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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #653481

Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying...

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:25b4d469-3c6e-4cef-a3b6-cdd2a29062eb@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:30:05 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA screeched defensively:

>>> What is being measured here is, indirectly, the strength/distance
>>> of the H bonds. Right? Well, now think about that . . . if it was
>>> genuinely gas then . . . think about it . . . there would be no
>>> peak at all . . . BECAUSE IF IT WAS GENUINELY GASEOUS H2O THERE
>>> WOULD BE NO H BONDS! (Specifically, the data would not indicate
>>> a peak it would indicate a flat line because there would be no
>>> variation in bond strength/distance to cause a statistical
>>> distribution.)

>> It is quite apparent, James, that you lack fundamental understanding
>> of how photons are emitted and absorbed. Do you not know even the
>> basics of quantum mechanics?
>> 
>> Temperature affects photon energy, James. In gases, random collision
>> of the molecules transfers the thermal kinetic energy of one molecule
>> to the potential energy of another, i.e. raises an electron to a
>> higher level. The electron goes back to its ground state releasing a
>> specific photon, or a cascade of photons, depending on the energy. The
>> higher the thermal kinetic temperature the more energetic the kinetic
>> scattering and the higher the average photon energy. Hence there is a
>> spectral distribution due to this random collision process. Only
>> dilute gases emit a spectral line, as the density is too low to
>> produce any significant amount of random collision.
>> 
>> Your attempt to claim that water molecules in gaseous phase somehow
>> act differently than other gaseous-phase substances is just silly,
>> Jim... in fact, you deny that water even *has* a gaseous phase.
>> According to you, water evaporates in clusters, and thus remains
>> liquid, thus your claim that latent heat doesn't exist. And that's an
>> even sillier claim, James. Industry would not exist if the only heat
>> water carried off during evaporation was specific heat... evaporative
>> cooling towers would not work very well, for one.
>> 
>> The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon
>> energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the lesser the
>> photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here:
>> https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
>> 
>> That Anders Nilsson et. al. were measuring a spectral peak that did
>> not coincide with solid-phase water nor with liquid-phase water, a
>> spectral peak with *higher* photon energy than liquid-phase water,
>> means they were measuring gaseous-phase water, Jim. No H bonding,
>> monomolecular.
>> 
>> You'll note the gaseous-phase water's photon energy was *higher*
>> because it was monomer water, and thus had no inter-molecular H bonds.
>> If it had had any H bonds, it would have been liquid water, and thus
>> would have had a spectral peak identical to that of liquid water.
>> 
>> This is, after all, James, how humidity and liquid water (in the form
>> of droplets in clouds) is differentiated... we see this every time we
>> visit a weather website and look at their weather charts. Or do you
>> deny that the weather charts are legitimate now, too, Jim?
>> 
>> Hence, Anders Nilsson et. al. proved via x-ray spectroscopy that
>> gaseous phase water exists, and hence evaporation is a
>> molecule-at-a-time process, exactly as the two previous studies I've
>> posted (and you've run away from) prove, Jim.
>> 
>> Now, lest anyone forget, you claim that when evaporation takes place,
>> clusters of H-bonded water are leaping into the air, that no phase
>> change is taking place, which is your attempt to justify your further
>> claiming that latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist.
>> 
>> Your blather is indicative of how desperate you are to twist reality
>> to conform to your "theory" so you can proclaim yourself "not
>> wrong"... yeah, Jim, the option of you proclaiming yourself "right"
>> has been off the table for a very long time.
>> 
>> So the existence of two studies empirically observing evaporation
>> occurring on a per-molecule basis, combined with Anders Nilsson
>> measuring the spectral peak of gaseous-phase water, combined with the
>> everyday usage of that technology to differentiate between humidity
>> and clouds in predicting weather... why that destroys your claim of
>> there being no phase change on evaporation, which destroys your claim
>> of there being no latent heat of evaporation, which destroys your
>> claim of there being no gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, which
>> destroys your claim of water being a "plasma not-a-plasma" in the
>> atmosphere, which destroys your claim of your "plasma not-a-plasma"
>> being responsible for driving winds (and your circular fallacy of
>> claiming the wind creates the "plasma not-a-plasma"), which destroys
>> your claim that the jet stream is a "giant sentient plasma
>> not-a-plasma tornado in the sky", etc., etc... your whole fabrication
>> just came unwound, Jim.
>> 
>> You've been found to be a scientific fraud, Jim. You've twisted facts
>> to fit your agenda, you've refused to provide proof to back up your
>> claims, you've denigrated the hard work and intelligence of every
>> single scientist over the past 250+ years all so you could ego-trip
>> and claim you were better and smarter than them... but you're not,
>> Jim. You're merely a scientific fraud. Nothing more, and certainly a
>> great deal less.
>> 
>> That is reality, Jim. Deal with it.

> Address the issue, dumbass.

Stop backpedaling from the reality that you've gone insane, James.

That is reality, James. Deal with it.

> If it's true that they were measuring H bonds

They were measuring photon energy upon electron orbital descent,
James, which is affected by H bonding. You'll note as H bonds become
stronger, the photons emitted become weaker. You'll also note the
gaseous-phase photon energy was of a higher photon energy than liquid
water. Hence it was gaseous-phase, monomolecular, no H bonds, Jim.

Had it been liquid-phase water, no matter how small the droplets, the
spectra would have been identical to that of liquid water.

That scientifically rigorous and carefully controlled experiment
proves your retarded blather about there being no phase change upon
evaporation to be *wrong*, and that destroys the central premise for
your retarded blather, James.

That is reality, James. Deal with it.

> then there would be nothing to measure if it was genuine
> gaseous H2O because there would be nothing to measure since there
> are none in gaseous H2O. 
> 
> Address the issue you evasive twit.

Yeah, folks, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is *that*
fucking stupid.

Do you not understand what Anders Nilsson was measuring, Jim, even
after being told repeatedly? They were measuring photon energy upon
electron orbital descent of the three phases of water, Jim... the ice
has a lower photon spectra, the water has a dual photon spectra due to
the two spin isomers of water, and...

.... the gaseous-phase monomolecular water has a higher photon spectra.

Now remember, Jim, you claim that water doesn't change phase upon
evaporation, that it remains liquid water... which would mean that
liquid water, no matter how small the droplet, would have an identical
photon spectra as that of liquid water.

It didn't. It had a higher photon energy than that measured for liquid
water, thereby utterly *destroying* your premise that no phase change
takes place upon evaporation.

You've been trapped like a rat, Jim. One of the backbone claims in
your retarded "theory" has been proven wrong. No assumptions were made
by Nilsson et. al., those were *direct* *measurements* of photon
strength... if water didn't change phase upon evaporation and remained
liquid as you claim, the gaseous-phase spectra would have been
identical to liquid water, no matter how small the droplet size.

Now you get to desperately backpedaling, James... your sanity hangs in
the balance. Your Dunning-Kruger affliction and ever-encroaching
paranoid schizophrenia *compels* you to fight against the reality that
you are an insane idiotic halfwit, a scientific fraud, and a
laughingstock.

The whole world is pointing and laughing at your broken-brained
blathering, Jim. You'll never escape this. Your stupidity and insanity
will haunt you to your grave.

Now before you run away again, James, do get right on addressing those
tough questions you've been running from... they highlight the gaping
logic holes in your "theory not-a-theory". Your continuing failure to
address them stands as your tacit admission that you know your theory
is indefensible.

============================================================
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.

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 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 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 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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
MID: <13d33d0638e0ec690b63393d0710f658@dizum.com>
MID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
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.
=====================================

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard the Mathematical Moron maunders and mewls:
=====================================
"All you've shown us is graphs of formulas. No equal signs, no maths
done." - Shiny Tinfoil Brain demonstrates his Mathematical Moronism.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

Thread

Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 18:19 +0100
  Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 20:59 +0100
    Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 06:36 +0100
      Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 19:49 +0100
        Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-20 14:45 -0600
          Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-20 21:06 +0000
  Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 18:25 +0100
    Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 07:07 +0100

csiph-web