info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Tell Us Why You Believe What You Can't Explain
59 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Jan 20, 2017, 1:16:16 PM1/20/17
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:27:15 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
Nutcase Dude:
Your comment was removed from Climate Of Sophistry, James, and your comment on
Tall Bloke was summarily ignored...
James McGinn:
Right, like you they want to believe in the magic and simplicity of steam
producing latent heat that, for some unknown reason, causes jet streams. Magic
is simple. Reality is complex.
Nutcase Dude:
No, James. Your delusion is complex because you refuse to acknowledge actual
reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions onto your kooky
"theory" to cover up the gaping logical inconsistencies and contradictions that
are brought to light... thus your delusion grows until you are fully psychotic,
believing the entire world, every single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy
because it doesn't agree with your delusion... this is why Dunning-Kruger
afflicted kooktards like you often end up psychotic, James.
James McGinn:
Tell us again why we should believe that moist air contains gaseous H2O if such
has never been detected.
Tell us again why we should believe moist air is lighter than dry air if such
has never been measured.
Tell us again how the undetected gaseous H2O released 1,000 times the latent
heat than has ever been measured in a laboratory upon condensing from a gaseous
H2O that has never been detected.
Tell us how this undetected latent heat pushes the atmosphere and, somehow,
causes the emergence of distinct bands of flow-jetstreams-along the tropopause.
Tell us how this explains the highly structured entities, tornadoes, that have
been observed descending down from the sky.
Tell us all of these things and keep telling us, over an over again, until you
are so sick of telling us that you have no choice but to admit that what you've
been telling us is complete nonsense.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Nutcase Dude:
Your comment was removed from Climate Of Sophistry, James, and your comment on
Tall Bloke was summarily ignored...
James McGinn:
Right, like you they want to believe in the magic and simplicity of steam
producing latent heat that, for some unknown reason, causes jet streams. Magic
is simple. Reality is complex.
Nutcase Dude:
No, James. Your delusion is complex because you refuse to acknowledge actual
reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions onto your kooky
"theory" to cover up the gaping logical inconsistencies and contradictions that
are brought to light... thus your delusion grows until you are fully psychotic,
believing the entire world, every single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy
because it doesn't agree with your delusion... this is why Dunning-Kruger
afflicted kooktards like you often end up psychotic, James.
James McGinn:
Tell us again why we should believe that moist air contains gaseous H2O if such
has never been detected.
Tell us again why we should believe moist air is lighter than dry air if such
has never been measured.
Tell us again how the undetected gaseous H2O released 1,000 times the latent
heat than has ever been measured in a laboratory upon condensing from a gaseous
H2O that has never been detected.
Tell us how this undetected latent heat pushes the atmosphere and, somehow,
causes the emergence of distinct bands of flow-jetstreams-along the tropopause.
Tell us how this explains the highly structured entities, tornadoes, that have
been observed descending down from the sky.
Tell us all of these things and keep telling us, over an over again, until you
are so sick of telling us that you have no choice but to admit that what you've
been telling us is complete nonsense.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The Party Of Trump (The Party For Winners)
Jan 27, 2017, 10:47:36 PM1/27/17
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
<news:9342fb4c-582a-4e21...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched
>>> at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police
>>> plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable
>>> that they watched everybody all the time." -- George Orwell, "1984"
>> Bwahahaaaa! Your paranoid schizophrenia is flaring up, James. Is that
>> big meanie Reality kicking your retarded ass again, James? You should
>> sue it, Jimmy. You should sue it and Science for being so mean that
>> they don't immediately bow down before your delusions and proclaim
>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA King Of Science... but
>> they've not done that, James... you've been declared the joker, a
>> pathetic bumbling moronic idiotic delusional halfwit.
>> ongoing research into monomolecular water in the atmosphere:
>>
>> Water In The Gas Phase -
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
>> Not ab initio... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the
>> gaseous phase. 16 referenced papers.
>>
>> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
>> http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
>> Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
>>
>> http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
>> Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
>> directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere
> So, if your only argument is to point to people that made the same
> assumption you made, . . . what conclusion should we draw from this?
>
> Think about it.
The conclusion to be drawn from that is that you're too fucking
retarded and delusional to understand that you've just had your kooky
fabrication of a "theory" torn to shreds, and now you're making a
laughingstock of yourself, James.
The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon
energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the lesser the
photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here:
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
That Anders Nilsson et. al. were measuring a spectral peak that did
not coincide with solid-phase water nor with liquid-phase water, a
spectral peak with *higher* photon energy than liquid-phase water,
means they were measuring gaseous-phase water, Jim. No H bonding,
monomolecular.
You'll note the gaseous-phase water's photon energy was *higher*
because it was monomer water, and thus had no inter-molecular H bonds.
If it had had any H bonds, it would have been liquid water, and thus
would have had a spectral peak identical to that of liquid water.
It could *not* have been liquid water, no matter how small the
droplet, James, or the spectral peak would have been identical to that
of liquid water.
Do you not understand this, James? That fact proves the existence of
gaseous water, hence that evaporation is a per-molecule process, hence
that latent heat of evaporation exists, hence the central premise of
your retarded "theory" is yet again destroyed, Jim.
Stop embarrassing yourself, Jim. It's over. You've been exposed as a
scientific fraud and a moron far too stupid and delusional to ever
model the atmosphere.
Now before you run away again, James, do get right on addressing those
tough questions you've been running from... they highlight the gaping
logic holes in your "theory not-a-theory". Your continuing failure to
address them stands as your tacit admission that you know your theory
is indefensible.
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?
Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?
And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?
According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.
Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?
Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?
Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?
Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?
Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?
Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?
Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?
What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL
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 stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
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
thousands 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?
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 claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming 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 that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?
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 a failed attempt to lend your claims 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 are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
<news:9342fb4c-582a-4e21...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched
>>> at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police
>>> plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable
>>> that they watched everybody all the time." -- George Orwell, "1984"
>> Bwahahaaaa! Your paranoid schizophrenia is flaring up, James. Is that
>> big meanie Reality kicking your retarded ass again, James? You should
>> sue it, Jimmy. You should sue it and Science for being so mean that
>> they don't immediately bow down before your delusions and proclaim
>> James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA King Of Science... but
>> they've not done that, James... you've been declared the joker, a
>> pathetic bumbling moronic idiotic delusional halfwit.
>>
>> Your delusion is complex because you refuse to acknowledge actual
>> reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions onto your
>> kooky "theory" to cover up the gaping logical inconsistencies and
>> contradictions that are brought to light... thus your delusion grows
>> until you are fully psychotic, believing the entire world, every
>> single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy because it doesn't agree
>> with your delusion... this is why Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards
>> like you often end up psychotic, James.
>>
>> Your "theory" holds no water, James. Especially in light of all that
>> Your delusion is complex because you refuse to acknowledge actual
>> reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions onto your
>> kooky "theory" to cover up the gaping logical inconsistencies and
>> contradictions that are brought to light... thus your delusion grows
>> until you are fully psychotic, believing the entire world, every
>> single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy because it doesn't agree
>> with your delusion... this is why Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards
>> like you often end up psychotic, James.
>>
>> ongoing research into monomolecular water in the atmosphere:
>>
>> Water In The Gas Phase -
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
>> Not ab initio... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the
>> gaseous phase. 16 referenced papers.
>>
>> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
>> http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
>> Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
>>
>> http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
>> Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
>> directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere
> So, if your only argument is to point to people that made the same
> assumption you made, . . . what conclusion should we draw from this?
>
> Think about it.
The conclusion to be drawn from that is that you're too fucking
retarded and delusional to understand that you've just had your kooky
fabrication of a "theory" torn to shreds, and now you're making a
laughingstock of yourself, James.
The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon
energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the lesser the
photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here:
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
That Anders Nilsson et. al. were measuring a spectral peak that did
not coincide with solid-phase water nor with liquid-phase water, a
spectral peak with *higher* photon energy than liquid-phase water,
means they were measuring gaseous-phase water, Jim. No H bonding,
monomolecular.
You'll note the gaseous-phase water's photon energy was *higher*
because it was monomer water, and thus had no inter-molecular H bonds.
If it had had any H bonds, it would have been liquid water, and thus
would have had a spectral peak identical to that of liquid water.
It could *not* have been liquid water, no matter how small the
droplet, James, or the spectral peak would have been identical to that
of liquid water.
Do you not understand this, James? That fact proves the existence of
gaseous water, hence that evaporation is a per-molecule process, hence
that latent heat of evaporation exists, hence the central premise of
your retarded "theory" is yet again destroyed, Jim.
Stop embarrassing yourself, Jim. It's over. You've been exposed as a
scientific fraud and a moron far too stupid and delusional to ever
model the atmosphere.
Now before you run away again, James, do get right on addressing those
tough questions you've been running from... they highlight the gaping
logic holes in your "theory not-a-theory". Your continuing failure to
address them stands as your tacit admission that you know your theory
is indefensible.
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?
Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?
And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?
According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.
Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?
Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?
Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?
Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?
Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?
Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?
Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?
What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL
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 stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
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
thousands 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?
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 claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming 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 that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?
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 a failed attempt to lend your claims 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 are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
Feb 3, 2017, 1:38:40 PM2/3/17
to
The Party Of Trump (The Party For Winners)
Feb 3, 2017, 9:45:19 PM2/3/17
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
<news:2d04a64a-12be-4cd2...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Bwahahahaaa! Your blathering comment was removed from Climate Of
>> Sophistry, James, and your blathering coment on Tall Bloke was
>> summarily ignored... no one wants to hear your insane anti-science
>> conspiracy-theory ranting.
> Right, like you they want to believe in the magic and simplicity
> of steam producing latent heat that, for some unknown reason,
> causes jet streams.
>
>
> Magic is simple. Reality is complex.
> Magic is simple. Reality is complex.
No, James. Your delusion is complex because you refuse to acknowledge
actual reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions
onto your kooky "theory" to cover up the gaping logical
inconsistencies and contradictions that are brought to light... thus
your delusion grows until you are fully psychotic, believing the
entire world, every single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy
because it doesn't agree with your delusion... this is why
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you often end up psychotic,
James.
actual reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions
onto your kooky "theory" to cover up the gaping logical
inconsistencies and contradictions that are brought to light... thus
your delusion grows until you are fully psychotic, believing the
entire world, every single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy
because it doesn't agree with your delusion... this is why
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you often end up psychotic,
James.
Your "theory" holds no water, James. Especially in light of all that
ongoing research into monomolecular water in the atmosphere:
Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the
gaseous phase. 16 referenced papers.
Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere
And that's not to mention that we see a perfect example of this each
ongoing research into monomolecular water in the atmosphere:
Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the
gaseous phase. 16 referenced papers.
Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere
and every time we go to a weather website... the weather satellites
and ground stations can differentiate between monomolecular
gaseous-phase water (humidity) in the atmosphere, and liquid-phase
water (clouds) in the atmosphere, Jim, because each absorbs and emits
at a different wavelength, just as that video *you* *provided*
featuring Anders Nilsson's work on x-ray spectroscopy of water in its
three phases shows.
Remember?
===============================================
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's
photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
phases.
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304
You'll note the double peak of liquid water.
Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
"Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules."
===============================================
That was a reference *you* *provided*, Jim, and it proves you
*wrong*... that you didn't and don't realize that fact is testament
that you lack the requisite educational background to even be
attempting to form a model of the atmosphere... hence the reason your
"theory" is so wrong in so many ways.
And as I explained to you, the dual peak of liquid water, one near the
gaseous-phase monomolecular water peak (remember, you've claimed that
all water must be liquid in the atmosphere, thus if a different
spectral peak is observed than that of liquid water, it *must* be
gaseous phase monomolecular water, not liquid water, which would have
the same spectral peaks as bulk liquid water), and one near the
solid-phase water peak, which are due to the two spin isomers of
water. There are two water molecule hybrids.
This also happens to utterly destroy your contention that water
molecule polarity changes upon H bonding (which would mean that water
solvent properties randomly change... and we know that's not the case,
James). The water molecule polarity isn't changing upon H bonding,
thereby lending a variable strength H bond, there are two spin isomers
of water with two different H bond strengths. This is well-established
and rigorously-studied science, James, corroborated by study upon
study upon study.
Now on to those questions in my .sig which you continue ducking,
James. They highlight the contradictions and inconsistencies in your
"theory", which you cannot explain, so it's little wonder you've
evaded addressing them...
James McGinn
Feb 7, 2017, 7:55:04 AM2/7/17
to
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:16:16 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
The Party Of Trump (The Party For Winners)
Feb 11, 2017, 5:25:05 PM2/11/17
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
<news:8e8cf994-5bfe-419c...@googlegroups.com> did
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Bwahahahaaa! Your blathering comment was removed from Climate Of
>> Sophistry, James, and your blathering coment on Tall Bloke was
>> summarily ignored... no one wants to hear your insane anti-science
>> conspiracy-theory ranting.
>> Bwahahahaaa! Your blathering comment was removed from Climate Of
>> Sophistry, James, and your blathering coment on Tall Bloke was
>> summarily ignored... no one wants to hear your insane anti-science
>> conspiracy-theory ranting.
> Right, like you they want to believe in the magic and simplicity
> of steam producing latent heat that, for some unknown reason,
> causes jet streams.
>
> Just like CO2 with global warming they want to believe in magic.
> of steam producing latent heat that, for some unknown reason,
> causes jet streams.
>
>
> Magic is simple. Reality is complex.
> Magic is simple. Reality is complex.
No, James. Your delusion is complex because you refuse to acknowledge
actual reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions
onto your kooky "theory" to cover up the gaping logical
inconsistencies and contradictions that are brought to light... thus
your delusion grows until you are fully psychotic, believing the
entire world, every single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy
because it doesn't agree with your delusion... this is why
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you often end up psychotic,
James.
actual reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions
onto your kooky "theory" to cover up the gaping logical
inconsistencies and contradictions that are brought to light... thus
your delusion grows until you are fully psychotic, believing the
entire world, every single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy
because it doesn't agree with your delusion... this is why
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you often end up psychotic,
James.
James McGinn
Mar 22, 2017, 1:39:29 PM3/22/17
to
James McGinn
Apr 29, 2017, 1:04:59 AM4/29/17
to
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:16:16 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
May 18, 2017, 6:40:36 PM5/18/17
to
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:16:16 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Melt, Snowflakes, Melt!
May 19, 2017, 10:55:05 PM5/19/17
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA (aka
'Solving Tornades' LOL!), in
<news:a12dbd4a-1fbe-4dba...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Bwahahahaaa! Your blathering comment was removed from Climate Of
>> Sophistry, James, and your blathering coment on Tall Bloke was
>> summarily ignored... no one wants to hear your insane anti-science
>> conspiracy-theory ranting.
>> Bwahahahaaa! Your blathering comment was removed from Climate Of
>> Sophistry, James, and your blathering coment on Tall Bloke was
>> summarily ignored... no one wants to hear your insane anti-science
>> conspiracy-theory ranting.
> Right, like you they want to believe in the magic and simplicity
> of steam producing latent heat that, for some unknown reason,
> causes jet streams.
>
> Just like CO2 with global warming they want to believe in magic.
> of steam producing latent heat that, for some unknown reason,
> causes jet streams.
>
>
> Magic is simple. Reality is complex.
> Magic is simple. Reality is complex.
No, James. Your delusion is complex because you refuse to acknowledge
actual reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions
onto your kooky "theory" to cover up the gaping logical
inconsistencies and contradictions that are brought to light... thus
your delusion grows until you are fully psychotic, believing the
entire world, every single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy
because it doesn't agree with your delusion... this is why
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you often end up psychotic,
James.
actual reality, necessitating that you slap new and kooky additions
onto your kooky "theory" to cover up the gaping logical
inconsistencies and contradictions that are brought to light... thus
your delusion grows until you are fully psychotic, believing the
entire world, every single aspect of it, *must* *be* a conspiracy
because it doesn't agree with your delusion... this is why
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you often end up psychotic,
James.
reber G=emc^2
May 20, 2017, 4:28:47 PM5/20/17
to
hanson
May 20, 2017, 6:15:04 PM5/20/17
to
<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>
"reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> is
the Face-Shitter & criminal Graveyard Vandal and
Bert, you are one dumb SOB.
.. Bert, you are one dumb SOB.
... Bert, you are one dumb SOB.
.... Bert, you are one dumb SOB.
..... Bert, you are one dumb SOB....
...... & 21 times more... "only kooks like Bert don't get it"
"reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> is
the Face-Shitter & criminal Graveyard Vandal and
a Hate-monger who wrote:
> James I think I know what your up to.Its called
> "Pulling Our Legs" How long you can keep it up ?
>
Fr the 26th time James McGinn" <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James I think I know what your up to.Its called
> "Pulling Our Legs" How long you can keep it up ?
>
Bert, you are one dumb SOB.
.. Bert, you are one dumb SOB.
... Bert, you are one dumb SOB.
.... Bert, you are one dumb SOB.
..... Bert, you are one dumb SOB....
...... & 21 times more... "only kooks like Bert don't get it"
James McGinn
Jul 10, 2017, 6:04:49 PM7/10/17
to
James McGinn
Jul 10, 2017, 6:09:39 PM7/10/17
to
James McGinn
Sep 5, 2017, 10:49:22 PM9/5/17
to
James McGinn
Jan 4, 2018, 6:31:46 PM1/4/18
to
0 new messages