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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #660105

Re: NOY, can you explain why you believe such a plainly crazy notion?

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:c5e3b001-b273-46cf-839e-81b28a6310f7@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>> run away from it. Why can't you defend your kooky little
>>>> theory, Jim?

>>> Potatoes, no meat.

>> Bullshit, Jim. I've provided peer-reviewed studies which you've
>> cowardly snipped out and ran away from because you know you can't
>> refute them.

> Google searches are not a recognized scientific methodology.

Then it's a good thing I've not provided any links to Google searches,
Jim, instead providing links to and data from peer-reviewed studies
which utterly destroy your kooky little conspiracy theory.

Why can't you get your kooky theory through the peer-review process,
Jim? Stop dodging that question, you evasive twit.

Oh, here's all that data again, Jim... your continued cowardly running
away from it proves you know you're *wrong*, that you have no
refutation of the reality I present, and that your broken little brain
cannot cope with the cognitive dissonance of having been proven
*wrong*, Jim.

That's reality. Deal with it, Jim.

<snicker>

"Plasma in the atmosphere"
"thick air"
"tornadoes... jet stream... same thing"
"this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse
ears more relatively positive"

And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL

Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are
laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron
in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL

Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is
the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you
fucking *moron*?

Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma
existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from
that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well
impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning
strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never
stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near
clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who
knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor,
apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled
you.

Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere,
just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere.
That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.

For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy.
It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few
microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no
appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and
updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface
area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its
radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is
proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized
water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet
radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest
average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they
stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which
is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting
the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls,
thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous
phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets
grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface
area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall
to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different
updraft speeds) cause different types of rain.

Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an
environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s);
convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are
associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second.

For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its
fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air
down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of
sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as
compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of
air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further
proves this fact.

Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is
another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas
where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating
lightning... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the
Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by
rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a
dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced
tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle
being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the
P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and
telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination
signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their
Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically
the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster,
thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger.

So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which
types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?

Your kooky contention has been demolished, the dictates of your
challenge have not only been met but have been exceeded, utilizing
scientific facts, figures, equations, diagrams and concepts long-known
and admissible in a court of law. Hence, you will make good on your
promise to pay $100,000 to the person who disproved your kooky
theory... namely your Usenet Lord and Master... me.

Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong
via several different avenues, and you'll be paying me the promised
$100,000 for meeting (indeed, *exceeding*) your challenge.

Holy fuck, Jim. Seek immediate professional psychiatric help, and be
sure to describe in detail your kooky theory that has led you to
become so very delusional.

But meanwhile, how about you get right on refuting all that
peer-reviewed scientific data I've provided proving your kooky theory
*wrong*:
-------------------------
Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules
of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less*
energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a
low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional
Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical
processes.

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we,
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

Jim, you further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when
an inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond
isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that
broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened:

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that
evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to
nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html>
<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz>

You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've
destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving
that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim.

That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions,
combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be
wrong. Take your meds, Jim.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
<http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
=================================================
A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in
the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number
is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least
one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the
obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain
sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this,
the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies,
and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that
an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise
interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent
collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the
liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was
interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the
evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation
process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's
cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a
well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.
=================================================

"one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule
process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the
atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere,
meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been
provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, meaning you  owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay,
Jim.

<snicker>

Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous
water exists in the atmosphere:
<http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/>
=========================================================
Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum
absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains
controversial.
=========================================================

That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim,
thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you
promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding
challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves
you're a moronic kooktard, Jim.

<snicker>

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

-- 

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
become 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 | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: NOY, can you explain why you believe such a plainly crazy notion? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-23 08:48 +0200

csiph-web