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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #654420

Re: Bob Johnson: Plasma in the Atmosphere

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:35bcc2c5-5c15-474f-bde2-2c25fc535eb3@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:45:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus drop-kicked a retard:

>>> So, you are not an experimental physicist. I haven't seen you
>>> provide any math to describe the physical characteristics of
>>> air that make you call it a plasma, so you aren't a
>>> mathematical physicist either.

>> He's not any kind of physicist. He once took an elective class in
>> Basic Meteorology, and thinks that qualifies him as a physicist.
>> 
>> James McGinn is a moronic delusional kooktard suffering from
>> Dunning-Kruger and a lack of scientific education, and hence an
>> inability to grok what the scientific method entails.
>> 
>> He rapes Google, then strings together whatever he finds into the most
>> implausible of theories, throwing away anything that nulls his kooky
>> theory as "irrelevant", "not empirical", "not observable", etc.
>> 
>> He continues heaping stupid upon stupid, compounding his errors as he
>> goes. Such is the way for Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards such as
>> James McGinn.
>> 
>> He refuses to go back and review his underlying supposition which led
>> to his hypothesis which led to his kooky discredited theory, despite
>> the science having been posted which proves his kooky theory is a
>> fairy tale.
>> 
>> In reality, all he's got is a supposition pulled straight from his
>> ass, as his kooky claims don't even rise to the level of hypothesis.
>> Even a hypothesis is based upon very limited data, whereas James
>> McGinn has the sum total of zero corroborating data, and a veritable
>> mountain of scientific *fact* nulling his supposition. To even call it
>> a theory is being extremely generous... a theory is backed up by a
>> very wide set of data.
>> 
>> The only theory in McGinn's "theory" is that of a conspiracy theory,
>> another manifestation of his Dunning-Kruger affliction.
>> 
>> He won't ever provide any proof or math, because he has none. He has
>> none because he's never done any experiments other than his
>> fourth-grade level experiment he keeps bleating about. You'll note he
>> provides no results for even that, because the results either null his
>> supposition or the experiment is so uncontrolled the results are
>> random.

> Like you'd have a clue.

You took a single elective class in Basic Meteorology and failed out,
James.

What universities did you attend, what were your majors, and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, 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 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 | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Bob Johnson: Plasma in the Atmosphere Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 04:34 +0100
  Re: Bob Johnson: Plasma in the Atmosphere Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-13 22:11 -0700
    Re: Bob Johnson: Plasma in the Atmosphere Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 07:24 +0100
      Re: Bob Johnson: Plasma in the Atmosphere Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-13 23:41 -0700
        Re: Bob Johnson: Plasma in the Atmosphere Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 17:00 +0100
  Re: Bob Johnson: Plasma in the Atmosphere Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 06:21 +0100
    Re: Bob Johnson: Plasma in the Atmosphere Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 07:13 +0100
  Re: Bob Johnson: Plasma in the Atmosphere Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-14 06:27 -0600
  Re: Bob Johnson: Plasma in the Atmosphere Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 18:46 +0100
    Re: Bob Johnson: Plasma in the Atmosphere Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 06:26 +0100

csiph-web