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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #653735

Re: NOY, did you watch these videos?

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:43100c64-1b95-4858-9a16-9e91da9a5cd0@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> video: 
> https://youtu.be/iDv2RoUrHTY?t=4m10s
> https://youtu.be/WSGv08Rb_Lo ) 
> 
> Did you watch these?  Do you understand how this is distinctive from
> the standard model that Nilsson, Saykally, and Soper assume?

So you deny well-established, empirically-proven science in favor of
your moronic anti-science conspiracy theory blathering... and you
*don't* think you're insane, Jim?

> If you don't understand this then you don't understand my model,

That's because your "model not-a-model" doesn't make any sense, Jim.

> the underlying assumptions/mechanics of which are explained in my paper.

And that's all you have, Jim, is assumptions. Assumptions made by a
broken-brained uneducated halfwitted moron off his meds.

> I'm not saying you have to agree with my model. But it's kind of
> ridiculous to dispute my model before you understand it.  It's also
> kind of ridiculous to dispute my model based on the fact that it
> does not match up exactly with the standard model

Your model is disputed because it does not match up with reality,
James.

> when the purpose of my paper and these videos is to establish how
> and why my model is distinctive from the standard model.

"ab initro"... LOL! If you can't even say the fucking word, Jim, you
most certainly don't understand the concept.

"water pendulums", another reference to your "pendulimic energy"...
LOL! Fuck, Jim... you have no clue how atoms and molecules work, do
you?

For those who want to entertain themselves, watch this moron at 2x
speed... it highlights The Manic. LOL

KookTard, you've had some very informed highly educated people who
would most definitely know because they've measured such things
empirically via carefully-controlled experimentation tell you that H
bonding does not negate water molecule polarity... not only have you
been told that by people far smarter and saner than you, it'd violate
Coulomb's Law, given that H bonds are electrostatic in nature, a
scientific fact brought about from many, many years of empirical
observation via experimentation, as well.

You keep making these moronic videos filled with demonstrably false
blather and writing books and posts... and despite every single person
saner and smarter than you telling you that *you* *are* *wrong*, you
obliviously blather on, hoping against hope that your fairy tale
fabrication is true so you can justify your retarded claim that every
single scientist in the past 250+ years is wrong, thereby justifying
the fairy tale fabrication you've made, setting yourself as "King of
Science".

But you're an uneducated moronic halfwit, James. You're up against
highly educated people with super-genius IQs who did the hard work of
empirical observation via carefully-controlled experimentation. All
you have is your moronic blather about conspiracies and giant sentient
sky tornado monsters with noodly appendages that stretch for thousands
of miles to touch down tornadoes. You have no experimental data to
back up your twaddle, you have no corroborating studies, you have no
empirical evidence... you've pulled this entire fabrication straight
from your ass, and it's been torn to shreds. Yet you continue because
*you've* *gone* *psychotic*, James.

You need to get back on your meds and stop embarrassing yourself.
You've won no arguments, you've gained no followers, you've broken no
new ground, you've discovered nothing, you've proven nothing... all
you've done is demonstrated that you're an insane moronic uneducated
halfwit, and made a laughingstock of yourself.

The whole world is laughing at you, Jim. The sooner you wake the fuck
up and realize that fact, the sooner you can stop being such a fucking
retard.

Now, before you run away again, Jim... there's the matter of all those
questions you've been evading... they highlight the gaping logic holes
in your wholly fabricated 'theory'. Your inability to close those
logic holes stands as your tacit admission that you know your
halfwittery has no defense.

My .sig now has even more questions you'll run away from, Jim... the
noose has closed around the neck of McGinnism, and it is strung up,
rightfully convicted of being a scientific fraud.

-- 

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 clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, 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 — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 04:47 +0100
  Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:09 +0100
    Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 06:06 +0100
      Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:16 +0100
        Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:42 -0600
          Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 05:53 +0100
            Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-23 06:30 -0600
        Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-22 17:31 +0000
          Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? "\"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> - 2016-03-22 13:47 -0400
          Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-22 11:03 -0700
          Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 12:29 -0600
            Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-22 11:45 -0700
            Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:45 +0100
        Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:50 +0100
          Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 18:13 +0100
            Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 07:19 +0100
              Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-24 07:54 +0000
              Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 19:44 +0100
                Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 06:21 +0100
                Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 18:34 +0100
  Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 21:48 +0100
    Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 04:35 +0100
      Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:01 +0100
        Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:41 -0600
          Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 05:22 +0100
            Re: NOY, did you watch these videos? Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-23 06:29 -0600

csiph-web