Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #558873 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-03 07:04 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-05 16:57 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 69 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 07:04 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:22 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 07:31 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:53 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-03 11:58 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:17 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:33 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:38 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:29 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:32 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:24 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:46 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:12 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:19 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-03 10:30 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:35 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:34 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:40 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:45 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-03 20:17 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:41 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 20:53 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:20 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 21:59 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:04 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:43 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:51 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 00:10 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 16:29 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 00:44 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 17:34 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 21:14 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 06:48 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 08:14 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:57 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 21:15 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:27 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 22:01 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 14:18 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 22:47 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:11 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:44 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 19:17 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 04:06 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 21:11 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 06:53 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 06:20 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 18:57 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 08:18 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-03 21:27 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:36 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 22:01 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-03 23:44 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:55 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 16:41 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 01:37 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 17:55 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 02:40 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 18:52 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 04:08 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 16:25 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 14:42 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:05 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:45 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 22:50 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:12 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:48 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:57 -0800
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 12:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <004eb4dd-fee7-44a3-a2ca-8553a69df10c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558981 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> writes: > > >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too > >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit. > > > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James. > > Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, Many are confused by this, not me. where > the different gases in a mixture behave independently of each other. So > water is perfectly happy to be a gas at 20 C It's not a gas, dumbass. It's a vapor. It's still liquid. as long as its partial > pressure is less than 0.34 psi. If you try to increase the partial > pressure of water vapor above that. it will condense into liquid. > Similarly, in a partial vacuum, the boiling point of water at 0.34 psi is > 20 C, not 100 C. The boiling point of a liquid is when the partial > pressure of the liquid (when it's a gas) equals the total pressure. Yeah, so?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <crkmqc-dn3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #558985 |
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too >> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit. >> >> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James. >> >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, > > Many are confused by this, not me. You mean the entire world has been confused for hundreds of years until you alone received a blinding flash of insight? Yeah, sure. Where does one even start to analyze such delusions? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 13:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <719e2a46-0f23-4169-a75e-a2cf8471e846@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558989 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too > >> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit. > >> > >> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James. > >> > >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, > > > > Many are confused by this, not me. > > You mean the entire world has been confused for hundreds of years > until you alone received a blinding flash of insight? Two questions: How many times have you responded with this kind of political and scientifically non-substantive banter? What do you think that indicates about the difference between what you believe and what you understand and you inability to intellectually recognize the difference? Two answers: Many, many times. It shows you have deep, subconscious beliefs and you lack the ability to distinguish between them. IOW, you are an unscientific nitwit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 21:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnomqc-k34.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #558995 |
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too >> >> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit. >> >> >> >> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James. >> >> >> >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, >> > >> > Many are confused by this, not me. >> >> You mean the entire world has been confused for hundreds of years >> until you alone received a blinding flash of insight? > > Two questions: > How many times have you responded with this kind of political and > scientifically non-substantive banter? This assumes that you are not a raving kook in dire need of the help of a mental health professional and also illustrates you have the further delusion that the subject of water and it's phases is somehow political. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 15:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <091c08aa-48ba-4269-87ef-4e9e812ad591@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559009 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> >> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> > >> >> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too > >> >> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit. > >> >> > >> >> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James. > >> >> > >> >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, > >> > > >> > Many are confused by this, not me. > >> > >> You mean the entire world has been confused for hundreds of years > >> until you alone received a blinding flash of insight? > > > > Two questions: > > How many times have you responded with this kind of political and > > scientifically non-substantive banter? > > This assumes that you are not a raving kook in dire need of the help > of a mental health professional and also illustrates you have the > further delusion that the subject of water and it's phases is somehow > political. Why come to a discussion group if you are unable to discuss?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 23:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <epumqc-qo4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559037 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too >> >> >> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, >> >> > >> >> > Many are confused by this, not me. >> >> >> >> You mean the entire world has been confused for hundreds of years >> >> until you alone received a blinding flash of insight? >> > >> > Two questions: >> > How many times have you responded with this kind of political and >> > scientifically non-substantive banter? >> >> This assumes that you are not a raving kook in dire need of the help >> of a mental health professional and also illustrates you have the >> further delusion that the subject of water and it's phases is somehow >> political. > > Why come to a discussion group if you are unable to discuss? Discuss what, something that has been settled for hundreds of years or your delusions? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 15:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0ada5211-fc88-45c5-a625-a097b12f7cd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559051 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Discuss what, something that has been settled for hundreds of years > or your delusions? Then what are you so worried about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 00:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1c0nqc-ut4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559055 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Discuss what, something that has been settled for hundreds of years >> or your delusions? > > Then what are you so worried about? I'm not worried about anything except the possiblity your delusions will get so extreme you will become a threat to the general public. Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 16:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <65bfe282-15b3-4ea2-8b79-8f27a0b2be28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559064 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > I'm not worried about anything except the possiblity your delusions will > get so extreme you will become a threat to the general public. > > Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you? Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere in any way involve pixie dust?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 00:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ac2nqc-e25.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559066 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> I'm not worried about anything except the possiblity your delusions will >> get so extreme you will become a threat to the general public. >> >> Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you? > > Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere Lower in the atmosphere as opposed to what? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 17:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fb2471e3-d4c0-4464-b87b-d6bc4e77e020@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559072 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:46:10 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> I'm not worried about anything except the possiblity your delusions will > >> get so extreme you will become a threat to the general public. > >> > >> Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you? > > > > Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere > > Lower in the atmosphere as opposed to what? Nevermind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 21:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c983e001-a403-40f4-8538-679e41fc7567@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559066 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:29:39 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere in any way involve pixie dust? Tea leaves?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 06:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <93cqqc-uuf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559503 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:29:39 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere Lower than what? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 08:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <4sidnYVJq6VedEfLnZ2dnUU7-UmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #559503 |
On 3/4/16 11:14 PM, James McGinn wrote: > Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere in any way involve pixie dust? As most kids learn in school, boiling point is a function of pressure. It's noticeably different in the mountains as compared to down at sea level. BTW--Are you a homeless person? -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 12:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4570280d-9835-4ec7-b70d-5d2e02a178a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558981 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> writes: > > >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too > >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit. > > > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James. > > Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, where > the different gases in a mixture behave independently of each other. So > water is perfectly happy to be a gas at 20 C as long as its partial > pressure is less than 0.34 psi. If you try to increase the partial > pressure of water vapor above that. it will condense into liquid. > Similarly, in a partial vacuum, the boiling point of water at 0.34 psi is > 20 C, not 100 C. The boiling point of a liquid is when the partial > pressure of the liquid (when it's a gas) equals the total pressure. You can't even construct a coherent argument. What's this got to do with the subject under discussion. What's this got to do with Earth's atmosphere, dumbass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 21:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r4mmqc-tq3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #558988 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too >> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit. >> >> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James. >> >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, where >> the different gases in a mixture behave independently of each other. So >> water is perfectly happy to be a gas at 20 C as long as its partial >> pressure is less than 0.34 psi. If you try to increase the partial >> pressure of water vapor above that. it will condense into liquid. >> Similarly, in a partial vacuum, the boiling point of water at 0.34 psi is >> 20 C, not 100 C. The boiling point of a liquid is when the partial >> pressure of the liquid (when it's a gas) equals the total pressure. > > You can't even construct a coherent argument. If you didn't find the above, coherent, then I would suggest you start with remedial English courses and a good dictionary. > What's this got to do with the subject under discussion. A pointless question if you can't understand simple English even with the help of a dictionary. > What's this got to do with Earth's atmosphere, dumbass. A pointless question if you can't understand simple English even with the help of a dictionary. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 13:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <98b49350-8128-4b2b-8050-74af7eff5d37@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558994 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > If you didn't find the above, coherent, then I would suggest you start > with remedial English courses and a good dictionary. You fuckwits don't have an argument. Nobody is interested in what you dimwits think you see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 22:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tpomqc-k34.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #558999 |
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> If you didn't find the above, coherent, then I would suggest you start >> with remedial English courses and a good dictionary. > > You fuckwits don't have an argument. Science is not an arguement, it is reproducible experiments. Only kooks argue about science. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 14:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c66e61b5-3873-4526-8c20-cd761a68149f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559011 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:01:27 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > You fuckwits don't have an argument. > > Science is not an arguement, it is reproducible experiments. You got nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <thrmqc-nd4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559017 |
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:01:27 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > You fuckwits don't have an argument. >> >> Science is not an arguement, it is reproducible experiments. > > You got nothing. You mean other than hundreds of years of repeatable and reproducible experiments and thousands of text books documenting them as opposed to your arm waving arguements? Only kooks argue about science. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web