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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #655862

Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:2d94f07f-024d-4b82-8bcd-474dd7ab2f0d@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:35:32 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Apparently they don't discuss them with you either.

>> Sure they do, Tardnado. How else would I know that 4 of them that I
>> regularly converse with consider you a nutjob, and that word has
>> spread through the scientific community to just patronizingly pat your
>> head, remind you to take your meds, and trundle you off back home to
>> mommy, you poor pathetic broken-brain schizo?
>> 
>> Remember, James, the Meteorology Cabal doesn't exist. We're not
>> watching your every move, we're not conspiring to destroy you and your
>> moronic theory... none of that is taking place.
>> 
>> <snicker>

> Maybe you can get them to help you make an argument.  Because you ain't 
> doin too good.

I've utterly destroyed your moronic blather, I've got you back on your
heels and engaged in constant backpedaling. I've forced you to change
and shift your halfwitted delusion to such an extent you unthinkingly
retracted the central premise for all your blather, the biggest
blunder you could have ever made... then when you realized the
ramifications of your having *admitted* your delusional blather was
nothing more than the schizo-brained babbling of an uneducated
kooktard, you hurriedly duct-taped your "variable polarity of the
water molecule" claim back into your wholly fabricated delusion as the
world pointed and laughed at you. I've kicked so many holes in your
"theory not-a-theory" that you're no longer even attempting to build
upon your delusion, you're far too busy picking up the pieces I've
kicked out of your moronic blather and trying to fit them together
again.

Your stuporous dooferism of a "theory" lies in tatters, you've been
proven to be a lying delusional shitbag, you're a fraud shunned by the
scientific community, you're a laughingstock, your blather is deleted
on website comments sections, and legitimate researchers worldwide are
getting the word that you're a broken-brained uneducated mental
incompetent.

You've lost, Jim. I won. That's reality. Deal with it.

>>> You don't know that.   You are assuming.  You have no evidence.

>> The onus of proof isn't upon me, Tardnado. You've made the claim,
>> where's your proof?

> Why so defensive?

Why are you running away from providing proof of your delusional
claims, Tardnado McGinn?

>>> In contrast we have firm laboratory evidence that gaseous H2O only 
>>> occurs above 100 C.  

>> Wrong. We have firm laboratory evidence that gaseous-phase
>> monomolecular H2O occurs all the way down to ~-40 F, James. You're the
>> kooktard denying that water even *has* a gaseous phase, which is
>> retarded.

> Obviously that's a lie.  

Obviously you're a lying reality-denying moronic paranoid
schizophrenic mental incompetent forced to live at home with mommy and
daddy your entire life because you're too insane to live
independently, because you reject reality, James 'Tardnado' McGinn.

Why can't you refute that truth about yourself, you moronic halfwit?

Nilsson's study:
<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>

If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Nilsson measured a higher photon energy from electron orbital descent
in gaseous-phase water than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been
liquid-phase water as you claim, the photon energy would have been
identical to that of liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous
phase water is monomolecular with no H bonding.

Water In The Gas Phase - 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... 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.

Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.

> You lie because you are trapped.

You project your lying because you're trapped, Tardnado. You've lost.
Badly.

>>>>> The notion that moist air contains steam that converts to latent heat
>>>>> in quantities 1000 times greater than has ever been detected is
>>>>> impossible.  I will take implausible over impossible any day.

>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljdv-am0Sis>
>>>> 
>>>> What's that, James? Why, that's a real-time demonstration of latent
>>>> heat.

>>> So, this is latent heat?  This is evidence?  Are you fucking kidding me?

>> Awww, look at the kooktard denying reality again!

> They boiled water.  That is your evidence?  Boiling water?  

They compared the sensible heat of a greater quantity of liquid water
to the latent heat of evaporation of a lesser quantity of water as it
evaporated, you moron. Proof positive that latent heat of evaporation
exists.

Run away from that proof, James! It also happens to prove you're
retarded and insane.

> Are you fucking kidding me?

You're the one denying reality, Tardnado. Are you fucking kidding me?
Where's your proof that latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist? By
corollary, where's your proof that water doesn't have a gaseous phase?

Show your proof, or admit you're a reality-denying uneducated moron
desperately trying to keep your patchwork delusion duct-taped together
so you can continue to fantasize that you're not a delusional
uneducated halfwit, James.

>>>> You've never actually done any experiments, have you, James?

>>> Everybody has boiled water.  But it take a special fool to believe 
>>> that doing so proves anything about the weather.

>> So I'll take that as a "no, I, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of
>> Antioch, CA have never done any experiments because I know they'll
>> prove my delusional blather wrong... and I must cling to my delusion.
>> I fear what would happen if I actually admitted to being a paranoid
>> schizophrenic babbling out utterly retarded blather."

> That lame video was--believe it or not--standard for this worthless,
> pretend scientific discipline.
> 
> Let's face it, you obviously have no understanding of any of this other
> than what you looked up on the internet in the last week or so.  Yet you
> find yourself defending the indefensible.  Why?  What's in it for you?

"defending the indefensible" LOL

You're the moron who can't defend your delusion, KookTard. You can't
even prove *one* of your moronic claims, whereas I've proven
everything I've stated using more than 2500 studies (all of which
you've run away from) and by doing that math to prove you *wrong*.

Where's your proof of your delusion, James? You can blather until
you're blue in the face, but without proof to back up your blather,
all you're proving is that your paranoid schizophrenia is getting
worse by the day.

How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? Why can't you answer that
question? No "plasma not-a-plasma" blather, no "variable polarity of
the water molecule" blather, no "giant sentient tornado monster in the
jet stream" blather... none of that would affect a hot air balloon
even if your delusions did exist, which they don't. So *how* *does*
*a* *hot* *air* *balloon* *rise*, Jim?

Stop evading that simple question, Jim... it destroys all your
blather, and it must be mortifyingly embarrassing to you that you
can't explain it.

<snicker>

> Why even bother to lie?  Why cover for meteorologists?  What do you
> have to gain?  

Proving you're a lying shitbag. Proving you're a paranoid
schizophrenic too uneducated to even understand reality, let alone try
to model it. Proving that you should just STFU and get to
crayon-scribbling your moronic kooksoot.

Where is that "class-action" kooksoot you promised, Tardnado? Are you
afraid it'll get laughed out of court?

> Meteorologists refuse to engage on these issues.

Wrong. They refuse to engage with *you*, because you've proven that no
matter how much truth and reality your moronic skull is battered with,
you'll deny it all and continue blathering out your delusions... what
little sanity you desperately cling to depends upon your maintaining
your delusion, which is why you're fighting so hard against reality...
but you're not fooling anyone, Jim. Everyone now knows you're a broken
brained little tard who can't even live on his own because you'd be a
danger to yourself.

You have no proof of your delusional claims, you've run away from
doing any experiments because you know they'll prove you wrong, you've
discovered nothing, you know nothing. You're just a pathetic moron too
stupid to recognize what a fucking joke you are.

The entire world is laughing at you, Jim. Are you just gonna take that
lying down? Sue the whole fucking world, Jim. Kooksoot everyone. You
know you want to... you know your insanity *compels* you to do it.

<snicker>

> Maybe that is because they know there is a world full of dumbass,
> brain-dead science groupies like you that will sacrifice their own
> reputation to cover for them.

That's rich, coming from the reality-denying moron James Bernard
'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, who has utterly destroyed his
reputation in a Quixotic quest to remodel reality to fit his
delusions. LOL

> But most likely it is because they haven't given two minutes of
> thought

They've done decades of research, Jim. You've done none. You're a
reality-denying moron who failed out of a Basic Meteorology class, you
deny reality even when the empirical evidence slaps your stupid face
every single day, you have no empirical evidence to back up your
blather, you have no experimental evidence to back up your blather,
you have no corroborating studies to back up your blather, you have
nothing but your broken brain bleating out more of your stupidity.

> to any of this stuff since graduating from college.
> 
> You lost the argument.

No, you've lost the argument, Tardnado. On top of that, you're now
known worldwide throughout the scientific community as a retard.
You're shunned, shut out, discredited. You're a scientific fraud and a
lying shitbag. I did all that to you, James. Now you'll be *forced* by
your insanity to add me to your "class-action" kooksoot.

So get out your blue crayon and scribble "FNVWe" as a defendant to
your "class-action" kooksoot, Tardnado Jim. You know you want to. You
know you *must*. Your paranoid schizophrenia compels you to do so.

Where's that fucking kooksoot, you ignorant uneducated simpleton?

> If it is any consolation let me assure you that you never had a chance.

You're projecting again, Tardnado McGinn.

Why can't you answer those questions, TornadoTard?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

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.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
because much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

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 only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

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? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

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
thousands 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?

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 that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

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 are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

Thread

Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-30 05:26 +0200
  Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day fitnessforyou2002@yahoo.com - 2016-03-29 21:12 -0700
  Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-01 07:24 +0200
    Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-01 19:29 +0200
      Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 07:44 +0200
        Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 18:08 +0200
          Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-02 10:23 -0600
    Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-02 17:58 +0200
      Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-03 07:29 +0200
        Re: I will take implausible over impossible any day Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-04 07:48 +0200

csiph-web