Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law".

From	Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
References	<2cd19307-ba8d-4057-b68e-224f50eb2f25@googlegroups.com>
Subject	Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law".
Message-ID	<ab922e30f152d6eeeb3938a38f2258cd@dizum.com> (permalink)
Date	2016-03-21 16:31 +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:2cd19307-ba8d-4057-b68e-224f50eb2f25@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe drop-kicked a moron. Again:

>> You're now denying Coulomb's Law.

> 'Wrong.  Pay attention.  It's more complicated than that.  Couloumbs
> law assumes a force.  If there is no force then it's not applicable.  

You're attempting to invert Coulomb's Law to say that electrostatic
attraction increases as an inverse square of distance, James, which is
exactly opposite to it specifically stating that electrostatic
attraction *diminishes* by the inverse square of distance.

Thus you deny Coulomb's Law, James. Thus you deny the mechanism for
electron orbit, thus you deny the Standard Model, thus you deny all
scientific knowledge in the field of particle physics.

Thus you are a barking mad psychotic, James.

> As I explained, in my model the force associated with polarity
> requires assymetry.

Asymmetry diminishes electrostatic attraction, James. Thus you find
yourself 180 degrees out from reality yet again.

> When symmetry is restored the force of polarity reduces to zero.

Wrong. Diametrically opposed to reality.

> And, keep in mind, H bonds themselves achieve this symmetry.

There is no symmetry in liquid water, James, which is why it is
*liquid*. Soper told you this already... you remember Soper... the
legitimate researcher who's done the carefully-controlled
experimentation to ascertain that you're a barking mad psychotic who
has done *no* experimentation, pulling your wholly fabricated 'theory'
straight from your ass.

> So, to the extent H bonds are completed there is no polarity and
> no force.

Wrong. Diametrically opposed to reality.

> So, Coulomb's Law is not being contradicted

Yes, it is. You've attempted to invert Coulomb's Law as means of
bolstering your discredited 'theory'. It's not working, James.

> because the force drops to zero as H bonds compete symmetry. But,
> of course, at larger distances as polarity is reactivated Couloumbs
> law does play a role.  (And, of course, the charge associated with
> polarity will not increase indefinitely.)

Wrong. Diametrically opposed to reality.

> So, this is complicated. But it is not a contradiction to Coulomb's Law.

It's complicated because your broken brain is writhing like a worm on
a hot plate in attempting to lend some credibility to your
fabrication, slapping patches on your 'theory' to cover up those
gaping logic holes, and you've proven you're willing to twist facts to
do so.

That makes you a scientific fraud, James.

> Science is complicated.  You have to keep a cool head.  If you become
> emotional you lose you ability to explain what you don't understand.

I understand it perfectly well, James. It is quite apparent, however,
that you do not.

> You become a fool.

And you have become a fool. And a laughingstock.

> Then you become desperate and throw a temper tantrum. 

And you are.

> You really need to grow up and get a grip.

You really need to STFU, take your meds, educate yourself and stop
being such a fucking moron, James.

-- 

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

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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?

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
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?

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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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?

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

Thread

Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:31 +0100
  Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:41 +0100
    Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 15:45 +0100
      Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:37 -0600
        Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-23 00:00 +0800
          Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 10:38 -0600
      Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:40 +0100
    Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:52 +0100
      Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:57 +0100
        Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 17:47 +0100
          Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 06:46 +0100
            Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 19:18 +0100
              Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 06:52 +0100
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 18:08 +0100
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-26 07:29 +0100
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-26 17:10 +0100
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 07:27 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 18:27 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:19 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 08:49 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:09 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 20:05 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-30 02:46 +0800
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-29 18:11 -0700
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-30 05:31 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-30 05:02 -0600
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 11:12 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 11:40 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 11:44 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-30 17:19 +0100
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 13:10 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:22 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 13:24 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:21 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 13:22 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:31 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 15:33 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 16:10 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 16:52 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 17:01 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-30 15:04 -0600
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 17:53 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 17:45 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 07:04 +0100
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-30 19:24 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-30 19:45 +0100
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-31 03:30 +0800
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 15:36 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 07:04 +0100
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:19 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-30 13:20 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-30 17:18 +0100
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-30 17:55 +0000
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 11:55 -0700
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-31 05:45 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 21:58 -0700
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-03-30 22:01 -0700
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 22:13 -0700
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 07:04 +0100
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 23:52 -0700
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-31 18:35 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-31 10:56 -0600
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"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> - 2016-03-31 13:04 -0400
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-31 04:17 -0600
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:25 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 19:21 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-07 08:11 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 09:05 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 10:16 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 18:28 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 07:27 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 20:20 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 19:53 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-07 08:11 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 08:54 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 07:11 +0200
                Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 08:07 +0200

csiph-web