Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #555283 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-21 11:25 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-01 15:42 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 11:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:41 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-21 19:55 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:04 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 15:05 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 21:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:00 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:18 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:34 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:37 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:48 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:05 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:39 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 06:53 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:25 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:32 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:57 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 23:19 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:41 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:39 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 09:31 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness dm <pippinese@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 08:14 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:30 -0800
moistly noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:30 -0800
Re: moistly James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:45 -0800
my assumptions are easy to explain noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:00 -0800
Re: moistly Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 14:01 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:38 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:54 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:12 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:21 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:05 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:19 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:49 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:56 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:59 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 22:44 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 23:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 08:27 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 12:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 17:27 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:55 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 17:09 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:04 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:26 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 21:59 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:15 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:46 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:59 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:51 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:36 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 17:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 10:41 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 11:31 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 16:39 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:34 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 17:25 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:24 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:54 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:40 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:47 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:10 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:35 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:56 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:03 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:33 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:06 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 01:05 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:01 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 22:45 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:19 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:43 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 17:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 19:43 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:02 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:18 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 21:12 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 03:11 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:07 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:09 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 19:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:27 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 17:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:30 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 19:41 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:07 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:23 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:23 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 20:38 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:36 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-26 13:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-26 21:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:09 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:23 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:26 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:22 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:48 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 23:25 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:18 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:35 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:50 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 17:22 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 02:14 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 21:03 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 03:33 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 20:21 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:14 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:24 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 13:11 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:10 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:56 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:36 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:46 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:38 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:56 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 22:58 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:28 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:36 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 00:13 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 03:50 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 23:55 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 18:01 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 15:28 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 14:50 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:50 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:38 -0800
haha, none noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:53 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 15:42 -0600
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 12:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa0311ea-2380-4aed-8df5-5d082bb95ecc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555971 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:11:59 PM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 2:32:13 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: > [] > > > > The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O is known. > > It isn't debatable. > > But it is irrelevant. If that is what you believe then you should make an argument to that effect. > > Without ever having thought about it, most people assume clear, > > moist air contains gaseous H2O > > most people are not chemists of physicists. So nothing new here You keep mentioning that you're a physicist, as if that changes something. > > > even though the notion is plainly nonsensical. > > It is not plainly nonsensical. Physicists do not talk like that. > They test it first. It's already been tested. Consult steam tables. > > Of those that have thought about it the vast majority are > > easily swayed by anecdotal evidence to believe it, > > So what? You are not trying to sway most people here. You don't have an argument, do you? Be honest. It's not like you are fooling anybody. > > > yet they would never bother to debate it. > > Those that do debate it become real emotional. > > They become entrenched, defensive, desperate. > [] > > Mainly because they do not have the tools or knowledge > to debate it. But the "they" above still refers to > "most people". Dear Mr. Big Bad Wolf, Please stop huffing and puffing and hurry up and blow our house down. Sincerely, Three Little Piggies > So here's your claim: > > > There is no gasous H2O in earth's atmosphere. > > It's way too cool. And the pressure is way too high. Gee golly, you at least acknowledge my claim. That puts you head a shoulders above the riff-raff here. > for which you offer no evidence. Actually, the emotionality and lack of substantiveness of the responses here are evidence that this is a notion that strikes deep into human consciousness. I've known this for a long time. People want to believe things about water that simply aren't true. They immediately start grasping at straws of anecdotal evidence--just like if this was a religious discussion. > Since you are taking the > affirmative it is your responsibility to prove it. I'm not taking the affirmative. The boiling point of H2O has been confirmed by experimental evidence. Saying that it, somehow, magically acts different in the atmosphere is the affirmative. I cannot be expected to dispute what people believe. If you believe in bigfoot it is not my responsibility to find evidence that bigfoot does not exist. > > To a physicist this isn't even a hard question. > > because to a physicist, it isn't a question. > the claim is wrong. All of the reproducible evidence is on my side. I make no claim to be able to dispute your collective imaginations. So, you say you are a physicist?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 17:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naipup$psv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555990 |
On 2/23/2016 2:42 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:11:59 PM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 2:32:13 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: >> [] >>> The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O is known. >>> It isn't debatable. >> >> But it is irrelevant. > > If that is what you believe then you should make an argument to that effect. > > > Dear Mr. Big Bad Wolf, > > Please stop huffing and puffing and hurry up and blow our house down. > > Sincerely, > > Three Little Piggies > put down the pipe, tweeker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 14:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <27f28eb6-4202-4051-82e1-5982b41562a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555971 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:11:59 PM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > It is not plainly nonsensical. Physicists do not talk like that. > They test it first. The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O has been extensively tested in laboratories. Do you dispute this assertion? > > Of those that have thought about it the vast majority are > > easily swayed by anecdotal evidence to believe it, > > So what? You are not trying to sway most people here. Is there any reproducible experimental evidence that contradicts it, in your opinion? Can you provide a reference. Can you describe the procedures/methods/results? Or should we just take your word on it? Just asking. > > > yet they would never bother to debate it. > > Those that do debate it become real emotional. > > They become entrenched, defensive, desperate. > [] > > Mainly because they do not have the tools or knowledge > to debate it. But the "they" above still refers to > "most people". > > [] > So here's your claim: > > > There is no gasous H2O in earth's atmosphere. > > It's way too cool. And the pressure is way too high. > > for which you offer no evidence. See above. > Since you are taking the > affirmative it is your responsibility to prove it. Prove what? Do you dispute the laboratory evidence? Based on what? Your opinion? Do you have any empirical evidence, or just your opinion? Just asking? > > > To a physicist this isn't even a hard question. > > because to a physicist, it isn't a question. > the claim is wrong. You have a right to have an opinion, AFAIC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 17:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nao1ke$18jh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #556682 |
On 2/25/2016 4:55 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:11:59 PM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> It is not plainly nonsensical. Physicists do not talk like that. >> They test it first. > > The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O has been extensively tested > in laboratories. prove it. > > Do you dispute this assertion? can you clarify your insertion ? > >>> Of those that have thought about it the vast majority are easily >>> swayed by anecdotal evidence to believe it, >> >> So what? You are not trying to sway most people here. > > Is there any reproducible experimental evidence that contradicts it, > in your opinion? Can you provide a reference. Can you describe the > procedures/methods/results? You can look it up yourself. your lack of self reliance is part of your delusion, is someone taking care of you in a home ? > > Or should we just take my word on it? wiki for it, moron > > Just asking. idiot. > >> >>> yet they would never bother to debate it. Those that do debate it >>> become real emotional. They become entrenched, defensive, >>> desperate. >> [] >> >> Mainly because they do not have the tools or knowledge to debate >> it. But the "they" above still refers to "most people". >> >> [] So here's your claim: >> >>> There is no gasous H2O in earth's atmosphere. It's way too cool. >>> And the pressure is way too high. >> >> for which you offer no evidence. > > See above. see below, I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is completely dry. there was no wet spot under the shirt at all. how did the water get out ? No "smoke" came off it at all. did my shirt out-gas ? did the water come out as a gas ? water gas ? Water Vapor ? Humidity ? so How can that happen when you say there is no such thing on earth ? a counter example you refuse to answer ? did you make a mistake ? It blows a HUGE hole in you. > >> Since you are taking the affirmative it is your responsibility to >> prove it. > > Prove what? Do I dispute the laboratory evidence? Based on what? > My opinion? your thinking is confused, did your mom hit you on the head with a hammer ? esod, troll. > > Do I have any empirical evidence, or just my opinion? who knows what you have, but it is a sickness. > > Just asking? > esod troll. >> >>> To a physicist this isn't even a hard question. >> >> because to a physicist, it isn't a question. the claim is wrong. > > I have a right to have an opinion, AFAIC. no, you are a liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 12:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b5cb23cb-733a-4003-9bb6-01a784bdd89e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556682 |
more salt, higher boiling T. > The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O has been extensively tested in laboratories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 07:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6sctpc-9i7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555766 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:21:32 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> >> > I am a physicist. >> >> It does not matter how many times you repeat this, it will never be true... impossible! > > Be honest. Isn't is true that Schleiren imaging does allow you to > directly observe individual molecules. Be honest. Nope, it allows you to see differences in density in fluids. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 21:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <324cd19b-f0b0-45b0-b2b1-5133e62251d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555670 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > I am a physicist... I am a physicist... I am a physicist. Gaseous H2O can only exist above the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O that has been measured in laboratories, by phiscist. Like me... > > I am a physicist... Physicists, like me, are trained to not make that mistake. I am a physicist... Funny... not one actual physicist agrees with you... unless, of course, you can link to one who does... good luck!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 21:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c07182ac-d2fe-43b5-97b1-2e8674aca0ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555757 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:26:18 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > I am a physicist... I am a physicist... I am a physicist. Gaseous H2O can only exist above the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O that has been measured in laboratories, by phiscist. Like me... > > > > I am a physicist... Physicists, like me, are trained to not make that mistake. I am a physicist... > > Funny... not one actual physicist agrees with you... unless, of course, you can link to one who does... good luck! Why would I care? Where is your reproducible evidence?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e626412b-39b8-4084-b396-f241e4f6d1b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555764 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:59:46 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:26:18 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > I am a physicist... I am a physicist... I am a physicist. Gaseous H2O can only exist above the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O that has been measured in laboratories, by phiscist. Like me... > > > > > > I am a physicist... Physicists, like me, are trained to not make that mistake. I am a physicist... > > > > Funny... not one actual physicist agrees with you... unless, of course, you can link to one who does... good luck! > > Why would I care? Where is your reproducible evidence? What a dumbfuck answer. The internet is full of information totally contrary to your 'teachings', as are uncountable textbooks. You don't even have the basics mastered. Idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cf081950-cd99-4c99-a97a-804a86635c02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555769 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:15:19 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:59:46 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:26:18 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > > I am a physicist... I am a physicist... I am a physicist. Gaseous H2O can only exist above the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O that has been measured in laboratories, by phiscist. Like me... > > > > > > > > I am a physicist... Physicists, like me, are trained to not make that mistake. I am a physicist... > > > > > > Funny... not one actual physicist agrees with you... unless, of course, you can link to one who does... good luck! > > > > Why would I care? Where is your reproducible evidence? > > What a dumbfuck answer. The internet is full of information totally contrary to your 'teachings', as are uncountable textbooks. You don't even have the basics mastered. > > Idiot. When confronted with something that is counterintuitive but popular the first thing you notice is the willingness of people to lie. It's exactly the same behavior you see in people that have religious beliefs. They act as if their life depended on it. The only count that matters is the number of reproducible experiments that support your assertion. That number is zero. Welcome to science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 19:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r9qupc-v6c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555781 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:15:19 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:59:46 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:26:18 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> > > >> > > > I am a physicist... I am a physicist... I am a physicist. Gaseous H2O can only exist above the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O that has been measured in laboratories, by phiscist. Like me... >> > > > >> > > > I am a physicist... Physicists, like me, are trained to not make that mistake. I am a physicist... >> > > >> > > Funny... not one actual physicist agrees with you... unless, of course, you can link to one who does... good luck! >> > >> > Why would I care? Where is your reproducible evidence? >> >> What a dumbfuck answer. The internet is full of information totally contrary to your 'teachings', as are uncountable textbooks. You don't even have the basics mastered. >> >> Idiot. > > When confronted with something that is counterintuitive but popular the > first thing you notice is the willingness of people to lie. When a delusional person is confronted with evidence that conflicts with their delusion, the first thing you notice is intense hostility on the part of the delusional. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 11:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <59779706-7726-4ed9-a5f7-6e5f95e9b0e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555670 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:13:01 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > Humidity is the gaseous moisture and clouds, mist, > > and fog are the liquid. > > > > Grade school children know that. > > I am a physicist. Droplets smaller than a photon are invisible > (except through Schleiren Imaging). I am a physicist. [] > > There is not gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. I am a physicist. > Gaseous H2O can only exist above the boiling temperature/pressure > of H2O that has been measured in laboratories, by phiscist. > Like me.[] > > I am a physicist. [] > Physicists, like me, are trained to not make that mistake. > I am a physicist. [] Hmm. You are not the only Physicist here. Rather than trying to bully with insults through this argument, try to take some time and publish a paper on this idea. See if it can pass peer review muster. The fact is water can exist as gas, liquid, and solid in equilibrium. (Have you never tested the triple point of water?) Maybe you really need to go study some Chemistry? Anyway, just stop bullying people. That's just a sure way to convince others you are wrong. ed (PS I studied Physics at the University of Dayton)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 12:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <076c706b-18b7-40f8-95fc-31e8307d4d86@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555957 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:51:52 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > Physicists, like me, are trained to not make that mistake. > > I am a physicist. [] > > Hmm. > > You are not the only Physicist here. Who cares. > Rather than trying to > bully with insults through this argument, try to take some > time and publish a paper on this idea. See if it can pass > peer review muster. Convection Versus Plasma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk Watch the whole thing. Then, maybe, watch this one: Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw Or this one: Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4 > The fact is water can exist as gas, liquid, and solid > in equilibrium. (Have you never tested the triple point > of water?) Triple point involves vapor (evaporate, not gas, evaporate involves liquid H2O suspended between air molecules by static electric forces), liquid, and solid. > Maybe you really need to go study some Chemistry? It's regrettable you can't educate me/us. > Anyway, just stop bullying people. That's just a sure way > to convince others you are wrong. I'm not bullying anybody, so don't get your panties in a twist. > ed > (PS I studied Physics at the University of Dayton) Put it on your resume.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 20:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jesupc-v6c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555972 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:51:52 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > Physicists, like me, are trained to not make that mistake. >> > I am a physicist. [] >> >> Hmm. >> >> You are not the only Physicist here. > > Who cares. > >> Rather than trying to >> bully with insults through this argument, try to take some >> time and publish a paper on this idea. See if it can pass >> peer review muster. > > Convection Versus Plasma No plasma in the atmosphere absent lightning or objects rentering from space. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 17:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <61b3fc1d-7386-4dbc-a720-2dea546c8a37@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555972 |
it would be interesting, to hypothesize what sort of bonding occurs between HOH's in air, that would ammeliorate those of the dimers (OO and NN > Triple point involves vapor (evaporate, not gas, evaporate involves liquid H2O suspended between air molecules by static electric forces), liquid, and solid. > > > Maybe you really need to go study some Chemistry? > > It's regrettable you can't educate me/us. > > > Anyway, just stop bullying people. That's just a sure way > > to convince others you are wrong. > > I'm not bullying anybody, so don't get your panties in a twist. > > > ed > > (PS I studied Physics at the University of Dayton) > > Put it on your resume.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 10:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bd299e87-77e2-40e1-972d-e056b950a0ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555972 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:13:36 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:51:52 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Physicists, like me, are trained to not make that mistake. > > > I am a physicist. [] > > > > Hmm. > > > > You are not the only Physicist here. > > Who cares. > Well, you argument seems to boil down to "I'm a Physicist so what I say is right." But several Physicists have given you several arguments for why you are wrong. > > Rather than trying to > > bully with insults through this argument, try to take some > > time and publish a paper on this idea. See if it can pass > > peer review muster. > > Convection Versus Plasma > https://www.youtube.com[] Youtube is not a peer reviewed journal. I don't follow any youtube videos posts in usenet. You started the discussion here, so make your argument here. So far I have not been impressed with your comments, but you have a forum here to get your point out if you really have one. [snipped other youtube links] > > > The fact is water can exist as gas, liquid, and solid > > in equilibrium. (Have you never tested the triple point > > of water?) > > Triple point involves vapor (evaporate, not gas, evaporate > involves liquid H2O suspended between air molecules by > static electric forces), liquid, and solid. > Still following the strategy that if you keep repeating it, Someone might believe it. > > Maybe you really need to go study some Chemistry? > > It's regrettable you can't educate me/us. As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. > > > Anyway, just stop bullying people. That's just a sure way > > to convince others you are wrong. > > I'm not bullying anybody, so don't get your > panties in a twist. I'm not the one twisted up in knots. 8^) > > > ed > > (PS I studied Physics at the University of Dayton) > > Put it on your resume. I do. Going to my class reunion this summer. Dayton has a beautiful campus. And where did you get your degree in Physics? ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 11:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7c2935d2-fa2c-4a40-8e30-ddef0e51031a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556587 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:41:39 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water > but you can't make him drink. I don't recall there being anything left to discuss. Maybe you can help Sergio get his shirt dry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 16:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nanvt9$15ci$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #556603 |
On 2/25/2016 1:31 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:41:39 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water >> but you can't make him drink. > > I don't recall there being anything left to discuss. yep, you're so f*cked, James "tweeker" McGinn. > > Maybe you can help Sergio get his shirt dry. > I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is completely dry. there was no wet spot under the shirt at all. how did the water get out ? No "smoke" came off it at all. did my shirt out-gas ? did the water come out as a gas ? water gas ? Water Vapor ? Humidity ? Cold steam? so How can that happen when you say there is no such thing on earth ? a counter example you refuse to answer ? did you make a mistake ? It blows a HUGE hole in you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 20:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gbsupc-v6c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555957 |
edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:13:01 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> > Humidity is the gaseous moisture and clouds, mist, >> > and fog are the liquid. >> > >> > Grade school children know that. >> >> I am a physicist. Droplets smaller than a photon are invisible >> (except through Schleiren Imaging). I am a physicist. > [] >> >> There is not gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. I am a physicist. >> Gaseous H2O can only exist above the boiling temperature/pressure >> of H2O that has been measured in laboratories, by phiscist. >> Like me.[] >> >> I am a physicist. > [] >> Physicists, like me, are trained to not make that mistake. >> I am a physicist. [] > > Hmm. > > You are not the only Physicist here. Rather than trying to > bully with insults through this argument, try to take some > time and publish a paper on this idea. See if it can pass > peer review muster. He has tried that and got laughed at as his "paper" was all arm waving conjecture and zero experimentation. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 17:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naipqq$psv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555670 |
On 2/22/2016 5:12 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:01:05 PM UTC-8, > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Humidity is the gaseous moisture and clouds, mist, and fog are the >> liquid. >> >> Grade school children know that. > > I am a physicist. no, you are a dumb-ass delusional troll Droplets smaller than a photon are invisible > (except through Schleiren Imaging). I am a physicist. no, you are a dumb-ass delusional troll You are not a > physicist. You are a dumbass with computer. > > There is not gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. I am a physicist. no, you are a dumb-ass delusional troll > Gaseous H2O can only exist above the boiling temperature/pressure of > H2O that has been measured in laboratories, by phiscist. Like me. no, you are a dumb-ass delusional troll > Not by school children. > > I am a physicist. no, you are a dumb-ass delusional troll You are an idiot that draws conclusions based on > anecdote. You have the intellect of a child. You are not a > physicist. You draw conclusions based on lack of evidence to the > contrary. Physicists, like me, no, you are a dumb-ass delusional troll > are trained to not make that mistake. > I am a physicist. no, you are a dumb-ass delusional troll You are a guy with a computer that thinks like a > child. > SEVEN LIES IN A ROW !! congrats you promoted to Climate Wormist Researcher Pupa +
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web