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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #642057

Re: Clouds are made of water

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

James McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:577130e3-1423-4c42-b698-4459cf53d053@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 4:07:55 PM UTC-8, Friendly
> Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> Clouds are made of water.

>>>> But water is heavier than air.

>> Water in its gaseous phase is *lighter* than dry air,
>> as I've proven.

>>> convection versus plasma
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

>> You're wrong, Jim.

> Prove it.

I already have, via several different avenues, Jim. Why do you refuse
to take your meds? You meds will help your broken brain to reconcile
itself to reality.

>> At time 3:45, you launch into your kooky take on water molecules
>> aggregating and *increasing* their aggregate polarity as a result...
>> water, as does everything in the universe, seeks its *lowest* energy
>> state. Hence liquid water is a lower energy state than gaseous phase
>> water.

> Polarity.  

Exactly right. The 8+ electronegativity of the oxygen atom and the 1+
electronegativity of each hydrogen atom means water molecules usually
align in liquid phase with inter-molecular hydrogen bonding... but
it's a weak bond comparative to the covalent O-H bond, and can be
broken via random thermal fluctuations, as I've proven. This minimizes
the free energy of the system as a whole. But those random thermal
fluctuations still exist, and can still break the inter-molecular
hydrogen bonding to evaporate water or sublimate ice, despite your
denials.

Thus monatomic water can and does exist in the atmosphere, especially
considering that I've already proven that water vapor also contains
water in it gaseous phase, thereby proving you *wrong*.

But you ran away from that proof, and now refuse to pay the $100,000
you owe me, as per your public challenge, because to be proven wrong
would mean you would spiral into a deep dark suicidal depression...
Dunning-Kruger sufferers feel they must always be right despite not
having the technical competence to *ever* be right. And you've got D-K
in spades, Jim. Take your meds.

>> That gaseous phase water has had sufficient energy added to it
>> via thermal collisions to escape the inter-molecular hydrogen bonding,
>> which I've already discussed:

> Vague.  Simpleminded.  Pedestrian.  

That is the exact scientific process by which evaporation and
sublimation occurs, Jim. Are you denying that evaporation and
sublimation occurs, Jim?

If you hope to wear me down by your constant denials of reality and
non sequiturs, you don't know me very well... I argued with the
Tholenbot until it *broke*... that's why Tholen took it offline. Yeah,
I out-Tholen'd the Tholenbot, had it so twisted around it was arguing
with itself.

<snicker>

> First start by acknowledging that the high boiling point of H2O

Has nothing whatsoever to do with the random thermal motion of
molecules sometimes randomly imparting sufficient energy to a molecule
to allow it to break the hydrogen bonds and thus evaporate or
sublimate, Jim. Are you denying evaporation and sublimation, Jim?

> is due to its polarity.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that random thermal motion of
the molecules can impart sufficient energy to a molecule such that it
can break those hydrogen bonds and evaporate or sublimate, as long as
the partial vapor pressure is below the equilibrium vapor pressure,
Jim. To deny this fact is to deny that evaporation and sublimation can
occur... is that what you're doing, Jim?

A primer for you, Jim:
<https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/p670/Wi04/textbook/per5.pdf>
========================================================
Evaporative Cooling
We observe that a liquid in an open container will eventually
disappear. This process is known as evaporation, and gives us more
evidence for the motion of the molecules in the liquid. Consider the
molecules just below the surface of a liquid. The fast ones are more
likely to overcome the intermolecular forces and escape, while the
slower molecules stay behind in the liquid. Without the fast
molecules, the average molecular speed in the liquid is lower and that
implies a lower temperature. The greater the rate of evaporation, the
stronger this cooling effect will be.
========================================================

According to your kooky blather, Doppler-shift laser cooling of BEC
would be impossible. Or did you not realize that we've come within
minute fractions of a degree of absolute zero via laser-induced
evaporative cooling?

>> Message-ID: <59de46e56833e802ffb541f95bec654e@dizum.com>
>> ====================================================
>> Thermodynamics dictates that for a system of liquid, the free energy
>> can be lowered by trading some enthalpy for the increase in entropy.

> Wrong subject.  

Exactly the *right* subject, you moron. Any liquid system attempts to
reach maximum entropy, as every system does. If a system finds it
energetically beneficial to trade enthalpy for an increase in entropy,
it will do so. In the case of water, it does so via evaporation. In
the case of ice, it does so via sublimation. Said evaporation and
sublimation proving that gaseous-phase water exists in the atmosphere.
Did you even graduate from high school?

>> For any given temperature, this balance determines the equilibrium
>> vapor pressure. Thus, there will always be some gaseous phase water in
>> equilibrium (for all temperatures above ~-60 C).
>> ====================================================
>> 
>> But that gaseous phase water can still exist in air at a partial
>> pressure sufficiently high to balance the pressure resultant to random
>> molecular collisions in water causing evaporation.

> Vague.

It is not "vague", it is scientific reality. The equations proving the
same have already been presented to you, you ran away from them.
Remember, you've already admitted I was right, therefore you're wrong,
therefore I've met the conditions of your kooky challenge, therefore
you owe me $100,000, Jim. You may pay with money or your sanity...
either way is good for me.

>> Further, tornados have nothing to do with plasma, they are a heat
>> engine, nothing more.

> Heat engine?  

That's exactly correct. That you don't know this proves you lack the
requisite knowledge to even converse on this topic, Jim. You'd be
well-advised to give up, take down your kooky blog, erase your kooky
YouTube videos, and stop offering that tripe you call a book for sale.
You're so far out of your depth you haven't a clue how anything works,
and you're so afflicted by Dunning-Kruger that you're clue repellant.

A tornado is an atmospheric heat engine driven by convective
instability between a warm moist source at the ground level and the
much cooler upper atmosphere sink temperature, the general temperature
differential in a mature tornado thus being about 40 - 70 C. The
vorticity originates from wind shear between interacting air streams
in the storm system.

In its initial stages, the tornado starts as horizontal vortices of
air as result of warm, moist air shearing horizontally with cooler
dryer air. The shear creates large horizontal rolls in the atmosphere,
which tip vertically and extend a funnel down toward the ground. Once
the funnel touches down at the surface, intensification occurs. The
wind increases and the funnel base broadens. The source of this
additional input of energy appears related to the infiltration of warm
and moist surface air into the vortex as the drag of surface friction
unbalances the purely tangential flow and permits a partial radial
inflow of surface air.

Thus, the tornado is an isentropic transformation of energy from heat
into flow velocity with no real work done (save the work done on
lifting of various objects from the ground), represented by the
equation:

V = n^1/2 c_o [1 −  T/T_o]^1/2 = n^1/2 c_o [d_T/T_o]^1/2
Where:
c = wave speed
c_o = static wave speed
T = temperaure
V = flow velocity
n = division of the energy of the air flow = 2/(k-1)
  where:
  k= ratio of specific heats c_p/c_v = 1.4 for air

Further deriving the equation gives the relationship between flow
velocity (V) and differential temperature (d_T).

>> Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is
>> another easily disproved 

> Then do so.

I did, it's called the Triboelectric Effect. NASA's known about it
ever since the beginning of the space program, why don't you, Jim? Are
you stupid, or just uneducated?

>> Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong
>> via several different avenues, 

> Obviously I disagree.  
> 
> So now what?

You've already admitted I was right, Jim. And your cowardly snipping
of all that data proving you're a low-information ignoramus trying
desperately to argue a topic which you know next to nothing about is
obvious to all.

So either you pay the $100,000 you agreed to pay when your kooky
theory was disproved, as it has been, or I'll take payment in the form
of your sanity.

Your choice.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

Back to alt.usenet.kooks | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 00:57 +0100
  Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 03:52 +0100
    Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 00:25 -0800
      Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-07 08:39 +0000
      Re: Clouds are made of water Ty Foyd <death@spank.666> - 2016-03-07 05:27 -0500
        Re: Clouds are made of water Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-07 08:25 -0800
          Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 10:54 -0600
      Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 17:03 +0100
      Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 18:12 +0100
        Re: Clouds are made of water "\"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> - 2016-03-07 12:27 -0500
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 17:45 +0100
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 18:01 +0100

csiph-web