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

Groups > sci.physics > #717945 > unrolled thread

Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:08 -0800
    Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 18:58 -0800
      Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 21:21 -0800
        Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 22:15 -0800
      Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 21:59 -0800
    Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 09:48 -0800
      Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 11:40 -0800
        Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 12:05 -0800
          Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 15:47 -0800
            Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 16:03 -0800
              Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 16:46 -0800
              Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 17:40 -0800
                Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-13 22:58 -0600
            Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:24 -0800
              Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 20:00 -0800
                Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 13:28 -0800
                Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 13:40 -0800
                  Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 18:56 -0800
                  Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 18:52 -0800
                    Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 19:56 -0800
                      Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 20:07 -0800
                        Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 20:16 -0800
                          Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 20:46 -0800
                            Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 20:55 -0800
                            Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 20:58 -0800
                              Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 22:42 -0800
                                Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 23:12 -0800
                                  Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-15 08:51 -0600
                                    Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 11:06 -0800
                                  Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 01:15 -0800
                            Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-15 05:43 +0000
                              Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 22:08 -0800
                              Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 11:00 -0800
                              Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 11:08 -0800
                                Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 06:22 +0000
                                  Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 07:45 -0800
    Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-14 21:21 -0800
      Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 21:58 -0800
    Re: Pnal, this is the triple point for water, not air Mappable <invalid@ezample.com> - 2018-12-15 07:23 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#718484

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:56:38 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> You got nothing!!!
> 
> Lying asshole.

So, what did I lie about, Jim?

I've provided evidence for my claim, let's see your evidence that I'm incorrect. That is how science works. Evidence. I showed mine, let's see yours. Tit for tat. It's long past time for *you* to show the world your evidence that there is no gaseous form of water in plain old air. 

I think that maybe it is *you* who is the liar, Jim...

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

#718485

Lying ashole

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

#718487

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 8:16:40 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> Lying ashole

Yeah, you've said this before, many times, except your spelling was better then... asshole. When you get all whipped-up you make a lot of spelling mistakes.

Still, even after all of your expletives cast in my direction, you are STILL facing the looming fact that you have provided ZERO evidence for any of your poorly thought-out theories. In the Big Picture, you are just another loser wannabe without a cognizant thought in your little pinhead.

I will dog you to the end of your days, so either provide your evidence or get lost. Find another release for your flimsy mentations, for you are gaining no traction here...

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

#718490

You could make a retraction. 

Sorry.  But that is as much as I can help you. 

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

#718491

It must be tiring to be so bitter all the time. 

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

#718508

You lie to protect your truth, 
and your truth is shared by most all
Your truth is that water is simple and well understood
Your truth is a lie

Thank you for helping me demonstrate this.

Here is what clued me in to the fact that our current theory on water is wrong. 

I was looking for an explanation of why liquid h2o has such a low viscosity. It just seemed strange that any substance comprised of polar molecules would have such low viscosity through the full temperature range of its existence. 

Eventually the current paradigm provided an answer: its been labelled an anomaly. 

What is an anomaly?
Why am l only finding out about this now?
Why was I not taught something as fundamental as this when I was in school?
Why is not everybody taught this and all 75 anomalies of h2o?

These were the thoughts going through my mind.

Eventually I realized that the myth that water is simple and well understood is instinctual and innate. 

In other words, we cant help ourselves. 

Us humans have an intrinsic and deep belief in the simplicity of water. 

And thus far science has failed to filter out the influence of this innate instinct.

This is the reason everybody lies
And it is in this context that, well, you are my evidence. 

So, that is what I mean by that.

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

#718510

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 10:43:05 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> You lie to protect your truth, 
> and your truth is shared by most all
> Your truth is that water is simple and well understood
> Your truth is a lie
> 
> Thank you for helping me demonstrate this.
> 
> Here is what clued me in to the fact that our current theory on water is wrong. 
> 
> I was looking for an explanation of why liquid h2o has such a low viscosity. It just seemed strange that any substance comprised of polar molecules would have such low viscosity through the full temperature range of its existence. 
> 
> Eventually the current paradigm provided an answer: its been labelled an anomaly. 
> 
> What is an anomaly?
> Why am l only finding out about this now?
> Why was I not taught something as fundamental as this when I was in school?
> Why is not everybody taught this and all 75 anomalies of h2o?
> 
> These were the thoughts going through my mind.
> 
> Eventually I realized that the myth that water is simple and well understood is instinctual and innate. 
> 
> In other words, we cant help ourselves. 
> 
> Us humans have an intrinsic and deep belief in the simplicity of water. 
> 
> And thus far science has failed to filter out the influence of this innate instinct.
> 
> This is the reason everybody lies
> And it is in this context that, well, you are my evidence. 
> 
> So, that is what I mean by that.

Blah, blah, blah... and STILL no form of evidence whatsoever to support your so-called 'theory'.

What is it that you fail to understand about this? What you or I believe may be right or it may be wrong, but 'belief' has no sway in the scientific community. Evidence is King. Period.

I have made no claim that isn't supported by mainstream science, with all the experiments and observations to back it up. If you can't find that evidence, well, shame on you, keep looking. Try referencing one of Dr. Saykally's 704 published papers, he's the expert on all things concerning water, whereas you are just a bluffing buffoon without a single shred of evidence. As you are so fond of saying, "You've got nothing!"

Again, put up or shut up, end of discussion.

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

#718553

On 12/15/2018 1:12 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 10:43:05 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> You lie to protect your truth, 
>> and your truth is shared by most all
>> Your truth is that water is simple and well understood
>> Your truth is a lie
>>
>> Thank you for helping me demonstrate this.
>>
>> Here is what clued me in to the fact that our current theory on water is wrong. 
>>
>> I was looking for an explanation of why liquid h2o has such a low viscosity. It just seemed strange that any substance comprised of polar molecules would have such low viscosity through the full temperature range of its existence. 
>>
>> Eventually the current paradigm provided an answer: its been labelled an anomaly. 
>>
>> What is an anomaly?
>> Why am l only finding out about this now?
>> Why was I not taught something as fundamental as this when I was in school?
>> Why is not everybody taught this and all 75 anomalies of h2o?
>>
>> These were the thoughts going through my mind.
>>
>> Eventually I realized that the myth that water is simple and well understood is instinctual and innate. 
>>
>> In other words, we cant help ourselves. 
>>
>> Us humans have an intrinsic and deep belief in the simplicity of water. 
>>
>> And thus far science has failed to filter out the influence of this innate instinct.
>>
>> This is the reason everybody lies
>> And it is in this context that, well, you are my evidence. 
>>
>> So, that is what I mean by that.
> 
> Blah, blah, blah... and STILL no form of evidence whatsoever to support your so-called 'theory'.
> 
> What is it that you fail to understand about this? What you or I believe may be right or it may be wrong, but 'belief' has no sway in the scientific community. Evidence is King. Period.
> 
> I have made no claim that isn't supported by mainstream science, with all the experiments and observations to back it up. If you can't find that evidence, well, shame on you, keep looking. Try referencing one of Dr. Saykally's 704 published papers, he's the expert on all things concerning water, whereas you are just a bluffing buffoon without a single shred of evidence. As you are so fond of saying, "You've got nothing!"
> 
> Again, put up or shut up, end of discussion.
> 


water is well known;

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_structure_science.html

denial of water vapor, is denial of basic science.

invention of McGinn's magic 'plasma' that somehow causes evaporation,
has no evidence, just a fog dream

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

#718574

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:52:01 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 12/15/2018 1:12 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 10:43:05 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> You lie to protect your truth, 
> >> and your truth is shared by most all
> >> Your truth is that water is simple and well understood
> >> Your truth is a lie
> >>
> >> Thank you for helping me demonstrate this.
> >>
> >> Here is what clued me in to the fact that our current theory on water is wrong. 
> >>
> >> I was looking for an explanation of why liquid h2o has such a low viscosity. It just seemed strange that any substance comprised of polar molecules would have such low viscosity through the full temperature range of its existence. 
> >>
> >> Eventually the current paradigm provided an answer: its been labelled an anomaly. 
> >>
> >> What is an anomaly?
> >> Why am l only finding out about this now?
> >> Why was I not taught something as fundamental as this when I was in school?
> >> Why is not everybody taught this and all 75 anomalies of h2o?
> >>
> >> These were the thoughts going through my mind.
> >>
> >> Eventually I realized that the myth that water is simple and well understood is instinctual and innate. 
> >>
> >> In other words, we cant help ourselves. 
> >>
> >> Us humans have an intrinsic and deep belief in the simplicity of water. 
> >>
> >> And thus far science has failed to filter out the influence of this innate instinct.
> >>
> >> This is the reason everybody lies
> >> And it is in this context that, well, you are my evidence. 
> >>
> >> So, that is what I mean by that.
> > 
> > Blah, blah, blah... and STILL no form of evidence whatsoever to support your so-called 'theory'.
> > 
> > What is it that you fail to understand about this? What you or I believe may be right or it may be wrong, but 'belief' has no sway in the scientific community. Evidence is King. Period.
> > 
> > I have made no claim that isn't supported by mainstream science, with all the experiments and observations to back it up. If you can't find that evidence, well, shame on you, keep looking. Try referencing one of Dr. Saykally's 704 published papers, he's the expert on all things concerning water, whereas you are just a bluffing buffoon without a single shred of evidence. As you are so fond of saying, "You've got nothing!"
> > 
> > Again, put up or shut up, end of discussion.
> > 
> 
> 
> water is well known;
> 
> http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_structure_science.html
> 
> denial of water vapor, is denial of basic science.
> 
> invention of McGinn's magic 'plasma' that somehow causes evaporation,
> has no evidence, just a fog dream

So, Sergio, do you believe in a triple point for air?  Pnal does.  Show some support for your fellow troll.

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

#718962

I have made no claim that isn't supported by mainstream science, with all the experiments and observations to back it up. If you can't find that evidence, well, shame on you, keep looking. 

JMcG:
You believe what everybody believes. And everybody believes what everybody believes because everybody believes it. 

You dont have any evidence of cold steam you lying piece of shit.

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

#718494

pnalsing@gmail.com writes:

>On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 8:16:40 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

>> Lying ashole

>Yeah, you've said this before, many times, except your spelling was better
>then... asshole. When you get all whipped-up you make a lot of spelling 
>mistakes.

Careful, pnal. You are on the verge of triggering an autism meltdown by
McGinn, where he can post nothing but "You got nothing!" in response to
pretty much anything.

He's already demanding you make a retraction for posting correct facts...

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

#718500

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 9:43:32 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> pnal..@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 8:16:40 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> >> Lying ashole
> 
> >Yeah, you've said this before, many times, except your spelling was better
> >then... asshole. When you get all whipped-up you make a lot of spelling 
> >mistakes.
> 
> Careful, pnal. You are on the verge of triggering an autism meltdown by
> McGinn, where he can post nothing but "You got nothing!" in response to
> pretty much anything.
> 
> He's already demanding you make a retraction for posting correct facts...

Yeah, McGinn is pretty predictable when cornered, he gets all agitated and confused.  Some animals are very dangerous when cornered, but McGinn simply self-destructs. He often then disappears for an extended time, which is great. 

Sorry, Jim, but the Scientific Method *insists* that you produce evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments to support any new theory that you want to be accepted by the scientific community. Unfortunately for you, you have presented neither. 

Put up or shut up, OK?

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

#718573

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 9:43:32 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> pnalsing@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 8:16:40 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> >> Lying ashole
> 
> >Yeah, you've said this before, many times, except your spelling was better
> >then... asshole. When you get all whipped-up you make a lot of spelling 
> >mistakes.
> 
> Careful, pnal. You are on the verge of triggering an autism meltdown by
> McGinn, where he can post nothing but "You got nothing!" in response to
> pretty much anything.
> 
> He's already demanding you make a retraction for posting correct facts...

LOL.  Lying asshole.  Why don't you two imbeciles put your head together to find evidence of Pnal's triple point for air.  LOL.

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

#718575

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 9:43:32 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> pnalsing@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 8:16:40 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> >> Lying ashole
> 
> >Yeah, you've said this before, many times, except your spelling was better
> >then... asshole. When you get all whipped-up you make a lot of spelling 
> >mistakes.
> 
> Careful, pnal. You are on the verge of triggering an autism meltdown by
> McGinn, where he can post nothing but "You got nothing!" in response to
> pretty much anything.
> 
> He's already demanding you make a retraction for posting correct facts...

Moronic, is the notion that there is a triple point for air a correct fact?

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

#718696

>> Careful, pnal. You are on the verge of triggering an autism meltdown by
>> McGinn, where he can post nothing but "You got nothing!" in response to
>> pretty much anything.
>> He's already demanding you make a retraction for posting correct facts...

>Moronic, is the notion that there is a triple point for air a correct fact?

pnal gave you a link to read.

(You do know how to read, don't you?)

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

#718751

There is no triple point for air you worthless morons. 

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

#718493

On 12/12/2018 1:08 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> So, Jim you don't think that there is a triple point or phase diagram for air? You are incapable of finding such a thing, so you think it doesn't exist? Think again...
> 
> https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-gas-liquid-equilibrium-condition-properties-temperature-pressure-boiling-curve-d_2008.html
> 
> 
> Triple point:  The temperature and pressure at which the three phases (gas, liquid, and solid) of a substance coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium
> 
>    Triple point pressure of air:         0.05196 atm = 0.05265 bar = 5265 Pa = 0.7636 psi (=lbf/in2)
> 
>    Triple point temperature of air:    59.75 K = -213.40 °C = -352.12 °F
> 
> Go ahead and make your argument as to just how and why you think this is all wrong, you complete buffoon. The only people making fools of themselves here you and Banjo Boy...
> 
> 
> 

Not sure if this is relevant:

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/does-water-freeze-or-boil-in-space-7889856d7f36

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

#718497

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 9:21:35 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 12/12/2018 1:08 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > So, Jim you don't think that there is a triple point or phase diagram for air? You are incapable of finding such a thing, so you think it doesn't exist? Think again...
> > 
> > https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-gas-liquid-equilibrium-condition-properties-temperature-pressure-boiling-curve-d_2008.html
> > 
> > 
> > Triple point:  The temperature and pressure at which the three phases (gas, liquid, and solid) of a substance coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium
> > 
> >    Triple point pressure of air:         0.05196 atm = 0.05265 bar = 5265 Pa = 0.7636 psi (=lbf/in2)
> > 
> >    Triple point temperature of air:    59.75 K = -213.40 °C = -352.12 °F
> > 
> > Go ahead and make your argument as to just how and why you think this is all wrong, you complete buffoon. The only people making fools of themselves here you and Banjo Boy...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Not sure if this is relevant:
> 
> https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/does-water-freeze-or-boil-in-space-7889856d7f36

I'm not sure if it is relevant either... but it is a great article nevertheless...

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

#718555

Pnal is not an actual word, you retarded lunatic.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web