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

Groups > sci.physics > #720334 > unrolled thread

Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 20:44 -0800
    Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 21:27 -0800
      Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 22:07 -0800
        Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 20:01 -0800
          Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-23 20:17 -0800
            Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-23 20:24 -0800
            Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 00:20 -0800
              Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-24 16:03 +0000
                Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 08:24 -0800
                  Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-24 08:32 -0800
                    Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 08:42 -0800
                  Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-24 17:41 +0000
                    Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 10:33 -0800
        Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:41 +0000
          Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 10:46 -0800
      Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-23 00:10 -0600

#720334 — Re: Brain-dead church ladies are holding scientific progress hostage

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:36:03 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:13:54 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > I don't think we should creatively reinterpret the H2O phase diagram,  or any phase diagram.
> 
> Neither do I. I'm not asking for a 'creative' interpretation, just a regular everyday scientific interpretation, you know, "what does the phase diagram tell you?" kind of thing.
> 
> So, what does the phase diagram of air tell you? You claim to be the expert, show us your expertise and explain what you see. Can't do it? I'm betting you will unable to comply. Prove me wrong. Did you lose the URL for that phase diagram? Here it is again...
> 
> https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/2008/Air%20phase%20diagram%20C.jpg
> 
> I fully expect you to cop-out once again.
> 
> Prove me wrong, Mr. Best-Physicist-In-The-World.

I don't understand what it is you want me to do.  What was your point again?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#720346

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 8:44:16 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> I don't understand what it is you want me to do.  What was your point again?

You are just playing stupid again. You are very good at playing stupid.

My point, my only point, is that you make claims that run contrary to mainstream physics and chemistry, and yet you are unable to provide any evidence to support your wacky claims. Somehow you think that you are exempt from providing empirical evidence for your wild-ass claims and yet at the same time you *insist* that anyone who says you are wrong need to provide evidence to support mainstream science.

So, what I want you to do is to provide evidence. either that or get seriously lost.

Is that clear enough, or are you too stupid to understand this, too...

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

#720356

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 9:27:09 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 8:44:16 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > I don't understand what it is you want me to do.  What was your point again?
> 
> You are just playing stupid again. You are very good at playing stupid.
> 
> My point, my only point, is that you make claims that run contrary to 
> mainstream physics and chemistry,

Irrelevant. I would never comply with something just because the greater collective of brain dead goons choose to comply.  Or vice versa.  IOW, what the greater collective of goons believe has no effect on what I believe. I prefer to let reason be my guide.

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

#720505

Im not playing stupid.  What is your point?

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

#720510

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 8:01:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> Im not playing stupid.  What is your point?

No need to 'play' stupid when is it obvious that you really *are* stupid!

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

#720517

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 8:17:15 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 8:01:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > Im not playing stupid.  What is your point?
> 
> No need to 'play' stupid when is it obvious that you really *are* stupid!

Jim getting dressed in the morning... 

https://tinyurl.com/ychko9f2 

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

#720539

Did you know that air is comprised of different molecules? 

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

#720552

James McGinn writes:
> Did you know that air is comprised of different molecules?

Why yes! N2(g), O2(g), CO2(g), H2O(g), Ar(g), Kr(g),...

Although technically Ar and the other noble gases are individual atoms,
not molecules.

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

#720559

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:03:16 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> James McGinn writes:
> > Did you know that air is comprised of different molecules?
> 
> Why yes! N2(g), O2(g), CO2(g), H2O(g), Ar(g), Kr(g),...
> 
> Although technically Ar and the other noble gases are individual atoms,
> not molecules.

Do you understand that each of these has its own triple point?

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

#720564

When speaking of air we are not speaking of these components as individuals, we are talking of air as its own substance... and air itself has its own triple point, which, of course, is different than the individual numbers for those other individual gasses. 

The fact that you don't understand this indicates that you are no scientist... which surprises no one...

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

#720572

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:32:51 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> When speaking of air we are not speaking of these components as individuals, we are talking of air as its own substance... and air itself has its own triple point, which, of course, is different than the individual numbers for those other individual gasses. 
> 
> The fact that you don't understand this indicates that you are no scientist... which surprises no one...

Now explain you premise, you lying piece of shit.  You only brought up this subject to divert attention away from the fact that you do not have evidence of your magical cold steam, you lying piece of shit.

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

#720593

James McGinn writes:
>moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:

>>James McGinn writes:
>>> Did you know that air is comprised of different molecules?

>>Why yes! N2(g), O2(g), CO2(g), H2O(g), Ar(g), Kr(g),...

>>Although technically Ar and the other noble gases are individual atoms,
>>not molecules.

>Do you understand that each of these has its own triple point?

When separate, they most certainly do!

You do realize, of course, that the boiling and freezing points of
solutions/mixtures is often rather different than the individual
substances.  The triple point certainly would, as well.

1) What is the freezing point of water (H2O)?
2) What is the freezing point of salt (NaCl)?
3) Why the heck do they put salt on roads during winter weather?

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

#720609

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:41:12 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> James McGinn writes:
> >moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
> 
> >>James McGinn writes:
> >>> Did you know that air is comprised of different molecules?
> 
> >>Why yes! N2(g), O2(g), CO2(g), H2O(g), Ar(g), Kr(g),...
> 
> >>Although technically Ar and the other noble gases are individual atoms,
> >>not molecules.
> 
> >Do you understand that each of these has its own triple point?
> 
> When separate, they most certainly do!
> 
> You do realize, of course, that the boiling and freezing points of
> solutions/mixtures is often rather different than the individual
> substances.  The triple point certainly would, as well.
> 
> 1) What is the freezing point of water (H2O)?
> 2) What is the freezing point of salt (NaCl)?
> 3) Why the heck do they put salt on roads during winter weather?

Address the issue I mentioned in the previous post, you dishonest SOB.

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

#720612

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 9:27:09 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 8:44:16 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't understand what it is you want me to do.  What was your point again?
>> 
>> You are just playing stupid again. You are very good at playing stupid.
>> 
>> My point, my only point, is that you make claims that run contrary to 
>> mainstream physics and chemistry,
> 
> Irrelevant. I would never comply with something just because the greater
> collective of brain dead goons choose to comply.  Or vice versa.  IOW,
> what the greater collective of goons believe has no effect on what I
> believe. I prefer to let reason be my guide.
> 

Of course you do. And in this policy, you have arrived at a place where you
cannot possibly be mistaken about a single thing. Because your “reason” led
you to your beliefs, which are therefore infallible. And there is not one
thing that would convince you otherwise. 

You have achieved god-like infallibility simply by declaration of this
policy. Now look in the mirror and remind yourself of this. 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#720615

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 10:41:14 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 9:27:09 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 8:44:16 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> 
> >>> I don't understand what it is you want me to do.  What was your point again?
> >> 
> >> You are just playing stupid again. You are very good at playing stupid.
> >> 
> >> My point, my only point, is that you make claims that run contrary to 
> >> mainstream physics and chemistry,
> > 
> > Irrelevant. I would never comply with something just because the greater
> > collective of brain dead goons choose to comply.  Or vice versa.  IOW,
> > what the greater collective of goons believe has no effect on what I
> > believe. I prefer to let reason be my guide.
> > 
> 
> Of course you do. And in this policy, you have arrived at a place where you
> cannot possibly be mistaken about a single thing. Because your “reason” led
> you to your beliefs, which are therefore infallible. And there is not one
> thing that would convince you otherwise. 
> 
> You have achieved god-like infallibility simply by declaration of this
> policy. Now look in the mirror and remind yourself of this. 

If it is any consolation, I fully support your right to be a goon if that is what you want.

Thanks for the feedback.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Science itself is the religion that is the obstacle
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17188

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

#720359

On 12/22/2018 11:27 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 8:44:16 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> I don't understand what it is you want me to do.  What was your point again?
> 
> You are just playing stupid again. You are very good at playing stupid.
> 
> My point, my only point, is that you make claims that run contrary to mainstream physics and chemistry, and yet you are unable to provide any evidence to support your wacky claims. Somehow you think that you are exempt from providing empirical evidence for your wild-ass claims and yet at the same time you *insist* that anyone who says you are wrong need to provide evidence to support mainstream science.
> 
> So, what I want you to do is to provide evidence. either that or get seriously lost.
> 
> Is that clear enough, or are you too stupid to understand this, too...
> 


McFly is not "playing" stupid, he is stupid.
   proven that many times here,
   and arrogant stupid,

look at all the people that accepted his 'notions',  not one person on
the planet earth.

two bought his self published fake weather book on amazon for $1 and
want their money back

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web