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


Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #653482

Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science --

From Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
References <d3818c2b-500c-4b83-9e58-b53343b313b0@googlegroups.com> <f663061c-8891-4e44-b99b-7c181e3d0fc8@googlegroups.com> <b35fc654f75a526133dc318752121b53@dizum.com> <cb2295bb-8059-46d3-af5e-cf6413ba9079@googlegroups.com>
Subject Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science --
Message-ID <740bd5f27aa8a4f49bb33870adf0a0cc@dizum.com> (permalink)
Date 2016-03-19 20:59 +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, in
<news:cb2295bb-8059-46d3-af5e-cf6413ba9079@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 11:30:53 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:f663061c-8891-4e44-b99b-7c181e3d0fc8@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched 
>>> at any given moment.  How often, or on what system, the Thought Police 
>>> plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.  It was even conceivable 
>>> that they watched everybody all the time."  -- George Orwell, "1984" 

>> Bwahahaaaa! Your paranoid schizophrenia is flaring up, James. Is that
>> big meanie Reality kicking your retarded ass again, James? You should
>> sue it, Jimmy. You should sue it and Science for being so mean that
>> they don't immediately bow down before your delusions and proclaim
>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA King Of Science... but
>> they've not done that, James... you've been declared the joker, a
>> pathetic bumbling moronic idiotic delusional halfwit.
>> 
>> Your delusion is complex because you refuse to acknowledge actual
>> reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions onto your
>> kooky "theory" to cover up the gaping logical inconsistencies and
>> contradictions that are brought to light... thus your delusion grows
>> until you are fully psychotic, believing the entire world, every
>> single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy because it doesn't agree
>> with your delusion... this is why Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards
>> like you often end up psychotic, James.
>> 
>> Your "theory" holds no water, James. Especially in light of all that
>> ongoing research into monomolecular water in the atmosphere:
>> 
>> Water In The Gas Phase - 
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
>> Not ab initio... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the
>> gaseous phase. 16 referenced papers.
>> 
>> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
>> http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
>> Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
>> 
>> http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
>> Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
>> directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere

> So, if your only argument is to point to people that made the same assumption you made, . . . what conclusion should we draw from this?
> 
> Think about it.

The conclusion to be drawn from that is that you're too fucking
retarded and delusional to understand that you've just had your kooky
fabrication of a "theory" torn to shreds, and now you're making a
laughingstock of yourself, James.

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.

It could *not* have been liquid water, no matter how small the
droplet, James, or the spectral peak would have been identical to that
of liquid water.

Do you not understand this, James? That fact proves the existence of
gaseous water, hence that evaporation is a per-molecule process, hence
that latent heat of evaporation exists, hence the central premise of
your retarded "theory" is yet again destroyed, Jim.

Stop embarrassing yourself, Jim. It's over. You've been exposed as a
scientific fraud and a moron far too stupid and delusional to ever
model the atmosphere.

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 | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 07:20 +0100
  Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 20:59 +0100
    Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 07:39 +0100
      Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- "\"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> - 2016-03-20 02:53 -0400
      Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-20 01:28 -0600
      Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 18:29 +0100
        Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 20:16 +0100
          Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 22:01 +0100
            Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 05:06 +0100
              Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 17:29 +0100
                Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:56 +0100
                Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:16 +0100
                Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:44 -0600
                Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 05:27 +0100
                Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 17:53 +0100
                Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 06:24 +0100
                Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 17:54 +0100
                Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 07:17 +0100
          Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:41 +0100
            Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-21 11:23 -0600
              Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- "\"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> - 2016-03-21 13:26 -0400
            Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:26 +0100

csiph-web