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

Groups > sci.physics > #691720 > unrolled thread

James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-24 02:21 -0500
    Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-06-24 11:42 -0400
      Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-24 17:56 +0200
      Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 10:11 -0700
        Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 09:33 -0700
          Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 10:02 -0700
            Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 17:15 +0000
              Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 10:43 -0700
              Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 11:08 -0700
                Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-06-28 13:22 -0700
                  Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-28 22:16 -0500
                  Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 13:47 -0700
                  Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 08:57 -0700
                    Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-01 18:20 -0400
                      Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-02 18:14 -0500
                Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 15:10 -0700
                  Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-01 01:22 -0500
                  Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 14:23 -0700
                    Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-03 21:26 -0500
          Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 11:07 -0700
    Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 10:05 -0700
    Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-25 15:34 -0500
      Re: James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 13:59 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#691720 — James McGinn Snowflake is a water crystal

McGinn's latest Book, "Non-Understanding Humidity" was withdrawn by
Amazon as "fake science".


McGinn cannot believe that a snowflake is crystalline water.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#691739

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 02:21:28 -0500, Sergio wrote:

>McGinn's latest Book, "Non-Understanding Humidity" was withdrawn by
>Amazon as "fake science".

Not to defend the book or its concepts:

Not sure how you know this was their rationale.

Would they have withdrawn it if it sold like hotcakes, regardless of
how flawed the science may be?

Would it have been more truthful to say, "Sales revenues have not
justified the maintenance costs of retaining this title in our
inventory?"

It isn't necessary for a retailer (whose competency to make this or
any scientific judgement is unknown to me) to be disparaging to
"justify" what may be a business decision.

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

#691741

Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> Wrote in message:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 02:21:28 -0500, Sergio wrote:
> 
>>McGinn's latest Book, "Non-Understanding Humidity" was withdrawn by
>>Amazon as "fake science".
> 
> Not to defend the book or its concepts:
> 
> Not sure how you know this was their rationale.
> 
> Would they have withdrawn it if it sold like hotcakes, regardless of
> how flawed the science may be?
> 
> Would it have been more truthful to say, "Sales revenues have not
> justified the maintenance costs of retaining this title in our
> inventory?"
> 
> It isn't necessary for a retailer (whose competency to make this or
> any scientific judgement is unknown to me) to be disparaging to
> "justify" what may be a business decision.
> 
Regardless of the book and the Amazon,
every physicist and chemist can easily see
James has no clue about  physics, chemistry, equilibriums,
thermodynamics, reaction kinetics
and statistical nature of molecular behaviour.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#691748

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 8:42:05 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 02:21:28 -0500, Sergio wrote:
> 
> >McGinn's latest Book, "Non-Understanding Humidity" was withdrawn by
> >Amazon as "fake science".
> 
> Not to defend the book or its concepts:
> 
> Not sure how you know this was their rationale.
> 
> Would they have withdrawn it if it sold like hotcakes, regardless of
> how flawed the science may be?
> 
> Would it have been more truthful to say, "Sales revenues have not
> justified the maintenance costs of retaining this title in our
> inventory?"
> 
> It isn't necessary for a retailer (whose competency to make this or
> any scientific judgement is unknown to me) to be disparaging to
> "justify" what may be a business decision.

Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?

The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense because they have painted themselves into a corner with their assumptions and believing in nonsense is the only option that remains to save them from appearing to be complete fools. The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere. It is universally believed by all meteorologists yet, strangely, not one of them would claim knowledge of a test or experiment to demonstrate its validity. Stranger still, what little empirical evidence we do have decidedly indicates that the notion fails. This notion has evolved into a taboo within the disciplines that study the atmosphere, the primary champions and enforcers of this taboo being meteorologists, most of whom for which the issue is a mute point in that they exclusively work with synoptic charts (cold fronts, warm fronts and such, usually displayed on computer screens) and, therefore, the notion is never applied in the context of their daily duties. Only for a very small subset of meteorologists—those that deal with the severe weather and, even then, only those that deal with the theoretical aspects thereof—does this notion have any real significance. But for these few the effect is intellectually devastating, rendering them feckless, incapable of making any kind of real progress in the discipline. One consequence of this being that the theoretical aspects of the study of severe weather have come to epitomize academic vapidity. And there really isn’t much any of them can do about it in that belief in the concept is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by any of the various stakeholders in the discipline. But at least they don’t look like complete fools.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

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

#691822

On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?

yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
and maybe remind you how badly your theory
fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
the presence of water vapor.   8^)

Ed

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

#691824

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> > 
> > Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
> 
> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
> 
> Ed

Really? Well, this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  Do you loons ever have a concise argument?  

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

#691825

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
>>> 
>>> Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
>> 
>> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
>> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
>> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
>> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
>> 
>> Ed
> 
> Really? Well, this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  Do you
> loons ever have a concise argument?  
> 

Of course. 
One that convinces a nutjob like you? No way. You’ve shielded yourself from
all rationality in order to defend your little sandbox. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#691828

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:15:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
> >> 
> >> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
> >> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
> >> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
> >> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
> >> 
> >> Ed
> > 
> > Really? Well, this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  Do you
> > loons ever have a concise argument?  
> > 
> 
> Of course. 
> One that convinces a nutjob like you? No way. You’ve shielded yourself from
> all rationality in order to defend your little sandbox

You got nothing!!!

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

#692114

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:15:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
> >> 
> >> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
> >> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
> >> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
> >> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
> >> 
> >> Ed
> > 
> > Really? Well, this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  Do you
> > loons ever have a concise argument?  
> > 
> 
> Of course. 
> One that convinces a nutjob like you? No way. You’ve shielded yourself from
> all rationality in order to defend your little sandbox. 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You retards don't ever have any argument that can't be found in Wikipedia.  When presented with a genuine dilemma all you got is name calling.

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

#692127

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:08:32 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:15:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>> Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
> > >> 
> > >> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
> > >> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
> > >> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
> > >> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
> > >> 
> > >> Ed
> > > 
> > > Really? Well, this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  Do you
> > > loons ever have a concise argument?  
> > > 
> > 
> > Of course. 
> > One that convinces a nutjob like you? No way. You’ve shielded yourself from
> > all rationality in order to defend your little sandbox. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> You retards don't ever have any argument that can't be found in Wikipedia.  When presented with a genuine dilemma all you got is name calling.

Are you now claiming that Wikipedia doesn't have any accurate information? I realize that you are as stupid as a mud fence, but this is an over-the-top claim, even for you...

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

#692174

On 6/28/2018 3:22 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:08:32 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:15:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
>>>>>
>>>>> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
>>>>> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
>>>>> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
>>>>> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> Really? Well, this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  Do you
>>>> loons ever have a concise argument?  
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course. 
>>> One that convinces a nutjob like you? No way. You’ve shielded yourself from
>>> all rationality in order to defend your little sandbox. 
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>> You retards don't ever have any argument that can't be found in Wikipedia.  When presented with a genuine dilemma all you got is name calling.
> 
> Are you now claiming that Wikipedia doesn't have any accurate information? I realize that you are as stupid as a mud fence, but this is an over-the-top claim, even for you...
> 


Will James McGinn agree with this statement ?

 "McGinn cannot believe that a snowflake is crystalline water."

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

#692221

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 1:22:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:08:32 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:15:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > >> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
> > > >> 
> > > >> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
> > > >> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
> > > >> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
> > > >> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
> > > >> 
> > > >> Ed
> > > > 
> > > > Really? Well, this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  Do you
> > > > loons ever have a concise argument?  
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Of course. 
> > > One that convinces a nutjob like you? No way. You’ve shielded yourself from
> > > all rationality in order to defend your little sandbox. 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > 
> > You retards don't ever have any argument that can't be found in Wikipedia.  When presented with a genuine dilemma all you got is name calling.
> 
Are you now claiming that Wikipedia doesn't have any accurate information? I realize that you are as stupid as a mud fence, but this is an over-the-top claim, even for you...

Wikipedia and other websites are the reason you can't figure anything out.  You suffer from cognitive atrophy.  

You are evidence that much of science involves models that have been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the gullible public.  

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

#692332

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 1:22:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:08:32 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:15:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > >> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
> > > >> 
> > > >> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
> > > >> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
> > > >> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
> > > >> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
> > > >> 
> > > >> Ed
> > > > 
> > > > Really? Well, this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  Do you
> > > > loons ever have a concise argument?  
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Of course. 
> > > One that convinces a nutjob like you? No way. You’ve shielded yourself from
> > > all rationality in order to defend your little sandbox. 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > 
> > You retards don't ever have any argument that can't be found in Wikipedia.  When presented with a genuine dilemma all you got is name calling.
> 
> Are you now claiming that Wikipedia doesn't have any accurate information? I realize that you are as stupid as a mud fence, but this is an over-the-top claim, even for you...

You got nothing!!!

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

#692427

On 7/1/2018 11:57 AM, James McGinn wrote:

> You got nothing!!!
> 

I love seeing McGinn's admissions of defeat.

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

#692456

On 7/1/2018 5:20 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 7/1/2018 11:57 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> You got nothing!!!
>>
> 
> I love seeing McGinn's admissions of defeat.


like a guy that remorse's because he did not get picked for the baseball
team, because he hates baseball.

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

#692289

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:08:32 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:15:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>> Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
> > >> 
> > >> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
> > >> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
> > >> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
> > >> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
> > >> 
> > >> Ed
> > > 
> > > Really? Well, this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  Do you
> > > loons ever have a concise argument?  
> > > 
> > 
> > Of course. 
> > One that convinces a nutjob like you? No way. You’ve shielded yourself from
> > all rationality in order to defend your little sandbox. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> You retards don't ever have any argument that can't be found in Wikipedia.  When presented with a genuine dilemma all you got is name calling.

Water becomes ice when it becomes cristalized Bert

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

#692313

On 6/30/2018 5:10 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:08:32 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:15:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
>>>>>
>>>>> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
>>>>> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
>>>>> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
>>>>> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> Really? Well, this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  Do you
>>>> loons ever have a concise argument?  
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course. 
>>> One that convinces a nutjob like you? No way. You’ve shielded yourself from
>>> all rationality in order to defend your little sandbox. 
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>> You retards don't ever have any argument that can't be found in Wikipedia.  When presented with a genuine dilemma all you got is name calling.
> 
> Water becomes ice when it becomes cristalized Bert
> 

So McGinn,  what is "your dilemma" with Crystalline Water ?

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

#692546

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 3:10:57 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:08:32 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:15:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > >> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
> > > >> 
> > > >> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
> > > >> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
> > > >> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
> > > >> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
> > > >> 
> > > >> Ed
> > > > 
> > > > Really? Well, this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  Do you
> > > > loons ever have a concise argument?  
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Of course. 
> > > One that convinces a nutjob like you? No way. You’ve shielded yourself from
> > > all rationality in order to defend your little sandbox. 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > 
> > You retards don't ever have any argument that can't be found in Wikipedia.  When presented with a genuine dilemma all you got is name calling.
> 
> Water becomes ice when it becomes cristalized Bert

How is water created in space? Electricity is used to seperate these two elements .Bert

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

#692568

On 7/3/2018 4:23 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 3:10:57 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:08:32 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:15:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
>>>>>> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
>>>>>> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
>>>>>> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? Well, this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  Do you
>>>>> loons ever have a concise argument?  
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course. 
>>>> One that convinces a nutjob like you? No way. You’ve shielded yourself from
>>>> all rationality in order to defend your little sandbox. 
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> You retards don't ever have any argument that can't be found in Wikipedia.  When presented with a genuine dilemma all you got is name calling.
>>
>> Water becomes ice when it becomes cristalized Bert
> 
> How is water created in space? Electricity is used to seperate these two elements .Bert
> 


how is water created in space ? is it water vapor ?

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

#692113

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 1:11:54 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> > 
> > Do you not realize you are responding to a complete loon?
> 
> yeah I do. But thought I'd stop and say hi.
> and maybe remind you how badly your theory
> fails to predict temperature vs pressure in
> the presence of water vapor.   8^)
> 
> Ed

Your failure to dispute my theory indicates that it may be perfect, as I know it is.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web