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

Groups > sci.physics > #554801 > unrolled thread

So, uh, what's the problem, fellas?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 18:41 -0800
    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-19 21:16 -0600
    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 22:12 -0600
      Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 20:36 -0800
        Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-19 23:35 -0600
    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 04:48 +0000
      Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 21:48 -0800
        Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 07:14 +0000
          Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 07:28 -0800
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:10 -0800
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-20 11:15 -0600
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:39 -0800
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 19:27 +0000
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-20 14:31 -0600
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 19:23 +0000
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 11:39 -0800
                Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 13:47 -0600
          Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:09 -0800
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-20 11:19 -0600
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:43 -0800
                Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 19:30 +0000
                Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-20 13:39 -0600
                  Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 12:09 -0800
                    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-20 14:32 -0600
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 19:29 +0000
          Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:31 -0800
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? dm <pippinese@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:22 -0800
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:44 -0800
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 19:33 +0000
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 01:23 -0800
                Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 07:57 -0600
                  Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:20 -0800
                    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:37 +0000
      Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 22:57 -0800
        Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-20 19:34 +0000
          Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 01:24 -0800
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 19:47 -0800
            Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 04:49 +0000
              Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 21:09 -0800
                Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 05:58 +0000
                  Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 22:53 -0800
                    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 10:07 -0600
                    Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 19:24 +0000
                      Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:40 -0800
                        Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:28 +0000
                      Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:23 -0800
                        Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 20:39 +0000
                  Re: So, uh, what's the problem, fellas? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 06:32 -0800
                    fella said, "pi meteorologists walk into a noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:45 -0800

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

#555017

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> 
>> plasma is ions, free ions do not 
> 
> You are slow on the uptake.  The forces associated with ionic bonds and the forces associated with hydrogen bonds are both electromagnetic forces.  

And ice cream has no bones.

> Sheep can't think outside the box.  

Delusionals are funny.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555029

On 2/20/2016 11:43 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>> plasma is ions, free ions do not
>
>   The forces associated with ionic bonds
> and the forces associated with hydrogen bonds are both
> electromagnetic forces.

try focusing your eyes on the text and try to read the entire sentance.

is a hydrogen bond and ionic bond ?

>
> Sheep can't think outside the box.
>

agree, but your box is too small, and why do you remain a sheep that 
refuses to read books, and promote your own bullshit?

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

#555043

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:40:20 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> is a hydrogen bond and ionic bond ?

So, you nitwits only have a semantic dispute.  Not a substantive dispute, Right?

Nitwits never stop being nitwits.

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

#555075

On 2/20/2016 2:09 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:40:20 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>> is a hydrogen bond and ionic bond ?
>


          answer the question !

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

#555016

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, > > You presented no facts, you evasive twit.
>> 
>> On the contrary, I have presented several:
>> 
>> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Not a fact.

Yes, it is a fact, but like all delusionals you refuse to look at simple facts.
> 
>> 
>> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
>> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
>> always the same.
> 
> Irrelevant. 

Quit relevant and precisely the point in question, but like all
delusionals you refuse to look at simple facts.

> You are a simpleton.

You are delusional.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#554956

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, 

> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
> always the same.

This shows how dumb you are.  Let me clue you in but you have figure it out from there.  Measuring air's density does not involve Avogadro's law. Measuring weight does.  

You can't derive weight from density (using Avogadro) unless you know cluster/droplet size and volume.  If you assume 18 for H2O you are an idiot.

Are you new to science?

Science involves facts, not imagination.

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

#554979

> You can't derive weight from density (using Avogadro) unless you know cluster/droplet size and volume.  If you assume 18 for H2O you are an idiot.

When I said the rabbit hole is deep in this one, I was not exaggerating.  He does not understand (or is unwilling or unable to accept) that weight/mass/density are all related (I guess it takes math to establish the relationship and he does not trust math).  Since weight on its own is almost a meaningless number when one is talking about fluids (unless one controls for volume), rational people refer to density. But he is not a rational person.

So trying to hold any sort of meaningful discussion with him on the subject is pretty pointless. 

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

#554992

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 10:22:40 AM UTC-8, dm wrote:
> > You can't derive weight from density (using Avogadro) unless you know cluster/droplet size and volume.  If you assume 18 for H2O you are an idiot.
> 
> When I said the rabbit hole is deep in this one, I was not exaggerating.  He does not understand (or is unwilling or unable to accept) that weight/mass/density are all related (I guess it takes math to establish the relationship and he does not trust math).  Since weight on its own is almost a meaningless number when one is talking about fluids (unless one controls for volume), rational people refer to density. But he is not a rational person.
> 
> So trying to hold any sort of meaningful discussion with him on the subject is pretty pointless.

Pseudoscientists always have excuses as to why the rules of science don't apply to what they believe.  You hear the same thing over and over again, "it is well undestood."  "everybody knows this."

Note the poor math skills demonstrated by DM here.  Any idiot knows the difference between density and weight. They are two different things.  You CANNOT use them interchangeably.  

Pseudoscientists always have excuses as to why the rules of science don't apply to what they believe.

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

#555033

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, 
> 
>> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
>> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
>> always the same.
> 
> This shows how dumb you are.  Let me clue you in but you have figure it out from there.  Measuring air's density does not involve Avogadro's law. Measuring weight does.  
> 
> You can't derive weight from density (using Avogadro) unless you know cluster/droplet size and volume.  If you assume 18 for H2O you are an idiot.
> 
> Are you new to science?
> 
> Science involves facts, not imagination.

And the fact is that experiments to measure the density of air under
various conditions are commonly done in both high school and college
courses; the results are always the same.

Measuring weight does not involve Avogadro, it involves a scale.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555207

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:46:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, 
> > 
> >> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
> >> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
> >> always the same.
> > 
> > This shows how dumb you are.  Let me clue you in but you have figure it out from there.  Measuring air's density does not involve Avogadro's law. Measuring weight does.  
> > 
> > You can't derive weight from density (using Avogadro) unless you know cluster/droplet size and volume.  If you assume 18 for H2O you are an idiot.
> > 
> > Are you new to science?
> > 
> > Science involves facts, not imagination.
> 
> And the fact is that experiments to measure the density of air under
> various conditions are commonly done in both high school and college
> courses; the results are always the same.

Yeah, so?

> 
> Measuring weight does not involve Avogadro, it involves a scale.

Present the data.  Or admit you are lieing.

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

#557836

On 2/21/2016 3:23 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:46:05 AM UTC-8,
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8,
>>>
>>>> Experiments to measure the density of air under various
>>>> conditions are commonly done in both high school and college
>>>> courses; the results are always the same.

>>> This shows how dumb you are.  Let me clue you in but you have
>>> figure it out from there.  Measuring air's density does not
>>> involve Avogadro's law. Measuring weight does.

>>> You can't derive weight from density (using Avogadro) unless you
>>> know cluster/droplet size and volume.  If you assume 18 for H2O
>>> you are an idiot.

>>> Are you new to science?
>>>
>>> Science involves facts, not imagination.
>>
>> And the fact is that experiments to measure the density of air
>> under various conditions are commonly done in both high school and
>> college courses; the results are always the same.
>
> Yeah, so?

   so go take a high school chemistry course, it would help you greatly.

>
>>
>> Measuring weight does not involve Avogadro, it involves a scale.
>
> Present the data.  Or admit you are lieing.

one measure weight on a scale, like your bathroom scale.

you can go to wallmart, find the bathroom section, and look at a scale
there, even weigh yourself.

Then ask yourself, "how does the scale do that?"

Avogadro on the other hand is a very special number that moles use in
their work with atoms and molecules like H2O.

this is extremely obvious stuff, just wiki  or Google it or have your
mom drop you off at the library.

  your cluster or droplet thing is a bridge from liquid to gas, already 
  addressed in the literature in detail.

study up on "Avogadro" and "mole", you stale.

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

#558007

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 5:58:27 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 2/21/2016 3:23 AM, James McGinn wrote:

> Avogadro on the other hand is a very special number that moles use in
> their work with atoms and molecules like H2O.

Go ahead.  I'm ready.  Knock yourself out.

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

#558029

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 5:58:27 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 2/21/2016 3:23 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> Avogadro on the other hand is a very special number that moles use in
>> their work with atoms and molecules like H2O.
> 
> Go ahead.  I'm ready.  Knock yourself out.

Ready for what, to provide some actual proof your theory is not bat shit
crazy?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#554856

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > I wonder what the problem is.
> 
> Explained here:

LOL. You simpletons can't formulate an argument.  So now you are mad at me.  

Hey.  Don't blame me.  I didn't make reality complex.  And it's not my fault you are dumb.

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

#555034

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> > I wonder what the problem is.
>> 
>> Explained here:
> 
> LOL. You simpletons can't formulate an argument.  So now you are mad at me.  

No one is mad at you; you are mad as in delusional.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555209

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> >> > I wonder what the problem is.
> >> 
> >> Explained here:
> > 
> > LOL. You simpletons can't formulate an argument.  So now you are mad at me.  
> 
> No one is mad at you; you are mad as in delusional.

Why, because I dispute what you can't substantiate?

Doesn't that make you delusional?

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

#557744

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 1:25:15 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > > 
> > >> > I wonder what the problem is.
> > >> 
> > >> Explained here:
> > > 
> > > LOL. You simpletons can't formulate an argument.  So now you are mad at me.  
> > 
> > No one is mad at you; you are mad as in delusional.
> 
> Why, because I dispute what you can't substantiate?
> 
> 
Doesn't that make you delusional?

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

#557763

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > 
>> >> > I wonder what the problem is.
>> >> 
>> >> Explained here:
>> > 
>> > LOL. You simpletons can't formulate an argument.  So now you are mad at me.  
>> 
>> No one is mad at you; you are mad as in delusional.
> 
> Why, because I dispute what you can't substantiate?

Nope, because you dispute hundreds of years of research by thousands
of people all of which come to a conclusion diametrically opposite
to your arm waving ravings.

> Doesn't that make you delusional?

I proposed several experiments that would show you being wrong, and you
arm waved them away with yet more nonsens.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557765

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:01:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > Why, because I dispute what you can't substantiate?
> 
> Nope, because you dispute hundreds of years of research by thousands
> of people all of which come to a conclusion diametrically opposite
> to your arm waving ravings.

I don't know what you are talking about, honestly.  

> > Doesn't that make you delusional?
> 
> I proposed several experiments that would show you being wrong, and you
> arm waved them away with yet more nonsens.

My recollection is that I addressed your suggestions.  

Let us know if you figure out what your point is.

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

#557771

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:01:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> > Why, because I dispute what you can't substantiate?
>> 
>> Nope, because you dispute hundreds of years of research by thousands
>> of people all of which come to a conclusion diametrically opposite
>> to your arm waving ravings.
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about, honestly.  

Then you are badly delusional.

Everything you have posted is diametrically opposite to what has been
shown to be true with reproducible experiments by thousands of people
over hundreds of years.

Everything; the densities of air at various temperatures and moisture
contents, your ravings about convection, your ravings about plasma
in the lower atmosphere, your ravings about no gaseous H2O below the
boiling point, everything.

>> > Doesn't that make you delusional?
>> 
>> I proposed several experiments that would show you being wrong, and you
>> arm waved them away with yet more nonsens.
> 
> My recollection is that I addressed your suggestions.  

Nope, you just posted yet more arm waving nonsense.
 
> Let us know if you figure out what your point is.

My point is either you are a megatroll or you have some very serious
delusions that should be addressed by a mental health professional.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web