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

Groups > sci.physics > #720209 > unrolled thread

Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood

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: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 10:24 -0800
    Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-22 18:44 +0000
      Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 11:10 -0800
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:56 +0000
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 11:06 -0800
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 19:30 +0000
      Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-23 03:11 +0000
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 19:14 -0800
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 20:00 -0800
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 10:50 -0800
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-22 21:32 -0600
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 12:10 -0800
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-25 17:22 +0000
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 10:16 -0800

#720209 — Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:05:14 AM UTC-8, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 10:48:54 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > []
> > reposting under a different topic,
> > is that what you call creating good internet content?
> > 
> > Sad, you seem to have no life except to post.
> > I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Dalton's is well understood, dumbass.

Dalton's is well understood.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#720221

>Dalton's is well understood.

Apparently not by yourself.  Otherwise you could have answered my simple
question easily.

You have dry (no H2O of any form) air at 20 C.  You introduce some liquid
water, also at 20 C,  into it.  According to Dalton's Law, what happens?

I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
this problem.

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

#720230

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:44:10 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >Dalton's is well understood.
> 
> Apparently not by yourself.  Otherwise you could have answered my simple
> question easily.
> 
> You have dry (no H2O of any form) air at 20 C.  You introduce some liquid
> water, also at 20 C,  into it.  According to Dalton's Law, what happens?
> 
> I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
> this problem.

You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.

Laws don't make predictions, dumbass. People make predictions.  However, if I was to make a prediction based on Dalton's law here I would say that it makes no prediction at all.  It doesn't say something will happen.  And it doesn't say nothing will happen.  

As everybody knows, evaporation will happen. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with Dalton's law.  Dalton's law deal with different percentages of GASES!!!

Evaporation (you fucking imbecile) produces vapor not gas!!!

It is not called Dalton's gas and vapor law.  It's called Dalton's gas law. 

Duhrrr!!!!

Go back to watching cartoons you imbecile.

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

#720628

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:44:10 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Dalton's is well understood.
>> 
>> Apparently not by yourself.  Otherwise you could have answered my simple
>> question easily.
>> 
>> You have dry (no H2O of any form) air at 20 C.  You introduce some liquid
>> water, also at 20 C,  into it.  According to Dalton's Law, what happens?
>> 
>> I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
>> this problem.
> 
> You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.
> 
> Laws don't make predictions, dumbass. People make predictions.  However,
> if I was to make a prediction based on Dalton's law here I would say that
> it makes no prediction at all.  It doesn't say something will happen. 
> And it doesn't say nothing will happen.  
> 
> As everybody knows, evaporation will happen. But this has nothing
> whatsoever to do with Dalton's law.  Dalton's law deal with different
> percentages of GASES!!!
> 
> Evaporation (you fucking imbecile) produces vapor not gas!!!
> 
> It is not called Dalton's gas and vapor law.  It's called Dalton's gas law. 

Yes, exactly. And what’s interesting is that you can apply Dalton’s law to
a system that involves only water as the fluid, whether you regard that
fluid as a gas, a fog, an emulsion, or whatever you’d like to guess. But
since Dalton’s law is a law for gases, and it accurately predicts the
relationship between the measured water fluid, then this fluid is
successfully treated as a gas. 

Or are you claiming that Dalton’s law won’t work for water?

> 
> Duhrrr!!!!
> 
> Go back to watching cartoons you imbecile.
> 
> 
> 



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

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

#720635

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 10:56:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.
> > 
> > Laws don't make predictions, dumbass. People make predictions.  However,
> > if I was to make a prediction based on Dalton's law here I would say that
> > it makes no prediction at all.  It doesn't say something will happen. 
> > And it doesn't say nothing will happen.  
> > 
> > As everybody knows, evaporation will happen. But this has nothing
> > whatsoever to do with Dalton's law.  Dalton's law deal with different
> > percentages of GASES!!!
> > 
> > Evaporation (you fucking imbecile) produces vapor not gas!!!
> > 
> > It is not called Dalton's gas and vapor law.  It's called Dalton's gas law. 
> 
> Yes, exactly. And what’s interesting is that you can apply Dalton’s law to
> a system that involves only water as the fluid,

Like you have a clue, idiot.

> whether you regard that
> fluid as a gas, a fog, an emulsion, or whatever you’d like to guess. 

LOL. Yeah, facts don't matter for science groupies.  

> But
> since Dalton’s law is a law for gases, and it accurately predicts the
> relationship between the measured water fluid, then this fluid is
> successfully treated as a gas. 

Meaningless.

> Or are you claiming that Dalton’s law won’t work for water?

Uh, er, uh  . . . uh?

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

#720645

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 10:56:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
>>> You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.
>>> 
>>> Laws don't make predictions, dumbass. People make predictions.  However,
>>> if I was to make a prediction based on Dalton's law here I would say that
>>> it makes no prediction at all.  It doesn't say something will happen. 
>>> And it doesn't say nothing will happen.  
>>> 
>>> As everybody knows, evaporation will happen. But this has nothing
>>> whatsoever to do with Dalton's law.  Dalton's law deal with different
>>> percentages of GASES!!!
>>> 
>>> Evaporation (you fucking imbecile) produces vapor not gas!!!
>>> 
>>> It is not called Dalton's gas and vapor law.  It's called Dalton's gas law. 
>> 
>> Yes, exactly. And what’s interesting is that you can apply Dalton’s law to
>> a system that involves only water as the fluid,
> 
> Like you have a clue, idiot.
> 
>> whether you regard that
>> fluid as a gas, a fog, an emulsion, or whatever you’d like to guess. 
> 
> LOL. Yeah, facts don't matter for science groupies.  
> 
>> But
>> since Dalton’s law is a law for gases, and it accurately predicts the
>> relationship between the measured water fluid, then this fluid is
>> successfully treated as a gas. 
> 
> Meaningless.

Gee, seems straightforward to me. Dalton’s law works for water. Dalton’s
law is a gas law. Therefore water behaves like a gas. 

What part of this do you find difficult?

> 
>> Or are you claiming that Dalton’s law won’t work for water?
> 
> Uh, er, uh  . . . uh?
> 



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

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

#720315

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

>>>Dalton's is well understood.

>>Apparently not by yourself.  Otherwise you could have answered my simple
>>question easily.

>>You have dry (no H2O of any form) air at 20 C.  You introduce some liquid
>>water, also at 20 C,  into it.  According to Dalton's Law, what happens?

>>I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
>>this problem.

>You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.
>Laws don't make predictions, dumbass. ...

<snip more rants and insults>

Thanks for making my point. You really just don't understand Dalton's Law
at all. So why did you claim it is well understood? Or well understood by
everyone except yourself?

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

#720316

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:11:37 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> James McGinn writes:
> >moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
> 
> >>>Dalton's is well understood.
> 
> >>Apparently not by yourself.  Otherwise you could have answered my simple
> >>question easily.
> 
> >>You have dry (no H2O of any form) air at 20 C.  You introduce some liquid
> >>water, also at 20 C,  into it.  According to Dalton's Law, what happens?
> 
> >>I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
> >>this problem.
> 
> >You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.
> >Laws don't make predictions, dumbass. ...
> 
> <snip more rants and insults>
> 
> Thanks for making my point. You really just don't understand Dalton's Law
> at all. So why did you claim it is well understood? Or well understood by
> everyone except yourself?

You got nothing you loon.

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

#720327

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:14:14 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:11:37 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > James McGinn writes:
> > >moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
> > 
> > >>>Dalton's is well understood.
> > 
> > >>Apparently not by yourself.  Otherwise you could have answered my simple
> > >>question easily.
> > 
> > >>You have dry (no H2O of any form) air at 20 C.  You introduce some liquid
> > >>water, also at 20 C,  into it.  According to Dalton's Law, what happens?
> > 
> > >>I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
> > >>this problem.
> > 
> > >You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.
> > >Laws don't make predictions, dumbass. ...
> > 
> > <snip more rants and insults>
> > 
> > Thanks for making my point. You really just don't understand Dalton's Law
> > at all. So why did you claim it is well understood? Or well understood by
> > everyone except yourself?
> 
> You got nothing you loon.

Yet another great 'scientific' argument put forth by the resident loon... which, of course, is no argument at all. Just like always. Jim couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag...

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

#720621

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 8:00:30 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:14:14 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:11:37 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > James McGinn writes:
> > > >moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
> > > 
> > > >>>Dalton's is well understood.
> > > 
> > > >>Apparently not by yourself.  Otherwise you could have answered my simple
> > > >>question easily.
> > > 
> > > >>You have dry (no H2O of any form) air at 20 C.  You introduce some liquid
> > > >>water, also at 20 C,  into it.  According to Dalton's Law, what happens?
> > > 
> > > >>I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
> > > >>this problem.
> > > 
> > > >You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.
> > > >Laws don't make predictions, dumbass. ...
> > > 
> > > <snip more rants and insults>
> > > 
> > > Thanks for making my point. You really just don't understand Dalton's Law
> > > at all. So why did you claim it is well understood? Or well understood by
> > > everyone except yourself?
> > 
> > You got nothing you loon.
> 
> Yet another great 'scientific' argument put forth by the resident loon... which, of course, is no argument at all. Just like always. Jim couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag...

Dalton's Law is well understood, you loon.

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

#720318

On 12/22/2018 9:11 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> James McGinn writes:
>> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
> 
>>>> Dalton's is well understood.
> 
>>> Apparently not by yourself.  Otherwise you could have answered my simple
>>> question easily.
> 
>>> You have dry (no H2O of any form) air at 20 C.  You introduce some liquid
>>> water, also at 20 C,  into it.  According to Dalton's Law, what happens?
> 
>>> I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
>>> this problem.
> 
>> You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.
>> *Laws don't make predictions*, dumbass. ...
> 
> <snip more rants and insults>
> 
> Thanks for making my point. You really just don't understand Dalton's Law
> at all. So why did you claim it is well understood? Or well understood by
> everyone except yourself?
> 


from above

"Laws don't make predictions"  - James McGinn


   ANOTHER  KEEPER  !!!


Corollary: Predictions never use Laws.   -James McGinn


"Church Lady" McGinn spewing his BS, no laws needed, nor understood.



              [   Cold Steam Tables !!!  ]

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

#720659

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:11:37 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> James McGinn writes:
> >moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
> 
> >>>Dalton's is well understood.
> 
> >>Apparently not by yourself.  Otherwise you could have answered my simple
> >>question easily.
> 
> >>You have dry (no H2O of any form) air at 20 C.  You introduce some liquid
> >>water, also at 20 C,  into it.  According to Dalton's Law, what happens?
> 
> >>I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
> >>this problem.
> 
> >You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.
> >Laws don't make predictions, dumbass. ...
> 
> <snip more rants and insults>
> 
> Thanks for making my point. You really just don't understand Dalton's Law
> at all. So why did you claim it is well understood? Or well understood by
> everyone except yourself?

Explain yourself, you fucking liar.

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

#720803

James McGinn wrote:

>Explain yourself, you fucking liar.

I already did.

> >>I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
> >>this problem.



Since it's Christmas, you may have one more chance.

>>You have dry air (contains no H2O of any form) at 20 C.  You introduce
>>some liquid water, also at 20 C, into it.  According to Dalton's Law,
>>what happens?

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

#720822

>Explain yourself, you fucking liar. 

I already did. 

JMcG:
LOL. I saw that. 

You got nothing!!!

Merry Xmas, 

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web