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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #653054

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:6aa853db-6314-470f-ba92-3d4a818e1d9f@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 10:37:45 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> 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? 
> 
> Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?" 

James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is *so* retarded he not only
doesn't know that when water condenses it gives off a specific band of
wavelength photons, but he apparently cannot Google for it... that's
likely a combination of his being retarded and so afflicted with
Dunning-Kruger that he doesn't dare use Google to search for any
information for fear he'll find proof of his delusional state, thereby
inducing his head to implode.. Lord knows, that black hole Jim calls a
brain is already stressing his cranium to its structural limits.

<snicker>

>>>>>> It is quite apparent, James, that you have no clue how energy is 
>>>>>> absorbed and released by atoms. 

>>>>> I'll take that as a "no." 

>>>> No, James, you have no fucking clue... I'd told you to study on
>>>> photons, as that is the key... or did you not realize that latent heat
>>>> of condensation in water has a specific band of photon wavelengths
>>>> emitted?
>>>> 
>>>> Which not only proves that latent heat of condensation exists (and
>>>> thus latent heat of evaporation *must* exist), it also proves gaseous
>>>> phase monomer water is being evaporated, and it proves you're an
>>>> insane moron who is so uneducated you can't even fathom how the world
>>>> works.
>>>> 
>>>> Hence your kooky theory, which has been proven wrong via more than a
>>>> half-dozen different avenues.
>>>> 
>>>> It's sad that you've been driven so insane that you're now denying the
>>>> Laws of Thermodynamics, James. It's sad that you've been driven so
>>>> insane that rather than admit you're wrong, you're going to sue
>>>> *science*. But it sure is entertaining watching you spiral down into
>>>> psychosis.
>>>> 
>>>> <snicker>

>>> Apparently you don't either. 

>> Not true, James. Whereas you've relied upon fairy tale hypotheticals
>> and suppositions pulled straight from your ass to concoct your wholly
>> impossible "theory", I'm drawing my knowledge from more than 250 years
>> of careful and rigorous scientific research, from thousands upon
>> thousands of peer-reviewed papers, from actual scientists and
>> physicists, thousands upon thousands of them, each and every one of
>> them far smarter and saner than you, James.
>> 
>> Whereas I have provided links to corroboration of what I wrote, and
>> explained in detail the underlying mechanisms of what I wrote, you
>> have provided no details, explained nothing, hand-waved away the fact
>> that your kooky "theory" has giant gaping inconsistencies, and run
>> away from performing an experiment which would either prove you 100%
>> right, thereby overturning nearly all of established science and
>> physics... or prove you 100% wrong.
>> 
>> And anyone with even a high school education knows you'll prove
>> yourself 100% wrong, Jim. That you don't know that, but that you know
>> the entire rest of the world *does* know that, is the fear that grips
>> you, James, the fear which prevents you from performing that
>> experiment and thereby disproving the outrageous claims you've made,
>> which fly in the face of 250+ years of established science.
>> 
>> Instead, you've waffled, hemmed, hawed, backpedaled, hand-waved,
>> denied large swaths of reality, dismissed proof that you're a
>> delusional kooktard and are working furiously on a kooksoot.
>> 
>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is going to sue *science*.
>> All of it. He's *that* fucking delusional. LOL

> Is it a secret?

No, James. It is, in fact, an underlying fundamental of quantum
physics. You know, that large swath of reality that you deny because
you're an uneducated oaf.

It's called phase transition radiation, formally known as Infrared
Characteristic Radiation During First Order Phase Transition, James.
Satellites measure it to determine cloud formation and the associated
energy transfer, and it can be used to determine where hailstones are
forming and hence where tornadic activity is likely.

<http://www.ipme.ru/e-journals/RAMS/no_12009/tatartchenko.pdf#page=6>

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273987462_Phase-Change_Radiation_Enhanced_Infrared_Absorption_in_Vapor-Liquid_Water_Mixtures>

<http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1819226>

<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610212001695>

<https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/31033/Wu_Wei-Hsuan.pdf>

<https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/29706/Wang_Kuo-Ting.pdf>
============================================================
Nichols and Lamar in 1968 compared the infrared view of forming /
dissipating cumulus clouds to the photograph of the same clouds and
found that strong infrared radiation in the spectral range of 8-14
microns was emitted from unknown sources at the bottom sides of the
clouds.
============================================================

Now before you start bleating, James, the source was unknown in
1968... today it is fully explained and understood.

Now, before you run away again, James, do try to at least take a peek
at those questions which highlight the logical inconsistencies in your
kooky claims... it is painful for you, I'm sure, but do try... we all 
know you can't address them, that'd make your poor head implode, but 
do try to at least look at and consider them...

============================================================
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, 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 hundreds of miles away from 
the jet stream, 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 k'laming that convection doesn't exist 
means you're further k'laming 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 order that your claims have 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?

-- 

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 the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear 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.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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