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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #652917

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:6adb4c0e-7044-4fc8-b438-2e89b0cf9b1b@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:45:04 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> I've destroyed your kooky 'theory' using more than a half-dozen
>> different avenues, Jim, to which you have no defense. 

> 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.

Your refusal to accept long-known scientific fact because you're a
delusional kooktard is no one's fault but your own. Visit a mental
health professional and obtain a prescription for the necessary
psychotropic medications to ameliorate your psychological affliction.

I also note you ran away from yet another tough question, James.
They're stacking up and you're finding yourself utterly unable to
answer any of them...

============================================================

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 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