Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #567994 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-04 22:55 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-04-27 10:09 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 81 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 22:55 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-04 23:00 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 23:21 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 23:55 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 08:07 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-05 10:46 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 11:09 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-05 19:04 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-05 19:25 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 20:13 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-05 21:32 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 21:37 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-05 21:42 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-06 10:06 -0500
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-07 11:23 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 12:01 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-07 14:14 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 14:36 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-07 15:03 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 15:13 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-07 15:34 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 17:51 -0500
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 16:03 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-07 20:01 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 20:15 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-07 22:11 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 22:51 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 07:14 -0500
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 06:44 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 12:57 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 15:52 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-07 20:00 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 20:14 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-07 22:45 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 22:54 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 08:07 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-08 12:47 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 12:57 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-08 14:50 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 15:28 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-08 16:57 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 17:55 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-08 20:17 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 20:41 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-08 22:26 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 23:57 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 09:10 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-09 11:36 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 11:46 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-09 14:23 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 17:14 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-10 07:03 +0200
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-10 17:51 +0200
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 23:30 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 16:28 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-10 17:12 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 17:30 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-10 17:46 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 18:26 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-10 19:52 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-11 15:53 +0200
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being "\"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> - 2016-04-11 10:26 -0400
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 22:36 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:02 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-27 21:12 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 21:36 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-28 07:06 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 08:32 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-28 21:03 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 21:05 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 08:17 -0700
fiG Newton had no theory of light noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 21:31 -0700
newton had a false theory of light noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:00 -0700
no theory of light (corpuscular noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:56 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Lu Wei <luweitest@address.invalid> - 2016-04-05 15:41 +0800
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 02:38 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-05 09:44 -0500
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 08:17 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:08 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 12:14 -0700
Re: Isaac Newton was a human being James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 10:09 -0700
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 15:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d60cbce44f2c2a3f55f1ca3776c201e3@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #569563 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:1fb29d91-282e-4c2d-ae65-8154a647c37b@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > FNVWe drop-kicked a retard. Again: >> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 5:14:51 PM UTC-7, >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn wrote: >>> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 2:23:51 PM UTC-7, >>> pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> If you ever find evidence of cold steam let us know. In my >>>>>>> opinion, however, your time would be better spent looking >>>>>>> for the holy grail because there is at least an outside >>>>>>> chance that it actually exists. >>>>>> WTF is your definition of cold steam? >>>>> Surreal. Read the first post in this thread again, carefully. >>>>> Think deeply. Do research. >>>> Well, the first post in this thread is almost total hogwash, >>>> as the gaseous form of water (water vapor) is NOT liquid water, >>> Evidence? >>>> as virtually any actual physicist or chemist knows. >>> So, let me get this straight. You argument is base on what people you don't >>> know say they know. Your argument is not based on an experiment that I could >>> reproduce to reproduce their results. Right? >> Nilsson's study: >> <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156> >> If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James. >> Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H >> bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger >> the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher >> photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water >> than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as >> you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of >> liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is >> monomolecular with no H bonding. >> >> Water In The Gas Phase - >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/ >> Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos >> LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous >> phase. 16 referenced papers. >> >> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research >> http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation >> Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation. >> >> http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/ >> Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to >> directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere. >> >> Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You >> delusional reality-denying kooktard. >> >> The experiments are above, in addition to the three experiments I've >> already suggested you try, James, which can be done by pretty much >> anyone without requiring sophisticated equipment. >> >> You've made an unusual claim that flies in the face of reality, the >> onus of proof is upon you. No one is required to hold your moronic >> hand and do the work for you. Test your suppositions, or reconcile >> yourself to the fact that you're practicing cargo cult 'science', >> James, and even then fucking it up badly. > Answer the question you evasive twit. Face reality, you delusional shitbag. Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, you scientific fraud? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ 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]
| From | "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 10:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.yfree5vhtm21m2@benson.localhost> |
| In reply to | #569690 |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:53:32 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:1fb29d91-282e-4c2d-ae65-8154a647c37b@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> FNVWe drop-kicked a retard. Again:
>
>>> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 5:14:51 PM UTC-7,
>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn wrote:
>
>>>> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 2:23:51 PM UTC-7,
>>>> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> If you ever find evidence of cold steam let us know. In my
>>>>>>>> opinion, however, your time would be better spent looking
>>>>>>>> for the holy grail because there is at least an outside
>>>>>>>> chance that it actually exists.
>
>>>>>>> WTF is your definition of cold steam?
>
>>>>>> Surreal. Read the first post in this thread again, carefully.
>>>>>> Think deeply. Do research.
>
>>>>> Well, the first post in this thread is almost total hogwash,
>>>>> as the gaseous form of water (water vapor) is NOT liquid water,
>
>>>> Evidence?
>
>>>>> as virtually any actual physicist or chemist knows.
>
>>>> So, let me get this straight. You argument is base on what people you
>>>> don't
>>>> know say they know. Your argument is not based on an experiment that
>>>> I could
>>>> reproduce to reproduce their results. Right?
>
>>> Nilsson's study:
>>> <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
>>> If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
>>> Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
>>> bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
>>> the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
>>> photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
>>> than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
>>> you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
>>> liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
>>> monomolecular with no H bonding.
>>>
>>> Water In The Gas Phase -
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
>>> Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
>>> LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
>>> phase. 16 referenced papers.
>>>
>>> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
>>> http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
>>> Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
>>>
>>> http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
>>> Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
>>> directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.
>>>
>>> Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
>>> delusional reality-denying kooktard.
>>>
>>> The experiments are above, in addition to the three experiments I've
>>> already suggested you try, James, which can be done by pretty much
>>> anyone without requiring sophisticated equipment.
>>>
>>> You've made an unusual claim that flies in the face of reality, the
>>> onus of proof is upon you. No one is required to hold your moronic
>>> hand and do the work for you. Test your suppositions, or reconcile
>>> yourself to the fact that you're practicing cargo cult 'science',
>>> James, and even then fucking it up badly.
>
>> Answer the question you evasive twit.
>
> Face reality, you delusional shitbag.
how ironic:
have you heard about the lotusLoser?
he's a loser but he still keeps on tryin'...
-
"People didn't cause the Great Depression, Liberal ko0kTarD. Governmental
policy did." - Fakey in MID <7880b90ad2ecebe35ba01b4557597d80%40dizum.com>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
"The initial stock market crash triggered a "panic sell-off" that made the
stock market go even lower."
so... so the "government" panicked, snickers?
funny that a bona-fide conservative horatio alger hero type would want the
government stepping in to save the stock market.
"Current theories may be broadly classified into two main points of view
and several heterodox points of view.
First, there are demand-driven theories, from Keynesian and institutional
economists who argue that the depression was caused by a widespread loss
of confidence that led to underconsumption. The demand-driven theories
argue that the financial crisis following the 1929 crash led to a sudden
and persistent reduction in consumption and investment spending.[1] Once
panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could avoid further
losses by keeping clear of the markets. Holding money therefore became
profitable as prices dropped lower and a given amount of money bought ever
more goods, exacerbating the drop in demand.
Second, there are the monetarists, who believe that the Great Depression
started as an ordinary recession, but that significant policy mistakes by
monetary authorities (especially the Federal Reserve), caused a shrinking
of the money supply which greatly exacerbated the economic situation,
causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression. Related to this
explanation are those who point to debt deflation causing those who borrow
to owe ever more in real terms."
wait? what? no major "third" konservative k0okTheory blaming the
government for everything mentioned?
odd, that. eh, lotusLoser?
-
the never-ending saga of fakey's "lotus"...
https://web.archive.org/web/20160408001051/http://i.imgur.com/e3OrQSq.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]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 22:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c50f49e5-e46d-4828-a16b-a18b627ec0f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569300 |
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 2:23:51 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:46:55 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:36:28 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 9:10:33 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > > If you ever find evidence of cold steam let us know. In my opinion, however, your time would be better spent looking for the holy grail because there is at least an outside chance that it actually exists. > > > > > > WTF is your definition of cold steam? > > > > Surreal. Read the first post in this thread again, carefully. Think deeply. Do research. > > Well, the first post in this thread is almost total hogwash, as the gaseous form of water (water vapor) is NOT liquid water, as virtually any actual physicist or chemist knows. You are the guy who needs to do the research. You will not find a single source to support your idiotic notion... outside of your own scribbles, which don't count for anything. > > The first post in the thread does not mention one word about cold steam. You are one hard-headed dude who is either unable or unwilling to answer simple questions... are you perhaps actually a politician in the real world? You claim there is no such thing as cold steam, but then refuse to provide a definition. I, however, did provide a plausible definition, which you have not commented about. Too hard for you? > > > > > > > > > > Hot steam, of course, a result of boiling water, is a mixture of water vapor, which can't be seen, and water in aerosol form, which can be seen. > > > > > > Remember my request that you give me your definition of the dew point? The question you still refuse to answer, or are unable to answer? When you open a freezer door and very cold air pours out into your warm kitchen, some of the water vapor in that kitchen air very suddenly drops to a temperature that is below the dew point, and instantly condenses into the aerosol form of liquid water, which is, in my view, a perfect example of cold steam. Evidence enough? The stuff you see when opening a refrigerator door, or you see when you exhale while outside in freezing temperatures, or that you see from a pot of boiling water, is all the same stuff, liquid water as an aerosol. What is so hard to understand about this very simple concept? Perhaps you have a different definition of the stuff you see from the fridge, from your breath or from boiling water, but there is no denying the fact that it exists. If you don't wish to call it cold steam, fine... so, what DO you call it? > > Answer the question, if you can. Otherwise I will just assume that you don't have the brains to do so. > > > > And to think that you call yourself a physicist... and then call ME a liar! Oh, the irony! Answer the question you evasive twit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 12:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e55021e2-a340-48fc-a071-22b941eea1b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569089 |
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 2:50:37 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:57:54 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:47:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:07:05 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:45:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0 > > > > > > > > > > You obviously didn't understand a single word of that video! > > > > > > > > > > "If is disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!" > > > > > > > > > > Of course, you have exactly ZERO experiments to share here... > > > > > > > > There is zero experimental evidence associated with our brain-dead belief in cold steam. There is a lot of experimental evidence that establishes the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. > > > > > > > > All of the experimental evidence falls my way, dumbass. > > > > > > I've got a rock with more brains than you have. > > > > > > You've got NO experiments that support your notion, for example, that humid air is heavier than dry air, whereas there are uncounted experiments that prove otherwise. There are also uncounted experiments that prove that water vapor is a gaseous form of water. Many papers in support of this have been linked for you, but you've choosen to either not read them or not respond to them, provide no critical feedback for any of them, while at the same time fail to show your own experimental evidence in support of your own tenuous stance. > > > > > > Sure, there are lots of experiments that deal with boiling water, just as there are lots of experiments that deal with evaporation. > > > > > > The main difference between evaporation and boiling are : > > > > > > 1. Evaporation takes place at all temperatures, while boiling occurs at a particular temperature. > > > > > > 2. Evaporation takes place from the surface, whereas the entire liquid boils. > > > > > > 3. Evaporation can occur using the internal energy of the system, while boiling requires an external source of heat. > > > > > > 4. Evaporation produces cooling but boiling does not. > > > > > > 5. Evaporation is a slow process while boiling is a rapid process. > > > > > > However, in each case gaseous water (water vapor) is produced. To deny this fact is an extraordinary claim, which requires an extraordinary proof, of which you have shown NONE! > > > > > > There is virtually NO experimental evidence that 'falls your way', dumbass. > > > > So, your whole argument boils down to, "let's pretend to know that all moisture > > in the atmosphere is gaseous even though we don't have a clue. > > > > The fact is we do have a clue. We boiling point of H2O is firmly established. > > You imagination does not dispute it. > > No, my whole argument boils down to "air contains gaseous water (water vapor) because thousands of experiments tell us so". So, thousands of experiments. And you can't even find one? It is YOU who has no clue! Just ask Dr. Salkalley... YOU, on the other hand, cannot point to even a single experiment to support your positions, not one! > > Yes, the boiling point of water is well established at any pressure, Yeah so? who would ever dispute that? That does not negate the simple fact that gaseous water also comes from evaporation and is unrelated to the boiling process. > > It is YOU who has the wild imagination and delusions of grandeur. It's too bad nobody can find your elusive evidence. Hmm. I wonder why? Hmm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 21:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba7a4e01-ad04-4c11-a990-984166bf70f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573765 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 12:02:52 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 2:50:37 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:57:54 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:47:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:07:05 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:45:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0 > > > > > > > > > > > > You obviously didn't understand a single word of that video! > > > > > > > > > > > > "If is disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!" > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, you have exactly ZERO experiments to share here... > > > > > > > > > > There is zero experimental evidence associated with our brain-dead belief in cold steam. There is a lot of experimental evidence that establishes the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. > > > > > > > > > > All of the experimental evidence falls my way, dumbass. > > > > > > > > I've got a rock with more brains than you have. > > > > > > > > You've got NO experiments that support your notion, for example, that humid air is heavier than dry air, whereas there are uncounted experiments that prove otherwise. There are also uncounted experiments that prove that water vapor is a gaseous form of water. Many papers in support of this have been linked for you, but you've choosen to either not read them or not respond to them, provide no critical feedback for any of them, while at the same time fail to show your own experimental evidence in support of your own tenuous stance. > > > > > > > > Sure, there are lots of experiments that deal with boiling water, just as there are lots of experiments that deal with evaporation. > > > > > > > > The main difference between evaporation and boiling are : > > > > > > > > 1. Evaporation takes place at all temperatures, while boiling occurs at a particular temperature. > > > > > > > > 2. Evaporation takes place from the surface, whereas the entire liquid boils. > > > > > > > > 3. Evaporation can occur using the internal energy of the system, while boiling requires an external source of heat. > > > > > > > > 4. Evaporation produces cooling but boiling does not. > > > > > > > > 5. Evaporation is a slow process while boiling is a rapid process. > > > > > > > > However, in each case gaseous water (water vapor) is produced. To deny this fact is an extraordinary claim, which requires an extraordinary proof, of which you have shown NONE! > > > > > > > > There is virtually NO experimental evidence that 'falls your way', dumbass. > > > > > > So, your whole argument boils down to, "let's pretend to know that all moisture > > > in the atmosphere is gaseous even though we don't have a clue. > > > > > > The fact is we do have a clue. We boiling point of H2O is firmly established. > > > You imagination does not dispute it. > > > > No, my whole argument boils down to "air contains gaseous water (water vapor) because thousands of experiments tell us so". > > So, thousands of experiments. And you can't even find one? > > > > It is YOU who has no clue! Just ask Dr. Salkalley... YOU, on the other hand, cannot point to even a single experiment to support your positions, not one! > > > > Yes, the boiling point of water is well established at any pressure, > > Yeah so? > > who would ever dispute that? That does not negate the simple fact that gaseous water also comes from evaporation and is unrelated to the boiling process. > > > > It is YOU who has the wild imagination and delusions of grandeur. > > It's too bad nobody can find your elusive evidence. Hmm. I wonder why? Hmm. Hmmm... Well, dumbfuck, it is not up to me to provide any proof, it is up to YOU! You are the one who is making extraordinary claims and therefore it is YOU who needs to provide extraordinary proof... go ahead, prove that humid air is heavier than dry air, I dare you! That is the way it works in science... The experiments that prove you wrong are all over the internet... it is not my fault that you are too stupid to find them! ANYONE with half a brain can find them... except you, who clearly does not have even half a brain! Get busy!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 21:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5a686bc-5099-43c3-8463-b1957f87bb0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573865 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:12:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 12:02:52 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 2:50:37 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:57:54 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:47:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:07:05 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:45:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You obviously didn't understand a single word of that video! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "If is disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, you have exactly ZERO experiments to share here... > > > > > > > > > > > > There is zero experimental evidence associated with our brain-dead belief in cold steam. There is a lot of experimental evidence that establishes the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. > > > > > > > > > > > > All of the experimental evidence falls my way, dumbass. > > > > > > > > > > I've got a rock with more brains than you have. > > > > > > > > > > You've got NO experiments that support your notion, for example, that humid air is heavier than dry air, whereas there are uncounted experiments that prove otherwise. There are also uncounted experiments that prove that water vapor is a gaseous form of water. Many papers in support of this have been linked for you, but you've choosen to either not read them or not respond to them, provide no critical feedback for any of them, while at the same time fail to show your own experimental evidence in support of your own tenuous stance. > > > > > > > > > > Sure, there are lots of experiments that deal with boiling water, just as there are lots of experiments that deal with evaporation. > > > > > > > > > > The main difference between evaporation and boiling are : > > > > > > > > > > 1. Evaporation takes place at all temperatures, while boiling occurs at a particular temperature. > > > > > > > > > > 2. Evaporation takes place from the surface, whereas the entire liquid boils. > > > > > > > > > > 3. Evaporation can occur using the internal energy of the system, while boiling requires an external source of heat. > > > > > > > > > > 4. Evaporation produces cooling but boiling does not. > > > > > > > > > > 5. Evaporation is a slow process while boiling is a rapid process. > > > > > > > > > > However, in each case gaseous water (water vapor) is produced. To deny this fact is an extraordinary claim, which requires an extraordinary proof, of which you have shown NONE! > > > > > > > > > > There is virtually NO experimental evidence that 'falls your way', dumbass. > > > > > > > > So, your whole argument boils down to, "let's pretend to know that all moisture > > > > in the atmosphere is gaseous even though we don't have a clue. > > > > > > > > The fact is we do have a clue. We boiling point of H2O is firmly established. > > > > You imagination does not dispute it. > > > > > > No, my whole argument boils down to "air contains gaseous water (water vapor) because thousands of experiments tell us so". > > > > So, thousands of experiments. And you can't even find one? > > > > > > > > It is YOU who has no clue! Just ask Dr. Salkalley... YOU, on the other hand, cannot point to even a single experiment to support your positions, not one! > > > > > > Yes, the boiling point of water is well established at any pressure, > > > > Yeah so? > > > > who would ever dispute that? That does not negate the simple fact that gaseous water also comes from evaporation and is unrelated to the boiling process. > > > > > > It is YOU who has the wild imagination and delusions of grandeur. > > > > It's too bad nobody can find your elusive evidence. Hmm. I wonder why? Hmm. > > Hmmm... Well, dumbfuck, it is not up to me to provide any proof, it is up to YOU! You are the one who is making extraordinary claims and therefore it is YOU who needs to provide extraordinary proof... go ahead, prove that humid air is heavier than dry air, I dare you! You just conceded that the issue is unknown. > > That is the way it works in science... I think you are confusing science with religion. > The experiments that prove you wrong are all over the internet... it is not my fault that you are too stupid to find them! ANYONE with half a brain can find them... except you, who clearly does not have even half a brain! So, they are all over the internet . . . and you can't find even one? What do you think that indicates?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d78fe5db-359a-456d-9ffe-1610524d182b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573867 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:12:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > The experiments that prove you wrong are all over the internet... it is not my fault that you are too stupid to find them! ANYONE with half a brain can find them... except you, who clearly does not have even half a brain! > > So, they are all over the internet . . . and you can't find even one? LOL! I can find hundreds... why can't you? > What do you think that indicates? Clearly, that indicates that you don't have the brains of a ripe kumquat!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b365709f-f3ff-4c09-b3a0-62c5dc406c65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573945 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 7:06:20 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:12:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > The experiments that prove you wrong are all over the internet... it is not my fault that you are too stupid to find them! ANYONE with half a brain can find them... except you, who clearly does not have even half a brain! > > > > So, they are all over the internet . . . and you can't find even one? > > LOL! I can find hundreds... why can't you? > > > What do you think that indicates? > > Clearly, that indicates that you don't have the brains of a ripe kumquat! Is it a secret?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 21:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <997696a0-b3bf-4bf7-8de0-057a843f0594@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573966 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 8:32:50 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 7:06:20 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:12:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > The experiments that prove you wrong are all over the internet... it is not my fault that you are too stupid to find them! ANYONE with half a brain can find them... except you, who clearly does not have even half a brain! > > > > > > So, they are all over the internet . . . and you can't find even one? > > > > LOL! I can find hundreds... why can't you? > > > > > What do you think that indicates? > > > > Clearly, that indicates that you don't have the brains of a ripe kumquat! > > Is it a secret? That's it, Jim, you got it, it's a secret... and no one is going to tell you the answer... poor Jim...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 21:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bfde2b6a-a800-4984-9f6a-4aa80a19198e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #574089 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 9:03:03 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 8:32:50 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 7:06:20 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:12:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > The experiments that prove you wrong are all over the internet... it is not my fault that you are too stupid to find them! ANYONE with half a brain can find them... except you, who clearly does not have even half a brain! > > > > > > > > So, they are all over the internet . . . and you can't find even one? > > > > > > LOL! I can find hundreds... why can't you? > > > > > > > What do you think that indicates? > > > > > > Clearly, that indicates that you don't have the brains of a ripe kumquat! > > > > Is it a secret? > > That's it, Jim, you got it, it's a secret... and no one is going to tell you the answer... poor Jim... I promise not to tell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 08:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33b9035c-e80a-4b55-bf55-a28635f4c070@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573945 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 7:06:20 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:12:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > The experiments that prove you wrong are all over the internet... it is not my fault that you are too stupid to find them! ANYONE with half a brain can find them... except you, who clearly does not have even half a brain! > > > > So, they are all over the internet . . . and you can't find even one? > > LOL! I can find hundreds... why can't you? Because I don't have access to your imagination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 21:31 -0700 |
| Subject | fiG Newton had no theory of light |
| Message-ID | <d98c47c4-824d-4ed5-a9c1-699354a2e4ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569063 |
in deed, partial pressuers are rlated to the boilingpoints of constituent gasses; congradulation > The fact is we do have a clue. We boiling point of H2O is firmly established. > You imagination does not dispute it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 14:00 -0700 |
| Subject | newton had a false theory of light |
| Message-ID | <af2c1aab-5963-4fa3-b66e-be63979f8921@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569360 |
seems as if there was an accident in the kitchen, but you cannot recall that for some\a reason > in deed, partial pressureare reated > to the boilingpoints of constituent gasses; > > > We boiling point of H2O is firmly established. > > You imagination does not dispute it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 07:56 -0700 |
| Subject | no theory of light (corpuscular |
| Message-ID | <2bdae09a-4594-479e-b1c9-c1537c79c83a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568189 |
most youngins get caught-up in logarithms (or inverse of exponentiation, but it might just be pi. there are only pi things that you need, to pursue any eventuality in mathematics ... theoretically > Maybe you should find a gentler hobby.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lu Wei <luweitest@address.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 15:41 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <ndvq1v$qcq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #567994 |
On 2016-4-5 13:55, James McGinn wrote: > ... > James McGinn: > This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient > temperatures/pressures. It is still liquid. It consists of microdroplets of > liquid H2O suspended by electro-static forces between air molecules. Often > these microdroplets are very small, so small they are invisible--just as > invisible as gaseous H2O (this is what confuses most of us). All in all, there > is zero evidence that moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous) > and there is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can > only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available in > our ambient environment. Just stumble upon this. As not a native English speaker, I don't know the subtle difference between moist|humid|damp|wet air. If temperature is below dew point, micro-droplets of water will eventually evaporate. And gaseous H2O (water vapor) can exist below boiling point, even below freezing point. Air with water droplets is heavier than dry air, and air with water vapor is lighter than dry air. -- Regards, Lu Wei PGP key ID: 0x92CCE1EA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 02:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7025e70b-1435-4ca5-a5ab-ffe13880cedb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568007 |
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:41:59 AM UTC-7, Lu Wei wrote: > On 2016-4-5 13:55, James McGinn wrote: > > ... > > James McGinn: > > This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at > > ambient temperatures/pressures. It is still liquid. It > > consists of microdroplets of liquid H2O suspended by > > electro-static forces between air molecules. Often these > > microdroplets are very small, so small they are invisible-- > > just as invisible as gaseous H2O (this is what confuses most > > of us). All in all, there is zero evidence that moisture in > > our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous) and there is a > > wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O > > can only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher > > than is available in our ambient environment. > > Just stumble upon this. As not a native English speaker, I don't know > the subtle difference between moist|humid|damp|wet air. If temperature > is below dew point, micro-droplets of water will eventually evaporate. > And gaseous H2O (water vapor) can exist below boiling point, even below > freezing point. Air with water droplets is heavier than dry air, and air > with water vapor is lighter than dry air. Dew point doesn't provide us a precise understanding of the molecular structure of the H2O in the air. It only give us an indication as to when the microdroplets will be big enough to be visible. So, dew point is useful for a meteorologists but misleading for physicists/chemists. (Also, evaporation/sublimation doesn't produce gaseous H2O. This is a myth. It produces microdroplets of liquid H2O exclusively.) Gaseous H2O is impossible at temperatures/pressures below it's known boiling points. Consequently moist air is always heavier than dry air. My absolute confidence that there is no gaseous H2O in our atmosphere is based on an advanced model of H bonding that was arrived at starting from first principles (ab initio) in conjunction with an advanced understanding of H2O polarity being variable and with H bonding being the mechanism of this variation, which is explained in a paper I wrote in November. If you are interested here are links to the paper: https://zenodo.org/record/37224 or https:// groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ. James McGinn Solving Tornadoes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 09:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne0j1b$1nf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568007 |
On 4/5/2016 2:41 AM, Lu Wei wrote: > On 2016-4-5 13:55, James McGinn wrote: >> ... >> James McGinn: >> This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient >> temperatures/pressures. wrong. >> It is still liquid. wrong. <snip troll drival> > > Just stumble upon this. As not a native English speaker, I don't know > the subtle difference between moist|humid|damp|wet air. If temperature > is below dew point, micro-droplets of water will eventually evaporate. > And gaseous H2O (water vapor) can exist below boiling point, even below > freezing point. Air with water droplets is heavier than dry air, and air > with water vapor is lighter than dry air. > James McGinn is a long term CRANK, just ignore him, he does not know any science at all, he just wants to crank people up for fun, as he is living in his mom's basement unemployed. James McGinn is an airy-fairy type, (no science no math) who cannot answer simple questions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 08:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <477953a5-0887-4cf8-bb48-913090c5e7f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568040 |
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: > On 4/5/2016 2:41 AM, Lu Wei wrote: > > On 2016-4-5 13:55, James McGinn wrote: > >> ... > >> James McGinn: > >> This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient > >> temperatures/pressures. > > wrong. > > >> It is still liquid. > > wrong. > > <snip troll drival> > > > > > > Just stumble upon this. As not a native English speaker, I don't know > > the subtle difference between moist|humid|damp|wet air. If temperature > > is below dew point, micro-droplets of water will eventually evaporate. > > And gaseous H2O (water vapor) can exist below boiling point, even below > > freezing point. Air with water droplets is heavier than dry air, and air > > with water vapor is lighter than dry air. > > > > James McGinn is a long term CRANK, just ignore him, > he does not know any science at all, he just wants to crank people up > for fun, as he is living in his mom's basement unemployed. > > James McGinn is an airy-fairy type, (no science no math) who cannot > answer simple questions. Why don't you go out and play and let us adults have a conversation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 10:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f197031-4610-4243-bd08-d92b5bc7959b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567994 |
Why People in Academia Rarely Make Big Discoveries https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/KBUKLRBTLbY/MTHPtGaZCwAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96c9fc0c-1784-4e92-968e-c6b0b94b9965@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567994 |
of coure, if it were pi, it would only have the cOOling effect of a pith of the liquid water ... and, that is less than a third > The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the > number of H2O molecules in the microdroplet. What is the correct number for X? > Well, the truth is we don't know. It is, in my opinion, most likely never > smaller than 10, thus the correct number to put into this equation wouldn't be > 18 it would be 180 or larger. It is possible it might be as small as 3 in some > particularly dry bodies of air, in which case it would be 54, still making > moist air considerably heavier than dry air. But even if it is only 2 X would > be 36, still making moist air heavier than dry air. > > So, if somebody tells you that the notion that moist air is heavier than dry > air is a myth you can tell them that this myth is actually a myth. You can > also tell them that Isaac Newton was not a deity sent from heaven but a normal > human being, prone to the foibles of failing to confirm his assumptions, just > like the rest of us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web