info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect.
245 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 10:04:38 AM3/3/16
to
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39222
The reason warm, moist air isn't constantly rushing up through the abundance of cool, dry air that is but a few hundred meters above is because it is heavier. The reason it is heavier is because it contains microdroplets of H2O and not the gaseous H2O that meteorologists, absurdly, have assumed.
In other words, meteorology's notion of moist air convection is a hoax, not unlike climatology's notion of greenhouse effect.
It's really that simple. It's just bad science. And a minimal amount of fact checking reveals it.
Don't be gullible.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
The reason warm, moist air isn't constantly rushing up through the abundance of cool, dry air that is but a few hundred meters above is because it is heavier. The reason it is heavier is because it contains microdroplets of H2O and not the gaseous H2O that meteorologists, absurdly, have assumed.
In other words, meteorology's notion of moist air convection is a hoax, not unlike climatology's notion of greenhouse effect.
It's really that simple. It's just bad science. And a minimal amount of fact checking reveals it.
Don't be gullible.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Sam Wormley
Mar 3, 2016, 10:22:53 AM3/3/16
to
That is sad, James, for you are denying big chunks of Meteorology
and Climatology. I'll bet you attempted a college course in
meteorology and failed the course.
Many a person who failed a course, have gone on to disparage a
whole field of study because they did not master the content.
In this newsgroup there are those who failed to understand
relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, climatology,
particle physics and now meteorology.
Like I said, it is sad. Sad, especially in a time when so much
knowledge is accessible from your keyboard.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
and Climatology. I'll bet you attempted a college course in
meteorology and failed the course.
Many a person who failed a course, have gone on to disparage a
whole field of study because they did not master the content.
In this newsgroup there are those who failed to understand
relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, climatology,
particle physics and now meteorology.
Like I said, it is sad. Sad, especially in a time when so much
knowledge is accessible from your keyboard.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
Sam Wormley
Mar 3, 2016, 10:24:45 AM3/3/16
to
Speaking of the greenhouse effect, James, you might want to beef up
your background on the subject.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the
planet's temperature. These scientists were interested
chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon
dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past.
At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that
emissions from human industry might someday bring a global
warming. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of
carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature,
but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was
almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s
discovered that global warming truly was possible.
In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began
to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 10:31:54 AM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:22:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> That is sad, James, for you are denying big chunks of Meteorology
> and Climatology. I'll bet you attempted a college course in
> meteorology and failed the course.
>
> Many a person who failed a course, have gone on to disparage a
> whole field of study because they did not master the content.
>
> In this newsgroup there are those who failed to understand
> relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, climatology,
> particle physics and now meteorology.
>
> Like I said, it is sad. Sad, especially in a time when so much
> knowledge is accessible from your keyboard.
It is sad that you and so many like you have reduced science to petty politics.
> That is sad, James, for you are denying big chunks of Meteorology
> and Climatology. I'll bet you attempted a college course in
> meteorology and failed the course.
>
> Many a person who failed a course, have gone on to disparage a
> whole field of study because they did not master the content.
>
> In this newsgroup there are those who failed to understand
> relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, climatology,
> particle physics and now meteorology.
>
> Like I said, it is sad. Sad, especially in a time when so much
> knowledge is accessible from your keyboard.
reber g=emc^2
Mar 3, 2016, 12:46:12 PM3/3/16
to
Poutnik
Mar 3, 2016, 12:53:14 PM3/3/16
to
Dne čtvrtek 3. března 2016 16:31:54 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
It is sad you focus on rudeness and insults.
If you rather focused on the fact the energy of a molecule is not determined by temperature, you would see its critical consequence for your hypothesis.
If you rather focused on the fact the energy of a molecule is not determined by temperature, you would see its critical consequence for your hypothesis.
Sergio
Mar 3, 2016, 12:59:44 PM3/3/16
to
closed box at a specific temperature and pressure.
the Mean Free path until a collision.
the number of moles of the molecules put into the box.
all the relationships there based upon just molecule moving along and
hitting another one, bounding off,
then throw in slight polar molecules for small effect(function of temp
and pressure.)
temp and pressure are global mesures of the number and intensity of
molecular collissions.
(spelt check OFF!)
Sam Wormley
Mar 3, 2016, 1:12:54 PM3/3/16
to
On 3/3/16 11:46 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> Its possible James you are thinking closer bto the bottom line by thinking H2O is not a gas as hyydogen ,oxygen,nitrogen etc.You see it not as an element,but a molecule.Still this molecule made into steam,or just moisture acts like a gas.It expands,and compresses.It is a part of air. Its in all the books Go Figure. TreBert
The only molecules that act like a gas are the molecules that are gas,
> Its possible James you are thinking closer bto the bottom line by thinking H2O is not a gas as hyydogen ,oxygen,nitrogen etc.You see it not as an element,but a molecule.Still this molecule made into steam,or just moisture acts like a gas.It expands,and compresses.It is a part of air. Its in all the books Go Figure. TreBert
such as N2, O2, CO2 and H2O.
Poutnik
Mar 3, 2016, 1:17:53 PM3/3/16
to
Dne čtvrtek 3. března 2016 18:59:44 UTC+1 Sergio napsal(a):
>
> it is interesting to review the model of a large # of molecules in a
> closed box at a specific temperature and pressure.
>
> the Mean Free path until a collision.
>
> the number of moles of the molecules put into the box.
>
> all the relationships there based upon just molecule moving along and
> hitting another one, bounding off,
>
> then throw in slight polar molecules for small effect(function of temp
> and pressure.)
For chemists, the above are quite obvious things...
> it is interesting to review the model of a large # of molecules in a
> closed box at a specific temperature and pressure.
>
> the Mean Free path until a collision.
>
> the number of moles of the molecules put into the box.
>
> all the relationships there based upon just molecule moving along and
> hitting another one, bounding off,
>
> then throw in slight polar molecules for small effect(function of temp
> and pressure.)
>
> temp and pressure are global mesures of the number and intensity of
> molecular collissions.
>
Pressure of the number, temp of the mean intensity, as temp is measure of the average energy per 1 degree of freedom. The average is the essential.
> temp and pressure are global mesures of the number and intensity of
> molecular collissions.
>
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 1:19:05 PM3/3/16
to
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 1:29:17 PM3/3/16
to
edpr...@gmail.com
Mar 3, 2016, 1:30:15 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:19:05 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
[]
> Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected
> they are a liquid? [Insult deleted]
Do you?
So far in all your posts you have clearly demonstrated
a real lack of understanding of basic Physics and Chemistry.
I will complement you. You have such PASSION!
Did you have this passion when you took your
degree at that on-line college?
Me thinks he doth protest too much! :) :)
[]
>
> Is it possible you are too dull-witted to understand the subtle
> but real distinciton betweeb a gas and a liquid?
Are you???
> Is it possible you are too dull-witted to understand the subtle
> but real distinciton betweeb a gas and a liquid?
> Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected
Do you?
So far in all your posts you have clearly demonstrated
a real lack of understanding of basic Physics and Chemistry.
I will complement you. You have such PASSION!
Did you have this passion when you took your
degree at that on-line college?
Me thinks he doth protest too much! :) :)
Sam Wormley
Mar 3, 2016, 1:32:20 PM3/3/16
to
On 3/3/16 12:29 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Its sad that it takes insults to get you fuckwits to express yourself clearly.
One wonders why you think the knowledgeable posters are...
> Its sad that it takes insults to get you fuckwits to express yourself clearly.
(sigh)
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 1:33:55 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 10:17:53 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
Pressure of the number, temp of the mean intensity, as temp is measure of the average energy per 1 degree of freedom. The average is the essential.
Meaningless rhetoric unsupported by empirical evidence.
Pressure of the number, temp of the mean intensity, as temp is measure of the average energy per 1 degree of freedom. The average is the essential.
Sam Wormley
Mar 3, 2016, 1:34:44 PM3/3/16
to
On 3/3/16 12:19 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected they are a liquid?
Do you realize that water molecules above their local dew-point in
> Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected they are a liquid?
the atmosphere are not a liquid, are not connected and is a gas.
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 1:35:55 PM3/3/16
to
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 1:38:28 PM3/3/16
to
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 1:40:21 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 10:34:44 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/3/16 12:19 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected they are a liquid?
>
>
> Do you realize that water molecules above their local dew-point in
> the atmosphere are not a liquid,
All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
> On 3/3/16 12:19 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected they are a liquid?
>
>
> Do you realize that water molecules above their local dew-point in
> the atmosphere are not a liquid,
Sam Wormley
Mar 3, 2016, 1:45:35 PM3/3/16
to
Michael Moroney
Mar 3, 2016, 3:17:26 PM3/3/16
to
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:
>> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too
>> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
> Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.
Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, where
>> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too
>> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
> Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.
the different gases in a mixture behave independently of each other. So
water is perfectly happy to be a gas at 20 C as long as its partial
pressure is less than 0.34 psi. If you try to increase the partial
pressure of water vapor above that. it will condense into liquid.
Similarly, in a partial vacuum, the boiling point of water at 0.34 psi is
20 C, not 100 C. The boiling point of a liquid is when the partial
pressure of the liquid (when it's a gas) equals the total pressure.
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 3, 2016, 3:41:19 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too
> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
>
> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.
>
> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure,
Many are confused by this, not me.
> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too
> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
>
> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.
>
> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure,
where
> the different gases in a mixture behave independently of each other. So
> water is perfectly happy to be a gas at 20 C
as long as its partial
> pressure is less than 0.34 psi. If you try to increase the partial
> pressure of water vapor above that. it will condense into liquid.
> Similarly, in a partial vacuum, the boiling point of water at 0.34 psi is
> 20 C, not 100 C. The boiling point of a liquid is when the partial
> pressure of the liquid (when it's a gas) equals the total pressure.
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 3:57:19 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 4:01:05 PM3/3/16
to
Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too
>> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
>>
>> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.
>>
>> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure,
>
> Many are confused by this, not me.
You mean the entire world has been confused for hundreds of years
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too
>> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
>>
>> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.
>>
>> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure,
>
> Many are confused by this, not me.
until you alone received a blinding flash of insight?
Yeah, sure.
Where does one even start to analyze such delusions?
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 4:16:06 PM3/3/16
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too
>> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
>>
>> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.
>>
>> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, where
>> the different gases in a mixture behave independently of each other. So
>> water is perfectly happy to be a gas at 20 C as long as its partial
>> pressure is less than 0.34 psi. If you try to increase the partial
>> pressure of water vapor above that. it will condense into liquid.
>> Similarly, in a partial vacuum, the boiling point of water at 0.34 psi is
>> 20 C, not 100 C. The boiling point of a liquid is when the partial
>> pressure of the liquid (when it's a gas) equals the total pressure.
>
> You can't even construct a coherent argument.
If you didn't find the above, coherent, then I would suggest you start
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too
>> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
>>
>> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.
>>
>> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, where
>> the different gases in a mixture behave independently of each other. So
>> water is perfectly happy to be a gas at 20 C as long as its partial
>> pressure is less than 0.34 psi. If you try to increase the partial
>> pressure of water vapor above that. it will condense into liquid.
>> Similarly, in a partial vacuum, the boiling point of water at 0.34 psi is
>> 20 C, not 100 C. The boiling point of a liquid is when the partial
>> pressure of the liquid (when it's a gas) equals the total pressure.
>
> You can't even construct a coherent argument.
with remedial English courses and a good dictionary.
> What's this got to do with the subject under discussion.
the help of a dictionary.
> What's this got to do with Earth's atmosphere, dumbass.
the help of a dictionary.
--
Jim Pennino
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 3, 2016, 4:20:30 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too
> >> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
> >>
> >> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.
> >>
> >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure,
> >
> > Many are confused by this, not me.
>
> You mean the entire world has been confused for hundreds of years
> until you alone received a blinding flash of insight?
Two questions:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too
> >> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
> >>
> >> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.
> >>
> >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure,
> >
> > Many are confused by this, not me.
>
> You mean the entire world has been confused for hundreds of years
> until you alone received a blinding flash of insight?
How many times have you responded with this kind of political and scientifically non-substantive banter?
What do you think that indicates about the difference between what you believe and what you understand and you inability to intellectually recognize the difference?
Two answers:
Many, many times.
It shows you have deep, subconscious beliefs and you lack the ability to distinguish between them.
IOW, you are an unscientific nitwit.
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 3, 2016, 4:27:42 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> If you didn't find the above, coherent, then I would suggest you start
> with remedial English courses and a good dictionary.
You fuckwits don't have an argument. Nobody is interested in what you dimwits think you see.
> If you didn't find the above, coherent, then I would suggest you start
> with remedial English courses and a good dictionary.
Michael Moroney
Mar 3, 2016, 4:28:11 PM3/3/16
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>You can't even construct a coherent argument. What's this got to do
>with the subject under discussion. What's this got to do with Earth's
>atmosphere, dumbass.
I assumed you would be at least somewhat familiar with the gas laws and
>You can't even construct a coherent argument. What's this got to do
>with the subject under discussion. What's this got to do with Earth's
>atmosphere, dumbass.
how they would apply to water vapor in the atmosphere. My mistake.
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 3, 2016, 4:36:45 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:28:11 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >You can't even construct a coherent argument. What's this got to do
> >with the subject under discussion. What's this got to do with Earth's
> >atmosphere, dumbass.
>
> I assumed you would be at least somewhat familiar with the gas laws
Yes, I'm an expert. Your assertion is moronic.
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >You can't even construct a coherent argument. What's this got to do
> >with the subject under discussion. What's this got to do with Earth's
> >atmosphere, dumbass.
>
> I assumed you would be at least somewhat familiar with the gas laws
Go ahead, prove me wrong.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 5:01:06 PM3/3/16
to
Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too
>> >> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
>> >>
>> >> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.
>> >>
>> >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure,
>> >
>> > Many are confused by this, not me.
>>
>> You mean the entire world has been confused for hundreds of years
>> until you alone received a blinding flash of insight?
>
> Two questions:
> How many times have you responded with this kind of political and
> scientifically non-substantive banter?
This assumes that you are not a raving kook in dire need of the help
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid. Our planet is too
>> >> >> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
>> >>
>> >> > Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.
>> >>
>> >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure,
>> >
>> > Many are confused by this, not me.
>>
>> You mean the entire world has been confused for hundreds of years
>> until you alone received a blinding flash of insight?
>
> Two questions:
> How many times have you responded with this kind of political and
> scientifically non-substantive banter?
of a mental health professional and also illustrates you have the
further delusion that the subject of water and it's phases is somehow
political.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 5:01:27 PM3/3/16
to
Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> If you didn't find the above, coherent, then I would suggest you start
>> with remedial English courses and a good dictionary.
>
> You fuckwits don't have an argument.
Science is not an arguement, it is reproducible experiments.
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> If you didn't find the above, coherent, then I would suggest you start
>> with remedial English courses and a good dictionary.
>
> You fuckwits don't have an argument.
Only kooks argue about science.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 5:16:05 PM3/3/16
to
--
Jim Pennino
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 3, 2016, 5:18:43 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:01:27 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > You fuckwits don't have an argument.
>
> Science is not an arguement, it is reproducible experiments.
You got nothing.
> > You fuckwits don't have an argument.
>
> Science is not an arguement, it is reproducible experiments.
Odd Bodkin
Mar 3, 2016, 5:25:26 PM3/3/16
to
killfiled McGinn. If I use a different reader and see all the noise that
he has populated the group with, then I'm grateful that his bluster is
gone from my view.
His "Here's what I think. Prove me wrong!" approach is the hallmark of
the crank.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 3, 2016, 5:42:22 PM3/3/16
to
Please help some of these other morons learn how to killfile me.
I love the smell of killfile in the morning, it smells like . . . victory.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 6:01:05 PM3/3/16
to
experiments and thousands of text books documenting them as opposed
to your arm waving arguements?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 6:01:06 PM3/3/16
to
--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 6:04:22 PM3/3/16
to
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 6:11:39 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:01:27 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> >> > You fuckwits don't have an argument.
> >>
> >> Science is not an arguement, it is reproducible experiments.
> >
> > You got nothing.
>
> You mean other than hundreds of years of repeatable and reproducible
> experiments and thousands of text books
You are a fucking blowhard that doesn't have a point.
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:01:27 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> >> > You fuckwits don't have an argument.
> >>
> >> Science is not an arguement, it is reproducible experiments.
> >
> > You got nothing.
>
> You mean other than hundreds of years of repeatable and reproducible
> experiments and thousands of text books
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 6:12:14 PM3/3/16
to
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 6:16:09 PM3/3/16
to
Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I love the smell of killfile in the morning, it smells like . . . victory.
On the contrary, it is obvious you are desperately seeking notice and
> I love the smell of killfile in the morning, it smells like . . . victory.
if everyone killfiles you, you have lost.
--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 6:25:24 PM3/3/16
to
Michael Moroney
Mar 3, 2016, 6:44:50 PM3/3/16
to
(Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything)
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 6:46:05 PM3/3/16
to
repeatable and reproducible experiments and thousands of text books.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 6:46:05 PM3/3/16
to
or your delusions?
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 6:46:07 PM3/3/16
to
--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 6:51:14 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Discuss what, something that has been settled for hundreds of years
> or your delusions?
Then what are you so worried about?
> Discuss what, something that has been settled for hundreds of years
> or your delusions?
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 6:55:40 PM3/3/16
to
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 7:01:06 PM3/3/16
to
experiments and thousands of text books that directly contradict your
delusional nonsense?
A common symptom of the delusional is to get angry and lash out at
those that would point out their delusions.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 7:16:05 PM3/3/16
to
get so extreme you will become a threat to the general public.
Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you?
--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 7:29:39 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> I'm not worried about anything except the possiblity your delusions will
> get so extreme you will become a threat to the general public.
>
> Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you?
Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere in any way involve pixie dust?
> I'm not worried about anything except the possiblity your delusions will
> get so extreme you will become a threat to the general public.
>
> Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you?
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 7:41:55 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
Maybe science isn't your thing.
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> writes:
> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly.
>
> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything)
Don't get mad at me, you're the one that brought .34 PSI into the argument. It's not my fault that I'm smart enough to realize it's irrelevant.
> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly.
>
> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything)
Maybe science isn't your thing.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 7:46:10 PM3/3/16
to
--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 8:34:42 PM3/3/16
to
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 8:46:06 PM3/3/16
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly.
>>
>> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything)
>
> Don't get mad at me,
The only one getting mad is you because your delusions are being
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly.
>>
>> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything)
>
> Don't get mad at me,
challenged, everyone else is laughing.
--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2016, 8:55:39 PM3/3/16
to
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 9:46:05 PM3/3/16
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly.
>> >>
>> >> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything)
>> >
>> > Don't get mad at me,
>>
>> The only one getting mad is you because your delusions are being
>> challenged, everyone else is laughing.
>
> Do you think if you actually had a dispute you wouldn't be so frustrated?
Science isn't a dispute and what in the world would I be frustrated over
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly.
>> >>
>> >> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything)
>> >
>> > Don't get mad at me,
>>
>> The only one getting mad is you because your delusions are being
>> challenged, everyone else is laughing.
>
> Do you think if you actually had a dispute you wouldn't be so frustrated?
as your nonsense is quite comical.
--
Jim Pennino
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 3, 2016, 9:52:10 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 6:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly.
> >> >>
> >> >> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything)
> >> >
> >> > Don't get mad at me,
> >>
> >> The only one getting mad is you because your delusions are being
> >> challenged, everyone else is laughing.
> >
> > Do you think if you actually had a dispute you wouldn't be so frustrated?
>
> Science isn't a dispute and what in the world would I be frustrated over
> as your nonsense is quite comical.
So, your mad because I don't believe what you believe?
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly.
> >> >>
> >> >> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything)
> >> >
> >> > Don't get mad at me,
> >>
> >> The only one getting mad is you because your delusions are being
> >> challenged, everyone else is laughing.
> >
> > Do you think if you actually had a dispute you wouldn't be so frustrated?
>
> Science isn't a dispute and what in the world would I be frustrated over
> as your nonsense is quite comical.
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 3, 2016, 10:17:10 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, where
> >> the different gases in a mixture behave independently of each other. So
> >> water is perfectly happy to be a gas at 20 C as long as its partial
> >> pressure is less than 0.34 psi. If you try to increase the partial
> >> pressure of water vapor above that. it will condense into liquid.
> >> Similarly, in a partial vacuum, the boiling point of water at 0.34 psi is
> >> 20 C, not 100 C. The boiling point of a liquid is when the partial
> >> pressure of the liquid (when it's a gas) equals the total pressure.
> with remedial English courses and a good dictionary.
Well, then maybe you could explain how 0.34 PSI is relevant. Because I can't figure it out.
> >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, where
> >> the different gases in a mixture behave independently of each other. So
> >> water is perfectly happy to be a gas at 20 C as long as its partial
> >> pressure is less than 0.34 psi. If you try to increase the partial
> >> pressure of water vapor above that. it will condense into liquid.
> >> Similarly, in a partial vacuum, the boiling point of water at 0.34 psi is
> >> 20 C, not 100 C. The boiling point of a liquid is when the partial
> >> pressure of the liquid (when it's a gas) equals the total pressure.
> >
> > You can't even construct a coherent argument.
>
> If you didn't find the above, coherent, then I would suggest you start
> > You can't even construct a coherent argument.
>
> with remedial English courses and a good dictionary.
Well, then maybe you could explain how 0.34 PSI is relevant. Because I can't figure it out.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 11:31:09 PM3/3/16
to
facts, everyone else is laughing at your nonsense.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 3, 2016, 11:31:09 PM3/3/16
to
--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
Mar 5, 2016, 12:12:01 AM3/5/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:31:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> That is because you don't understand what the term boiling point means.
Hmm. Maybe you can explain it to us. You can start by explaining what the word "point" means to you. If nothing else I'm sure your response will be very entertaining.
> That is because you don't understand what the term boiling point means.
James McGinn
Mar 5, 2016, 12:14:38 AM3/5/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:29:39 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere in any way involve pixie dust?
Tea leaves?
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere in any way involve pixie dust?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 5, 2016, 9:05:09 AM3/5/16
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:29:39 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere
Lower than what?
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:29:39 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 5, 2016, 9:05:10 AM3/5/16
to
point.
The boiling point of a substance is the temperature at which the vapor
pressure of the liquid equals the pressure surrounding the liquid and
the liquid changes into a vapor.
--
Jim Pennino
Sam Wormley
Mar 5, 2016, 9:14:30 AM3/5/16
to
On 3/4/16 11:14 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere in any way involve pixie dust?
As most kids learn in school, boiling point is a function of
> Does your belief that the boiling point of H2O is lower in the atmosphere in any way involve pixie dust?
pressure. It's noticeably different in the mountains as compared
to down at sea level.
BTW--Are you a homeless person?
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
Sam Wormley
Mar 5, 2016, 9:18:42 AM3/5/16
to
On 3/4/16 11:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> ... start by explaining what the word "point" means ...
As most kids learn in school, boiling point (a temperature of liquid
at which boiling is initiated) is a function of pressure. For water,
its boiling point is noticeably different in the mountains as compared
> ... start by explaining what the word "point" means ...
As most kids learn in school, boiling point (a temperature of liquid
at which boiling is initiated) is a function of pressure. For water,
its boiling point is noticeably different in the mountains as compared
James McGinn
Mar 5, 2016, 9:20:37 AM3/5/16
to
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Mar 5, 2016, 2:01:06 PM3/5/16
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:31:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> That is because you don't understand what the term boiling point means.
>> >
>> > Hmm. Maybe you can explain it to us. You can start by explaining what
>> > the word "point" means to you. If nothing else I'm sure your response
>> > will be very entertaining.
>>
>> Sure, I would be glad to enlighten you as to the definition of boiling
>> point.
>>
>> The boiling point of a substance is the temperature at which the vapor
>> pressure of the liquid equals the pressure surrounding the liquid and
>> the liquid changes into a vapor.
>
> I don't see the words gas or gaseous in your definition.
In physics, the word "vapor" means the same thing as "gas"; you are
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:31:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> That is because you don't understand what the term boiling point means.
>> >
>> > Hmm. Maybe you can explain it to us. You can start by explaining what
>> > the word "point" means to you. If nothing else I'm sure your response
>> > will be very entertaining.
>>
>> Sure, I would be glad to enlighten you as to the definition of boiling
>> point.
>>
>> The boiling point of a substance is the temperature at which the vapor
>> pressure of the liquid equals the pressure surrounding the liquid and
>> the liquid changes into a vapor.
>
> I don't see the words gas or gaseous in your definition.
displaying your lack of physics knowledge.
> It that a mistake or is that intentional?
> You also haven't provided any specific examples.
you insist, the boiling point of 2-methylbutane is 27.7 C at 1 bar.
--
Jim Pennino
noTthaTguY
Mar 5, 2016, 7:57:18 PM3/5/16
to
two HOHs would weigh a bit more than air
>
distinciton betweeb a gas and a liquid? Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected they are a liquid? Is this concept to complex for you dipshits?
>
distinciton betweeb a gas and a liquid? Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected they are a liquid? Is this concept to complex for you dipshits?
James McGinn
Apr 14, 2016, 11:54:55 PM4/14/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:04:38 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39222
>
> The reason warm, moist air isn't constantly rushing up through the abundance of cool, dry air that is but a few hundred meters above is because it is heavier. The reason it is heavier is because it contains microdroplets of H2O and not the gaseous H2O that meteorologists, absurdly, have assumed.
>
> In other words, meteorology's notion of moist air convection is a hoax, not unlike climatology's notion of greenhouse effect.
>
>
It's really that simple. It's just bad science. And a minimal amount of fact checking reveals it.
>
> Don't be gullible.
>
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39222
>
> The reason warm, moist air isn't constantly rushing up through the abundance of cool, dry air that is but a few hundred meters above is because it is heavier. The reason it is heavier is because it contains microdroplets of H2O and not the gaseous H2O that meteorologists, absurdly, have assumed.
>
> In other words, meteorology's notion of moist air convection is a hoax, not unlike climatology's notion of greenhouse effect.
>
>
It's really that simple. It's just bad science. And a minimal amount of fact checking reveals it.
>
> Don't be gullible.
>
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
noTthaTguY
Apr 15, 2016, 3:30:25 PM4/15/16
to
glassal housing was a bad metaphor,
when (the great Ahrrenius coined it.
yes air with clouds is heavier, but
they don't form til there is an adiabatic rate
when (the great Ahrrenius coined it.
yes air with clouds is heavier, but
they don't form til there is an adiabatic rate
James McGinn
Apr 15, 2016, 4:32:08 PM4/15/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 15, 2016, 8:11:35 PM4/15/16
to
James McGinn
Apr 15, 2016, 8:35:26 PM4/15/16
to
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 15, 2016, 9:01:05 PM4/15/16
to
--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
Apr 15, 2016, 9:08:12 PM4/15/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 15, 2016, 9:20:57 PM4/15/16
to
On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 6:01:05 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
James McGinn
Apr 15, 2016, 9:24:01 PM4/15/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 15, 2016, 10:42:31 PM4/15/16
to
James McGinn
Apr 16, 2016, 3:57:08 AM4/16/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 16, 2016, 4:01:09 PM4/16/16
to
I doubt you have a single proponent here at all...
noTthaTguY
Apr 16, 2016, 4:18:36 PM4/16/16
to
do steam tables get steamed
James McGinn
Apr 16, 2016, 4:50:37 PM4/16/16
to
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:01:09 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:57:08 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:42:31 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > It's regrettable the internet doesn't allow you to drop a link to your imagination.
> > >
> > > What's really regrettable is that a guy like you can come here and lie through your teeth that you a physicist when it is virtually impossible, considering how little physics you actually know!
> >
> > Yet you have no dispute with anything I'm saying. Hmm.
>
> LOL. Are you blind? Unable to read? I dispute almost everything you
> propose and have indicated so more than once...
I don't count whining.
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:57:08 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:42:31 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > It's regrettable the internet doesn't allow you to drop a link to your imagination.
> > >
> > > What's really regrettable is that a guy like you can come here and lie through your teeth that you a physicist when it is virtually impossible, considering how little physics you actually know!
> >
> > Yet you have no dispute with anything I'm saying. Hmm.
>
> LOL. Are you blind? Unable to read? I dispute almost everything you
> propose and have indicated so more than once...
> just like almost everyone else in this forum!
> I doubt you have a single proponent here at all...
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 16, 2016, 7:32:36 PM4/16/16
to
James McGinn
Apr 16, 2016, 7:37:08 PM4/16/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 16, 2016, 8:24:08 PM4/16/16
to
James McGinn
Apr 16, 2016, 8:31:55 PM4/16/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 16, 2016, 11:04:39 PM4/16/16
to
What about that evidence? It is NOT in the fuckin' steam tables, you idiot...
You got nuttin'...
James McGinn
Apr 16, 2016, 11:26:25 PM4/16/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 17, 2016, 12:40:29 AM4/17/16
to
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:26:25 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> What is boiling point of water at sea level?
At what pressure?
> What is boiling point of water at sea level?
James McGinn
Apr 17, 2016, 12:43:07 AM4/17/16
to
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 17, 2016, 1:31:15 AM4/17/16
to
go down to 0C.
--
Jim Pennino
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 17, 2016, 1:43:37 AM4/17/16
to
Is the question too hard for you?
James McGinn
May 11, 2016, 8:57:47 PM5/11/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:04:38 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39222
>
> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39222
>
> The reason warm, moist air isn't constantly rushing up through the abundance of cool, dry air that is but a few hundred meters above is because it is heavier. The reason it is heavier is because it contains microdroplets of H2O and not the gaseous H2O that meteorologists, absurdly, have assumed.
>
>
>
>
James McGinn
Jun 12, 2016, 11:18:37 PM6/12/16
to
James McGinn
Jun 13, 2016, 8:54:14 AM6/13/16
to
H
James McGinn
Jun 13, 2016, 10:35:18 AM6/13/16
to
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:01:09 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:57:08 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:42:31 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > It's regrettable the internet doesn't allow you to drop a link to your imagination.
> > >
> > > What's really regrettable is that a guy like you can come here and lie through your teeth that you a physicist when it is virtually impossible, considering how little physics you actually know!
> >
> > Yet you have no dispute with anything I'm saying. Hmm.
>
> LOL. Are you blind? Unable to read? I dispute almost everything you propose and have indicated so more than once...
LOL. You are so dumb. Disputes involve evidence, dumbass.
> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:42:31 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > It's regrettable the internet doesn't allow you to drop a link to your imagination.
> > >
> > > What's really regrettable is that a guy like you can come here and lie through your teeth that you a physicist when it is virtually impossible, considering how little physics you actually know!
> >
> > Yet you have no dispute with anything I'm saying. Hmm.
>
> LOL. Are you blind? Unable to read? I dispute almost everything you propose and have indicated so more than once...
pnal...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2016, 12:51:29 AM6/14/16
to
So, how is it that you refuse to present evidence that disputes the mainstream physics that you disparage? The burden of proof is on YOU. Mainstream physics has already proven its case and this is all over the internet. You are just too stupid to find it.
James McGinn
Jun 14, 2016, 1:33:40 AM6/14/16
to
James McGinn
Nov 3, 2016, 9:44:25 AM11/3/16
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages