I've known about this misconception for 25 years now

[James McGinn]

One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this mosconception for 25 years now. So I've had a lot more time to reconcile all the anecdotal evidence that you all keep tripping over.

Let's say, for purposes of argument, that I am wrong. We can then ask ourselves how or where did I make a mistake. I can think of only one thing. And that would be that I had miscalculated the effect of air molecules on water clusters/droplets. Do air molecules in the atmosphere--in contrast to what I am assuming--possess some ability to break up water clusters/droplets and force them to remain gaseous at ambient temps? If such a force does exist nobody as of yet has been able to describe it.

Any testing of this notion would be very difficult because there is no simple or straightforward way to detect water being monomolecular.

There is a way to verify it through application of gas laws utilizing extremely sensitive scales. But the problem here is that gas laws are complex and humans are simple; when presented with complex proof humans almost always fall back on simple anecdote. And that doesn't even get to the political problems one would face even if they did prove it. Even if a famous scientist took up the cause they would find themselves at odds with the industrial complex of major scientific institutions, like meteorology and climatology. Because any such proof would show that all of their models are the nonsense that they actually are. There would be a lot of mud on a lot of faces. And so, any known scientists who did take up the cause would be putting their career in jeopardy. They would be labeled the king of all science deniers, and that would just be the beginning of an endless onslaught of character assassination from the likes of Al Gore and other self-righteous science evangelist, many of whom have a lot more money than Al Gore, like Bill Gates for example.

So, it could be done. But it wouldn't be simple. It wouldn't be cheap. And it wouldn't be fun.

25 years
https://youtu.be/C6GZEn7N7Ss?t=5m42s

Can air maintain H2O as a gas at ambient temps?
https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk?t=3m2s

How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU

My channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1ALfDP7sGkeIEBjkMQ

Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4

H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ

How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU

Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss

Convection Versus Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo

Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this
> mosconception for 25 years now. So I've had a lot more time to
> reconcile all the anecdotal evidence that you all keep tripping over.

So you have had this delusion for 25 years that out of the thousands and
thousands of physicists, chemists, engineers, meteorologists that have
studied the subject for hundreds of year, you have been blessed with
some miraculous insight overlooked by everyone else?

Yet you have no reproducible experiment that would verify your miraculous
insight while the rest of the world has numerous reproducible experiments
that say you are wrong.

I have given you two experiments that would prove it one way or the other.

Have you done either yet?


--
Jim Pennino

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Cool!

So... where's the evidence that you are correct? I don't see it anywhere... your YouTube videos, of course, don't actually count...

[Sergio]

On 2/23/2016 8:25 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this
> mosconception for 25 years now. So I've had a lot more time to
> reconcile all the anecdotal evidence that you all keep tripping
> over.
>
> Let's say, for purposes of argument, that I am wrong. We can then
> ask ourselves how or where did I make a mistake. I can think of only
> one thing. And that would be that I had miscalculated the effect of
> air molecules on water clusters/droplets. Do air molecules in the
> atmosphere--in contrast to what I am assuming--possess some ability
> to break up water clusters/droplets and force them to remain gaseous
> at ambient temps?

yes, yes, yes. there are several ways to think of it.

one way is as a liquid progressing and arriving at a gas.
Liquid- all the molecules are connected, touching each other
Gas - all molecules are apart (think a hot gas)

so there is middle ground where their are clusters, and the clusters
very in size from two molecules to millions, depending upon pressure and
temperature. then larger to a fog, or cloud where you have droplets. It
is not a sudden transition, we tend to see it that way because we are
much bigger, and dont observe at the boiling surface in detail. Note
when boiling, the bubbles are water vapor leaving the liquid.

in your theory, what is in the bubbles when boiling?

it is the same for all the other types of molecules, like ethanol going
from liquid to gas. They teach this in Chem and some in physics.
Water has slight polarity which adds to its feature set

If you stay with your theory, then you cannot dry your clothes, there is
no way to get the liquid water off.

so your theory gets you labeled as a Ko0k delusional troll and you can
keep trolling on.

so mentally zoom in to the water surface, and see water molecules
constantly leaving the surface. How many and how fast depends upon
temperature and pressure. Many leave in clumps too. as the water gets
hot and steams before boiling, the steam is the clumps, and the clumps
separate into individual molecules and continue on.

Then there is another statistical explanation which agrees with all
data, but is complicated for you.

all this work was done decades ago, fully understood and verified,
tested and all kinds of equipment made using the effects of water.

so your "no water vapor", would cause all kinds of problems with all
kinds of Machines that use water. But they work fine, because there is
water vapor and humidity all over the place, everywhere, even in your
nose and ears, and lungs, and on your eyeballs, fingers, keyboard.

a good learning lesson for you. if it is too much, read it again for the
first time.


Biggus

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/23/16 8:25 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this mosconception for 25 years now

Some Basics for James
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/vappre.html#c1

> The process of evaporation in a closed container will proceed until
> there are as many molecules returning to the liquid as there are
> escaping. At this point the vapor is said to be saturated, and the
> pressure of that vapor (usually expressed in mmHg) is called the
> saturated vapor pressure.


--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[Poutnik]

Dne 24/02/2016 v 03:53 pnal...@gmail.com napsal(a):

>
> Cool!
>
> So... where's the evidence that you are correct? I don't see it anywhere... your YouTube videos, of course, don't actually count...
>

He wasted 25 his years
refusing to make any single experiment,
that he could make even at home, if he had wanted,
that would refute his ideas.

He is as that priest,
refuting to look at the Jupiter moons,
when offered by Galileo,
saying such things cannot exist.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/23/2016 11:33 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 24/02/2016 v 03:53 pnal...@gmail.com napsal(a):
>
>>
>> Cool!
>>
>> So... where's the evidence that you are correct? I don't see it
>> anywhere... your YouTube videos, of course, don't actually count...
>>
> He wasted 25 his years
> refusing to make any single experiment,
> that he could make even at home, if he had wanted,
> that would refute his ideas.
>
> He is as that priest,
> refuting to look at the Jupiter moons,
> when offered by Galileo,
> saying such things cannot exist.
>

I've stopped wasting my time and have plonked him.

His mode of operation is to:
1. Believe something unusual.
2. Demand that others present evidence to the contrary.
3. Dismiss any evidence presented.


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Poutnik]

Dne středa 24. února 2016 15:09:39 UTC+1 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):

>
> I've stopped wasting my time and have plonked him.
>
> His mode of operation is to:
> 1. Believe something unusual.
> 2. Demand that others present evidence to the contrary.
> 3. Dismiss any evidence presented.
>

Exactly.
HIS extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

One of the things a scientist will ask people that believe in paranormal phenomena is if they can explain why the phenomena they believe in never shows up under laboratory conditions. Do ghosts not like laboratories?

We can ask the same question here. Can any of you explain why your ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory conditions? Does it not like laboratories?

Can any of you explain why, according to you, it only show up under conditions where its existence can't be verified?

Could it be that you are all seeing a ghost?

[Sergio]

On 2/24/2016 11:07 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
> wrote:
>
> One of the things a scientist will ask people that believe in
> paranormal phenomena is if they can explain why the phenomena they
> believe in never shows up under laboratory conditions.

no, scientists do not.

> Do ghosts not
> like laboratories?

ghosts like lavatories, not laboratories.

In the movies they don't want to tell you that ghosts need to go potty
just like the rest of us.

> We can ask the same question here. Can any of you explain why your
> ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
> conditions? Does it not like laboratories?

can you prove the negative ?

What happens to wet clothes on the clothesline ?
They get dry.

How does the liquid water get out of the clothes ?

how ?

magic ?


<snip Ko0k crap>

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/24/16 11:07 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> We can ask the same question here. Can any of you explain why your
> ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
> conditions? Does it not like laboratories?

There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
More modern measurement are electronic.

Current measurements in my area can be found here:
> http://www.aviationweather.gov/adds/metars/?station_ids=KAMW&std_trans=translated&chk_metars=on

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>
> We can ask the same question here. Can any of you explain why your
> ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
> conditions? Does it not like laboratories?

They do but you refuse to look at the literature and refuse to do any
experiments on your own.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/16 11:07 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>> We can ask the same question here. Can any of you explain why your
>> ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
>> conditions? Does it not like laboratories?
>
>
> There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
> home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
> with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
> More modern measurement are electronic.

Sorry, but that does not PROVE that the H2O is gas.

See if you can find someone else's material that does prove it and you
can then copy it.


--
Jim Pennino

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:46:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/24/16 11:07 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >> We can ask the same question here. Can any of you explain why your
> >> ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
> >> conditions? Does it not like laboratories?
> >
> >
> > There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
> > home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
> > with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
> > More modern measurement are electronic.
>
> Sorry, but that does not PROVE that the H2O is gas.

Well, the very definition of 'humidity' tells us that it is the relative amount of water vapor in the air, and except for what's-his-face who thinks he's a physicist, we all agree that water vapor is the gaseous state of water and is invisible. In other words, if you are measuring the humidity, you are measuring gaseous H2O.

What's to prove?

[Sergio]

I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is
completely dry.

there was no wet spot under the shirt.

how did the water get out ?

No smoke came off it at all.

did my shirt out-gas ?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

That is proof by definition, hardly a proof.

> What's to prove?

As far as I am concerned, it has been proven, but that isn't the point.

So far I have been able to come up with two experiments that would prove
that humidity is gaseous H2O off the top of my head,

Surely people can come up with more.

Look at it as a return to all those classes where the prof would say
"So and so is so, and now we are going into the lab to prove it".


--
Jim Pennino

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:46:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
> > home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
> > with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
> > More modern measurement are electronic.
>
> Sorry, but that does not PROVE that the H2O is gas.

Right.

How is it that you know that now but you didn't know that yesterday? Were you not, yesterday, claiming that the clarity of clear, moist air is evidence that confirms that the moisture therein is gaseous? Or do I have you confused with somebody else?

Did you have an awakening? And epiphany? Please explain. What happened between now and yesterday that brought you to the realization that the clarity of moist air is not evidence that it contains gaseous H2O? Did you take a smart pill? Please explain.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> I have given you two experiments that would prove it one way or the other.

I've seen one. The one dealing with discontinuance. Where's the other one?

[James McGinn]

Does this "literature," exist in the real world? Or just your imagination?

[Sergio]

On 2/24/2016 3:30 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>>>
>>> We can ask the same question here. Can any of you explain why your
>>> ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
>>> conditions? Does it not like laboratories?
>>
>> They do but you refuse to look at the literature and refuse to do any
>> experiments on your own.
>

I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is
completely dry.

there was no wet spot under the shirt.

how did the water get out ?

No smoke came off it at all.

did my shirt out-gas ?

what kind of gas ?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:46:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> > There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
>> > home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
>> > with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
>> > More modern measurement are electronic.
>>
>> Sorry, but that does not PROVE that the H2O is gas.
>
> Right.
>
> How is it that you know that now but you didn't know that yesterday?
> Were you not, yesterday, claiming that the clarity of clear, moist air
> is evidence that confirms that the moisture therein is gaseous? Or
> do I have you confused with somebody else?

I'm afraid you have everything confused.

Note that saying a particular thing is not proof is not the same thing
as saying there is no proof.

> Did you have an awakening? And epiphany? Please explain. What
> happened between now and yesterday that brought you to the realization
> that the clarity of moist air is not evidence that it contains gaseous
> H2O? Did you take a smart pill? Please explain.

You are babbling.

Nothing has changed in regards to my position; you are still delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> >
>> > We can ask the same question here. Can any of you explain why your
>> > ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
>> > conditions? Does it not like laboratories?
>>
>> They do but you refuse to look at the literature and refuse to do any
>> experiments on your own.
>
> Does this "literature," exist in the real world? Or just your imagination?

It is blazingly obvious to everyone but you that the literature of thousands
of people over hundreds of years exists, and I even gave you a pointer
to a few.

Just how much spoon feeding do you require?

--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Posted at least four times; pay attention.


--
Jim Pennino

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Does any literature exist in the real world that proves your position that humid air is heavier than dry air? There is no such proof, and I, too, have $100,000 that says it is just your imagination. Prove me wrong, if you can. But you can't, and you won't.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > How is it that you know that now but you didn't know that yesterday?
> > Were you not, yesterday, claiming that the clarity of clear, moist air
> > is evidence that confirms that the moisture therein is gaseous? Or
> > do I have you confused with somebody else?
>
> I'm afraid you have everything confused.

Apparently not.

> Note that saying a particular thing is not proof is not the same thing
> as saying there is no proof.

You can't unring a bell.

Thank you for your honesty--finally.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> >> They do but you refuse to look at the literature and refuse to do any
> >> experiments on your own.
> >
> > Does this "literature," exist in the real world? Or just your imagination?
>
> It is blazingly obvious to everyone

It's regrettable "everyone" isn't help you find direct reference to your imaginary literature.

> but you that the literature of thousands

One will suffice. Keep working on it.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:33:26 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 1:30:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> > > They do but you refuse to look at the literature and refuse to do any
> > > experiments on your own.
> >
> > Does this "literature," exist in the real world? Or just your imagination?
>
> Does any literature exist in the real world that proves your position that humid air is heavier than dry air?

No it does not. But the steam tables do indicate that water does not turn to gas at ambient temperatures. So I am inferring from that.

Do you have any information that water can be a gas at ambient temperatures? Keep in mind that your imagination is not evidence. Answer my question you evasive twit.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> >> They do but you refuse to look at the literature and refuse to do any
>> >> experiments on your own.
>> >
>> > Does this "literature," exist in the real world? Or just your imagination?
>>
>> It is blazingly obvious to everyone
>
> It's regrettable "everyone" isn't help you find direct reference to your

Learn how to format text.

This is USENET and real news readers don't handle line lengths longer
than 78 characters well and also refuse to post responses with more
than a few lines longer than 78 characters.

That means I have to waste additional time on your delusional posts hand
editing the line lengths.

>
>> but you that the literature of thousands
>
> One will suffice. Keep working on it.

As I already said, I have given you several.

How much spoon feeding do you require?

--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> > How is it that you know that now but you didn't know that yesterday?
>> > Were you not, yesterday, claiming that the clarity of clear, moist air
>> > is evidence that confirms that the moisture therein is gaseous? Or
>> > do I have you confused with somebody else?
>>
>> I'm afraid you have everything confused.
>
> Apparently not.

Yes, you do.

>> Note that saying a particular thing is not proof is not the same thing
>> as saying there is no proof.
>
> You can't unring a bell.

Irrelevant babble.

You obviously did NOT understand the following:

Note that saying a particular thing is not proof is not the same thing
as saying there is no proof.

Let me explain it terms a 10 year old can understand.

Saying that experiment A does not prove a particular thing means
experiment A is false but says NOTHING about experiments B, C, D, E, F...


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:33:26 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 1:30:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> > > They do but you refuse to look at the literature and refuse to do any
>> > > experiments on your own.
>> >
>> > Does this "literature," exist in the real world? Or just your imagination?
>>
>> Does any literature exist in the real world that proves your position that humid air is heavier than dry air?
>
> No it does not. But the steam tables do indicate that water does not

Learn how to format text.

This is USENET and real news readers don't handle line lengths longer
than 78 characters well and also refuse to post responses with more
than a few lines longer than 78 characters.

That means I have to waste additional time on your delusional posts hand
editing the line lengths.

>

> Do you have any information that water can be a gas at ambient temperatures?

Learn how to format text.

This is USENET and real news readers don't handle line lengths longer
than 78 characters well and also refuse to post responses with more
than a few lines longer than 78 characters.

That means I have to waste additional time on your delusional posts hand
editing the line lengths.

--
Jim Pennino

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 5:32:53 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:33:26 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 1:30:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> > > > They do but you refuse to look at the literature and refuse to do any
> > > > experiments on your own.
> > >
> > > Does this "literature," exist in the real world? Or just your imagination?
> >
> > Does any literature exist in the real world that proves your position that humid air is heavier than dry air?
>
> No it does not.

That's what I thought.

Loser.

[noTthaTguY]

just learn the measurement of partial pressures;
do some thing that takes a tiny effort

[Sergio]

On 2/24/2016 7:32 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:33:26 PM UTC-8,
> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 1:30:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
>> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-8,
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>> They do but you refuse to look at the literature and refuse to
>>>> do any experiments on your own.
>>>
>>> Does this "literature," exist in the real world? Or just your
>>> imagination?
>>
>> Does any literature exist in the real world that proves your
>> position that humid air is heavier than dry air?
>
> No it does not.

so you admit you lied.

> But the steam tables do indicate that water does not
> turn to gas at ambient temperatures.

liar.

> So I am inferring from that.

your inferring outta you ass. You woudn't know a steam table if someone
cooked you on it.

> Do you have any information that water can be a gas at ambient
> temperatures?

you say there is not, prove it.

I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is

completely dry. there was no wet spot under the shirt at all.

how did the water get out ?

No "smoke" came off it at all.

did my shirt out-gas ? did the water come out as a gas ?

water gas ? Water Vapor ? Humidity ?


so How can that happen when you say there is no such thing on earth ?

a counter example you refuse to answer ?

did you make a mistake ?

It blows a HUGE hole in you.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this mosconception for 25 years now. So I've had a lot more time to reconcile all the anecdotal evidence that you all keep tripping over.
>
> Let's say, for purposes of argument, that I am wrong. We can then ask ourselves how or where did I make a mistake. I can think of only one thing. And that would be that I had miscalculated the effect of air molecules on water clusters/droplets. Do air molecules in the atmosphere--in contrast to what I am assuming--possess some ability to break up water clusters/droplets and force them to remain gaseous at ambient temps? If such a force does exist nobody as of yet has been able to describe it.
>
> Any testing of this notion would be very difficult because there is no simple or straightforward way to detect water being monomolecular.
>
> There is a way to verify it through application of gas laws utilizing extremely sensitive scales. But the problem here is that gas laws are complex and humans are simple; when presented with complex proof humans almost always fall back on simple anecdote. And that doesn't even get to the political problems one would face even if they did prove it. Even if a famous scientist took up the cause they would find themselves at odds with the industrial complex of major scientific institutions, like meteorology and climatology. Because any such proof would show that all of their models are the nonsense that they actually are. There would be a lot of mud on a lot of faces. And so, any known scientists who did take up the cause would be putting their career in jeopardy. They would be labeled the king of all science deniers, and that would just be the beginning of an endless onslaught of character assassination from the likes of Al Gore and other self-righteous science evangelist, many of whom have a lot more money than Al Gore, like Bill Gates for example.
>
> So, it could be done. But it wouldn't be simple. It wouldn't be cheap. And it wouldn't be fun.

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[noTthaTguY]

has been known for over a decade, that polarity is not 2d, although
it still has handedness per se; as it is,
no-one can see, why you cannot use partial pressures for HOH,
lik partial pressures for every thing else.

if you could address that, fine

> > Let's say, for purposes of argument, that I am wrong. We can then ask ourselves how or where did I make a mistake. I can think of only one thing. And that would be that I had miscalculated the effect of air molecules on water clusters/droplets. Do air molecules in the atmosphere--in contrast to what I am assuming--possess some ability to break up water clusters/droplets and force them to remain gaseous at ambient temps? If such a force does exist nobody as of yet has been able to describe it.
> >
> > Any testing of this notion would be very difficult because there is no simple or straightforward way to detect water being monomolecular.
> >
> > There is a way to verify it through application of gas laws utilizing extremely sensitive scales. But the problem here is that gas laws are complex and humans are simple; when presented with complex proof humans almost always fall back on simple anecdote. And that doesn't even get to the political problems one would face even if they did prove it. Even if a famous scientist took up the cause they would find themselves at odds with the industrial complex of major scientific institutions, like meteorology and climatology. Because any such proof would show that all of their models are the nonsense that they actually are. There would be a lot of mud on a lot of faces. And so, any known scientists who did take up the cause would be putting their career in jeopardy. They would be labeled the king of all science deniers, and that would just be the beginning of an endless onslaught of character assassination from the likes of Al Gore and other self-righteous science evangelist, many of whom have a lot more money than Al Gore, like Bill Gates for example.

> > It wouldn't be cheap. And it wouldn't be fun.

> > Can air maintain H2O as a gas at ambient temps?

> > How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice

> > Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma

> > H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes

> > How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice

> > Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
>

> > Convection Versus Plasma

> > Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences

[Claudius Denk]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> >
> >> > We can ask the same question here. Can any of you explain why your
> >> > ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under laboratory
> >> > conditions? Does it not like laboratories?
> >>
> >> They do but you refuse to look at the literature and refuse to do any
> >> experiments on your own.
> >
> > Does this "literature," exist in the real world? Or just your imagination?
>
> It is blazingly obvious to everyone but you that the literature of thousands
> of people over hundreds of years exists, and I even gave you a pointer
> to a few.

McGinn is right on this point. Your pointers led nowhere.

>
> Just how much spoon feeding do you require?

You guys are making the situation worse with all these phoney links and empty argument. Let meteorologists handle McGinn. Stay out of it.

[Claudius Denk]

You just established that it is an open question, which is not want meteorologists want at all. You need to stay out of this.

[James McGinn]

Go ahead. Show us the results of your experiment. Then contact that people that make steam tables and explain to them why they are wrong.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> On 2/24/2016 2:02 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:46:05 AM UTC-8,
> > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2/24/16 11:07 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>> We can ask the same question here. Can any of you explain why
> >>>> your ambient temperature, gaseous H2O does not show up under
> >>>> laboratory conditions? Does it not like laboratories?
> >>>
>
> >>> There is H2O (gas) in the air outside my home and in side my
> >>> home--it's call humidity and I can measure the relative humidity
> >>> with two thermometers, one a wet bulb and the other a dry bulb.
> >>> More modern measurement are electronic.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but that does not PROVE that the H2O is gas.
> >
> > Well, the very definition of 'humidity' tells us that it is the
> > relative amount of water vapor in the air, and except for
> > what's-his-face who thinks he's a physicist, we all agree that water
> > vapor is the gaseous state of water and is invisible. In other words,
> > if you are measuring the humidity, you are measuring gaseous H2O.
> >

> > What's to prove?

> >
>
> I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is
> completely dry.
>

> there was no wet spot under the shirt.

>
> how did the water get out ?
>
> No smoke came off it at all.
>
> did my shirt out-gas ?

Uh, . . . er, . . . uh. Evaporation?

[noTthaTguY]

just show the partial pressure of n(HOH) and, say,
its effect upon the index of refraction of "free space (a.k.a "air"";
of course, we already know mjany of its effects,
easily told by simple formulae

[pnal...@gmail.com]

EXACTLY!

http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-evaporation-definition-examples-quiz.html

"Evaporation is the process of a substance in a liquid state changing to a gaseous state due to an increase in temperature and/or pressure. Evaporation is a fundamental part of the water cycle and is constantly occurring throughout nature... Water boils at 212 degrees F (100 degrees C), but it actually begins to evaporate at 32 degrees F (0 degrees C); it just occurs extremely slowly. As the temperature increases, the rate of evaporation also increases."

Write this on the chalkboard 1000 times, or until you have it memorized... maybe 2000 times for you!

[noTthaTguY]

sublimation, yeah

[James McGinn]

Uh, doesn't this mean the earth is still flat too? Uh . . . er, . . . uh. I mean, afterall, if you look at a map is flat. Doy da doy doy. Dumb dee dumb dumb.

You church ladies are so amusing.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471

Look for my books on Amazon!

[noTthaTguY]

> > Write this on the chalkboard 1000 times, or until you have it memorized... maybe 2000 times for you!

sublimation is c00l
sublimation is c00l
sublimation is hot,
relative to the iceberg

[Yuri Kreaton]

my money is exposed to sublimation

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Jim, you are still a dumbfuck, I see.

Definitely, it will take 2000 times on the chalkboard for you!

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Sublimation is just s little bit different than evaporation... educate yourself!

[James McGinn]

Doy da doy doy.

[noTthaTguY]

s u b l i m a t i o n is c00l

> Doy da doy doy.

[noTthaTguY]

stop spindling the old steamtable that you stole
from the era of steamlocomotivation, and
learn about partial pressures, you bij gerk

[James McGinn]

Too bad you can't formulate a coherent argument, huh?

[noTthaTguY]

certainly I can, but
perhaps not in answer to your sylliness
(that comes from syllogismic

> Too bad you can't formulate a coherent argument, huh?

all that you have to do,
is let a pan of water evaporate, and
show that that is consistent
with pairs of HOH doing that,
compared to single HOH's

[James McGinn]

Doy da doy doy.

[noTthaTguY]

so, what are the steted ranges of your steamtable(s, and
are there any references listed, or copyrights, or patents?

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this mosconception for 25 years now. So I've had a lot more time to reconcile all the anecdotal evidence that you all keep tripping over.
>

> Let's say, for purposes of argument, that I am wrong. We can then ask ourselves how or where did I make a mistake. I can think of only one thing. And that would be that I had miscalculated the effect of air molecules on water clusters/droplets. Do air molecules in the atmosphere--in contrast to what I am assuming--possess some ability to break up water clusters/droplets and force them to remain gaseous at ambient temps? If such a force does exist nobody as of yet has been able to describe it.
>
> Any testing of this notion would be very difficult because there is no simple or straightforward way to detect water being monomolecular.
>
> There is a way to verify it through application of gas laws utilizing extremely sensitive scales. But the problem here is that gas laws are complex and humans are simple; when presented with complex proof humans almost always fall back on simple anecdote. And that doesn't even get to the political problems one would face even if they did prove it. Even if a famous scientist took up the cause they would find themselves at odds with the industrial complex of major scientific institutions, like meteorology and climatology. Because any such proof would show that all of their models are the nonsense that they actually are. There would be a lot of mud on a lot of faces. And so, any known scientists who did take up the cause would be putting their career in jeopardy. They would be labeled the king of all science deniers, and that would just be the beginning of an endless onslaught of character assassination from the likes of Al Gore and other self-righteous science evangelist, many of whom have a lot more money than Al Gore, like Bill Gates for example.
>

> So, it could be done. But it wouldn't be simple. It wouldn't be cheap. And it wouldn't be fun.
>
> 25 years
> https://youtu.be/C6GZEn7N7Ss?t=5m42s

>
> Can air maintain H2O as a gas at ambient temps?

> https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk?t=3m2s

>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> My channel
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1ALfDP7sGkeIEBjkMQ
>

> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>

> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ

>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU

>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>

> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo

[noTthaTguY]

just a)
go to a library, b)
grab a new b00k about any number of subjects, c)
peruse the index of said b00k, in order to show yourself,
wTf you are surely incoherent about (other than a)
every thing, and b)
any thing

> has been known for over a decade, that polarity is not 2d, although
> it still has handedness per se; as it is,
> no-one can see, why you cannot use partial pressures for HOH,

> like partial pressures for every thing else.

[James McGinn]

LOL. So, did you just discover partial pressure yesterday or something?

[noTthaTguY]

I've never used it much, if at all, because
I am not a physicist per se;
it is just a simple matter that is strictly undergraduate,
although I probably didn't know it so well, then. also,
I ne'er graduated from u.c.l.a of from s.m.c ... so, theresville,
f00

[James McGinn]

On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 4:29:42 PM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote:
> I've never used it much, if at all, because
> I am not a physicist per se;
> it is just a simple matter that is strictly undergraduate,
> although I probably didn't know it so well, then. also,
> I ne'er graduated from u.c.l.a of from s.m.c ... so, theresville,
> f00

Oki Doki -- I was just wondering.

[noTthaTguY]

it is very clear from your typing, that a)
you have never done any experiment, at least not
since you started your completely vapid theory of every thing

> > I am not a physicist per se;
> > it is just a simple matter that is strictly undergraduate,

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:25:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> One thing you all have to keep in mind is that I've known about this mosconception for 25 years now. So I've had a lot more time to reconcile all the anecdotal evidence that you all keep tripping over.
>

> Let's say, for purposes of argument, that I am wrong. We can then ask ourselves how or where did I make a mistake. I can think of only one thing. And that would be that I had miscalculated the effect of air molecules on water clusters/droplets. Do air molecules in the atmosphere--in contrast to what I am assuming--possess some ability to break up water clusters/droplets and force them to remain gaseous at ambient temps? If such a force does exist nobody as of yet has been able to describe it.
>
> Any testing of this notion would be very difficult because there is no simple or straightforward way to detect water being monomolecular.
>
> There is a way to verify it through application of gas laws utilizing extremely sensitive scales. But the problem here is that gas laws are complex and humans are simple; when presented with complex proof humans almost always fall back on simple anecdote. And that doesn't even get to the political problems one would face even if they did prove it. Even if a famous scientist took up the cause they would find themselves at odds with the industrial complex of major scientific institutions, like meteorology and climatology. Because any such proof would show that all of their models are the nonsense that they actually are. There would be a lot of mud on a lot of faces. And so, any known scientists who did take up the cause would be putting their career in jeopardy. They would be labeled the king of all science deniers, and that would just be the beginning of an endless onslaught of character assassination from the likes of Al Gore and other self-righteous science evangelist, many of whom have a lot more money than Al Gore, like Bill Gates for example.
>

> So, it could be done. But it wouldn't be simple. It wouldn't be cheap. And it wouldn't be fun.
>
> 25 years
> https://youtu.be/C6GZEn7N7Ss?t=5m42s

>
> Can air maintain H2O as a gas at ambient temps?

[James McGinn]