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 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 13:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naiatp$t3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555918 |
On 2/23/2016 12:24 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:05:07 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> The same experiment done by thousands of people with the exact same >> results is not an anecdote, it is evidence. > > So, let me get this straight, all thousands of them never wrote a paper on this? you can't get it stright, you are delusional and thousands have written papers on "moist air" "humidity", "Water vapor", you intentionally will not look for them, as it is not part of your delusion. > >> All the data and all the experiments are in an untold number of books > > And you can't find one? > no, *you* can't find one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 20:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2uqupc-v6c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555918 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:05:07 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> The same experiment done by thousands of people with the exact same >> results is not an anecdote, it is evidence. > > So, let me get this straight, all thousands of them never wrote a paper on this? There are thousands of papers and thousands of books, but you refuse to read any of them. >> All the data and all the experiments are in an untold number of books > > And you can't find one? I have already given you one experiment you can do yourself but you refuse to even concider it, i.e. Schlieren imaging. Here is another experiment you can do yourself: Take a fixed volume of air (that means you put ambient air into a container and close it) and monitor the pressure (that means put a pressure guage on the container) while you slowly increase the temperature (that means make the container hotter very slowly so the air inside has time to heat up). If the H2O in the air in the container is gaseous, the pressure will smoothly increase as the temperature in increased. If the H2O in the air in the container is liquid, the pressure will smoothly increase as the temperature in increased until the temperature reaches the boiling point, at which point there will be a discontinuance (that means sharp and sudden) increase in pressure, after which the pressure will continue to increase smoothly. Guess which happens. Is this an ananecdote? No, it is an experiment. Is this reproducible? Yes, you will get the same result no matter how many times you do it or who does it. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 11:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b331cb6a-5be4-417b-bea5-c9db2246016b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555746 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:22:00 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: [] > > For a real physicist it doesn't matter what "everybody" says. > It matters what the evidence says. Anecdote doesn't count. Hmm. Got a promotion? Which college offers degrees in Real Physics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 11:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6a1e366e-1603-4a24-90e1-8b7afd9b091b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555662 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 5:48:57 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > The data that, supposedly, substantiates it doesn't involve direct > > >> > measurement but derivations base on indirect data. > > >> > > >> Convection, evaporation, and sublimation can all be directly observed > > >> with Schlieren imaging. > > > > > > Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? > > > > So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling > > point > > True but irrelevant. We're discussing H2O in the atmosphere at ambient temperatures/pressures. Right? > > > and the relative densities of gaseous H2O and air at different > > temperatures, which are different than your claims. > > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? > > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think > that indicates? Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? Followed by your own retort: > (Answer this question you fucking evasive jackass.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 11:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3feda807-e041-4a5f-bf95-32e530750dba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555948 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? > > > > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think > > that indicates? > > Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? Yes. Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 20:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <visupc-v6c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555955 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? >> > >> > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think >> > that indicates? >> >> Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? > > Yes. Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. Where is your reproducible experiment that shows this? No, not arm waving or babbling about steam tables, a reproducible experiment. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 12:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <beb722ff-9fb5-428f-a53a-9708cc64f65e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555994 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? > >> > > >> > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think > >> > that indicates? > >> > >> Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? > > > > Yes. Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. > Where is your reproducible experiment that shows this? > > No, not arm waving or babbling about steam tables, a reproducible experiment. In science the onus is on those making extraordinary claims.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 22:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6u17qc-sha.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #557002 |
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> >> > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? >> >> > >> >> > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think >> >> > that indicates? >> >> >> >> Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? >> > >> > Yes. Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. >> Where is your reproducible experiment that shows this? >> >> No, not arm waving or babbling about steam tables, a reproducible experiment. > > In science the onus is on those making extraordinary claims. Seeing as how every scientist that has ever lived says you are the one making extraordinary claims, where is your experiment? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 15:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f246d4d-a9ae-4e0f-9630-0aa0c0309d0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #557054 |
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? > >> >> > > >> >> > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think > >> >> > that indicates? > >> >> > >> >> Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? > >> > > >> > Yes. Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. > >> Where is your reproducible experiment that shows this? > >> > >> No, not arm waving or babbling about steam tables, a reproducible experiment. > > > > In science the onus is on those making extraordinary claims. > > Seeing as how every scientist that has ever lived Consensus is for fools.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 23:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6447qc-3sa.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #557075 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think >> >> >> > that indicates? >> >> >> >> >> >> Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? >> >> > >> >> > Yes. Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. >> >> Where is your reproducible experiment that shows this? >> >> >> >> No, not arm waving or babbling about steam tables, a reproducible experiment. >> > >> > In science the onus is on those making extraordinary claims. >> >> Seeing as how every scientist that has ever lived > > Consensus is for fools. So says the only person on the planet that doesn't believe hundreds of years of scientific inquiry. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 15:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d3ca296-6b1f-4d44-ba00-5fbd37efa0aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #557081 |
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:46:04 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think > >> >> >> > that indicates? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? > >> >> > > >> >> > Yes. Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. > >> >> Where is your reproducible experiment that shows this? > >> >> > >> >> No, not arm waving or babbling about steam tables, a reproducible experiment. > >> > > >> > In science the onus is on those making extraordinary claims. > >> > >> Seeing as how every scientist that has ever lived > > > > Consensus is for fools. > > So says the only person on the planet that doesn't believe hundreds of > years of scientific inquiry. So says a fool who presents consensus arguments in a scientific forum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 00:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l967qc-94b.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #557085 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:46:04 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think >> >> >> >> > that indicates? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yes. Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. >> >> >> Where is your reproducible experiment that shows this? >> >> >> >> >> >> No, not arm waving or babbling about steam tables, a reproducible experiment. >> >> > >> >> > In science the onus is on those making extraordinary claims. >> >> >> >> Seeing as how every scientist that has ever lived >> > >> > Consensus is for fools. >> >> So says the only person on the planet that doesn't believe hundreds of >> years of scientific inquiry. > > So says a fool who presents consensus arguments in a scientific forum. So says a fool that does not understand the difference between "consensus" and "repeatiblity". -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 18:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ea6f40d3-c92a-4316-874b-a9e8e811d2a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #557090 |
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:46:04 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think > >> >> >> >> > that indicates? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Yes. Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. > >> >> >> Where is your reproducible experiment that shows this? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> No, not arm waving or babbling about steam tables, a reproducible experiment. > >> >> > > >> >> > In science the onus is on those making extraordinary claims. > >> >> > >> >> Seeing as how every scientist that has ever lived > >> > > >> > Consensus is for fools. > >> > >> So says the only person on the planet that doesn't believe hundreds of > >> years of scientific inquiry. > > > > So says a fool who presents consensus arguments in a scientific forum. > > So says a fool that does not understand the difference between "consensus" > and "repeatiblity". > > > -- > Jim Pennino Idiocracy - Electrolytes - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 03:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q0j7qc-sac.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #557113 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:46:04 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think >> >> >> >> >> > that indicates? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Yes. Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. >> >> >> >> Where is your reproducible experiment that shows this? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, not arm waving or babbling about steam tables, a reproducible experiment. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In science the onus is on those making extraordinary claims. >> >> >> >> >> >> Seeing as how every scientist that has ever lived >> >> > >> >> > Consensus is for fools. >> >> >> >> So says the only person on the planet that doesn't believe hundreds of >> >> years of scientific inquiry. >> > >> > So says a fool who presents consensus arguments in a scientific forum. >> >> So says a fool that does not understand the difference between "consensus" >> and "repeatiblity". >> >> >> -- >> Jim Pennino > > Idiocracy - Electrolytes - YouTube > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA That movie, much like you, was a box office loser. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 15:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5068c057-925e-4d65-95ec-a48867f37f2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #557075 |
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:28:15 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think > > >> >> > that indicates? > > >> >> > > >> >> Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? > > >> > > > >> > Yes. Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. > > >> Where is your reproducible experiment that shows this? > > >> > > >> No, not arm waving or babbling about steam tables, a reproducible experiment. > > > > > > In science the onus is on those making extraordinary claims. > > > > Seeing as how every scientist that has ever lived > > Consensus is for fools.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 23:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vc2fqc-cl7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #558099 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:28:15 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> > Are you saying moisture in the atmosphere must be gaseous? >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > If you can't/won't answer these questions what do you think >> > >> >> > that indicates? >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Back to you: Are you saying saying moisture in the atmosphere MUST be liquid? >> > >> > >> > >> > Yes. Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. >> > >> Where is your reproducible experiment that shows this? >> > >> >> > >> No, not arm waving or babbling about steam tables, a reproducible experiment. >> > > >> > > In science the onus is on those making extraordinary claims. >> > >> > Seeing as how every scientist that has ever lived >> >> > Consensus is for fools. And once again you show you are bat shit crazy by denigrating repeatable and reproducible experimental evidence while haveing no eperimental evidence of your own at all. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 18:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <4uGdnc13xaFvRknLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #558099 |
On 2/29/16 5:42 PM, James McGinn wrote: > Consensus is for fools. Why? When the observational and experimental data agree with nature, there is nothing wrong with consensus agreeing with the data. -- 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 | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 15:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Qsedndfmz4eXUlHLnZ2dnUU7-X-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #555955 |
On 2/23/16 1:46 PM, James McGinn wrote: > Gaseous H2O is impossible below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O This is the crux of your misunderstanding, James. As I already pointed out spectra shows water as a gas on the atmosphere of the earth, sun and deep space. Do you not trust spectra? Bright LIne Emission Spectrum of Water Vapor (gas) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6WOhYedsAg -- 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 | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 14:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <89cb667a-1191-4f4b-8775-6e4904e912f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #556009 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 1:28:46 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > This is the crux of your misunderstanding, James. As I already > pointed out spectra shows water as a gas on the atmosphere of > the earth, sun and deep space. Do you not trust spectra? It's the underlying assumptions that are the problem. Most people are incapable of distinguishing between empirical evidence and anecdote, especially when the assumptions a layers deep. Obviously, Sam, you have no idea what I mean by this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 21:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <IfmdnRNkQtsPtVDLnZ2dnUU7-VGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #556031 |
On 2/23/16 4:50 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 1:28:46 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> This is the crux of your misunderstanding, James. As I already >> pointed out spectra shows water as a gas on the atmosphere of >> the earth, sun and deep space. Do you not trust spectra? > > It's the underlying assumptions that are the problem. > > Most people are incapable of distinguishing between empirical evidence and anecdote, especially when the assumptions a layers deep. > > Obviously, Sam, you have no idea what I mean by this. > I'm clueless as to how you think, James. The physics, on the other hand is clear. Water evaporates into gas in the earth's atmosphere. -- 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]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web