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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #653414

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

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: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

And that's not to mention that we see a perfect example of this each
and every time we go to a weather website... the weather satellites
and ground stations can differentiate between monomolecular
gaseous-phase water (humidity) in the atmosphere, and liquid-phase
water (clouds) in the atmosphere, Jim, because each absorbs and emits
at a different wavelength, just as that video *you* *provided*
featuring Anders Nilsson's work on x-ray spectroscopy of water in its
three phases shows.

Remember?
===============================================
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's
photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
phases.

https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304
You'll note the double peak of liquid water.

Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
"Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules."
===============================================

That was a reference *you* *provided*, Jim, and it proves you
*wrong*... that you didn't and don't realize that fact is testament
that you lack the requisite educational background to even be
attempting to form a model of the atmosphere... hence the reason your
"theory" is so wrong in so many ways.

And as I explained to you, the dual peak of liquid water, one near the
gaseous-phase monomolecular water peak (remember, you've claimed that
all water must be liquid in the atmosphere, thus if a different
spectral peak is observed than that of liquid water, it *must* be
gaseous phase monomolecular water, not liquid water, which would have
the same spectral peaks as bulk liquid water), and one near the
solid-phase water peak, which are due to the two spin isomers of
water. There are two water molecule hybrids.

This also happens to utterly destroy your contention that water
molecule polarity changes upon H bonding (which would mean that water
solvent properties randomly change... and we know that's not the case,
James). The water molecule polarity isn't changing upon H bonding,
thereby lending a variable strength H bond, there are two spin isomers
of water with two different H bond strengths. This is well-established
and rigorously-studied science, James, corroborated by study upon
study upon study.

Now on to those questions you continue ducking, James. They highlight
the contradictions and inconsistencies in your "theory", which you
cannot explain, so it's little wonder you've evaded addressing them...
note the first one is a circulus in probando causality dilemma, making
your "theory" wholly impossible.

================================================
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 *maximum* 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 Brain (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.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

Back to alt.usenet.kooks | Previous | Next — 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