Groups > sci.physics > #554746 > unrolled thread

Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative weight of moist air.

Started by	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
First post	2016-02-19 16:34 -0800
Last post	2016-02-21 18:31 +0000
Articles	20 on this page of 102 — 11 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →

#555158

From	Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date	2016-02-20 18:28 -0600
Message-ID	<nab0ck$1h48$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#554746

On 2/19/2016 6:34 PM, James McGinn wrote:

James McGinn Book Review

Customer Reviews;
1.0 out of 5 stars
insane rambling
By K. Parker on July 3, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to 
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many 
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also 
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective 
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that 
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on 
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense 
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even 
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.


1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of time, a non-funny joke
By hunter on July 16, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density, 
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses 
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves 
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading 
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive 
self publishing.

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

#555166

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-21 01:10 +0000
Message-ID	<tcfnpc-cah.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#554746

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Why do you think that is?

I think another of your delusions is that only meteorologists have an
interest in and use the comparative weight of moist air when that is
actually far from the truth.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555167

From	Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 17:29 -0800
Message-ID	<39a52c52-fc96-4740-ab6e-5d70eebdbdbc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555166

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Why do you think that is?
> 
> I think another of your delusions is that only meteorologists have an
> interest in and use the comparative weight of moist air when that is
> actually far from the truth.

And your continual delusion is that anecdotal opinions about what other people think evidence.

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

#555173

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-21 02:22 +0000
Message-ID	<cjjnpc-voh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#555167

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Why do you think that is?
>> 
>> I think another of your delusions is that only meteorologists have an
>> interest in and use the comparative weight of moist air when that is
>> actually far from the truth.
> 
> And your continual delusion is that anecdotal opinions about what other people think evidence.  

Delusionals dismiss all facts that threaten their delusions with hostility
and misdirection.

Ever heard of aviation?

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555175

From	Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 18:53 -0800
Message-ID	<e932bd7c-c90e-4314-9f66-dd0a78271ec3@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555173

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:31:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > Why do you think that is?
> >> 
> >> I think another of your delusions is that only meteorologists have an
> >> interest in and use the comparative weight of moist air when that is
> >> actually far from the truth.
> > 
> > And your continual delusion is that anecdotal opinions about what other people think evidence.  
> 
> Delusionals dismiss all facts that threaten their delusions with hostility
> and misdirection.

Anecdote is fact. It's anecdote.  

> 
> Ever heard of aviation?

More anecdote.  I've already discussed this. Moisture absorbs energy.  Reduction of lift has nothing to do with moist air being thinner.  Anecdote is the stuff of fools.

You've yet to say anything that contradicts the subject header.  And I know you never will.  Meteorology is a cult that panders to human desire to believe the simple and the obvious.  

You can't produce any real evidence because it doesn't exist.

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

#555188

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-21 06:03 +0000
Message-ID	<uh0opc-21j.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#555175

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:31:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 5:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > Why do you think that is?
>> >> 
>> >> I think another of your delusions is that only meteorologists have an
>> >> interest in and use the comparative weight of moist air when that is
>> >> actually far from the truth.
>> > 
>> > And your continual delusion is that anecdotal opinions about what other people think evidence.  
>> 
>> Delusionals dismiss all facts that threaten their delusions with hostility
>> and misdirection.
> 
> Anecdote is fact. It's anecdote.  
> 
>> 
>> Ever heard of aviation?
> 
> More anecdote.  I've already discussed this. Moisture absorbs energy.  Reduction of lift has nothing to do with moist air being thinner.  Anecdote is the stuff of fools.
> 
> You've yet to say anything that contradicts the subject header.  And I know you never will.  Meteorology is a cult that panders to human desire to believe the simple and the obvious.  
> 
> You can't produce any real evidence because it doesn't exist. 

Yet more delusional denial of reality.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555204

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 01:16 -0800
Message-ID	<12874080-4950-4974-9a30-84ffa233b473@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555188

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 10:31:05 PM UTC-8, 

> > You can't produce any real evidence because it doesn't exist. 
> 
> Yet more delusional denial of reality.

You don't have any evidence.  Just belief.   

Just faith in what you don't understand.

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

#555267

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-21 18:25 +0000
Message-ID	<e2cppc-bjn.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#555204

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 10:31:05 PM UTC-8, 
> 
>> > You can't produce any real evidence because it doesn't exist. 
>> 
>> Yet more delusional denial of reality.
> 
> You don't have any evidence.  Just belief.   

Nope, the world is full of books, charts, and web sites, all of which
say the same thing.

You just refuse to look at the obvious.

That it a major symptom of delusion.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555272

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 10:35 -0800
Message-ID	<248e79d6-e072-4875-940c-17733a6bd969@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555267

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 10:31:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Nope, the world is full of books, charts, and web sites, all of which
> say the same thing.

There is a big difference between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence.  You've presented a lot of the former and none of the latter. 

Keep trying though.

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

#555284

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-21 19:29 +0000
Message-ID	<5pfppc-g1o.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#555272

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 10:31:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> Nope, the world is full of books, charts, and web sites, all of which
>> say the same thing.
> 
> There is a big difference between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence.

Yep, anecdotal evidence is all you have presented while empirical evidence
can be found in text books along with how to obtain such evidence on
one's own.

We'll just add the word "anecdotal" to the growing list of words you
do not understand.

Here is a big clue for you; when the same experiments can be performed
all over the world by unrelated people and the results are alwasy
identical, that is NOT anecdotal.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555294

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 11:57 -0800
Message-ID	<4c3e9b19-f3d9-469e-9ec4-5cdcc566dd9e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555284

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 11:31:12 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> empirical evidence
> can be found in text books

If this was the case you would have already made an argument to this effect and the discussion would be over.

> Here is a big clue for you; when the same experiments can be performed
> all over the world by unrelated people 

Reproducibility is one part of a valid experiment.

Your problem is you don't know the difference between anecdotal evidence and a controlled experiment.  

Keep trying.

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

#555177

From	Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 19:07 -0800
Message-ID	<95570c1a-5713-4ab2-938b-4811f7a77c48@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555173

It's not like any of you idiots even understand the convection model.  It's just a simple model that appeal to your simple notions.  None of you idiots will even make the slightest effort to scrutinize it.  Until I brought it up none of your even thought to question it.  You are all brain dead believers.  Sheep.

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

#555189

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-21 06:04 +0000
Message-ID	<ek0opc-21j.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#555177

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It's not like any of you idiots even understand the convection model.  It's just a simple model that appeal to your simple notions.  None of you idiots will even make the slightest effort to scrutinize it.  Until I brought it up none of your even thought to question it.  You are all brain dead believers.  Sheep.

Convection can be observed with Schlieren imaging.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555205

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 01:19 -0800
Message-ID	<76ae04e0-dd18-4bfa-a8b8-88b6a9903423@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555189

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 10:31:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > It's not like any of you idiots even understand the convection model.  It's just a simple model that appeal to your simple notions.  None of you idiots will even make the slightest effort to scrutinize it.  Until I brought it up none of your even thought to question it.  You are all brain dead believers.  Sheep.
> 
> Convection can be observed with Schlieren imaging.

A perfectly inane argument.

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

#555268

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-21 18:29 +0000
Message-ID	<7acppc-bjn.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#555205

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 10:31:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > It's not like any of you idiots even understand the convection model.  It's just a simple model that appeal to your simple notions.  None of you idiots will even make the slightest effort to scrutinize it.  Until I brought it up none of your even thought to question it.  You are all brain dead believers.  Sheep.
>> 
>> Convection can be observed with Schlieren imaging.
> 
> A perfectly inane argument.  

Convection, evaporation, and sublimation can all be observed with
Schlieren imaging.

It is so simple to do that it is a rather common science fair project
for children.

When observed, it acts exactly like all the text books on the planet
describe.

It is your delusions that cause you to reject reality.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555274

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 10:36 -0800
Message-ID	<a1161e3b-f784-422c-bc98-f477934da7a6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555268

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 10:31:07 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Convection, evaporation, and sublimation can all be observed with
> Schlieren imaging.

Repetition is just reinforcing your inanity.

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

#555289

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-21 19:36 +0000
Message-ID	<p6gppc-g1o.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#555274

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 10:31:07 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> Convection, evaporation, and sublimation can all be observed with
>> Schlieren imaging.
> 
> Repetition is just reinforcing your inanity.

That you can not accept the fact that convection, evaporation, and
sublimation can all be observed with Schlieren imaging and that it has
been done by many people is a symptom of you delusions.

I would point you to serveral sources of information on how to make such
observations yourself, but because of your delusions and refusal to accept
facts, you would just close your eyes and refuse to look even if someone
built the experiment for you.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555295

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 12:00 -0800
Message-ID	<dc315099-0a7c-4811-90b1-71a85c6d99ae@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555289

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 11:46:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> That you can not accept the fact that convection, evaporation, and
> sublimation can all be observed with Schlieren imaging 

Right.  This claim is inane.  

Keep trying.


and that it has
> been done by many people is a symptom of you delusions.
> 
> I would point you to serveral sources of information on how to make such
> observations

I don't dispute the observations, you retard.

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

#555183

From	Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 21:05 -0800
Message-ID	<c0a90507-c9dd-47fd-b114-01693c23d428@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555173

All of this desperation over 1% difference in weight:

Convection Versus Plasma 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

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

#555190

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-21 06:05 +0000
Message-ID	<il0opc-21j.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#555183

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> All of this desperation over 1% difference in weight:

The only desperation is the delusional trying to avoid facing reality.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →

csiph-web

Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative weight of moist air.

Contents

#555158

#555166

#555167

#555173

#555175

#555188

#555204

#555267

#555272

#555284

#555294

#555177

#555189

#555205

#555268

#555274

#555289

#555295

#555183

#555190