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

Groups > sci.physics > #557082

Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience

From jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups sci.physics
Subject Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience
Date 2016-02-26 23:40 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <tc47qc-3sa.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References <8ea32550-e566-4b09-8c23-a9efe1df5c0d@googlegroups.com> <naog11$1oo5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <6eea65ae-c8b6-403f-a9c7-a64a5c59bf47@googlegroups.com> <hd27qc-qka.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <074beccd-656d-4bf0-9359-77cbe363a708@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:15:50 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> >> On 2/25/2016 8:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> > 
>> >> > The convection model is vague.  The observation that warm,
>> >> > moist air stays along the surface and does not constantly rush up
>> >> > through the cool, dry air above IS evidence.
>> >> 
>> >> that is a lie.
>> > 
>> > Where is your argument, shirt boy?
>> > 
>> > This simple observation refutes the convection model.
>> 
>> What simple observation?
>> 
>> Do you mean the one with Schlieren imaging where one can see convection
>> in real time showing warm air goes up and cold air goes down?
> 
> Even if convection is true you can't see it, dumbass.  Seeing air move
> doesn't tell you why, you simpleton.

Schlieren imaging allows one to watch convection occur in real time.

Schlieren imaging makes it all blazingly obvious, even to little kids.

And it is easy enough to do that kids do it for science fairs.


-- 
Jim Pennino

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:16 -0800
  Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:33 -0600
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 23:53 -0800
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:29 -0600
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 09:50 -0800
          Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:44 -0600
            Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:01 -0800
              Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 13:07 -0600
              Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:11 -0600
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:15 -0800
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:25 -0600
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 19:33 +0000
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:48 -0800
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:03 -0600
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 20:39 +0000
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:27 -0600
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:45 -0800
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:57 -0500
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:43 -0800
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 12:52 -0600
  Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 21:15 -0600
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:59 -0800
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:04 -0600
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:06 +0000
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:27 -0800
          Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:40 +0000
  Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 03:13 +0000
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:09 -0800

csiph-web