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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #653520

Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying...

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
<news:5842bd47-4637-4b6f-a67f-dcc6d08f6edf@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:09:59 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> It is quite apparent, James, that you lack fundamental understanding
>>>> of how photons are emitted and absorbed. Do you not know even the
>>>> basics of quantum mechanics?
>>>> 
>>>> Temperature affects photon energy, James. In gases, random collision
>>>> of the molecules transfers the thermal kinetic energy of one molecule
>>>> to the potential energy of another, i.e. raises an electron to a
>>>> higher level. The electron goes back to its ground state releasing a
>>>> specific photon, or a cascade of photons, depending on the energy. The
>>>> higher the thermal kinetic temperature the more energetic the kinetic
>>>> scattering and the higher the average photon energy. Hence there is a
>>>> spectral distribution due to this random collision process. Only
>>>> dilute gases emit a spectral line, as the density is too low to
>>>> produce any significant amount of random collision.
>>>> 
>>>> Your attempt to claim that water molecules in gaseous phase somehow
>>>> act differently than other gaseous-phase substances is just silly,
>>>> Jim... in fact, you deny that water even *has* a gaseous phase.
>>>> According to you, water evaporates in clusters, and thus remains
>>>> liquid, thus your claim that latent heat doesn't exist. And that's an
>>>> even sillier claim, James. Industry would not exist if the only heat
>>>> water carried off during evaporation was specific heat... evaporative
>>>> cooling towers would not work very well, for one.
>>>> 
>>>> The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon
>>>> energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the lesser the
>>>> photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here:
>>>> https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
>>>> 
>>>> That Anders Nilsson et. al. were measuring a spectral peak that did
>>>> not coincide with solid-phase water nor with liquid-phase water, a
>>>> spectral peak with *higher* photon energy than liquid-phase water,
>>>> means they were measuring gaseous-phase water, Jim. No H bonding,
>>>> monomolecular.
>>>> 
>>>> You'll note the gaseous-phase water's photon energy was *higher*
>>>> because it was monomer water, and thus had no inter-molecular H bonds.
>>>> If it had had any H bonds, it would have been liquid water, and thus
>>>> would have had a spectral peak identical to that of liquid water.
>>>> 
>>>> This is, after all, James, how humidity and liquid water (in the form
>>>> of droplets in clouds) is differentiated... we see this every time we
>>>> visit a weather website and look at their weather charts. Or do you
>>>> deny that the weather charts are legitimate now, too, Jim?
>>>> 
>>>> Hence, Anders Nilsson et. al. proved via x-ray spectroscopy that
>>>> gaseous phase water exists, and hence evaporation is a
>>>> molecule-at-a-time process, exactly as the two previous studies I've
>>>> posted (and you've run away from) prove, Jim.
>>>> 
>>>> Now, lest anyone forget, you claim that when evaporation takes place,
>>>> clusters of H-bonded water are leaping into the air, that no phase
>>>> change is taking place, which is your attempt to justify your further
>>>> claiming that latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist.
>>>> 
>>>> Your blather is indicative of how desperate you are to twist reality
>>>> to conform to your "theory" so you can proclaim yourself "not
>>>> wrong"... yeah, Jim, the option of you proclaiming yourself "right"
>>>> has been off the table for a very long time.
>>>> 
>>>> So the existence of two studies empirically observing evaporation
>>>> occurring on a per-molecule basis, combined with Anders Nilsson
>>>> measuring the spectral peak of gaseous-phase water, combined with the
>>>> everyday usage of that technology to differentiate between humidity
>>>> and clouds in predicting weather... why that destroys your claim of
>>>> there being no phase change on evaporation, which destroys your claim
>>>> of there being no latent heat of evaporation, which destroys your
>>>> claim of there being no gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, which
>>>> destroys your claim of water being a "plasma not-a-plasma" in the
>>>> atmosphere, which destroys your claim of your "plasma not-a-plasma"
>>>> being responsible for driving winds (and your circular fallacy of
>>>> claiming the wind creates the "plasma not-a-plasma"), which destroys
>>>> your claim that the jet stream is a "giant sentient plasma
>>>> not-a-plasma tornado in the sky", etc., etc... your whole fabrication
>>>> just came unwound, Jim.
>>>> 
>>>> You've been found to be a scientific fraud, Jim. You've twisted facts
>>>> to fit your agenda, you've refused to provide proof to back up your
>>>> claims, you've denigrated the hard work and intelligence of every
>>>> single scientist over the past 250+ years all so you could ego-trip
>>>> and claim you were better and smarter than them... but you're not,
>>>> Jim. You're merely a scientific fraud. Nothing more, and certainly a
>>>> great deal less.
>>>> 
>>>> That is reality, Jim. Deal with it.

>>> Address the issue, dumbass.

>> Stop backpedaling from the reality that you've gone insane, James.
>> 
>> That is reality, James. Deal with it.

>>> If it's true that they were measuring H bonds

>> They were measuring photon energy upon electron orbital descent,
>> James, which is affected by H bonding. You'll note as H bonds become
>> stronger, the photons emitted become weaker. You'll also note the
>> gaseous-phase photon energy was of a higher photon energy than liquid
>> water. Hence it was gaseous-phase, monomolecular, no H bonds, Jim.
>> 
>> Had it been liquid-phase water, no matter how small the droplets, the
>> spectra would have been identical to that of liquid water.
>> 
>> That scientifically rigorous and carefully controlled experiment
>> proves your retarded blather about there being no phase change upon
>> evaporation to be *wrong*, and that destroys the central premise for
>> your retarded blather, James.
>> 
>> That is reality, James. Deal with it.

>>> then there would be nothing to measure if it was genuine
>>> gaseous H2O because there would be nothing to measure since there
>>> are none in gaseous H2O. 
>>> 
>>> Address the issue you evasive twit.

>> Yeah, folks, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is *that*
>> fucking stupid.
>> 
>> Do you not understand what Anders Nilsson was measuring, Jim, even
>> after being told repeatedly? They were measuring photon energy upon
>> electron orbital descent of the three phases of water, Jim... the ice
>> has a lower photon spectra, the water has a dual photon spectra due to
>> the two spin isomers of water, and...
>> 
>> .... the gaseous-phase monomolecular water has a higher photon spectra.
>> 
>> Now remember, Jim, you claim that water doesn't change phase upon
>> evaporation, that it remains liquid water... which would mean that
>> liquid water, no matter how small the droplet, would have an identical
>> photon spectra as that of liquid water.
>> 
>> It didn't. It had a higher photon energy than that measured for liquid
>> water, thereby utterly *destroying* your premise that no phase change
>> takes place upon evaporation.
>> 
>> You've been trapped like a rat, Jim. One of the backbone claims in
>> your retarded "theory" has been proven wrong. No assumptions were made
>> by Nilsson et. al., those were *direct* *measurements* of photon
>> strength... if water didn't change phase upon evaporation and remained
>> liquid as you claim, the gaseous-phase spectra would have been
>> identical to liquid water, no matter how small the droplet size.
>> 
>> Now you get to desperately backpedaling, James... your sanity hangs in
>> the balance. Your Dunning-Kruger affliction and ever-encroaching
>> paranoid schizophrenia *compels* you to fight against the reality that
>> you are an insane idiotic halfwit, a scientific fraud, and a
>> laughingstock.
>> 
>> The whole world is pointing and laughing at your broken-brained
>> blathering, Jim. You'll never escape this. Your stupidity and insanity
>> will haunt you to your grave.

> Maybe Nilsson will vouch for you.

Neither I nor the scientific knowledge gained over the past 250+ years
via carefully controlled experimentation require "vouching", James. We
are right. We have been proven right, time and again, by that rigorous
scientific experimentation and knowledge.

You are the moronic halfwit blathering wholly impossible fairy tales.
You are wrong. You have been proven wrong, time and again, by that
same rigorous scientific experimentation and knowledge.

And you've found yourself utterly unable to defend your imbecilic
dullardry, because you are the pea-brained uneducated batshit crazy
moron James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA... the laughingstock of
the entire world and a scientific fraud.

As proof of what I write above, you'll yet again run away from
defending your unhinged paranoid conspiracy theory, by way of running
away from addressing the many gaping logical contradictions in your
"theory", as outlined in my .sig.

-- 

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.

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 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

Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 18:19 +0100
  Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-19 20:59 +0100
    Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 06:36 +0100
      Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 19:49 +0100
        Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-20 14:45 -0600
          Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-20 21:06 +0000
  Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 18:25 +0100
    Re: Jim's backpedaling and lying... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 07:07 +0100

csiph-web