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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #651661

Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

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:9ab6efa2-9ef7-471b-9a63-59581d03aef0@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:04:36 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> Oh, good. That established, then you're forced to admit that the much 
>>>> stronger diametrically-opposed covalent bond preferentially shortens 
>>>> and strengthens when one of the H bonds is broken,

> I think you misread a diagram, or something.  H bonds (supposedly) shorten and strengthen.  (Actually they shorten and weaken.)

Bwahahaaa! Now the moron k'lames that as bonds shorten, they *weaken*,
*and* that covalent bonds cannot change length!

Holy shit, Jim. You're no physicist, you're just a kooktard proving
yourself to be utterly clue repellant.

>> The relevance is that your lack of understanding of atomic processes

> You are becoming boring.

Every kook says that when they're losing, Jim. It's so prototypically
'kook' that it's considered major kooksign.

>>>> Because, you fucking moron, the solvent 
>>>> properties of water *depends* 
>>>> upon the hydrogen bonding of water. If 
>>>> the polarity of water varied as 
>>>> you claim, the hydrogen bond strength would vary,

>>> How do you know they don't?  

>> Because it's been measured, Jim.

> Wrong.  It's been estimated based on xrap spectrography.  They are
> too small to measure.  

Wrong. It's been measured, Jim. Do you think the solvent properties of
water require "xrap spectrography" to measure, Jim? Or are you just
desperately spewing whatever blather you think will get you out of
your latest jam, in which you've yet again demonstrated that you know
far too little to ever construct a theory that reflects reality?

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

===========================================================
I'll further note that the polarity of water is not variable. It is
fixed at 1.09 (http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_properties.html).

References:
========================
C-H. Gu, H. Li, R. B. Gandhi and K. Raghavan, Grouping solvents by
statistical analysis of solvent property parameters:implication to
polymorph screening. Int. J. Pharmaceutics 283 (2004) 117-125.

R. S. Varma, Clean chemical synthesis in water, Org. Chem. Highlights
(2007), February.
========================

If water's polarity were variable, its solvent properties would be
variable, as well. It is not, therefore its polarity is not variable,
Jim. Why do you deny reality, Jim?
===========================================================

>> I'll further note that the polarity of water is not variable. It is
>> fixed at 1.09 (http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_properties.html).

> It's not possible to directly measure them.  It's estimated.  

No, it's not, Jim. You're just a backpedaling moron hoping it's
estimated. For the rest of the world, we know the polarity of water is
directly measured.

>> If water's polarity were variable, its solvent properties would be
>> variable, as well. 

> Evidence?

The evidence is that water's solvent properties *depend* upon the
hydrogen bonding, and if the water molecule's polarity changed, it's
bond length (covalent and intermolecular) would change, thus changing
its solvent properties, Jim. The solvent properties of water are a
known quantity, Jim.

>>> I can't figure out what you point is.  Sorry.

>> Your lack of comprehension is no one's fault but your own, Jim.
>> Rectify your stupidity via formal education. Finish high school.

> LOL.  You look things up on the internet, and now you are an expert.

LOL. You take one Basic Meteorology elective class, and now you are a
'physicist'.

>>>> And what, pray tell, causes your purported shift in electron 
>>>> probability distribution about the molecule, Jim?

>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

>> Referring to your own video-based kook blather is not proof,

> That is my hypothesis.  You can't dispute it, right?

I not only disputed it, Jim, I utterly demolished it. Proved you're
discussing a physical impossibility. No plasma in the troposphere, no
kooky conspiracy theory.

>> Jim. Do you not understand the scientific method?
>> 
>> Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
>> process, 

> It's way too advanced. 

Bwahahaaa! It's been rejected and laughed at by every single reviewer,
Jim.

Let's see your peer-review rejection letters, Jim.

>>> What does this prove?

>> It proves that evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule process,

> Birdbrain.

And that's the *best* James McGinn has in defense of his kooky
conspiracy theory, folks.

<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: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 17:39 +0100
  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 02:34 +0800
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I "\"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 13:47 -0500
      Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 03:33 +0800
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:05 +0100
      Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-09 05:39 -0700
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 22:44 +0800
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 08:51 -0800
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 17:21 +0000
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 02:03 +0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 10:13 -0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 18:17 +0000
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 15:50 -0500
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:24 -0800
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:28 -0500
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:37 -0800
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:39 -0500
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I "\"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> - 2016-03-09 12:36 -0500
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 02:06 +0800
  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:54 +0100
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-03-09 08:43 +0000
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:11 +0100
      Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 04:09 +0800
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:12 -0800
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 20:23 +0000
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 20:21 +0000
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:23 -0800
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:59 +0100
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 17:59 +0800
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:21 +0100
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:19 +0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:55 +0100
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 21:58 +0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 10:07 -0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:17 +0100
  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:30 +0100
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:28 +0100

csiph-web