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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #641996

Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland

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:4ffa904b-e54c-4c4e-aabb-67e19c960709@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 10:00:51 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:28189e9d-b2ff-46d5-b481-1d26a1d37491@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>>> Also, lest we forget.  I am offering a cash reward of $100,000.00 
>>> (U.S.) for anybody that can come up with reproducible experimental 
>>> evidence that H2O can be a gas at the ambient temperatures of 
>>> Earth's atmosphere.

>> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure? 

Your cowardly snipping is noted, Jim. What are you afraid of? That
people will see that I've met every single one of your 'Or'
conditions, thereby more than satisfying the conditions of the
challenge in the eyes of the law?

> Yes.  Perfectly.

>> Or that water
>> in its gaseous phase is miscible in air at all temperatures above ~-60
>> C?
>> 
>> You will typically hear humidity expressed as "relative humidity",
>> which is the ratio of vapor pressure 'e' to saturation vapor pressure
>> 'e_s', and thus when the relative humidity e/e_s < 1, net evaporation
>> occurs, whereas when e/e_s > 1, net condensation occurs. In both
>> cases, however, evaporation is occurring.
>> 
>> IOW, water will evaporate to gaseous phase

> You have to prove it is gaseous.
> 
> You can't just assume it -- dumbass.

I did prove it, you moron. It's not my fault you can't understand that
simple reality as outlined by science long ago.

To repeat that which you cowardly snipped out, to give you a second
chance to peruse it and realize your error:
================================================================
================================================================
================================================================
Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure? Or that water
in its gaseous phase is miscible in air at all temperatures above ~-60
C?

You will typically hear humidity expressed as "relative humidity",
which is the ratio of vapor pressure 'e' to saturation vapor pressure
'e_s', and thus when the relative humidity e/e_s < 1, net evaporation
occurs, whereas when e/e_s > 1, net condensation occurs. In both
cases, however, evaporation is occurring.

IOW, water will evaporate to gaseous phase until its partial pressure
has reached the vapor pressure for that temperature.

This is best treated by experimental analogy. Get a roulette wheel,
spin it slowly and drop in 100 marbles. They'll bounce around, and you
might see one or two collide with other marbles, the kinetic energy
derived from said collisions giving one of the marbles the necessary
energy to escape the roulette wheel (ie: to evaporate to gaseous
phase).

Now collect all your marbles and spin the roulette wheel faster, and
drop the marbles back in. You'll see more of the marbles experiencing
collisions which impart to them the energy necessary to fly off the
wheel. Thus increased temperature increases evaporation.

Now collect all your marbles again, spin the roulette wheel at 5000
RPM and drop the marbles back in. They'll all fling off the wheel...
that's boiling.

Now, let's address sublimation. Because even when the water molecules
are locked in the matrix of ice, the water can evaporate directly from
solid to gaseous phase. That would be akin to a roulette wheel
spinning very slowly... the collision of marbles necessary to throw
one of them off the roulette table wouldn't happen very often, but
it'd still happen occasionally.

I'm sure you'll blather something akin to "Sublimation produces
evaporate (vapor, small clusters of H2O). It does not produce gaseous
H2O.", but hey, take a look at this:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)>
"Sublimation is the transition of a substance directly from the solid
to the gas phase without passing through the intermediate liquid
phase.[1]"

That [1] is the Merriam-Webster definition. You're trying to dispute a
long-held scientific definition. That's not very smart of you, now is
it?

Further, just how do you suppose freeze-drying works, if not by
sublimation in a reduced-pressure environment? Just how do you suppose
dry ice evaporates if not by sublimation? Do you purport that "small
clusters of vaporous CO2" are in the atmosphere as a result of
sublimation? If so, do try not to breathe, you may suffocate on a "CO2
vapor cluster".

I invite you to peruse the works of Bar-Nun et. al., who studied water
ice sublimation using mass spectrometry; and Sandford and Allamandola,
who studied water ice sublimation using infrared spectroscopy; as well
as R.L. Hudson, who studied water ice sublimation via mass
spectroscopy. ALL of them found water ice sublimates directly to
gaseous phase.

Thermodynamics dictates that for a system of liquid, the free energy
can be lowered by trading some enthalpy for the increase in entropy.
For any given temperature, this balance determines the equilibrium
vapor pressure. Thus, there will always be some gaseous phase water in
equilibrium (for all temperatures above ~-60 C).

At an interface between a liquid and a gas, a water molecule can
randomly fly out of the liquid and join the gas, or drop out of the
gas and join the liquid. This gas/liquid system is at equilibrium if
the change in free energy is the same for a molecule to go in either
direction. In this case, the molecules are transferred in both
directions at the same rate, and there is no net change. If you have a
situation that is not in equilibrium, then molecules will be
transferred from the liquid to the gas or the gas to the liquid
preferentially, and this will continue until the pressure or
temperature have changed to achieve equilibrium, or until one phase is
completely gone. In many common examples, equilibrium is never
reached. For example, at room temperature, the equilibrium point for
water will be at a pressure of about 20 Torr. If the relative humidity
is less than 100%, then the partial pressure of water in the air is
less than 20 Torr. So, if you put a glass of water in such an
atmosphere, the water molecules will tend to leave the liquid and join
the gas. Since the atmosphere is much larger than the glass of water,
this evaporation will not noticeably change the partial pressure of
water in the atmosphere, so the water will continue to evaporate until
it is entirely converted into gas. On the other hand, if you put a cap
on the glass, the evaporation would only continue until the partial
pressure of water under that cap went up to 20 Torr.

In point of fact, water is *always* trying to "boil"... except that at
room temperature, the 20 Torr pressure created isn't enough to expand
the bubbles created by boiling against the atmospheric pressure of
~760 Torr. This can be seen quite easily by putting water in a flask
and evacuating the flask to a lower pressure than atmospheric. The
water will boil at a lower temperature. In fact, there are such
devices that allow one to boil water merely by holding the flask, the
heat from one's hand causing the boiling... until gaseous phase water
partial pressure in the flask rises sufficiently to prevent bubble
formation.

<http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/689/air-moisture-temperature-saturation-diagram-SI.png>
You'll note that at 100 C, the saturation pressure is 100,000 Pa, or
atmospheric pressure. You'll further note that at that 100 C / 100,000
Pa point, Density = 1... but at lower temperatures, water in its
gaseous phase can still exist at lower partial pressure. At lower
atmospheric pressure, the partial pressure:atmospheric pressure ratio
increases such that evaporation occurs at a higher rate for a given
temperature, finally leading to perpetual boiling for a sufficiently
low atmospheric pressure, as in the evacuated flask example above.

Did you not think about your contention that all water in the
atmosphere is in a liquid state, or that a simple saturation diagram
and an evacuated flask would cost you $100,000?

I'd like to request my $100,000 in the form of BitCoin, if you please.

> Or
> 
> That moist air, all other factors being the same, is or can be 
> lighter than dry air.  Here is a link to experimental procedures 
> that would suffice: 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/2XZmr9zDCig/mpUXaNxzAAAJ

Mason jars? Desert environment? Aluminum foil? Cotton balls?

You silly little man, there's no need to go to such lengths if you're
so very determined to give away $100,000.

Density of Dry Air
Pa = 0.0035 pa / T

Where:
Pa = density dry air (kg/m3)
pa = partial pressure of air (Pa, N/m2)
T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)

Density of Water In Its Gaseous Phase
Pw = 0.0022 pw / T

Where:
pw = partial pressure water in its gaseous phase (Pa, N/m2)
Pw = density water in its gaseous phase (kg/m3)
T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)

<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html>

Were you not aware that liquid water has an electrostatic surface
potential of ~1.815 eV in liquid phase, but ~-1.815 eV in gaseous
phase, thus water is *always* trying to evaporate to its gaseous phase
to reduce its free energy, but the majority of it is held in check
from doing so via the inter-molecular hydrogen bonds?

<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jz900268s>

> Or
> 
> That moist air can rise as a result of convection through dry air

The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.

Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for air

Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
air with water in its gaseous phase in it is lighter than dry air.

Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.

Ergo, your entire basis of argument is invalid, and you'll be
forwarding the $100,000 to my BitCoin account immediately.

> The person that wrote this "Troll Report," was obviously joking.  I want to assure you that this offer of $100,000.00 US Dollars is no joke. 

Great... so you'll be forwarding the $100,000 to my BitCoin account
post-haste. Don't make me sue you for it. You've made a public offer,
legally binding. I've met _all_ of your 'Or' conditions, thereby more
than thoroughly satisfying the demands of the challenge. I've amply
proven using well-known and long-established scientific equations,
tables and concepts that you're a kooktard. And kooktards gotta pay.

<snicker>

> Feel free to submit claim here or at my email address below. 
> 
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
> jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com

The claim has been submitted and you've been proven wrong. Pay up.

James McGinn owes FNVWe $100,000. Because stupidity should be costly.

<snicker>
================================================================
================================================================
================================================================

I'll further add that a gas is a single well-defined thermodynamic
phase, whereas a vapor is a mixture of two phases (in the case of
water, gas and liquid). A cloud contains water vapor, whereas clear
sky contains gaseous water. IOW, all vapor contains gaseous phase, but
gas is not vaporous.

This applies to all substances which can be liquefied... liquid oxygen
will coexist with oxygen vapor right up to the boiling point of oxygen
at the pressure it is being stored. Above that Critical Temperature,
it is gaseous.

So even in water vapor, there is gaseous water... so no matter what,
you're wrong, I'm right, and you owe me $100,000.

Remember, I'm litigious. I'll gladly spend $25k on an attorney to get
$75 net. And I can afford to do so. So you've better pay up.

The scientific proof I've provided will stand up in any court of law,
you've made a public challenge with a payoff of $100,000 and you've
reiterated that offer. It is a legally binding offer.

I've met _all_ of your 'Or' conditions, thereby more than thoroughly
satisfying the demands of the challenge. I've amply proven using
well-known and long-established scientific equations, tables and
concepts that I've met your challenge

You're the moron who claims that warmer air is *heavier* than colder
air... that level of stupidity should be painful. I intend to make it
so for you.

Pay up. Now.

James McGinn owes FNVWe $100,000. Because stupidity should be costly.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

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

Thread

Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-06 06:50 +0100
  Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-06 23:13 +0800
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-06 18:51 +0100
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"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> - 2016-03-06 13:21 -0500
  Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-06 19:50 +0100
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "\"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> - 2016-03-06 14:04 -0500
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 01:09 +0100
      Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-07 01:11 +0000
    Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 01:35 +0100
      Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-06 20:07 -0500
        Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 03:57 +0100
          Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 00:18 -0800
      Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 04:53 +0100
        Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 00:15 -0800
          Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 17:08 +0100
        Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 17:18 +0100
          Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 18:43 +0100

csiph-web