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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #655814

Re: Clear Air Turbulence is called Clear Air Turbulence for good reason

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:f090ba37-26e4-4cb7-859c-19e730eced00@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> How do your "jet stream vortices" travel hundreds of miles away
>>>> from the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar,
>>>> 
>>>> If these jet stream-originated tendrils are reaching hundreds of
>>>> miles away from the edge of the jet stream to drop down as tornadoes,
>>>> why can't we detect them long before they touch down via satellite
>>>> or Doppler radar, and thus have hours of warning prior to tornadic
>>>> activity, James?

>>> Being comprised of polymers of H2O (spinning droplets that have elongated)

>> Wrong. That's your supposition, pulled straight from your ass, Jim,
>> and wholly unsupported by any research of any sort.

> Right.  It's theoretical.  Do you have a problem with that? 

It's not "theoretical", Jim. A theory is backed up with evidence. Your
"plasma not-a-plasma" doesn't exist. You made it up. Pulled it
straight from your ass. It's delusional blather from your broken
schizo-brain. And you've retracted it. Remember?

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

>>> they should be about as invisible as gaseous H2O.

Your out-of-context snipping is noted, you dishonest shitbag.

>> Which isn't invisible at all 

Restored:

>> Which isn't invisible at all to satellites and ground stations using
>> the microwave range or infrared range, James. Are you really this
>> stupid? Or are you just desperately writhing like a worm on a hotplate
>> in attempting to keep your retarded "theory" alive so you can continue
>> to delude yourself into thinking yourself smarter than every scientist
>> in the past 250+ years, Jim, when in reality you're an uneducated
>> moron?
>> 
>> How do you think the satellites and ground stations track humidity and
>> thus weather patterns, James? You know, those fucking humidity maps on
>> the weather websites, James? Have you never looked at a humidity map,
>> James? Are you so fucking stupid that you think they're just making
>> those maps up? Did it never dawn on that badly broken brain of yours
>> that they must have some means of tracking humidity?
>> 
>> Good Christ, James... you're the dumbest, most deluded, least educated
>> moronic kooktard on Usenet.

> Gaseous H2O (steam--a substance that has never been detected in earth's
> atmsophere, by the way) is perfectly invisible.

Wrong. Do you deny that satellites and ground-based Doppler radar can
differentiate between gaseous-phase (humidity) and liquid-phase (in
clouds) water in the atmosphere, Jim? Because that would mean you're
now claiming every single weather website is a sham. Is that what
you're claiming, Tardnado McGinn?

Further, your claiming that latent heat of evaporation of water
doesn't exist means you claim that water doesn't have a gaseous
phase... that's moronic, James, and demonstrably false. You'll be
getting right on proving even one of your moronic claims.

>> How do you think the satellites and ground stations track humidity 

> Because it is liquid, not gaseous.  Try to follow.

Wrong. Nilsson's study:
<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>

If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Nilsson measured a higher photon energy from electron orbital descent
in gaseous-phase water than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been
liquid-phase water as you claim, the photon energy would have been
identical to that of liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous
phase water is monomolecular with no H bonding.

Water In The Gas Phase - 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere

Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.

>>> Why in the world would be expect them to be detectable?

>> Because, Jim, water absorbs microwave radiation. 

> Liquid water does.  Gaseous H2O does not.

You deny that gaseous-phase water exists, James. And you're lying to
support your delusions. Again.

<http://www.tau.ac.il/~pinhas/chapters/2011/David_et_al_microwave_2011.pdf>
Humidity Measurements using Commercial Microwave Links

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water>
The water molecule, in the gaseous state, has three types of
transition that can give rise to absorption of electromagnetic
radiation.

Again, do you deny that satellites and ground-based Doppler radar can
differentiate between gaseous-phase (humidity) and liquid-phase (in
clouds) water in the atmosphere, Jim? Because that would mean you're
now claiming every single weather website is a sham. Is that what
you're claiming, Tardnado McGinn?

Do you even know what the vibrational spectrum of water is, Tardnado?

>> Thus, if that water, even in gaseous phase,

> Not gaseous.  Polymers.  Chains of H2O molecules spinning very fast.

Wrong. Even a microwave oven spins the water molecules at 2.45 MHz and
it doesn't plasmize the water. You're now claiming that throughout the
entire troposphere exists a power source with more energy than that
found in a microwave oven, yet it somehow doesn't dissociate all water
(given that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding energy of
water are identical, meaning water will preferentially dissociate into
H and O rather than plasmize unless hit with unusually high amounts of
energy), and it's somehow not killing all life (given that all life
requires water).

IOW, you're a delusional blathering moron, James Bernard McGinn, Jr.
of Antioch, CA.

> Try to follow.

Try to take your meds, Jim.

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado McGinn?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
because much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

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

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

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? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

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
thousands 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?

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 claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming 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 that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

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 a failed attempt to lend your claims 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 are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

Thread

Re: Clear Air Turbulence is called Clear Air Turbulence for good reason Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-30 17:59 +0200
  Re: Clear Air Turbulence is called Clear Air Turbulence for good reason Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-01 08:00 +0200
    Re: Clear Air Turbulence is called Clear Air Turbulence for good reason Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-01 18:57 +0200
      Re: Clear Air Turbulence is called Clear Air Turbulence for good reason Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 07:34 +0200
        Re: Clear Air Turbulence is called Clear Air Turbulence for good reason Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 18:18 +0200
  Re: Clear Air Turbulence is called Clear Air Turbulence for good reason Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-04 08:17 +0200

csiph-web