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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #652477

Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear

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:180e6bc1-de8a-45b3-a78e-2b75ad9b624a@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:54:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly
> Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus drop-kicked a moron:

>>>>> There is no ionization associated with my plasma.

>>>> Then it's not plasma, Jim.

>>> Plasma is just a word, dumbass.

>> You're backpedaling, Jim. That means that through the fog of your
>> insanity, you've gotten a faint glimpse at how wrong and insane you
>> are.

> Only nitwits debate semantics.

Then it's a good thing I'm not debating semantics, Jim.

I am instead ripping your kooky conspiracy theory to shreds using
scientific reality, in the process proving that you, James Bernard
McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, are a paranoid-schizophrenic with a raging
case of Dunning-Kruger and an unmitigable stupidity due to your
obstinate refusal to face reality and review the underlying premise
for your kooky conspiracy theory for any flaws in your assumptions.

<snicker>

Now, get yourself busy answering those tough questions, James...

So you throw out 150+ years of substantive and in-depth research as
means of attempting to salvage your kooky discredited conspiracy
theory in order to maintain your delusion that you know something no
one else, all of them smarter and saner than you, knows, Jim?

Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and
a half, and *you*, the kooktard who cannot answer my tough questions,
are right, Jim?

Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted paranoid-schizophrenic kook who's
concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim?

Why are there *no* corroborating peer-reviewed papers that back up
your kooky contentions, Jim? The ones you've provided I've used to
prove you and your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*.

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

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

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

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "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, 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 kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<snicker>

-- 

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 | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:55 +0100
  Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 22:53 +0800
    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 15:10 +0000
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear g8dgc <g8dgc@noneya.none> - 2016-03-11 10:15 -0500
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe aka g8dgc) - 2016-03-11 15:23 +0000
    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:19 +0100
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear binky feel good <julianfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 21:52 -0800
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 15:49 +0800
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 06:47 +0100
  Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:44 +0100
    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:32 +0100
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear binky feel good <julianfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 21:55 -0700

csiph-web