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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #654280

Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

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:93f53244-0b7c-4e8a-8fe0-cb917389c9fe@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:35:40 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:3c54ca36-d9c0-4661-bb67-857283a63902@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:11:37 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>> Feel free to refute that which has already been quoted directly

>>>>> I don't know what you are referring to.  So . . . sorry.

>>>> Exactly, James. You snipped it out and ran away from it,

>>> You are wearing down our audience with repetitive hyperbole.

>> I am reiterating scientific truth. You are attempting to evade that
>> scientific truth so you can continue deluding yourself that you're
>> smarter than every single scientist in the past 250+ years. But
>> there's no escape for you, Jim. You've been exposed as a scientific
>> fraud.

>>> Nobody is going to read this so there is no motivation for me
>>> to respond.  

>> Everyone who matters is reading it, Jim. Which is why your psychotic
>> ranting blather is doomed. Your "theory" is dead, Jim.

>>> On usenet you have to stay on topic or you just become part of
>>> the background noise that nobody pays any attention to.  
>>> 
>>> You've made yourself irrelevant.

>> No, Jim. Far from it. I've made myself *so* relevant that you're
>> constantly on the defensive. The problem for you is that your
>> slack-jawed moronity has no defense, it's the mad barking of a
>> psychopath off his meds. It'll never be accepted. Never.
>> 
>> It's dead, Jim. Find a new way of telling the world you're insane.

> Obviously you have nothing substantive or you would show it and
> the discussion would be over.

Obviously you continue to backpedal away from the reality that your
moronic 'theory', wholly unsupported by any data, research or
empirical observation, torn to utter shreds and exposed as the mad
ranting of an insane kooktard, is dead, Jim. Why do you even bother
anymore, Jim? Your theory is dead. Bury it. It stunk even before it
died, now it's fucking fetid. Stop fucking that corpse and bury it
already.

Have you done that experiment with the balloons yet, Jim? It's a very
simple experiment. All you have to do is meter the same volume of air
into each balloon.

So you'd have a 6 foot balance beam which you've balanced with the
empty balloons already affixed to it to account for balloon weight.
This can be as simple as a 6 foot dowel with a string holding it in
the center. It will still be quite sensitive.

You'd have a SCUBA tank with dry air (0.007% moisture). You'd have two
needle valves and two small metering gauges connected to the tank.

    /needle valve - metering gauge - hot pot copper coil
tank
    \needle valve - metering gauge - cold pot copper coil

You'll be doing two experiments... one with cold/hot air, one with
dry/humid air.

Downstream of the metering gauge and needle valve, you'll have two
containers. You'll run one coil of copper tube inside a pot on your
stove, the pot filled with boiling water. Another pot filled with ice
would have a copper tube of identical length to the first.

One copper tube would connect to a small check valve on the first
balloon via rubber hose.

The other copper tube would connect to a small check valve on the
second balloon via rubber hose.

Balance your beam with empty balloons, connect up your rubber tubing
from coils to check valves and from metering gauges to copper coils.

Open each needle valve the same amount at the same time to get the
same flow through the two metering gauges. Close both needle valves at
the same time.

Remove the rubber tubing from the check valves. You'll see that hot
air is less dense, thus though the two balloons have an identical
volume of air in them (note that they'll not be the same size), the
hot balloon is lighter, and thus the cold balloon end of the balance
beam tips downward.

If you want to get fancy, measure the temperature of the respective
air streams going into the balloons, and the angle of tilt of the
balance beam.

Leave the apparatus for six hours to allow temperature to equalize.
Measure the balloon diameters. They should be exactly the same size by
then, but the measurement will give you a feel for if you got the same
volume of air in each balloon.

If you want to test the setup another way, reset the experiment, move
the needle valves / metering gauges downstream of the copper coils in
the pots and test again.

Report back your results, Jim. Your scientific credibility hangs in
the balance. If you can't even do a simple experiment such as that,
you have no business trying to model the entire atmosphere.

For your second experiment, for which you'll need a pressure cooker or
other similar pressurizable pot, you'll be doing the dry air / humid
air experiment with a similar setup as above.

Get right on that experiment, James. Or run away from reality again
and thereby prove you're nothing more than a moronic uneducated
halfwit who prefers your delusion to reality.

-- 

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 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?

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 — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 18:51 +0100
  Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-20 16:11 -0400
    Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity diblert@evil.megacorp (Diblert) - 2016-03-20 21:03 +0000
      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-20 21:06 -0400
    Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 08:03 +0100
      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "\"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 13:31 -0400
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:46 +0100
    Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-21 16:49 +0800
      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-21 10:07 -0400
  Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-20 14:39 -0600
    Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 05:47 +0100
  Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 21:40 +0100
    Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 06:24 +0100
  Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:31 +0100
    Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:16 +0100
      Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:01 +0100
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:40 -0600
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-22 17:21 +0000
        Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:25 +0100
          Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 18:33 +0100

csiph-web