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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #653146

Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box

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:dfcca7c9-892f-42f3-9f8a-a8001fcf139d@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:48:35 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in 
>> <news:e38453cf-c113-47cb-a243-8b2906fdc188@googlegroups.com> did 
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:45:53 PM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> James McGinn, in
>>>> <news:6aa853db-6314-470f-ba92-3d4a818e1d9f@googlegroups.com> did
>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:37:45 AM UTC-7,
>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that 
>>>>> NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent 
>>>>> heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud 
>>>>> formation? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?" 

>>>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is *so* retarded he not only
>>>> doesn't know that when water condenses it gives off a specific band of
>>>> wavelength photons, but he apparently cannot Google for it... that's
>>>> likely a combination of his being retarded and so afflicted with
>>>> Dunning-Kruger that he doesn't dare use Google to search for any
>>>> information for fear he'll find proof of his delusional state, thereby
>>>> inducing his head to implode.. Lord knows, that black hole Jim calls a
>>>> brain is already stressing his cranium to its structural limits.
>>>> 
>>>> <snicker>

>>> Do you concede you were unable to confirm the 2,500,000 J/kg?
>>> 
>>> A simple yes or no will suffice.

>> *You* made the claim that latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist, 
>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA... the onus is upon you and 
>> you alone to prove your claim.
>> 
>> Do you concede that you were unable to disprove the 2,500,000 J/kg 
>> value, James?
>> 
>> A simple yes or no will suffice.

> I'll take that as a yes.

Good of you to concede that you were unable to disprove that latent
heat exists, James. Your admission means the destruction of your
entire kooky 'theory'.

Now, on to those questions you keep ducking, which highlight the
logical inconsistencies in your kooky 'theory' which is really nothing
more than the mad ramblings of a moron, James:

============================================================
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel hundreds of miles away from
the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and
know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather
than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is
your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your k'laming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further k'laming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in order that your claims have even a semblance
of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

Thread

Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 05:48 +0100
  Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 05:05 +0100
    Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 08:44 +0100
      Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 18:27 +0100
        Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 04:35 +0100
          Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 06:38 +0100
            Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 17:23 +0100

csiph-web