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


Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #652290

Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology

From Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
References <a678955b-7929-400f-a8c0-a00a4ad0827c@googlegroups.com> <6ce0e771-15f0-413d-aca0-2f4f0353cba6@googlegroups.com> <da6b6261b23e26489f96a8b8184503b2@dizum.com> <13bf5e57-731a-4211-958b-afaa71d61120@googlegroups.com>
Subject Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology
Message-ID <3b30aba297661cdca1914c24c4960061@dizum.com> (permalink)
Date 2016-03-13 06:14 +0100
Newsgroups alt.usenet.kooks, sci.physics
Organization dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


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

James McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:13bf5e57-731a-4211-958b-afaa71d61120@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:09:36 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> I've seen no proof from you that plasma *does* exist 

> I think people who argue semantics are nitwits.

I think people who k'lame there is a magical "plasma not-a-plasma"
made from water, which can still form droplets, and which is
"plasmized not-plasmized" by an energy source which, if it existed in
the troposphere, would dissociate all water on the planet and kill off
all life, are insane retards, Jim.

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 coming from to form your kooky "plasma 
not-a-plasma", Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

<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 water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal 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.

That nuclear charge 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 | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:59 +0100
  Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:37 +0100
  Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:14 +0100

csiph-web