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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #651588

Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:99d53837-6063-45ca-8477-8eab79f0517d@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:50:04 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Hmm. Well, there's the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O
>>> at atmospheric pressures is much higher than is available in the
>>> atmosphere.  That seems like pretty good evidence to me.

>> So you admit you're still confused as regards the vaporization process
>> of water. The internet contains a plethora of information to relieve
>> you of your confusion,

> So, uh, you have a plethora of information.

All of which utterly destroys your kooky little conspiracy theory,
Jim.

> And, apparently, none of confirms your assertions.

Bullshit, Jim. It all confirms it. Your inability or refusal to grasp
that reality is no one's fault but your own.

> What you have pointed to is indicative of a group delusion,
> not unlike the notion that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. 
> You have a belief supported by consensus.

It is supported by experimental empirically derived data obtained from
2517 peer-reviewed studies, Jim. Conversely, your kooky theory has the
sum total of ZERO corroborating peer-reviewed studies, cannot pass the
peer-review process itself, and indeed cannot even get placed on a
pre-print server.

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.

> You don't have a fact supported by empirical evidence.  

Except for those 2517 studies, all presenting data empirically
derived, Jim. You can backpedal and deny all you want, but your kooky
theory is destroyed. I've shown you lack the requisite knowledge to
even form a coherent theory that reflects reality. Accept that fact.

>>> ever been detected in the laboratory?  Or does it only exist up
>>> high in the atmosphere where nobody can measure it?  
>>> 
>>> I wonder why that would be?  Hmm.

>> That you continue to demonstrate your lack of comprehension of
>> physical processes is no one's fault but your own, Jim. 

> Is that a yes or a no?

That is a "you're far too stupid to understand whether it is a yes or
no", Jim.

>>>> Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor
>>>> pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to
>>>> atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor
>>>> cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is
>>>> equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization
>>>> becomes a volume phenomena.

>>> Do you have a reference for all of this?

>> Already provided, Jim, and you snipped it out 

> I snip anything that is not defnitive.  Do you have anything
> definitive?  Or should we just take your word on all of this?

You mean beside all that definitive data which definitively destroyed
your kooky little conspiracy theory, Jim? Why do you snip out that
which proves your theory wrong, rather than try to refute it, Jim? Is
it because you know you cannot?

>>> It seems rather speculative.  Or am I expected to take your, uh,
>>> expert opinion on this?

>> Well, that's your problem in a nutshell, isn't it, Jim?

> Apparently.

No "apparently" about it, Jim. You have a mental problem that has led
you to construct your kooky little conspiracy theory, despite lacking
the requisite knowledge to ever construct a theory that reflects
reality. I'd tell you to educate yourself, but your affliction with
Dunning-Kruger means you really have nowhere to turn for knowledge
that you would accept as reality... hence your own echo-chamber
delusions are all you have, Jim.

>> You take *no* expert opinion

> Yes, well, I'm a physicist.  So that is a part of my training.  

No, no you're not. You're a kooktard with an inadequate education
pretending that he's a physicist. Which universities did you attend,
and which degrees did you earn, Jim?

> Did you know that the results of google searches aren't considered
> experimental evidence by real scientists, like me?

Then it's a good thing I've provided no Google search results, Jim.
I've provided peer-reviewed studies which utterly destroyed your kooky
conspiracy theory because you're too stupid to construct a theory that
reflects reality.

>>> Nothing I see here indicates the covalent bond shortening.  So
>>> I can't figure out what your point is.

>> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
>> "The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
>> orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-路路路路OH2) both weaken the
>> covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it )

> LOL.  It's an O-H bond being lengthened, dumbass.  Covalent bonds
> aren't being lengthened.

Holy shit, James McGinn thinks covalent bonds don't change length!

What does it say above, Jim? "both weaken the covalent O-H bond (so
lengthening it)". Yet again, you prove you're a moron who is far too
stupid and uneducated to ever construct a theory which reflects
reality... hence you've constructed your kooky little discredited
conspiracy theory instead.

>> Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
>> opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim.

> Surreal.  
> 
> Do you feed yourself?

And yet again James McGinn the uneducated oaf reiterates that he has
no background education in chemical or physical sciences. Does it hurt
your feelings that you're inadequate as compared to even a first-year
chemistry major, Jim?

>>>>  That's why, when using high
>>>> frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
>>>> frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
>>>> bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
>>>> bonds.

>>> You are misreading something.  I don't know what.
>>> 
>>> You aren't making any sense.  Sorry.

>> That reality doesn't make any sense to you is part and parcel of your
>> displayed

> That's funny.  Because I'm an expert on this subject.  

No, you're a kooktard with a discredited conspiracy theory and a
raging case of Dunning-Kruger, desperately and pathetically attempting
an appeal to authority fallacy whilst simultaneously attempting to
establish yourself as that authority... but you're not an authority,
Jim. You're a delusional kook.

>> Now, get to refuting all that peer-reviewed data 

> You/we don't refute data, dumbass.  

Oh, then you admit you cannot refute the peer-reviewed studies, and
the data contained therein, which utterly destroy your kooky little
discredited conspiracy theory. Well, now we're making progress, Jim.
Now scrap your kooky little conspiracy theory and try again.

>> Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
>> electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is
>> the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you
>> fucking *moron*?

> Might you be so kind as to explain to us how you came to this
> amazing realization?  Are you going to write a paper on it?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

<http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/36_eneg/electroneg.html>
<http://www.webelements.com/nitrogen/electronegativity.html>

O2 is electronegative, Jim, as is N2, the two largest constituents of
our atmosphere. They accept those electrons at the water surface,
helped by thermal kinetic energy random motion giving those molecules
enough of a kick to leave the bulk water, thereby stripping water away
from the surface in a process known as evaporation, a process you
continue to demonstrate that you cannot fathom.

Thus, at temperatures below the boiling point, the thermal kinetic
energy is barely sufficient to evaporate those molecules of water
except for the contributing factor of molecular attraction between the
surface water molecules and the atmosphere. The opposite process also
occurs, diffusion of the atmosphere into the water. If this were not
the case, fish, for one example, would all suffocate.

Given that the water molecule has only 62% the molar weight of bulk
air for a given molar volume, once it's stripped from the water
surface, its buoyancy will naturally cause it to rise until
temperature in the atmosphere is low enough that condensation can
occur, whereupon the ratio of the water cluster's downward facing
surface area:mass is sufficient to allow it to fall back to earth
against the combined effects of that lower molar weight and air
updraft speed.

That condensation process, BTW, is how water augurs heat out of our
atmosphere... the latent heat of condensation is emitted in the
infrared, at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, which allows
that heat nearly unhindered passage out to the 2.725 K of space.

I've already proven via two peer-reviewed sources that monomolecular
water exists in the atmosphere, Jim. Why do you continue to deny
reality?

>> Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma 
>> existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from 
>> that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well 
>> impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning 
>> strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never 
>> stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near 
>> clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who 
>> knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, 
>> apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled 
>> you.

> Perfectly.

Apparently you don't, Jim.

>> Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, 
>> just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. 
>> That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.

> Proof?

I've seen no proof from you that plasma *does* exist anywhere in our
atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, Jim. Because you *have* no
proof... and a large corpus of evidence that you're a blathering moron
for even suggesting such a thing.

Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere exists so high
above the planet's surface is because it takes a lot of energy to
generate and sustain a plasma?

Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere has plasma is
because at that altitude, the predominant species is hydrogen ions,
not oxygen and nitrogen, said hydrogen ions *required* for the plasma
to form?

Do you not understand that the atmospheric reflection and absorption
of sunlight as it descends through the atmosphere means the
troposphere doesn't have the solar flux *nor* the hydrogen ions
necessary to generate plasma?

Do you not understand that clouds top out at the tropopause, and
therefore the *only* place you can claim there exists plasma for your
kooky conspiracy theory to work is in the troposphere?

Do you not understand that in order for any degree of water ionization
and thus plasma from water to occur, it requires a minimum of 12 eV to
ionize that water, Jim?

Do you not know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of
103.32 nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic
ultraviolet light, nearly in the x-ray range.

And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of
plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere
is plasma.

Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through 
the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less
energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.

In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so
strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, plasma
*cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of
atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those
wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.

Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the
troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting
of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because
he took an elective Basic Meteorology course once, when really you're
just a delusional kooktard?

So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky
conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

Back to alt.usenet.kooks | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:07 +0100
  Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 08:47 +0100
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-08 03:05 -0500
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 16:37 +0100
      Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 20:00 +0100
        Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 08:54 +0100
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 18:40 +0100
      Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 06:09 +0100
        Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:23 +0100
          Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:14 +0100
  Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland madeforzyngagames@yahoo.com - 2016-03-09 15:35 -0800

csiph-web