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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #652284

Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box

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:f05de7f9-9b54-412a-9961-933720eaf57f@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:12:59 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> Sergio:
> BS, you don't know scientific method, and you 
> hate the truth, you "think outside the box"
> 
> James McGinn:
> I don't think I'm different because I think 
> outside of the box.
> 
> You believe moist air contains cold steam, making
> it 1% lighter than dry air.  And, as it convects 
> up it condenses, releasing latent heat.  And even 
> though this latent heat has never actually been 
> detected, this is what you believe powers all 
> storms and all atmospheric flow, including the jet 
> streams.

Awww, look at the kook deny reality. Again. LOL

James, do you deny that NASA has satellites in orbit? Do you deny that
NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent
heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud
formation?

<http://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/meso/index.php?section=21>
============================================================
The circulation of the atmosphere is affected by the horizontal,
vertical, and temporal distribution of atmospheric constituents such
as water vapor, aerosols, clouds, precipitation, and latent heat
released by cloud formation. Improving our ability to predict weather
and climate depends upon accurate representation of these constituents
in the vertical dimension.

Laboratory researchers are developing computer algorithms for
diagnosing precipitation rates, vertical structure, and latent heating
from a combination of the DPR and GMI data; see Grecu et al. (2004,
2009, 2011).
============================================================

Now, Jim... stop running away from those tough questions that expose
your kooky conspiracy theory as the mad ranting of a delusional
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard...

How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're 
plasma, Jim?

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding 
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the 
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm, 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 kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "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, 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 kooky 
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does 
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will, 
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with 
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to 
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity. 
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet 
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never 
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

Thread

Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 05:48 +0100
  Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 05:05 +0100
    Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 08:44 +0100
      Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 18:27 +0100
        Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 04:35 +0100
          Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 06:38 +0100
            Re: James McGinn: I'm not different because I think outside the box Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 17:23 +0100

csiph-web