21:44 -0600
                                        Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-06 16:18 +0200
                                          Re: Our very own "chinese room" Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-04-07 07:46 +0000
                                            Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 09:05 +0200
                                      Re: Our very own "chinese room" Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-06 17:16 +0800
                                        Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-06 17:00 +0200
                                          Re: Our very own "chinese room" Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-07 01:01 +0800
                                            Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-07 08:46 +0200
                                              Re: Our very own "chinese room" Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-07 21:46 -0600
                                              Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 08:54 +0200
                                                Re: Our very own "chinese room" Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-08 07:51 -0600
                                                Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 18:33 +0200
                                                  Re: Our very own "chinese room" "\"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> - 2016-04-08 12:49 -0400
                                                    Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 08:38 +0200
                                                      Re: Our very own "chinese room" "\"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> - 2016-04-09 23:58 -0400
                                                        Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-10 06:58 +0200
                                                          Re: Our very own "chinese room" "\"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> - 2016-04-10 01:25 -0400
                                                            Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-10 17:57 +0200
                                                              Re: Faketards answer to everything he has to run away from. Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-10 10:18 -0600
                                                                Re: Faketards answer to everything he has to run away from. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-11 09:42 +0800
                                                  Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 08:00 +0200
                                                    Re: Our very own "chinese room" Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-10 15:09 +0800
                                                      Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-12 07:48 +0200
                                                        Re: Our very own "chinese room" vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-12 07:40 +0000
                                                          Re: Our very own "chinese room" snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-04-12 09:04 +0100
                                                          Re: Our very own "chinese room" Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-12 18:18 +0800
                                          Re: Our very own "chinese room" snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-04-06 19:37 +0100
                                          Re: Our very own "chinese room" Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-04-06 20:54 +0000
                                            Re: Our very own "chinese room" "\"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> - 2016-04-06 17:45 -0400
                                          Re: Our very own "chinese room" Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-07 21:46 -0600
                          Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-02 12:41 -0600
                        Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis "\"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> - 2016-04-02 12:02 -0400
        Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-25 13:07 -0700
      Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 11:05 -0700
        Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 07:16 +0200
    Re: Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 18:21 -0700

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

#569882 — Re: Our very own "chinese room"

vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:48:46 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
> Emeritus wrote:
> 
> > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> > 
> > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
> > <news:pvujgbtu76ehuqggf4266chs72s3f3jra9@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
> 
> >> You still don't have a clue what a derivitive is, or what its inverse
> >> operation is.
> > 
> > Shiny Tinfoil Spankard claims the co-functionality of sine and cosine
> > are "inverse operations" and not co-functionality.
> 
> Bub, take a look in the mirror.
> 
> It's clear you're in over your head. Your sentence above is almost a 
> complete non sequitur from what BMSMA just said.  It would be a 
> _complete_ non sequitur if sine and cosine didn't factor in to what was
> saying.
> 
> The inverse operation to the derivative is the integral.  No matter what
> the semantics, it's clear this is what he's talking about, and only the
> most Derridian wackadoodle deconstructionist would go off on the 
> (literary) tangent that you did intentionally.  But that's not what 
> happened.
> 
> Ordinarily, I'd be confused why in another post, you would go as far as
> to state this very fact, then when parsing his statement above, have it
> go right over your head.
> 
> But there's nothing confusing about that, because you are a chinese room
> simulation.
> 
> > The inverse function of cosine is arccosine. The inverse function of
> > sine is arcsine. You're a moron. LOL
> 
> Except he wasn't talking about that, he was talking about the inverse
> operation of a derivative.  That _happens_ to be a relationship between
> sin(x) and cos(x), but you've gone off talking about cofunctions and 
> arcsine/arccosine and other irrelevancies that have nothing to do with
> what BMSMA was talking about.
> 
> So, okay, you're learning something -- I get that.  Go ahead and 
> integrate cos(x), just don't make the common trivial mistake that is the
> source of some humor among mathematicians.
> 
> > RUN! SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!
> 
> I think my irony circuits just scrammed.
>

[mark thread as "interesting"]

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

My pet rock Gordon wants home rule for England.

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

#569886 — Re: Our very own "chinese room"

vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:48:46 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
> Emeritus wrote:
> 
> > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> > 
> > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
> > <news:pvujgbtu76ehuqggf4266chs72s3f3jra9@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
> 
> >> You still don't have a clue what a derivitive is, or what its inverse
> >> operation is.
> > 
> > Shiny Tinfoil Spankard claims the co-functionality of sine and cosine
> > are "inverse operations" and not co-functionality.
> 
> Bub, take a look in the mirror.
> 
> It's clear you're in over your head. Your sentence above is almost a 
> complete non sequitur from what BMSMA just said.  It would be a 
> _complete_ non sequitur if sine and cosine didn't factor in to what was 
> saying.
> 
> The inverse operation to the derivative is the integral.  No matter what 
> the semantics, it's clear this is what he's talking about, and only the 
> most Derridian wackadoodle deconstructionist would go off on the 
> (literary) tangent that you did intentionally.  But that's not what 
> happened.
> 
> Ordinarily, I'd be confused why in another post, you would go as far as 
> to state this very fact, then when parsing his statement above, have it 
> go right over your head.
> 
> But there's nothing confusing about that, because you are a chinese room 
> simulation.
> 
> > The inverse function of cosine is arccosine. The inverse function of
> > sine is arcsine. You're a moron. LOL
> 
> Except he wasn't talking about that, he was talking about the inverse 
> operation of a derivative.  That _happens_ to be a relationship between 
> sin(x) and cos(x), but you've gone off talking about cofunctions and 
> arcsine/arccosine and other irrelevancies that have nothing to do with 
> what BMSMA was talking about.
> 
> So, okay, you're learning something -- I get that.  Go ahead and 
> integrate cos(x), just don't make the common trivial mistake that is the 
> source of some humor among mathematicians.
> 
> > RUN! SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!
> 
> I think my irony circuits just scrammed.

Fakey realizes he is non-sequituring.  He is quite
deliberate about it.  It's his typical MO... he is hoping
to confuse the issue in the eyes of other readers, and
hoping that i tire of replying to every evasive strawman
he throws out.  Which i do.

Everything in his .sig is in the same vein.  None of it
is true, except sin^2 being a sinusoid.  Most of it is
shit i & others had to school fakey on... heheh.

What else would you expect him to do... actually learn
some maths?

-- 
"When caught in a lie, lie *harder*!"
  --Fakey Theorem on Usenet strategy

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

#568346 — Re: Our very own "chinese room"

The Risible Mr Fakey, RMS <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snickerturd>
[...]
> Bwahaa<choke, gasp>ahahahaaa! "stock options" Ahahaaaahahaaa!
[...]
> Bwahahahaa! Oh, fuck, are you ever retarded, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard.
[...]
> SPNAK!
[...] 
> This *entire* *fucking* *post* is going into the SPNAK!-pile,
> Mathematical Moron. You're *that* SPNAK!d.
[...]
> <snickerturd>
[...]
> Translation:
[...]
> Ho Lee Phuck, you're a mathematical moron.
[...]
> SPNAK!
[...]
> Do you *ever* get tired of proving yourself a moron?
[...]
>Moron. 
[...]
> SPNAK!
[...]
> Spankard. LOL
[...]
> Translation:
[...]
> Bwahahahaaa! 
[...]
> Mathematical Moron? LOL
[...]
> And there's the proof that Mathematical Moron 
[...]
> Mathematical Moron? LOL
[...]
> SPNAK!
[...]
> Bwahahahaa! 
[...]
> Maffemagickal Moron.
[...]
> Translation:
[...]
> SPNAK!
[...]
> Moron. Spankard. LOL
>

An impressive argument, well done.

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

My pet rock Gordon wants home rule for England.

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

#568401 — Re: Our very own "chinese room"

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 17:00:31 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus wrote:

>> Wrong again, fakey...
> 
> Translation:
> "I'm wrong again, fakey..." LOL

Annnnd with that, he accepts the name "fakey" for himself.

<snicker>

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

#568406 — Re: Our very own "chinese room"

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 16:54:45 -0400, Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid>  
wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 17:00:31 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
> Emeritus wrote:
>
>>> Wrong again, fakey...
>>
>> Translation:
>> "I'm wrong again, fakey..." LOL
>
> Annnnd with that, he accepts the name "fakey" for himself.
>
> <snicker>

lotusLiar, gableFabler, pathetic fuckhead...

he's a k0ok of many trades.

-- 
the never-ending saga of fakey's "lotus"...
https://web.archive.org/web/20160324102816/http://i.imgur.com/S1Xr5PO.png

-

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

-

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

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

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

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

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.  it says that you're in denial  
about the inversion of your AC legs.

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

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

on page 2:

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

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

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

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

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

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

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

compiles with:

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

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

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

using namespace std;

int main(){

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

-

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

<snicker>

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

<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">

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

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

-

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

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

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

-

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

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

-

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

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

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

(just as useful as the original!)

-

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

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

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

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016

 

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

#568807 — Re: Our very own "chinese room"

On Wed,  6 Apr 2016 17:00:31 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>Now I *know* _you've_ never done any stock trading... if you had,
>you'd realize that you can program your own stock indicators,
>calculating first, second and third order derivatives of price,
>volume, bid, ask and option volume.


Nice misdirection.

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

#567529

On Sat,  2 Apr 2016 17:33:24 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
>Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
><news:ausufbpvpv1bgmr9te637t78b2kesf9jg2@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
>
>>> Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory
>>> not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
>>> caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
>>> moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
>>> whatsoever.
>
>> Did
>
>Have you figured out that cross correlation can be used with Fourier
>transforms yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> you
>
>Have you figured out that a sinusoid is a transform of a circle yet,
>Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> catch
>
>Have you figured out the difference between frequency and period of a
>sinewave yet, Mathematical Moron?
>
>> "Tardnado"
>
>Have you figured out that wave interference and superposition are the
>same thing yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> lying
>
>Have you figured out that wave interference works the same for
>standing and traveling waves yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> about
>
>Have you figured out that formulas are math yet, Mathematical Moron?
>LOL
>
>> a
>
>Have you figured out that sin^2 is a sinusoid yet, Mathematical Moron?
>LOL
>
>> fake
>
>Have you figured out that atomic number does not equal effective
>nuclear charge yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> lotus,
>
>Have you figured out that "within 10% error" does not equal "10%
>error" yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> FLotus
>
>Have you figured out that the square of the instantaneous sample of
>peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave,
>thus its average does *not* equal zero yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> Blossom?
>
>Have you figured out that "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic" yet,
>Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>Why do you keep running from the multiple SPNAK!s you've taken, Shiny
>Tinfoil Spankard?


Evasion at it's finest.
>
>Now, prove to the world that you're Usenet's biggest coward by running
>away from your stupidity. Again. Spankard.
>
>SPNAK! #1:
>=========================================================
>A Mathematical Moron wrote:
>===========================
>> "Sin^2 is a sine"... what a moroon.  LOL.
>===========================
>
>FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
>===========================
><http://i.imgur.com/SU4YXB0.png>
>
>Gee, that *sinusoid* sure looks like a *sinusoid*. LOL
>=========================================================
>
>
>SPNAK! #2:
>=========================================================
>>> Some Mathematical Moron wrote:
>>>> = A[cos(0°)x^ + sin(0°)y^] -A[cos(-120°)x^ + sin(-120°)y^]
>> Right, some maffemagickal maroon wrote that.
>Right. You wrote that. LOL
>SPNAK!
>
>> What I wrote was
>> = A[cos(0°)x^ + sin(0°)y^] -A[cos(-120°)x^ + sin(-120°)y^]
>
>That's what you wrote, and that's Euler's Formula, Spankard.
>
>But you've yet again fucked it up:
>170\left(\cos \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot 60+\left(0\cdot \frac{\pi
>}{180}\right)\right)+\sin \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot
>60+\left(0\cdot \frac{\pi }{180}\right)\right)\right)-170\left(\cos
>\left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot 60+\left(-120\cdot \frac{\pi
>}{180}\right)\right)+\sin \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot
>60+\left(-120\cdot \frac{\pi }{180}\right)\right)\right)
>
><http://i.imgur.com/veVLHuI.png>
>
>Whaaaaaat??? Your kooky equation produces 416.413 volts L-L from 170
>volt peak L-N, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard! Obviously you're a Mathematical
>Moron blathering on about shit you don't understand. LOL
>
>Uh-oh... take a look at this, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard:
><http://i.imgur.com/nWBbVbS.png>
>
>You'll note your fucked up equation produces ~294 volts RMS L-L from
>120 volt RMS L-N. How's *that* work, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL
>
>Did... did I just fix your fucked up equation *and* derive the correct
>~208 volts RMS L-L from 120 volts RMS L-N? With the *correct* 30
>degree lead phase shift? Yeah... yeah I did, Mathematical Moron. LOL
>
>SPNAK!
>=========================================================
>
>
>SPNAK! #3:
>=========================================================
>>> He says, using Euler's Formula and not knowing it. LOL
>
>> It's not Euler's Theorem, faketard.  I realize phasors
>> totally mystify you, so you think it's all magic.  It's not.
>> Did you see any complex numbers?
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms#Relation_with_complex_exponentials>
>"The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
>Formula"
>
>Some Mathematical Moron wrote:
>> = A[cos(0°)x^ + sin(0°)y^] -A[cos(-120°)x^ + sin(-120°)y^]
>
>Euler wrote:
><https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/4/2/e4285d1d4bd15710afcc2753c9ed3095.png>
>
>SPNAK! on the Mathematical Moron, who didn't even realize he was using
>Euler's Formula. Bwahahahaaa!
>=========================================================
>
>
>SPNAK! #4:
>=========================================================
>Bwahahahaaa! The Mathematical Moron sticks up for the Mathematical
>Mega-Moron. And that makes them both *wrong*.
>
><http://www.electrician2.com/electa1/electa4htm.html>
><http://www.electrician2.com/electa1/electa3htm.htm>
>===================================
>Mathematically, we can precisely *add* the three vectors for the line
>currents by converting vectors into their horizontal and vertical
>components by using trigonometry.  We can *add* the horizontal
>components, then *add* the vertical components, then convert this to
>polar coordinates to find the *sum* of the vectors. This is called
>algebraic *vector* *addition*.
>===================================
>
>And that all goes back to you moron's inability to grok the
>Superposition Principle, and thus the Additivity and Homogeneity
>properties of same... mostly you... you k'lamed that superposition and
>wave constructive/destructive interference were different things, and
>that constructive/destructive interference worked differently for
>standing waves and traveling waves... so you're especially moronic on
>this topic...
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle>
>"Note that when vectors or vector fields are involved, a superposition
>is interpreted as a vector sum."
>
>There's not a minus sign in an equation on that entire page. Morons.
>
>Here, you fecking *morons*... let me demonstrate it a way you halfwits
>will hopefully understand...
>
><http://i.imgur.com/cuw4gus.png>
>
>Red: 100 volt, 0 degree phase
>Green: 100 volt, 120 degree phase
>Blue: Red + Green
>
>See where the Red and Green lines cross? What's that voltage? Oh, it's
>50 volts. What's 50 + 50, you fucking *morons*? Oh, so when you sum
>two like sinewaves, you shift the resultant to exactly between the two
>tributaries, with the same amplitude as the tributaries.
>
>Hence the resultant is 180 degrees phase from the remaining third
>phase, hence the sum of the three phases of 3-phase AC must always
>equal zero.
>
>Now, let's look at what you morons are doing...
>
><http://i.imgur.com/zdNCScp.png>
>
>Same exact graph, but the third phase has been added in Orange to show
>the Blue Line is 180 degrees phase from that Orange line, and a Purple
>line has been added to reflect DildoRider's moronic sinewave
>subtraction equation... now remember, we're figuring out the
>superposition (the constructive and destructive interference) of the
>Red and the Green lines.
>
>In that image, at the X axis where the Purple line peaks, the Red line
>has an amplitude of 87 volts. The green line has an amplitude of -87
>volts.
>
>Now, you *fucking* *morons*... what is the wave interference result
>when two waves interfere that have exactly opposite amplitudes? Oh...
>that's right, its ZERO. Which is also why the Blue line is at ZERO at
>that point on the X axis.
>
>Where's that 173.205 volts coming from in DildoRider's kooky sinewave
>subtraction equation, you *fucking* *morons*?
>
>But wait! It gets even better!
>
><http://i.imgur.com/0l0SQjy.png>
>
>That's the same exact graph, but with DildoRider's kooky sinewave
>subtraction equation as purple and black lines... the purple line has
>the 0 degree phase as the first part of the equation, the black line
>has the 120 degree phase as the first part of the equation.
>
>And one can see that the result is flipped. According to DildoRider's
>kooky sinewave subtraction equation, he can convert 0 volts directly
>into either 173 *or* -173 volts!
>
>Because you're both Mathematical Morons.
>
>SPNAK!
>
><dances a jig on the brains of the morons because I've irrefutably
>proven myself right, and proven the two *morons* are indeed huge
>fucking *Mathematical* *Morons*>
>
>Why are you *so* *stupid*, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL
>
>And the above proves DildoRider *and* Shiny Tinfoil Spankard have been
>*wrong* about every fucking thing they've been blathering.
>
>Bwahahaaaaa! Once again your Usenet Lord and Master drop-kicks your
>moronic asses across Usenet.
>
>I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.
>
>And I'll just drop another SPNAK! in here for added effect...
>
>SPNAK!
>
>You may begin backpedaling in 3... 2... 1... GO!
>
><snicker>
>===============================================================
>
>Your inability to understand, let alone refute, that reality stands as
>your tacit admission that you are Usenet's Mathematical Moron.
>
>SPNAK!
>
>RUN! SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!

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

#567468

On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 03:27:00 -0400, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass  
<bender@the.future> wrote:

> Fakey the FLotus Blossom wrote:
>
>> Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory
>> not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
>> caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
>> moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
>> whatsoever.
>
> Did you catch "Tardnado" lying about a fake lotus, FLotus
> Blossom?
>

another lotus theory destroyed.

-- 
the never-ending saga of fakey's "lotus"...
https://web.archive.org/web/20160324102816/http://i.imgur.com/S1Xr5PO.png

-

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

-

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

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

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

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

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.  it says that you're in denial  
about the inversion of your AC legs.

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

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

on page 2:

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

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

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

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

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

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

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

compiles with:

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

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

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

using namespace std;

int main(){

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

-

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

<snicker>

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

<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">

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

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

-

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

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

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

-

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

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

-

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

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

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

(just as useful as the original!)

-

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

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

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

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016

 

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

#565573

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 5:58:56 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> Well, you know what they say.  Opinions are like assholes.  Everybody has one.

... and they ALL stink...

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

#569011

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:10:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:64678038-a04f-4c9c-881f-0486a0040e71@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > Nutcase Dude:
> > Horizontal spinning occurs in the mid troposphere... *not*
> > in the jet stream at the tropopause. You're looking at 5 to
> > 20 *thousand* *feet* altitude difference. 
> 
> > James McGinn:
> > Right.
> 
> Wrong, you backpedaling conflating moron. You're trying to state that
> the vortexes originate in the jet stream, but the fucking jet stream
> can be hundreds of miles away, and is anywhere from 5000 to 20,000
> feet above the updrafting air. The jet stream is not a "giant tornado
> in the sky" that reaches down tendrils as tornadoes, KookTard.
> 
> > As I indicated, vortices originate from the jet stream, the
> > mother vortice,
> 
> The jet stream is not a vortex. If it were, planes could not fly in
> it, you moronic halfwit.
> 
> > and then grow down along vertical or semi vertical boundary layers.
> 
> "vertical or semi vertical boundary layers" for hundred of miles,
> James?
> 
> 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?
> 
> You've yet again been caught in another of your logical traps, James.
> You have no explanation for how one of your kooky "jet stream induced
> vortices" could travel hundreds of miles laterally while only
> traveling less than 30,000 feet vertically. Do you k'lame these
> tendrils your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" send down
> have a mind of their own, thus knowing exactly where to go, targeting
> the rear portion of thunderstorm clouds?
> 
> Why don't tornadoes just come down out of a clear blue sky, if, as you
> k'lame, your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" is sending
> tendrils which touch down as tornados, Jim?
> 
> > Nutcase Dude:
> > That warm moist updrafting air tilts this horizontally spinning
> > air vertically, creating a mesocyclone. 
> 
> > James McGinn:
> > This is one theory.
> 
> It's not a theory, James. It is empirically-observed fact. Or do you
> forget that they've been sending up weather balloons for hundreds of
> years, aircraft for the past half century, and now have satellites
> *and* Doppler radar which can monitor the phenomena in real time at
> wavelengths other than the visual spectrum? Did you not know this? Or
> are you just so desperate to defend your delusion that you'll say
> pretty much anything?
> 
> > It's a very poor theory.  (Meteorologists are not physicists.)
> 
> Nor are you a physicist, James. A single elective class in Basic
> Meteorology does not qualify you as anything, James, not even a
> meteorologist. And it is quite apparent you took no knowledge from
> that class, instead attending merely as a means of justifying your
> delusion, which you found yourself unable to do when the instructor
> attempted to correct your badly malfunctioning brain by telling you
> your kooky 'theory' is wrong, which they found themselves unable to do
> because you're a Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard who's convinced
> himself that he's not a delusional moron. An educational stalemate
> because you're ineducable, James.
> 
> > The problem is that this theory fails to account for the
> > concentrated energy that eventually emerges in a tornado/storm.
> 
> No, James. *Your* "theory" fails to account for the energy because you
> deny that latent heat, convection and air density differential due to
> temperature and humidity exists. The shortcomings are all on *your*
> end, not that of established science.
> 
> In fact, I just described to you the exact mechanism by which it
> happens. The scientific reality as detailed in the mathematical
> equations and computer models based upon past empirical research is so
> accurate that weather system evolution can be predicted to a large
> degree of accuracy, to include direction and severity.
> 
> I note your kooky 'theory' has no predictive capability whatsoever.
> 
> > In other words, it asserts a reversal of entropy that has no
> > explanation.
> 
> Only when viewed in context of your kooky k'lame that convection due
> to temperature and humidity-induced air density differential doesn't
> exist, James.
> 
> The failing isn't on the part of established science, it's all on
> *your* end, James.
> 
> > It's kind of like the notion of spontaneous generation in biology.
> > Where does the concentrated energy come from?
> 
> >From temperature-induced density differential, James, which you deny,
> hence your denial of convection, hence your utter confusion as regards
> all aspects of atmospheric phenomena.
> 
> > According to this theory, it just appears spontaneously.
> 
> No, according to *your* kooky theory it "just appears spontaneously"
> because you're so delusional you deny that convection exists, James.
> 
> > It's a pseudoscientific notion.
> 
> Says the moron blathering out not-even-pseudo-scientific droolery. LOL
> 
> > But I suppose that if you believe there is such thing as magical
> > wedges that appear as a consequence of thin air then this is not
> > that much of a stretch.  
> 
> Aww, look at the delusional kooktard deny everything science knows
> about aerodynamics. LOL
> 
> What shape is the most aerodynamically efficient, James? A streamlined
> body, right? And when an air front of greater density meets an air
> front of lesser density, what's the shape that greater density air
> attempts to take, given that the greater-density air has a solid
> barrier consisting of the ground as it downdrafts? Why, it's a
> streamlined half-body, right?
> 
> And that streamlined half-body causes frontal lifting, the less dense
> air slides along the boundary with the more dense air, producing
> horizontal shear which results in horizontally rotating air that the
> updrafting less dense air can, given sufficient updraft, tilt
> vertically, which if strong enough can result in tornados.
> 
> It's apparent you know nothing about aerodynamics, Jim.
> 
> > Nutcase Dude:
> > This can, under strong updraft, generate cyclonic vortexes...
> > and hence tornadoes. 
> > 
> > James McGinn:
> > So, if you can imagine strong updrafts you can imagine tornadoes.
> > Right?  Is that your argument?  Once again, if you believe there
> > is such thing as magical wedges that appear as a consequence of
> > thin air then, I guess, this is not that much of a stretch.
> 
> "magical wedges" LOL
> 
> James McGinn is such a moron that he can't look up at the sky and
> decipher what's going on.
> 
> Oh look, a photograph of an exceptionally strong wedge as a result of 
> orographic lifting:
> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud10.jpg>
> 
> Oh look, a roll cloud, a result of the same shear phenomenon I told 
> you about, a failed mesocyclone because insufficient warm humid 
> updrafting air existed to tilt it vertically:
> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud13.jpg>
> 
> Oh look, another well-defined wedge as outlined along the right-hand 
> edge of the clouds:
> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud15.jpg>
> 
> Oh look, more roll clouds, multiples of them, brought about by the 
> unique geography of North Australia's Gulf of Carpentaria:
> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud21.jpg>
> 
> Don't you hate that you're so delusional that you've been proven 
> *wrong* on every single thing you've been blathering, James?
> 
> > The reality is you don't have a comprehensive, self-consistent theory.
> 
> I have 250+ years of rigorously-collected oft-corroborated scientific
> fact, whereas you have bullshit suppositions which are supported by
> the sum total of *zero* corroborating (peer-reviewed or otherwise)
> reports.
> 
> I have 2991 peer-reviewed reports proving you wrong on just your kooky
> k'lame that water molecule polarity changes on H bonding alone, James.
> You're up against likely hundreds of thousands of scientists over 250+
> years, each and every one of them smarter and saner than you.
> 
> > Nutcase Dude:
> > This is why I told you that roller clouds are failed tornadoes... 
> > 
> > James McGinn:
> > LOL.  You told me?
> > I think you are confused.  Remember, I am the expert.
> 
> No, James. You're not an expert, you're an insane kooktard with a
> crippling Dunning-Kruger affliction and delusions of grandeur. Nothing
> more.
> 
> > I am the physicist.
> 
> You're not a physicist, James. You took a single elective class in
> Basic Meteorology, which you likely failed because you refuse to
> acknowledge the scientific reality established through more than 250
> years of rigorous empirical experimentation.
> 
> > You are a guy with a PC, internet access, and a bad attitude.
> 
> And sanity, James... a critical component you quite obviously lack.
> 
> > Nutcase Dude:
> > Roller clouds are the horizontally spinning air which the warm
> > humid updraft air tilt vertically to form tornadoes. Roller
> > clouds are formed and not tilted vertically because insufficient
> > warm humid air exists to tilt them. 
> > 
> > James McGinn:
> > Jet streams and their tributaries run horizontal also.  And, just
> > like your theoretical roller clouds, they tend to run along
> > boundary layers.  And so, calling them roller clouds doesn't
> > explain where the energy comes from that, eventually, causes a
> > storm/tornado.
> 
> The energy to power tornados is certainly not coming from the jet
> stream, James. The jet stream is not a vortex, it is a flat and wide
> stream of air. If it were a vortex, planes could not fly in it.
> 
> In addition, it runs eastward, whereas the dry line runs N-S... the
> jet stream is not a "tornado in the sky", and does not send down
> tendrils which reach the ground as tornados, Jim.
> 
> You're forced to make this kooky claim because you deny convective
> updraft of air, so you had to cast about for another source of energy
> for tornadoes... and your simplistic thought process went something
> along the lines of "A tornado is fast air, I need fast air to power
> the tornadoes... jet stream! Duuurrrhhh!".
> 
> But you're too stupid to realize tornadoes do not reach to the
> tropopause, and now you're forced to make an even kookier claim that
> your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" is somehow sending
> vortexes hundreds of miles away from itself to touch down as
> tornadoes... and that these several hundred mile long vortexes somehow
> know to *only* touch down through clouds, and never from clear blue
> sky. Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" conscious, James,
> does it know where and when to send its tendrils to touch down as
> tornados?
> 
> Do you also k'lame that dust devils are a manifestation of your kooky
> "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", James?
> 
> In short, James, you're trying to shift your kooky theory so you can
> claim to have an explanation for things, but you're far too far gone
> to realize that the claims you're making are utterly insane.
> 
> > In contrast, recognizing that they are connected to the jet stream
> 
> No, tornadoes are not "connected to the jet stream", you moron.
> 
> > does explain the origin of the energy in that these extensions of
> > jet streams act as conduits of the low pressure energy associated
> > with storms, something your dimwitted convection model completely
> > fails to explain.
> 
> No, James, that's something *your* dimwitted "plasma not-a-plasma, the
> jet stream is a giant tornado in the sky" 'theory' fails to explain
> because you deny that humid air is lighter than dry air, you deny that
> warmer air is lighter than cooler air, you deny air can have varying
> density because of varying temperature and humidity, and thus you deny
> convective updraft. The shortcomings are all coming from you, James,
> not from established atmospheric science.
> 
> The current scientific knowledge of the atmosphere completely explains
> the energy source. To the point that the atmosphere can be modeled and
> storms predicted, to include precipitation amount and whether there is
> a likelihood of severe weather... to include tornadoes, which is
> difficult because they spawn in such a short time there's only ~13
> minutes warning time on average...
> 
> Now, Jim... if, as you k'lame, your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado
> in the sky" were sending vortex streamers hundreds of miles
> horizontally to touch down as tornadoes, we'd have hours and hours of
> warning, would we not? Your claimed vortexes would be coming from the
> top of the troposphere, and thus would be easily visible via satellite
> *and* Doppler Radar, giving plenty of warning. Why doesn't that
> happen, James? Oh, that's right... because you're a delusional
> kooktard, and the jet stream is not a giant tornado in the sky that
> reaches out tendrils that touch down as tornadoes, you moron.
> 
> > Along these lines, my explanation doesn't depend on magical,
> > lighter than dry air, warm, moist air which has never been
> > detected in a laboratory.
> 
> Except for every single time it is, James.
> 
> Shall we review the experiments of Saussure, Gay-Lussac and Dalton
> onward to modern times, James?
> 
> Here's just a few references which prove you wrong, James:
> ===========================================================
> <http://nautilus.fis.uc.pt/personal/mfiolhais/artigosdid/did5.pdf>
> 
> 1. S.C. Brown, "The caloric theory of heat," Am. J. Phys . 18, 367
> (Sept. 1950).
> 
> 2. L.W. Taylor, Physics: The Pioneer Science. Volume I. Mechanics
> Heat, Sound (Dover Publications, New York), Ch. 20, p. 267. This
> reproduces the original Lectures on Elements of Chemistry, given by
> Black at the University of Edinburgh, published from his manuscripts
> by John Robinson (Longman & Rees, London, 1803).
> 
> 3. H.S. Allen and H. Moore, A Textbook of Practical Physics
> (MacMillan, London, 1965), p. 296.
> 
> 4. P.H. Bligh and R. Haywood, "Latent heat -- Its meaning and
> measurement," Eur. J. Phys. 7, 245 (1986).
> 
> 5. S.Y. Mak and C.K.W. Chun, "The measurement of the specific latent
> heat of fusion of ice: two improved methods," Phys. Educ. 35, 181 (May
> 2000).
> 
> 8. H.U. Fuchs, The Dynamics of Heat (Springer, New York, 1996), p.
> 659.
> 
> 9. C.D. Galles, "Revival of Black's experiment," Am. J. Phys. 47, 1008
> (Nov. 1979).
> 
> 10. J.W. Dewdney, "Newton's law of cooling as a laboratory
> introduction to exponential decay functions," Am. J. Phys. 27, 668
> (Dec. 1959).
> 
> 11. H. Lindeman and A. Lavie, "Instrument for the measurement of the
> heat of vaporization of water," Am. J. Phys. 29, 705 (Oct. 1961).
> 
> <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.3125.pdf>
> On the computation of moist-air specific thermal enthalpy
> ===========================================================
> 
> Do you not realize you're now forced to include the Laws of
> Thermodynamics being altered as part of your kooky conspiracy theory,
> James? Your "class action lawsuit" kooksoot against 250+ years of
> rigorous scientific inquiry is going to be massive, James,
> encompassing pretty much every mathematical model ever made of any
> system ever, from the molecular to the atmospheric.
> 
> So basically, you're k'laming that every branch of science is wrong.
> Do you think that's likely, James, or do you think maybe you're just
> an insane kooktard?
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> >  Sorry to burst your bubble.  But there is more to doing science
> > than doing google searches.
> 
> You're not "doing science", James. You're pulling bullshit
> suppositions straight from your ass and running away from backing them
> up with experimentally-derived empirically-observed
> rigorously-collected data.
> 
> If you can perform the experiment and prove your claim that latent
> heat of evaporation does not exist, then your 'theory' stands (until
> you can prove or disprove your other claims)... and all of
> conventional science *and* quantum physics falls... but if that
> experiment nulls your claim, it destroys your entire theory.
> 
> You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn't exist,
> that latent heat doesn't exist, that all water in the troposphere is
> plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets
> cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet
> stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet's
> surface and wreak havoc.... you've run away from substantiating any of
> those claims, James.
> 
> Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, James...
> ======================================================
> If, as you claim, latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist because a
> phase change doesn't occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water
> are launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that
> can be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to
> 2326 J/kg.
> 
> If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the
> 1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will
> be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying
> premise of your claims, James, thus disproving your entire "theory".
> ======================================================
> 
> It's a simple experiment, and given that you, James Bernard McGinn,
> Jr. of Antioch, CA, have made claims that fly in the face of 250+
> years of experimentally, empirically measured data, the onus is upon
> you to prove your claims.
> 
> In the balance hangs Mr. McGinn either likely being nominated for a
> Nobel Prize for overturning 250+ years of rigorously and empirically
> measured scientific data, or his being forced to retract his claims,
> and his claims being subsumed into the heap of odd theories that are
> used as examples of wrong-headedness. And in the process, his being
> forced to admit he is wrong... which those afflicted with
> Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous
> lengths to avoid doing so.
> 
> Does anyone wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his
> claims?
> 
> Your refusal to substantiate your claims, Mr. McGinn, further proves
> what I said was right... you prefer your delusion, in which you paint
> yourself as smarter than every scientist in the last 250+ years, to
> reality.
> 
> If your "class action lawsuit" against 250+ years of rigorous
> scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be
> forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of
> performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you
> are by your illogic.
> 
> Now, James, you didn't really think you'd get out of answering those
> questions, did you?
> 
> ============================================================
> 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 k'laming that convection doesn't exist 
> means you're further k'laming that gravity does not exist, and fire 
> cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of 
> oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced 
> phenomenon due to density differential, James?
> 
> How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, 
> Jim?
> 
> Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
> 
> How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a 
> hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of 
> plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation 
> energy of water are identical, and thus the water will 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?
> 
> -- 
> 
> Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
> =====================================
> The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
> Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
> should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
> *sinusoids*).
> 
> That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.
> 
> That superposition is the same as wave interference.
> 
> That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.
> 
> That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.
> 
> That RMS isn't a DC voltage.
> 
> That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
> volts RMS L-L.
> 
> That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.
> 
> The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.
> 
> That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
> engineering, physics and control systems engineering.
> 
> What a positive or negative vector is.
> 
> That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
> Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.
> 
> That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".
> 
> That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
> positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.
> 
> That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
> nuclear charge.
> 
> What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.
> 
> That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.
> 
> That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
> atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
> margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.
> 
> That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
> a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
> *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.
> 
> That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
> into account molar volume.
> 
> That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".
> 
> That water can be plasmized.
> 
> That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.
> 
> And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
> =====================================
> 
> SPNAK!
> 
> <snicker>

I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of 
meteorology's storm theory.  In the future, when people ask me to present an 
aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of 
meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts.  Because 
here's the thing.  Meteorologists won't do what you did.  They know it's 
futile.  They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their 
understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of 
the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.

I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical 
thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate.  But people will 
see through that and realize that you actually made some effort.  Again, and 
for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.

Thank you for your participation.  You've been a big help.

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

#569147

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:571f3afb-4eb0-4203-b9e0-e28398f58125@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:10:05 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Wrong, you backpedaling conflating moron. You're trying to state that
>> the vortexes originate in the jet stream, but the fucking jet stream
>> can be hundreds of miles away, and is anywhere from 5000 to 20,000
>> feet above the updrafting air. The jet stream is not a "giant tornado
>> in the sky" that reaches down tendrils as tornadoes, KookTard.

>> The jet stream is not a vortex. If it were, planes could not fly in
>> it, you moronic halfwit.

>> "vertical or semi vertical boundary layers" for hundred of miles,
>> James?
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> You've yet again been caught in another of your logical traps, James.
>> You have no explanation for how one of your kooky "jet stream induced
>> vortices" could travel hundreds of miles laterally while only
>> traveling less than 30,000 feet vertically. Do you k'lame these
>> tendrils your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" send down
>> have a mind of their own, thus knowing exactly where to go, targeting
>> the rear portion of thunderstorm clouds?
>> 
>> Why don't tornadoes just come down out of a clear blue sky, if, as you
>> k'lame, your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" is sending
>> tendrils which touch down as tornados, Jim?

James? No reply? Could your feeble brain not conceive of a fairy tale
to explain your deluded blather, James? Did you lose the proof backing
up your moronism? Did your synaptic leprosy prevent your providing a
response?

Answer the question, James, you evasive mental midget.

>> It's not a theory, James. It is empirically-observed fact. Or do you
>> forget that they've been sending up weather balloons for hundreds of
>> years, aircraft for the past half century, and now have satellites
>> *and* Doppler radar which can monitor the phenomena in real time at
>> wavelengths other than the visual spectrum? Did you not know this? Or
>> are you just so desperate to defend your delusion that you'll say
>> pretty much anything?

>> Nor are you a physicist, James. A single elective class in Basic
>> Meteorology does not qualify you as anything, James, not even a
>> meteorologist. And it is quite apparent you took no knowledge from
>> that class, instead attending merely as a means of justifying your
>> delusion, which you found yourself unable to do when the instructor
>> attempted to correct your badly malfunctioning brain by telling you
>> your kooky 'theory' is wrong, which they found themselves unable to do
>> because you're a Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard who's convinced
>> himself that he's not a delusional moron. An educational stalemate
>> because you're ineducable, James.

>> No, James. *Your* "theory" fails to account for the energy because you
>> deny that latent heat, convection and air density differential due to
>> temperature and humidity exists. The shortcomings are all on *your*
>> end, not that of established science.
>> 
>> In fact, I just described to you the exact mechanism by which it
>> happens. The scientific reality as detailed in the mathematical
>> equations and computer models based upon past empirical research is so
>> accurate that weather system evolution can be predicted to a large
>> degree of accuracy, to include direction and severity.
>> 
>> I note your kooky 'theory' has no predictive capability whatsoever.

>> Only when viewed in context of your kooky k'lame that convection due
>> to temperature and humidity-induced air density differential doesn't
>> exist, James.
>> 
>> The failing isn't on the part of established science, it's all on
>> *your* end, James.

>> From temperature-induced density differential, James, which you deny,
>> hence your denial of convection, hence your utter confusion as regards
>> all aspects of atmospheric phenomena.

>> No, according to *your* kooky theory it "just appears spontaneously"
>> because you're so delusional you deny that convection exists, James.

>> Says the moron blathering out not-even-pseudo-scientific droolery. LOL

>> Aww, look at the delusional kooktard deny everything science knows
>> about aerodynamics. LOL
>> 
>> What shape is the most aerodynamically efficient, James? A streamlined
>> body, right? And when an air front of greater density meets an air
>> front of lesser density, what's the shape that greater density air
>> attempts to take, given that the greater-density air has a solid
>> barrier consisting of the ground as it downdrafts? Why, it's a
>> streamlined half-body, right?
>> 
>> And that streamlined half-body causes frontal lifting, the less dense
>> air slides along the boundary with the more dense air, producing
>> horizontal shear which results in horizontally rotating air that the
>> updrafting less dense air can, given sufficient updraft, tilt
>> vertically, which if strong enough can result in tornados.
>> 
>> It's apparent you know nothing about aerodynamics, Jim.

You were asked a question, TornadoTard. Answer the question, you inept
evasive mental derelict.

>> "magical wedges" LOL
>> 
>> James McGinn is such a moron that he can't look up at the sky and
>> decipher what's going on.
>> 
>> Oh look, a photograph of an exceptionally strong wedge as a result of 
>> orographic lifting:
>> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud10.jpg>
>> 
>> Oh look, a roll cloud, a result of the same shear phenomenon I told 
>> you about, a failed mesocyclone because insufficient warm humid 
>> updrafting air existed to tilt it vertically:
>> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud13.jpg>
>> 
>> Oh look, another well-defined wedge as outlined along the right-hand 
>> edge of the clouds:
>> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud15.jpg>
>> 
>> Oh look, more roll clouds, multiples of them, brought about by the 
>> unique geography of North Australia's Gulf of Carpentaria:
>> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud21.jpg>
>> 
>> Don't you hate that you're so delusional that you've been proven 
>> *wrong* on every single thing you've been blathering, James?

>> I have 250+ years of rigorously-collected oft-corroborated scientific
>> fact, whereas you have bullshit suppositions which are supported by
>> the sum total of *zero* corroborating (peer-reviewed or otherwise)
>> reports.
>> 
>> I have 2991 peer-reviewed reports proving you wrong on just your kooky
>> k'lame that water molecule polarity changes on H bonding alone, James.
>> You're up against likely hundreds of thousands of scientists over 250+
>> years, each and every one of them smarter and saner than you.

>> No, James. You're not an expert, you're an insane kooktard with a
>> crippling Dunning-Kruger affliction and delusions of grandeur. Nothing
>> more.

>> You're not a physicist, James. You took a single elective class in
>> Basic Meteorology, which you likely failed because you refuse to
>> acknowledge the scientific reality established through more than 250
>> years of rigorous empirical experimentation.

>> And sanity, James... a critical component you quite obviously lack.

>> The energy to power tornados is certainly not coming from the jet
>> stream, James. The jet stream is not a vortex, it is a flat and wide
>> stream of air. If it were a vortex, planes could not fly in it.
>> 
>> In addition, it runs eastward, whereas the dry line runs N-S... the
>> jet stream is not a "tornado in the sky", and does not send down
>> tendrils which reach the ground as tornados, Jim.
>> 
>> You're forced to make this kooky claim because you deny convective
>> updraft of air, so you had to cast about for another source of energy
>> for tornadoes... and your simplistic thought process went something
>> along the lines of "A tornado is fast air, I need fast air to power
>> the tornadoes... jet stream! Duuurrrhhh!".
>> 
>> But you're too stupid to realize tornadoes do not reach to the
>> tropopause, and now you're forced to make an even kookier claim that
>> your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" is somehow sending
>> vortexes hundreds of miles away from itself to touch down as
>> tornadoes... and that these several hundred mile long vortexes somehow
>> know to *only* touch down through clouds, and never from clear blue
>> sky. Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" conscious, James,
>> does it know where and when to send its tendrils to touch down as
>> tornados?
>> 
>> Do you also k'lame that dust devils are a manifestation of your kooky
>> "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", James?

Answer the questions, you evasive nose-picking waste of good oxygen.

>> In short, James, you're trying to shift your kooky theory so you can
>> claim to have an explanation for things, but you're far too far gone
>> to realize that the claims you're making are utterly insane.

>> No, tornadoes are not "connected to the jet stream", you moron.

>> No, James, that's something *your* dimwitted "plasma not-a-plasma, the
>> jet stream is a giant tornado in the sky" 'theory' fails to explain
>> because you deny that humid air is lighter than dry air, you deny that
>> warmer air is lighter than cooler air, you deny air can have varying
>> density because of varying temperature and humidity, and thus you deny
>> convective updraft. The shortcomings are all coming from you, James,
>> not from established atmospheric science.
>> 
>> The current scientific knowledge of the atmosphere completely explains
>> the energy source. To the point that the atmosphere can be modeled and
>> storms predicted, to include precipitation amount and whether there is
>> a likelihood of severe weather... to include tornadoes, which is
>> difficult because they spawn in such a short time there's only ~13
>> minutes warning time on average...
>> 
>> Now, Jim... if, as you k'lame, your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado
>> in the sky" were sending vortex streamers hundreds of miles
>> horizontally to touch down as tornadoes, we'd have hours and hours of
>> warning, would we not? Your claimed vortexes would be coming from the
>> top of the troposphere, and thus would be easily visible via satellite
>> *and* Doppler Radar, giving plenty of warning. Why doesn't that
>> happen, James? Oh, that's right... because you're a delusional
>> kooktard, and the jet stream is not a giant tornado in the sky that
>> reaches out tendrils that touch down as tornadoes, you moron.

Answer the questions, James, you ignorant evasive simpleton.

>> Shall we review the experiments of Saussure, Gay-Lussac and Dalton
>> onward to modern times, James?
>> 
>> Here's just a few references which prove you wrong, James:
>> ===========================================================
>> <http://nautilus.fis.uc.pt/personal/mfiolhais/artigosdid/did5.pdf>
>> 
>> 1. S.C. Brown, "The caloric theory of heat," Am. J. Phys . 18, 367
>> (Sept. 1950).
>> 
>> 2. L.W. Taylor, Physics: The Pioneer Science. Volume I. Mechanics
>> Heat, Sound (Dover Publications, New York), Ch. 20, p. 267. This
>> reproduces the original Lectures on Elements of Chemistry, given by
>> Black at the University of Edinburgh, published from his manuscripts
>> by John Robinson (Longman & Rees, London, 1803).
>> 
>> 3. H.S. Allen and H. Moore, A Textbook of Practical Physics
>> (MacMillan, London, 1965), p. 296.
>> 
>> 4. P.H. Bligh and R. Haywood, "Latent heat -- Its meaning and
>> measurement," Eur. J. Phys. 7, 245 (1986).
>> 
>> 5. S.Y. Mak and C.K.W. Chun, "The measurement of the specific latent
>> heat of fusion of ice: two improved methods," Phys. Educ. 35, 181 (May
>> 2000).
>> 
>> 8. H.U. Fuchs, The Dynamics of Heat (Springer, New York, 1996), p.
>> 659.
>> 
>> 9. C.D. Galles, "Revival of Black's experiment," Am. J. Phys. 47, 1008
>> (Nov. 1979).
>> 
>> 10. J.W. Dewdney, "Newton's law of cooling as a laboratory
>> introduction to exponential decay functions," Am. J. Phys. 27, 668
>> (Dec. 1959).
>> 
>> 11. H. Lindeman and A. Lavie, "Instrument for the measurement of the
>> heat of vaporization of water," Am. J. Phys. 29, 705 (Oct. 1961).
>> 
>> <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.3125.pdf>
>> On the computation of moist-air specific thermal enthalpy
>> ===========================================================
>> 
>> Do you not realize you're now forced to include the Laws of
>> Thermodynamics being altered as part of your kooky conspiracy theory,
>> James? Your "class action lawsuit" kooksoot against 250+ years of
>> rigorous scientific inquiry is going to be massive, James,
>> encompassing pretty much every mathematical model ever made of any
>> system ever, from the molecular to the atmospheric.
>> 
>> So basically, you're k'laming that every branch of science is wrong.
>> Do you think that's likely, James, or do you think maybe you're just
>> an insane kooktard?
>> 
>> <snicker>

Answer the questions, James, you bumbling moronic halfwit.

And where's that "class-action" kooksoot, TornadoTard?

>> You're not "doing science", James. You're pulling bullshit
>> suppositions straight from your ass and running away from backing them
>> up with experimentally-derived empirically-observed
>> rigorously-collected data.
>> 
>> If you can perform the experiment and prove your claim that latent
>> heat of evaporation does not exist, then your 'theory' stands (until
>> you can prove or disprove your other claims)... and all of
>> conventional science *and* quantum physics falls... but if that
>> experiment nulls your claim, it destroys your entire theory.
>> 
>> You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn't exist,
>> that latent heat doesn't exist, that all water in the troposphere is
>> plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets
>> cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet
>> stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet's
>> surface and wreak havoc.... you've run away from substantiating any of
>> those claims, James.
>> 
>> Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, James...
>> ======================================================
>> If, as you claim, latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist because a
>> phase change doesn't occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water
>> are launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that
>> can be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to
>> 2326 J/kg.
>> 
>> If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the
>> 1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will
>> be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying
>> premise of your claims, James, thus disproving your entire "theory".
>> ======================================================
>> 
>> It's a simple experiment, and given that you, James Bernard McGinn,
>> Jr. of Antioch, CA, have made claims that fly in the face of 250+
>> years of experimentally, empirically measured data, the onus is upon
>> you to prove your claims.
>> 
>> In the balance hangs Mr. McGinn either likely being nominated for a
>> Nobel Prize for overturning 250+ years of rigorously and empirically
>> measured scientific data, or his being forced to retract his claims,
>> and his claims being subsumed into the heap of odd theories that are
>> used as examples of wrong-headedness. And in the process, his being
>> forced to admit he is wrong... which those afflicted with
>> Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous
>> lengths to avoid doing so.
>> 
>> Does anyone wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his
>> claims?
>> 
>> Your refusal to substantiate your claims, Mr. McGinn, further proves
>> what I said was right... you prefer your delusion, in which you paint
>> yourself as smarter than every scientist in the last 250+ years, to
>> reality.
>> 
>> If your "class action lawsuit" against 250+ years of rigorous
>> scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be
>> forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of
>> performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you
>> are by your illogic.

> I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of 
> meteorology's storm theory.  In the future, when people ask me to present an 
> aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of 
> meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts.  Because 
> here's the thing.  Meteorologists won't do what you did.  They know it's 
> futile.  They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their 
> understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of 
> the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.
> 
> I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical 
> thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate.  But people will 
> see through that and realize that you actually made some effort.  Again, and 
> for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.
> 
> Thank you for your participation.  You've been a big help.

I've forced you into a one-dimensional existence of trying desperately
to defend yourself and your delusion, James, and even at that you've
utterly failed. You admit defeat in each of your posts by proving
yourself unable to muster any sort of defense whatsoever. You've lost,
James... you're GoogleStacked from here to hell and back, your
delusion is destroyed, you've been turned into the world's
laughingstock, you're shunned by the scientific community, and the
very best you can do is sit there drooling and shitting yourself as I
rain hammerblow after hammerblow of truth and reality.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

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 the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#564958

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 1:08:21 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Nutcase Dude:
> 
Horizontal spinning occurs in the mid troposphere... *not* in the jet stream at the tropopause. You're looking at 5 to 20 *thousand* *feet* altitude difference. 
> 
> James McGinn:
> Right.  As I indicated, vortices originate from the jet stream, the mother vortice, and then grow down along vertical or semi vertical boundary layers.
> 
> Nutcase Dude:
> That warm moist updrafting air tilts this horizontally spinning air vertically, creating a mesocyclone. 
> 
> James McGinn:
> This is one theory.  It's a very poor theory.  (Meteorologists are not physicists.) The problem is that this theory fails to account for the concentrated energy that eventually emerges in a tornado/storm.  In other words, it asserts a reversal of entropy that has no explanation.  It's kind of like the notion of spontaneous generation in biology.  Where does the concentrated energy come from?  According to this theory, it just appears spontaneously.  It's a pseudoscientific notion.  But I suppose that if you believe there is such thing as magical wedges that appear as a consequence of thin air then this is not that much of a stretch.  
> 
> Nutcase Dude:
> This can, under strong updraft, generate cyclonic vortexes... and hence tornadoes. 
> 
> James McGinn:
> So, if you can imagine strong updrafts you can imagine tornadoes.  Right?  Is that your argument?  Once again, if you believe there is such thing as magical wedges that appear as a consequence of thin air then, I guess, this is not that much of a stretch. The reality is you don't have a comprehensive, self-consistent theory.
> 
> Nutcase Dude:
> This is why I told you that roller clouds are failed tornadoes... 
> 
> James McGinn:
> LOL.  You told me?  I think you are confused.  Remember, I am the expert.  I am the physicist.  You are a guy with a PC, internet access, and a bad attitude.
> 
> Nutcase Dude:
> Roller clouds are the horizontally spinning air which the warm humid updraft air tilt vertically to form tornadoes. Roller clouds are formed and not tilted vertically because insufficient warm humid air exists to tilt them. 
> 
> James McGinn:
> Jet streams and their tributaries run horizontal also.  And, just like your theoretical roller clouds, they tend to run along boundary layers.  And so, calling them roller clouds doesn't explain where the energy comes from that, eventually, causes a storm/tornado.  In contrast, recognizing that they are connected to the jet stream does explain the origin of the energy in that these extensions of jet streams act as conduits of the low pressure energy associated with storms, something your dimwitted convection model completely fails to explain.  Along these lines, my explanation doesn't depend on magical, lighter than dry air, warm, moist air which has never been detected in a laboratory.  Sorry to burst your bubble.  But there is more to doing science than doing google searches.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web