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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #652934

Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . .

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:74b75e4e-f8c9-41e7-bd94-5a0c617e4084@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Is there some reason you can't just answer my questions.
>>> It will help me greatly.

>> You're projecting, James. Don't do that, it makes you look stupid.
>> 
>> I've explained every single concept to you, James, in detail... and in
>> the process I've utterly destroyed your kooky little 'theory' via more
>> than a half-dozen different avenues *and* met not just one but every
>> single one of the terms of your challenge for which you offered
>> $100,000.

> I don't know what to tell you.  You haven't met the criteria,
> in my judgement.

Oh, but I have, James.

I've not only provided the links to scientific experiments starting in
the 1700s up to today, all showing the same result, that humid air is
less dense than dry air, I did the calculations using both the Ideal
Gas Law and Avogadro's Law *and* van der Waals equation, proving the
same.

To argue otherwise, James, means you're arguing against such basics of
science as the Periodic Table of the Elements... or do you still not
understand what molar mass is, James?

Then I provided the results of two peer-reviewed studies proving that
monomer water is being evaporated, *and* I described in exquisite
detail the exact mechanism of evaporation and condensation, to include
the two spin isomers of water accounting for the two different
hydrogen bonding strengths found in liquid water, thereby destroying
your kooky claim that water molecule polarity changed upon H bonding.

Then I provided you the means by which you could either substantiate
or null your kooky claim that latent heat of evaporation doesn't
exist, as well as provided you the means by which you could educate
yourself as to how NASA and other agencies monitor latent heat of
condensation from clouds via satellite... but you've run away from all
that because you can't admit when you're wrong... a common trait
amongst insane kooktards who run off the rails.

> Maybe it's a communication thing.

No, it's that you're an insane kooktard too stupid to grasp reality
and too Dunning-Kruger afflicted to admit you're wrong, James. And
now, you're *so* butthurt over being proven wrong that you're going to
sue *science*. A kooksoot will be the perfect dunce cap to top off
your stupidity, James. LOL

> Maybe if you got somebody to help you explain your claim things
> might go better.  

You're projecting, James. It's you who has demonstrated you have
gaping chasms in your understanding of basic reality.

> But, honestly, it might be best if you just forgot about it.  

Oh, but that's not how I operate, James. You're backed into a corner,
and you *will* submit. You'll not be allowed to just slink away so you
can start your retarded blather again at a later date.

This continues until you acknowledge scientific reality, issue a
public apology to the scientific community for being such a moron, and
pay that $100,000 you've offered for meeting the terms of your
challenge to either Martin Chaplin or Anders Nilsson, two legitimate
researchers whose research I've used to utterly destroy your kooky
blather.

> Good luck to you.

Where do you think you're going, James? We're not done here by a long
shot.

You've got plenty of explaining to do...

============================================================
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 so 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 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 | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 16:34 +0100
  Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-14 20:55 -0600
  Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . madeforzyngagames@yahoo.com - 2016-03-14 20:46 -0700
    Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . binky feel good <julianfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 20:49 -0700
  Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 05:39 +0100
    Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 07:29 +0100
    Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-16 19:28 +0000
      Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . "\"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> - 2016-03-16 15:31 -0400
      Re: Since you don't want to talk about your theory . . . Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 04:40 +0100

csiph-web