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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 15:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25b88efc-0ffb-4a94-812b-6037d11870b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568730 |
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:13:58 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:03:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 2:36:32 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 2:14:54 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 12:01:15 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 11:23:52 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 9:42:48 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 9:37:11 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 9:32:15 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 8:13:20 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 7:25:11 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 11:09:28 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 10:46:21 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:21:42 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:00:38 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:55:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, your opinion is not science, and is therefore worthless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Show us your experiment that proves your position. Otherwise, you have nothing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't go claiming that the proff one way or the other is my chore, because clearly it is not. YOU are making the claim, so it is YOU who needs to provide the proof. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good luck! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. My opinion isn't science. In fact, no human being's opinion is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > science, including that of Isaac Newton. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now we know what we don't know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You absolutely don't know what you don't know, that is the entire problem! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, of course, there is the fact that all of the laboratory evidence clearly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. And it is a far cry from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of ambient temperatures/pressures. So, the burden of proof is on those > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that would like to claim that H2O is gaseous at ambient temperature/pressures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the main thing that you don't know. Water does not need to boil to be in a gaseous state. Ever hear of the dew point, for example? Let's hear your own special definition of this term... this should be illuminating... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are pretty thick if you can't conceptualize the difference between > > > > > > > > > > > > a liquid, in which he molecules are very close, touching, and a gas in > > > > > > > > > > > > which they are bouncing around knocking off of each other randomly. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's hard to believe anybody this dumb would spend much time in a > > > > > > > > > > > > science forum. What is it that draws you here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, you can't tell me the definition of Dew Point? I knew you couldn't or wouldn't... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are pretty thick if you can't comprehend that water vapor is a gas, common knowledge among chemists and physicists worldwide. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since you have zero talent for science in general and chemistry is particular, why are you here at all? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So . . uh, . . . you just come here to yell at people? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I only yell at the Complete Idiots, and you fall into that category nicely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, about that Dew Point definition... waddaya got? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you should find a gentler hobby. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew point? Got anything? > > > > > > > > > > > > Still thinking about the answer? > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, are you just running away? > > > > > > > > > > What was the question? > > > > > > > > Don't be obtuse. > > > > > > > > What is 'your' definition of 'dew point'? > > > > > > > > It must be very different than the normally accepted definition, otherwise you wouldn't be making the claims you do. > > > > > > Maybe quote me in context. > > > > Can't supply your definition of the term 'dew point'? I'm not surprised... > > Why don't you google it? You are one very dense guy, or you are just afraid that your answer will crash your entire empire. http://w1.weather.gov/glossary/index.php?word=dew+point Dew Point "(Abbrev. DWPT) - A measure of atmospheric moisture. It is the temperature to which air must be cooled in order to reach saturation (assuming air pressure and moisture content are constant). A higher dew point indicates more moisture present in the air. It is sometimes referred to as Dew Point Temperature, and sometimes written as one word (Dewpoint)." In other words, the dew point is the temperature at which the water vapor in a sample of air at constant barometric pressure condenses into liquid water at the same rate at which it evaporates. Water vapor, of course, is the gaseous form of water. Above the dew point water will remain gaseous. This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim. You can't do that, of course, so please just go home already, you have wasted enough bandwidth here...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 17:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne6oab$pp7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568732 |
On 4/7/2016 5:34 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an > extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of > scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim. Jim will not-so-politely decline to do that. His stance is that he is right because his approach of challenging assumptions is right, not because of data showing he is right. > > You can't do that, of course, so please just go home already, you have wasted enough bandwidth here... Maybe you're not getting that Jim's *whole objective* is to waste bandwidth. He's the kind of guy that enters into a crowded room and starts talking nonstop, raising his voice until all eyes are on him. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd7f054e-f128-4704-8de3-f56bfb459386@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568739 |
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:52:03 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/7/2016 5:34 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an > > extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of > > scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim. > > Jim will not-so-politely decline to do that. His stance is that he is > right because his approach of challenging assumptions is right, not > because of data showing he is right. > > > > > You can't do that, of course, so please just go home already, you have wasted enough bandwidth here... > > Maybe you're not getting that Jim's *whole objective* is to waste > bandwidth. He's the kind of guy that enters into a crowded room and > starts talking nonstop, raising his voice until all eyes are on him. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success. http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 20:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f98f2661-3797-40ef-b4fc-d4ace02e9585@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568745 |
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success. The problem here, of course, is that YOU are claiming to be the Emperor... and are as naked as a jaybird...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 20:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8a09ae6-9127-4c16-a202-f5787338dcca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568798 |
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:01:28 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > > So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success. > > The problem here, of course, is that YOU are claiming to be the Emperor... and are as naked as a jaybird... When sheep attack.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 22:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5435a68a-24f8-4466-86a0-195a3d08ffde@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568800 |
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:15:25 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:01:28 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > > > > So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success. > > > > The problem here, of course, is that YOU are claiming to be the Emperor... and are as naked as a jaybird... > > When sheep attack. Total fucking idiot!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 22:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a016775-d611-47ff-bc32-286ba281c1c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568815 |
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:11:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > When sheep attack. > > Total fucking idiot!!! You shouldn't be upset. Think of all you got going for you: 1) The evidence is EVERYWHERE. 2) Ten thousand scientists couldn't be wrong and may well at this very moment be diligently endeavoring to find this evidence. 3) None other than sir Isaac Newton has given us is personal assurance that this evidence must exist, and he couldn't possibly be wrong. So don't lose hope. Keep the faith. Something's gotta turn up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 07:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne87ac$12fg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568798 |
On 4/7/2016 10:01 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > >> So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the >> streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't >> they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he >> couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or >> a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success. > > The problem here, of course, is that YOU are claiming to be the Emperor... and are as > naked as a jaybird... > The Emperor's New Coat is the favorite story of the nutjob. When you see it cited, there is a virtual certainty that it's being cited by a nutjob. The nutjob looks for justification for why he is alone in the world with his thoughts. His answer is always going to be, "I am speaking the truth, and everybody else in the entire world is afraid to speak this truth." The nutjob does not want to hear the story about the Sadly Mistaken Boy. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 06:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7219f20d-0dca-423d-8375-9a24cd4a3a95@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568900 |
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 5:14:09 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/7/2016 10:01 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > > >> So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the > >> streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't > >> they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he > >> couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or > >> a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success. > > > > The problem here, of course, is that YOU are claiming to be the Emperor... and are as > > naked as a jaybird... > > > > The Emperor's New Coat is the favorite story of the nutjob. When you see > it cited, there is a virtual certainty that it's being cited by a > nutjob. The nutjob looks for justification for why he is alone in the > world with his thoughts. His answer is always going to be, "I am > speaking the truth, and everybody else in the entire world is afraid to > speak this truth." The nutjob does not want to hear the story about the > Sadly Mistaken Boy. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables The fact that everybody believes something is the only evidence that the sheep need to also believe it. Sheep want to continue to believe so badly that they will argue against testing for fear that that what they want to believe will be disproven. Note that none of you sheep has said anything about testing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67c920e1-f345-415f-812d-27a2514c8fe3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568917 |
just ask the metoeorologist, if HOH is lighter than air, and if air is lighter than OCO; they might have to think for a second or so > The fact that everybody believes something is the only evidence that the sheep need to also believe it. Sheep want to continue to believe so badly that they will argue against testing for fear that that what they want to believe will be disproven. Note that none of you sheep has said anything about testing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d15da3b4-962d-4ec8-adcb-a11f6e910525@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568732 |
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:34:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > Dew Point > "(Abbrev. DWPT) - A measure of atmospheric moisture. It is the temperature to which air must be cooled in order to reach saturation (assuming air pressure and moisture content are constant). A higher dew point indicates more moisture present in the air. It is sometimes referred to as Dew Point Temperature, and sometimes written as one word (Dewpoint)." > > In other words, the dew point is the temperature at which the water vapor in a sample of air at constant barometric pressure condenses into liquid water at the same rate at which it evaporates. Water vapor, of course, is the gaseous form of water. Above the dew point water will remain gaseous. > > This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim. > > You can't do that, of course, so please just go home already, you have wasted enough bandwidth here... Let me get this straight. Your assertion is based on the *BELIEFS* of tens of thousands of scientists. And instead of asking them to supply it, you want me to supply the proof? Why not ask them? Afterall, you just basically accused tens of thousands of scientists of ignoring the scientific method and carrying a belief for which they have no proof. So ask them. Fair enough? James McGinn Solving Tornadoes Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/YiGNWwhAlPA/K0wJHkmwFQAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 20:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e30e0eab-d2c5-489e-bef9-35568092447e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568740 |
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:52:52 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:34:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Dew Point > > "(Abbrev. DWPT) - A measure of atmospheric moisture. It is the temperature to which air must be cooled in order to reach saturation (assuming air pressure and moisture content are constant). A higher dew point indicates more moisture present in the air. It is sometimes referred to as Dew Point Temperature, and sometimes written as one word (Dewpoint)." > > > > In other words, the dew point is the temperature at which the water vapor in a sample of air at constant barometric pressure condenses into liquid water at the same rate at which it evaporates. Water vapor, of course, is the gaseous form of water. Above the dew point water will remain gaseous. > > > > This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim. > > > > You can't do that, of course, so please just go home already, you have wasted enough bandwidth here... > > Let me get this straight. Your assertion is based on the *BELIEFS* of tens of > thousands of scientists. And instead of asking them to supply it, you want me > to supply the proof? Why not ask them? Afterall, you just basically accused > tens of thousands of scientists of ignoring the scientific method and carrying > a belief for which they have no proof. > > So ask them. Fair enough? My 'assertion' is based on good science, not on 'beliefs'. You don't have the brains that god gave a mud fence. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think that all of the world's chemists and physicists should beat a path to your door in order to prove they they are right and you are wrong. They have already proven their position beyond a shadow of a doubt, the evidence is virtually EVERYWHERE, whereas YOU have not provided even a shed of evidence for your claims. You have not proven a single claim that you have made, not one! You are just a clueless pretender who cannot provide support for anything that you have claimed here, and are therefore as worthless as tits on a bullfrog. It is unfair of me to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 20:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <317c65e4-4d99-4ebc-9500-bdf192ac84dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568797 |
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:00:16 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:52:52 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:34:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Dew Point > > > "(Abbrev. DWPT) - A measure of atmospheric moisture. It is the temperature to which air must be cooled in order to reach saturation (assuming air pressure and moisture content are constant). A higher dew point indicates more moisture present in the air. It is sometimes referred to as Dew Point Temperature, and sometimes written as one word (Dewpoint)." > > > > > > In other words, the dew point is the temperature at which the water vapor in a sample of air at constant barometric pressure condenses into liquid water at the same rate at which it evaporates. Water vapor, of course, is the gaseous form of water. Above the dew point water will remain gaseous. > > > > > > This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim. > > > > > > You can't do that, of course, so please just go home already, you have wasted enough bandwidth here... > > > > Let me get this straight. Your assertion is based on the *BELIEFS* of tens of > > thousands of scientists. And instead of asking them to supply it, you want me > > to supply the proof? Why not ask them? Afterall, you just basically accused > > tens of thousands of scientists of ignoring the scientific method and carrying L > > a belief for which they have no proof. > > > > So ask them. Fair enough? > > My 'assertion' is based on good science, LOL. Your assertion is based on being a sheep in a flock who are all brainlessly following something some dude said in 1717. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 22:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ddb3765-fd8b-48d1-9b83-402f6b455972@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568799 |
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...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 22:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7cf3c823-ebd5-45a1-afef-5f94739796f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568819 |
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... What is the boiling point of H2O? Do you think that wasn't determined experimentally?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d063fff3-d081-4edb-a6f9-60f0ec6c24d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568819 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <864ac001-3b01-42bb-abde-8d1320ef3ee4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568942 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4cda5821-4fe6-4679-91c0-b150a756c072@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569056 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87ec81e7-1b37-4865-8b0d-c500bff361ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569063 |
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". 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, 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 15:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b084ebc-3865-497d-9650-4448fe581fb5@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". LOL. And I'm saying you are a phoney that will make these dumbass claims over and over again but will never once discuss the procedures that decisively verify that clear moist air in your purported experiment is genuinely gaseous. Phoneys always claim, "thousand and thousands," but they never actually demonstrate even one. It is YOU who has no clue! Just ask Dr. Salkalley... I asked Salkally a completely different question, you dingbat, but gave an equally inane answer. > 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, who would ever dispute that? Wow! A direct, non-evasive answer. I wasn't expecting that. I don't know what to say. I'm welling up. Tears are coming to my eyes. I'm crying like a baby. You just made me the happiest person on usenet! > That does not negate the simple fact that gaseous water also comes from > evaporation and is unrelated to the boiling process. Even your continued evasiveness can't erase the joy you just brought me. Thank you. I'm still crying. > It is YOU who has the wild imagination and delusions of grandeur. I know I'm never going to have to pay out the 100 thousand grand. But in my heart I would want it to go to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web