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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #651577

Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A

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:8d251d04-1985-4e03-8cb6-29552ed00ae0@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:49:50 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Nobody debates that it is weaker.  But that is not the issue, AFAIC.

>> Oh, good. That established, then you're forced to admit that the much 
>> stronger diametrically-opposed covalent bond preferentially shortens 
>> and strengthens when one of the H bonds is broken,

> Relevance?

The relevance is that your lack of understanding of atomic processes
has led you to make a false premise, then build an entire kooky
conspiracy theory upon that false premise. The relevance is that your
kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim, because the
underlying premise of your entire kooky conspiracy theory has been
destroyed.

<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.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."

Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.

Again, your  lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.

<snicker>

>>>> Again, if the bond strength was variable, the solvent properties of
>>>> water would be variable.

>>> Why do you assume this and/or why do you assume they (the solvent
>>> properties) are not variable?

>> Because, you fucking moron, the solvent properties of water *depends* 
>> upon the hydrogen bonding of water. If the polarity of water varied as 
>> you claim, the hydrogen bond strength would vary,

> How do you know they don't?  

Because it's been measured, Jim.

===========================================================
I'll further note that the polarity of water is not variable. It is
fixed at 1.09 (http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_properties.html).

References:
========================
C-H. Gu, H. Li, R. B. Gandhi and K. Raghavan, Grouping solvents by
statistical analysis of solvent property parameters:implication to
polymorph screening. Int. J. Pharmaceutics 283 (2004) 117-125.

R. S. Varma, Clean chemical synthesis in water, Org. Chem. Highlights
(2007), February.
========================

If water's polarity were variable, its solvent properties would be
variable, as well. It is not, therefore its polarity is not variable,
Jim. Why do you deny reality, Jim?
===========================================================

> Answer the question you evasive twit?

The question has already been answered, you evasive twit. You snipped
it out and ran away from it because it proves you and your kooky
conspiracy theory *wrong*, which means you owe me $100,000, Jim.

>>>> For fuck sake, no it's not. Bond strength is a function of bond angle,
>>>> but molecular polarity does not change. 

>>> How would you prove this?

>> Well, Jim, if you knew even the most basic about molecular physics, 
>> you'd realize that hydrogen bonding has a preferred direction and thus 
>> an optimum strength.
>> 
>> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
>> ==========================================================
>> An important feature of the hydrogen bond is that it possesses 
>> direction; by convention this direction is that of the shorter O-H 
>> (->) covalent bond (the O-H hydrogen atom being donated to the O-atom 
>> acceptor atom on another H2O molecule).
>> ==========================================================
>> 
>> And that destroys yet another central tenet of your kooky little 
>> theory, Jim... I can continue doing this until you're forced to admit 
>> you're a low-information delusional moron, or you can save yourself 
>> the concomitant embarrassment and admit it now, Jim.

> I can't figure out what you point is.  Sorry.

Your lack of comprehension is no one's fault but your own, Jim.
Rectify your stupidity via formal education. Finish high school.

<snicker>

>>> It doesn't.  The location of the electrons (or, the electron cloud) shifts.

>> Oh, so you're saying it changes its polarity, but it doesn't change 
>> its polarity, then. Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense, now does 
>> it, Jim?
>> 
>> And what, pray tell, causes your purported shift in electron 
>> probability distribution about the molecule, Jim?

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

Referring to your own video-based kook blather is not proof, Jim. Do
you not understand the scientific method?

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

>> 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.

<crickets>

>>>>> And H bonds restore symmetry thereby neutralizing H2O polarity in
>>>>> the liquid state. IOW, in the liquid state of water the molecules
>>>>> therein have had their polarity neutralized by H bonds.  

>>>> Wrong. Bond angle (your misuse of the word symmetry is noted) and thus
>>>> bond strength changes as a result of random thermal collisions, but
>>>> molecular polarity does not change.

>>> That is your premise.  I have my premise.  Neither of us has proof.

>> Sure I have proof, Jim. You don't. In fact, I posted that proof, 
>> remember? You ran away from it before, you'll likely do it again:
>> 
>> <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>
>> 
>> Why are you so stupid, Jim? People far smarter than you have figured 
>> all this out long before you conceived of your kooky discredited 
>> theory, 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>

> What does this prove?

It proves that 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>

-- 

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 - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 17:39 +0100
  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 02:34 +0800
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I "\"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> - 2016-03-08 13:47 -0500
      Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 03:33 +0800
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:05 +0100
      Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-09 05:39 -0700
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 22:44 +0800
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 08:51 -0800
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 17:21 +0000
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 02:03 +0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 10:13 -0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 18:17 +0000
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 15:50 -0500
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:24 -0800
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:28 -0500
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:37 -0800
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:39 -0500
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I "\"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> - 2016-03-09 12:36 -0500
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 02:06 +0800
  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:54 +0100
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-03-09 08:43 +0000
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:11 +0100
      Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 04:09 +0800
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:12 -0800
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 20:23 +0000
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 20:21 +0000
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:23 -0800
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:59 +0100
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 17:59 +0800
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:21 +0100
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:19 +0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:55 +0100
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 21:58 +0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 10:07 -0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:17 +0100
  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:30 +0100
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:28 +0100

csiph-web