info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Isaac Newton was a human being
209 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Apr 5, 2016, 1:55:07 AM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Isaac Newton was a human being
by James McGinn
In response to:
Understanding air density and its effects
05/17/2005 - Updated 09:46 AM ET
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm
Was Isaac Newton omniscient? Or was he a human being, capable of making a
mistake? I think the latter is the case. But according to this USA Today
article you might think it the former.
The article addresses the comparative weight of moist air to dry air. It
purports to address a common misconception, that moist air is heavier than dry
air. It turns out they are wrong. This is not a misconception. Moist air
actually is heavier than dry air, which is what most people generally assume
anyways. So the misconception, I contend, is this notion that moist air is
lighter than dry air, a notion that is generally foisted upon us from academia.
According to this article, the originator of this is none other than Isaac
Newton. Apparently, in his 1717 in his book, Optics Newton made a statement to
this effect. The article then goes on to describe the reasoning, which I
present below. Continuing on, the article describes this erroneous notion that
moist air is lighter than dry air as being, "known." But it actually isn't
known and never has been. For something to be known it has to be tested,
measured, or observed. Or it has to be calculated based on assumptions that
themselves are tested, measured, or observed. And, apparently, that is where
Newton, and all of academia hence, made an error.
USA Today:
To see why humid air is less dense than dry air, we need to turn to one of the
laws of nature the Italian physicist Amadeo Avogadro discovered in the early
1800s. In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas, say one cubic
meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would always have the same number
of molecules no matter what gas is in the container.
James McGinn:
This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient
temperatures/pressures. It is still liquid. It consists of microdroplets of
liquid H2O suspended by electro-static forces between air molecules. Often
these microdroplets are very small, so small they are invisible--just as
invisible as gaseous H2O (this is what confuses most of us). All in all, there
is zero evidence that moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous)
and there is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can
only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available in
our ambient environment.
USA Today:
Most beginning chemistry books explain how this works. Imagine a cubic foot of
perfectly dry air. It contains about 78% nitrogen molecules, which each have a
molecular weight of 28 (2 atoms with atomic weight 14) . Another 21% of the air
is oxygen, with each molecule having a molecular weight of 32 (2 stoms with
atomic weight 16). The final one percent is a mixture of other gases, which we
won't worry about. Molecules are free to move in and out of our cubic foot of
air.
James McGinn:
Up to this point everything they are saying here is accurate. Here is where
the problem lies:
USA Today:
What Avogadro discovered leads us to conclude that if we added water vapor
molecules to our cubic foot of air, some of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules
would leave -- remember, the total number of molecules in our cubic foot of air
stays the same. The water molecules, which replace nitrogen or oxygen, have a
molecular weight of 18. (One oxygen atom with atomic weight of 16, and two
hydrogen atoms each with atomic weight of 1). This is lighter than both
nitrogen and oxygen. In other words, replacing nitrogen and oxygen with water
vapor decreases the weight of the air in the cubic foot; that is, it's density
decreases.
James McGinn:
The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the
number of H2O molecules in the microdroplet. What is the correct number for X?
Well, the truth is we don't know. It is, in my opinion, most likely never
smaller than 10, thus the correct number to put into this equation wouldn't be
18 it would be 180 or larger. It is possible it might be as small as 3 in some
particularly dry bodies of air, in which case it would be 54, still making
moist air considerably heavier than dry air. But even if it is only 2 X would
be 36, still making moist air heavier than dry air.
So, if somebody tells you that the notion that moist air is heavier than dry
air is a myth you can tell them that this myth is actually a myth. You can
also tell them that Isaac Newton was not a deity sent from heaven but a normal
human being, prone to the foibles of failing to confirm his assumptions, just
like the rest of us.
by James McGinn
In response to:
Understanding air density and its effects
05/17/2005 - Updated 09:46 AM ET
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm
Was Isaac Newton omniscient? Or was he a human being, capable of making a
mistake? I think the latter is the case. But according to this USA Today
article you might think it the former.
The article addresses the comparative weight of moist air to dry air. It
purports to address a common misconception, that moist air is heavier than dry
air. It turns out they are wrong. This is not a misconception. Moist air
actually is heavier than dry air, which is what most people generally assume
anyways. So the misconception, I contend, is this notion that moist air is
lighter than dry air, a notion that is generally foisted upon us from academia.
According to this article, the originator of this is none other than Isaac
Newton. Apparently, in his 1717 in his book, Optics Newton made a statement to
this effect. The article then goes on to describe the reasoning, which I
present below. Continuing on, the article describes this erroneous notion that
moist air is lighter than dry air as being, "known." But it actually isn't
known and never has been. For something to be known it has to be tested,
measured, or observed. Or it has to be calculated based on assumptions that
themselves are tested, measured, or observed. And, apparently, that is where
Newton, and all of academia hence, made an error.
USA Today:
To see why humid air is less dense than dry air, we need to turn to one of the
laws of nature the Italian physicist Amadeo Avogadro discovered in the early
1800s. In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas, say one cubic
meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would always have the same number
of molecules no matter what gas is in the container.
James McGinn:
This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient
temperatures/pressures. It is still liquid. It consists of microdroplets of
liquid H2O suspended by electro-static forces between air molecules. Often
these microdroplets are very small, so small they are invisible--just as
invisible as gaseous H2O (this is what confuses most of us). All in all, there
is zero evidence that moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous)
and there is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can
only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available in
our ambient environment.
USA Today:
Most beginning chemistry books explain how this works. Imagine a cubic foot of
perfectly dry air. It contains about 78% nitrogen molecules, which each have a
molecular weight of 28 (2 atoms with atomic weight 14) . Another 21% of the air
is oxygen, with each molecule having a molecular weight of 32 (2 stoms with
atomic weight 16). The final one percent is a mixture of other gases, which we
won't worry about. Molecules are free to move in and out of our cubic foot of
air.
James McGinn:
Up to this point everything they are saying here is accurate. Here is where
the problem lies:
USA Today:
What Avogadro discovered leads us to conclude that if we added water vapor
molecules to our cubic foot of air, some of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules
would leave -- remember, the total number of molecules in our cubic foot of air
stays the same. The water molecules, which replace nitrogen or oxygen, have a
molecular weight of 18. (One oxygen atom with atomic weight of 16, and two
hydrogen atoms each with atomic weight of 1). This is lighter than both
nitrogen and oxygen. In other words, replacing nitrogen and oxygen with water
vapor decreases the weight of the air in the cubic foot; that is, it's density
decreases.
James McGinn:
The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the
number of H2O molecules in the microdroplet. What is the correct number for X?
Well, the truth is we don't know. It is, in my opinion, most likely never
smaller than 10, thus the correct number to put into this equation wouldn't be
18 it would be 180 or larger. It is possible it might be as small as 3 in some
particularly dry bodies of air, in which case it would be 54, still making
moist air considerably heavier than dry air. But even if it is only 2 X would
be 36, still making moist air heavier than dry air.
So, if somebody tells you that the notion that moist air is heavier than dry
air is a myth you can tell them that this myth is actually a myth. You can
also tell them that Isaac Newton was not a deity sent from heaven but a normal
human being, prone to the foibles of failing to confirm his assumptions, just
like the rest of us.
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 5, 2016, 2:00:38 AM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:55:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the
> number of H2O molecules in the microdroplet. What is the correct number for X?
> Well, the truth is we don't know. It is, in my opinion, most likely never
> smaller than 10...
> The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the
> number of H2O molecules in the microdroplet. What is the correct number for X?
> Well, the truth is we don't know. It is, in my opinion, most likely never
Unfortunately, your opinion is not science, and is therefore worthless.
Show us your experiment that proves your position. Otherwise, you have nothing...
Don't go claiming that the proff one way or the other is my chore, because clearly it is not. YOU are making the claim, so it is YOU who needs to provide the proof.
Good luck!
James McGinn
Apr 5, 2016, 2:21:42 AM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
science, including that of Isaac Newton.
Now we know what we don't know.
But, of course, there is the fact that all of the laboratory evidence clearly
indicates the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. And it is a far cry from
that of ambient temperatures/pressures. So, the burden of proof is on those
that would like to claim that H2O is gaseous at ambient temperature/pressures.
So, it would seem that it is yourself that is in need of an experiment, and
luck--lotsa, lotsa luck. (And maybe some pixie dust.)
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Ross A. Finlayson
Apr 5, 2016, 2:55:12 AM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
electrostatic conditions, that wouldn't so
effect a gaseous medium. Demonstrate that,
shouldn't cost you more than a 6V battery,
some wire, and a mister (and maybe some LEDs
and a photoreceptor, and a volumeter).
Those droplets are still constantly evaporating
at their surfaces, you know. Might as well not
be wrong if you're going to go around claiming
to correct people.
Lu Wei
Apr 5, 2016, 3:41:59 AM4/5/16
to
On 2016-4-5 13:55, James McGinn wrote:
> ...
the subtle difference between moist|humid|damp|wet air. If temperature
is below dew point, micro-droplets of water will eventually evaporate.
And gaseous H2O (water vapor) can exist below boiling point, even below
freezing point. Air with water droplets is heavier than dry air, and air
with water vapor is lighter than dry air.
--
Regards,
Lu Wei
PGP key ID: 0x92CCE1EA
> ...
> James McGinn:
> This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient
> temperatures/pressures. It is still liquid. It consists of microdroplets of
> liquid H2O suspended by electro-static forces between air molecules. Often
> these microdroplets are very small, so small they are invisible--just as
> invisible as gaseous H2O (this is what confuses most of us). All in all, there
> is zero evidence that moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous)
> and there is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can
> only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available in
> our ambient environment.
Just stumble upon this. As not a native English speaker, I don't know
> This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient
> temperatures/pressures. It is still liquid. It consists of microdroplets of
> liquid H2O suspended by electro-static forces between air molecules. Often
> these microdroplets are very small, so small they are invisible--just as
> invisible as gaseous H2O (this is what confuses most of us). All in all, there
> is zero evidence that moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous)
> and there is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can
> only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available in
> our ambient environment.
the subtle difference between moist|humid|damp|wet air. If temperature
is below dew point, micro-droplets of water will eventually evaporate.
And gaseous H2O (water vapor) can exist below boiling point, even below
freezing point. Air with water droplets is heavier than dry air, and air
with water vapor is lighter than dry air.
--
Regards,
Lu Wei
PGP key ID: 0x92CCE1EA
James McGinn
Apr 5, 2016, 5:38:43 AM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
structure of the H2O in the air. It only give us an indication as to
when the microdroplets will be big enough to be visible. So, dew
point is useful for a meteorologists but misleading for
physicists/chemists. (Also, evaporation/sublimation doesn't produce
gaseous H2O. This is a myth. It produces microdroplets of liquid
H2O exclusively.) Gaseous H2O is impossible at temperatures/pressures
below it's known boiling points. Consequently moist air is always
heavier than dry air.
My absolute confidence that there is no gaseous H2O in our atmosphere
is based on an advanced model of H bonding that was arrived at starting
from first principles (ab initio) in conjunction with an advanced
understanding of H2O polarity being variable and with H bonding being
the mechanism of this variation, which is explained in a paper I wrote in November.
If you are interested here are links to the paper:
https://zenodo.org/record/37224
or
https:// groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Sergio
Apr 5, 2016, 10:45:04 AM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 4/5/2016 2:41 AM, Lu Wei wrote:
> On 2016-4-5 13:55, James McGinn wrote:
>> ...
>> James McGinn:
>> This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient
>> temperatures/pressures.
wrong.
> On 2016-4-5 13:55, James McGinn wrote:
>> ...
>> James McGinn:
>> This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient
>> temperatures/pressures.
>> It is still liquid.
wrong.
<snip troll drival>
>
> Just stumble upon this. As not a native English speaker, I don't know
> the subtle difference between moist|humid|damp|wet air. If temperature
> is below dew point, micro-droplets of water will eventually evaporate.
> And gaseous H2O (water vapor) can exist below boiling point, even below
> freezing point. Air with water droplets is heavier than dry air, and air
> with water vapor is lighter than dry air.
>
he does not know any science at all, he just wants to crank people up
for fun, as he is living in his mom's basement unemployed.
James McGinn is an airy-fairy type, (no science no math) who cannot
answer simple questions.
James McGinn
Apr 5, 2016, 11:07:12 AM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. All of the evidence
that contradicts it is anecdotal--worthless. However, if
anybody is interested in an experiment that is simple,
cheap, and definitive I would recommend the following:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/2XZmr9zDCig/mpUXaNxzAAAJ
James McGinn
Apr 5, 2016, 11:18:01 AM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Apr 5, 2016, 1:08:41 PM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Why People in Academia Rarely Make Big Discoveries
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/KBUKLRBTLbY/MTHPtGaZCwAJ
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 5, 2016, 1:46:21 PM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:21:42 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:00:38 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:55:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > > The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the
> > > number of H2O molecules in the microdroplet. What is the correct number for X?
> > > Well, the truth is we don't know. It is, in my opinion, most likely never
> > > smaller than 10...
> >
> > Unfortunately, your opinion is not science, and is therefore worthless.
> >
> > Show us your experiment that proves your position. Otherwise, you have nothing...
> >
> > Don't go claiming that the proff one way or the other is my chore, because clearly it is not. YOU are making the claim, so it is YOU who needs to provide the proof.
> >
> > Good luck!
>
> I agree. My opinion isn't science. In fact, no human being's opinion is
> science, including that of Isaac Newton.
>
> Now we know what we don't know.
You absolutely don't know what you don't know, that is the entire problem!
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:00:38 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:55:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > > The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the
> > > number of H2O molecules in the microdroplet. What is the correct number for X?
> > > Well, the truth is we don't know. It is, in my opinion, most likely never
> > > smaller than 10...
> >
> > Unfortunately, your opinion is not science, and is therefore worthless.
> >
> > Show us your experiment that proves your position. Otherwise, you have nothing...
> >
> > Don't go claiming that the proff one way or the other is my chore, because clearly it is not. YOU are making the claim, so it is YOU who needs to provide the proof.
> >
> > Good luck!
>
> I agree. My opinion isn't science. In fact, no human being's opinion is
> science, including that of Isaac Newton.
>
> Now we know what we don't know.
> But, of course, there is the fact that all of the laboratory evidence clearly
> indicates the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O. And it is a far cry from
> that of ambient temperatures/pressures. So, the burden of proof is on those
> that would like to claim that H2O is gaseous at ambient temperature/pressures.
James McGinn
Apr 5, 2016, 2:09:28 PM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
a liquid, in which he molecules are very close, touching, and a gas in
which they are bouncing around knocking off of each other randomly.
It's hard to believe anybody this dumb would spend much time in a
science forum. What is it that draws you here?
noTthaTguY
Apr 5, 2016, 3:14:15 PM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
of coure, if it were pi,
it would only have the cOOling effect of a pith
of the liquid water ... and,
that is less than a third
it would only have the cOOling effect of a pith
of the liquid water ... and,
that is less than a third
Message has been deleted
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 5, 2016, 10:25:11 PM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
You are pretty thick if you can't comprehend that water vapor is a gas, common knowledge among chemists and physicists worldwide.
Since you have zero talent for science in general and chemistry is particular, why are you here at all?
James McGinn
Apr 5, 2016, 11:13:20 PM4/5/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2016, 12:32:15 AM4/6/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
So, about that Dew Point definition... waddaya got?
James McGinn
Apr 6, 2016, 12:37:11 AM4/6/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2016, 12:42:48 AM4/6/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
noTthaTguY
Apr 6, 2016, 10:56:50 AM4/6/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
most youngins get caught-up in logarithms (or
inverse of exponentiation, but
it might just be pi.
there are only pi things that you need,
to pursue any eventuality in mathematics ... theoretically
inverse of exponentiation, but
it might just be pi.
there are only pi things that you need,
to pursue any eventuality in mathematics ... theoretically
Sergio
Apr 6, 2016, 11:06:56 AM4/6/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 7, 2016, 2:23:52 PM4/7/16
to
Or, are you just running away?
James McGinn
Apr 7, 2016, 3:01:15 PM4/7/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 7, 2016, 5:14:54 PM4/7/16
to
What is 'your' definition of 'dew point'?
It must be very different than the normally accepted definition, otherwise you wouldn't be making the claims you do.
James McGinn
Apr 7, 2016, 5:36:32 PM4/7/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 7, 2016, 6:03:52 PM4/7/16
to
Solving Tornadoes
Apr 7, 2016, 6:13:58 PM4/7/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 7, 2016, 6:34:52 PM4/7/16
to
http://w1.weather.gov/glossary/index.php?word=dew+point
Dew Point
"(Abbrev. DWPT) - A measure of atmospheric moisture. It is the temperature to which air must be cooled in order to reach saturation (assuming air pressure and moisture content are constant). A higher dew point indicates more moisture present in the air. It is sometimes referred to as Dew Point Temperature, and sometimes written as one word (Dewpoint)."
In other words, the dew point is the temperature at which the water vapor in a sample of air at constant barometric pressure condenses into liquid water at the same rate at which it evaporates. Water vapor, of course, is the gaseous form of water. Above the dew point water will remain gaseous.
This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim.
You can't do that, of course, so please just go home already, you have wasted enough bandwidth here...
Odd Bodkin
Apr 7, 2016, 6:52:03 PM4/7/16
to
On 4/7/2016 5:34 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an
> extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of
> scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim.
Jim will not-so-politely decline to do that. His stance is that he is
> This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an
> extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of
> scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim.
right because his approach of challenging assumptions is right, not
because of data showing he is right.
>
> You can't do that, of course, so please just go home already, you have wasted enough bandwidth here...
bandwidth. He's the kind of guy that enters into a crowded room and
starts talking nonstop, raising his voice until all eyes are on him.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Solving Tornadoes
Apr 7, 2016, 6:52:52 PM4/7/16
to
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:34:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dew Point
> "(Abbrev. DWPT) - A measure of atmospheric moisture. It is the temperature to which air must be cooled in order to reach saturation (assuming air pressure and moisture content are constant). A higher dew point indicates more moisture present in the air. It is sometimes referred to as Dew Point Temperature, and sometimes written as one word (Dewpoint)."
>
> In other words, the dew point is the temperature at which the water vapor in a sample of air at constant barometric pressure condenses into liquid water at the same rate at which it evaporates. Water vapor, of course, is the gaseous form of water. Above the dew point water will remain gaseous.
>
> This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim.
>
> You can't do that, of course, so please just go home already, you have wasted enough bandwidth here...
Let me get this straight. Your assertion is based on the *BELIEFS* of tens of
> Dew Point
> "(Abbrev. DWPT) - A measure of atmospheric moisture. It is the temperature to which air must be cooled in order to reach saturation (assuming air pressure and moisture content are constant). A higher dew point indicates more moisture present in the air. It is sometimes referred to as Dew Point Temperature, and sometimes written as one word (Dewpoint)."
>
> In other words, the dew point is the temperature at which the water vapor in a sample of air at constant barometric pressure condenses into liquid water at the same rate at which it evaporates. Water vapor, of course, is the gaseous form of water. Above the dew point water will remain gaseous.
>
> This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim.
>
> You can't do that, of course, so please just go home already, you have wasted enough bandwidth here...
thousands of scientists. And instead of asking them to supply it, you want me
to supply the proof? Why not ask them? Afterall, you just basically accused
tens of thousands of scientists of ignoring the scientific method and carrying
a belief for which they have no proof.
So ask them. Fair enough?
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/YiGNWwhAlPA/K0wJHkmwFQAJ
Solving Tornadoes
Apr 7, 2016, 7:03:35 PM4/7/16
to
http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 7, 2016, 11:00:16 PM4/7/16
to
You don't have the brains that god gave a mud fence.
You are a complete fucking idiot if you think that all of the world's chemists and physicists should beat a path to your door in order to prove they they are right and you are wrong. They have already proven their position beyond a shadow of a doubt, the evidence is virtually EVERYWHERE, whereas YOU have not provided even a shed of evidence for your claims. You have not proven a single claim that you have made, not one!
You are just a clueless pretender who cannot provide support for anything that you have claimed here, and are therefore as worthless as tits on a bullfrog.
It is unfair of me to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 7, 2016, 11:01:28 PM4/7/16
to
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
The problem here, of course, is that YOU are claiming to be the Emperor... and are as naked as a jaybird...
> So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
James McGinn
Apr 7, 2016, 11:14:56 PM4/7/16
to
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:00:16 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:52:52 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:34:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Dew Point
> > > "(Abbrev. DWPT) - A measure of atmospheric moisture. It is the temperature to which air must be cooled in order to reach saturation (assuming air pressure and moisture content are constant). A higher dew point indicates more moisture present in the air. It is sometimes referred to as Dew Point Temperature, and sometimes written as one word (Dewpoint)."
> > >
> > > In other words, the dew point is the temperature at which the water vapor in a sample of air at constant barometric pressure condenses into liquid water at the same rate at which it evaporates. Water vapor, of course, is the gaseous form of water. Above the dew point water will remain gaseous.
> > >
> > > This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim.
> > >
> > > You can't do that, of course, so please just go home already, you have wasted enough bandwidth here...
> >
> > Let me get this straight. Your assertion is based on the *BELIEFS* of tens of
> > thousands of scientists. And instead of asking them to supply it, you want me
> > to supply the proof? Why not ask them? Afterall, you just basically accused
> > tens of thousands of scientists of ignoring the scientific method and carrying L
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:52:52 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:34:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Dew Point
> > > "(Abbrev. DWPT) - A measure of atmospheric moisture. It is the temperature to which air must be cooled in order to reach saturation (assuming air pressure and moisture content are constant). A higher dew point indicates more moisture present in the air. It is sometimes referred to as Dew Point Temperature, and sometimes written as one word (Dewpoint)."
> > >
> > > In other words, the dew point is the temperature at which the water vapor in a sample of air at constant barometric pressure condenses into liquid water at the same rate at which it evaporates. Water vapor, of course, is the gaseous form of water. Above the dew point water will remain gaseous.
> > >
> > > This is what virtually all chemists and physicists know to be true, but which you deny. yours is an extraordinary claim, and means that in order to refute the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of scientists, YOU need to supply extraordinary proof of that claim.
> > >
> > > You can't do that, of course, so please just go home already, you have wasted enough bandwidth here...
> >
> > Let me get this straight. Your assertion is based on the *BELIEFS* of tens of
> > thousands of scientists. And instead of asking them to supply it, you want me
> > to supply the proof? Why not ask them? Afterall, you just basically accused
> > a belief for which they have no proof.
> >
> > So ask them. Fair enough?
>
> My 'assertion' is based on good science,
LOL. Your assertion is based on being a sheep in a flock who are all
> >
> > So ask them. Fair enough?
>
> My 'assertion' is based on good science,
brainlessly following something some dude said in 1717.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
James McGinn
Apr 7, 2016, 11:15:25 PM4/7/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2016, 1:11:52 AM4/8/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2016, 1:45:27 AM4/8/16
to
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
You obviously didn't understand a single word of that video!
"If is disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!"
Of course, you have exactly ZERO experiments to share here...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
You obviously didn't understand a single word of that video!
"If is disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!"
Of course, you have exactly ZERO experiments to share here...
James McGinn
Apr 8, 2016, 1:51:27 AM4/8/16
to
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:11:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > When sheep attack.
>
> Total fucking idiot!!!
You shouldn't be upset. Think of all you got going for you:
> > When sheep attack.
>
> Total fucking idiot!!!
1) The evidence is EVERYWHERE.
2) Ten thousand scientists couldn't be wrong and may well at this very moment be diligently endeavoring to find this evidence.
3) None other than sir Isaac Newton has given us is personal assurance that this evidence must exist, and he couldn't possibly be wrong.
So don't lose hope. Keep the faith.
Something's gotta turn up.
James McGinn
Apr 8, 2016, 1:54:40 AM4/8/16
to
Do you think that wasn't determined experimentally?
Odd Bodkin
Apr 8, 2016, 8:14:09 AM4/8/16
to
it cited, there is a virtual certainty that it's being cited by a
nutjob. The nutjob looks for justification for why he is alone in the
world with his thoughts. His answer is always going to be, "I am
speaking the truth, and everybody else in the entire world is afraid to
speak this truth." The nutjob does not want to hear the story about the
Sadly Mistaken Boy.
James McGinn
Apr 8, 2016, 9:44:12 AM4/8/16
to
James McGinn
Apr 8, 2016, 11:07:05 AM4/8/16
to
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:45:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
All of the experimental evidence falls my way, dumbass.
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2016, 3:47:25 PM4/8/16
to
You've got NO experiments that support your notion, for example, that humid air is heavier than dry air, whereas there are uncounted experiments that prove otherwise. There are also uncounted experiments that prove that water vapor is a gaseous form of water. Many papers in support of this have been linked for you, but you've choosen to either not read them or not respond to them, provide no critical feedback for any of them, while at the same time fail to show your own experimental evidence in support of your own tenuous stance.
Sure, there are lots of experiments that deal with boiling water, just as there are lots of experiments that deal with evaporation.
The main difference between evaporation and boiling are :
1. Evaporation takes place at all temperatures, while boiling occurs at a particular temperature.
2. Evaporation takes place from the surface, whereas the entire liquid boils.
3. Evaporation can occur using the internal energy of the system, while boiling requires an external source of heat.
4. Evaporation produces cooling but boiling does not.
5. Evaporation is a slow process while boiling is a rapid process.
However, in each case gaseous water (water vapor) is produced. To deny this fact is an extraordinary claim, which requires an extraordinary proof, of which you have shown NONE!
There is virtually NO experimental evidence that 'falls your way', dumbass.
noTthaTguY
Apr 8, 2016, 3:57:38 PM4/8/16
to
just ask the metoeorologist,
if HOH is lighter than air, and
if air is lighter than OCO;
they might have to think for a second or so
if HOH is lighter than air, and
if air is lighter than OCO;
they might have to think for a second or so
Solving Tornadoes
Apr 8, 2016, 3:57:54 PM4/8/16
to
in the atmosphere is gaseous even though we don't have a clue.
The fact is we do have a clue. We boiling point of H2O is firmly established.
You imagination does not dispute it.
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2016, 5:50:37 PM4/8/16
to
Yes, the boiling point of water is well established at any pressure, who would ever dispute that? That does not negate the simple fact that gaseous water also comes from evaporation and is unrelated to the boiling process.
It is YOU who has the wild imagination and delusions of grandeur.
James McGinn
Apr 8, 2016, 6:29:03 PM4/8/16
to
And I'm saying you are a phoney that will make these dumbass claims over and
over again but will never once discuss the procedures that decisively verify
that clear moist air in your purported experiment is genuinely gaseous.
Phoneys always claim, "thousand and thousands," but they never actually
demonstrate even one.
It is YOU who has no clue! Just ask Dr. Salkalley...
equally inane answer.
> YOU, on the other hand, cannot point to even a single experiment to support
> your positions, not one!
>
> Yes, the boiling point of water is well established at any pressure, who
would ever dispute that?
to say. I'm welling up. Tears are coming to my eyes. I'm crying like a baby.
You just made me the happiest person on usenet!
> That does not negate the simple fact that gaseous water also comes from
> evaporation and is unrelated to the boiling process.
you. I'm still crying.
> It is YOU who has the wild imagination and delusions of grandeur.
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2016, 7:57:53 PM4/8/16
to
>
> Phoneys always claim, "thousand and thousands," but they never actually
> demonstrate even one.
Well, if this is true, then CLEARLY it is YOU who is the phony, because the onus of proof is on the person making the claim, and you have demonstrated diddly-squat!
> Phoneys always claim, "thousand and thousands," but they never actually
> demonstrate even one.
>
> It is YOU who has no clue! Just ask Dr. Salkalley...
>
> I asked Salkally a completely different question, you dingbat, but gave an
> equally inane answer.
Not in my view. I think he tried to let you down as gently as possible, but instead you became VERY agitated and called him all sorts of things without provocation. You came across as a complete loser, and Dr. Saykalley simply left you to twist if the wind, which you continue to do today.
> It is YOU who has no clue! Just ask Dr. Salkalley...
>
> I asked Salkally a completely different question, you dingbat, but gave an
> equally inane answer.
> > YOU, on the other hand, cannot point to even a single experiment to support
> > your positions, not one!
> >
> > Yes, the boiling point of water is well established at any pressure, who
> would ever dispute that?
>
> Wow! A direct, non-evasive answer. I wasn't expecting that. I don't know what
> to say. I'm welling up. Tears are coming to my eyes. I'm crying like a baby.
> You just made me the happiest person on usenet!
>
> > That does not negate the simple fact that gaseous water also comes from
> > evaporation and is unrelated to the boiling process.
>
> Even your continued evasiveness can't erase the joy you just brought me. Thank
> you. I'm still crying.
>
> > It is YOU who has the wild imagination and delusions of grandeur.
>
> I know I'm never going to have to pay out the 100 thousand grand. But in my heart I would want it to go to you.
I would claim that it is you who is evasive. You have posted here hundreds of times and have never once provided anything to support your views except for your very own paper and your YouTube videos, but there is not a shred of proof to be found among those.
> > It is YOU who has the wild imagination and delusions of grandeur.
>
> I know I'm never going to have to pay out the 100 thousand grand. But in my heart I would want it to go to you.
I think you should either put up or shut up, your wild and unsubstantiated claims are quite tiresome at this point in time, and you are not getting anywhere.
James McGinn
Apr 8, 2016, 8:55:28 PM4/8/16
to
>
> > > YOU, on the other hand, cannot point to even a single experiment to support
> > > your positions, not one!
> > >
> > > Yes, the boiling point of water is well established at any pressure, who
> > would ever dispute that?
> >
> > Wow! A direct, non-evasive answer. I wasn't expecting that. I don't know what
> > to say. I'm welling up. Tears are coming to my eyes. I'm crying like a baby.
>
> And yet, you have never provided any direct, non-evasive answer to any
question, if memory serves me correctly. Like, for example, when I asked you
for your definition of the dew point. Can you finally provide a direct, non-
evasive definition now? Probably not...
>
> > You just made me the happiest person on usenet!
> >
> > > That does not negate the simple fact that gaseous water also comes from
> > > evaporation and is unrelated to the boiling process.
> >
> > Even your continued evasiveness can't erase the joy you just brought me. Thank
> > you. I'm still crying.
>
> Errr... just what is it that I am continuing to evade? Gaseous water (water
vapor) exists in the air, and most of it gets there without needing the boiling
process, and that statement doesn't seem to be evading anything. Can you prove
otherwise?
the naked eye? Of course you don't. You want to know how I know that you
don't know that? BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS THAT. So, stop pretending that you know
something that we know that nobody knows.
If you had the sophisticated understanding of H bonding of water that I have
you would realize how plainly absurd it is to suggest that a singular H2O
molecule (and, therefore, an H2O molecule that has NOT had its polarity
neutralized by H bonding) can exist at ambient temperatures.
Convection Versus Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> > > It is YOU who has the wild imagination and delusions of grandeur.
> >
> > I know I'm never going to have to pay out the 100 thousand grand. But in
my heart I would want it to go to you.
>
> I would claim that it is you who is evasive. You have posted here hundreds of
times and have never once provided anything to support your views except for
your very own paper and your YouTube videos, but there is not a shred of proof
to be found among those.
frankly, a normal part of being an adult. If you have trouble dealing with it
without throwing a temper tantrum I would suggest you avoid science and
adulthood.
>
> I think you should either put up or shut up, your wild and unsubstantiated
claims are quite tiresome at this point in time, and you are not getting
anywhere.
of the lurkers are not as obtuse.
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2016, 11:17:30 PM4/8/16
to
> > > > YOU, on the other hand, cannot point to even a single experiment to support
> > > > your positions, not one!
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the boiling point of water is well established at any pressure, who
> > > would ever dispute that?
> > >
> > > Wow! A direct, non-evasive answer. I wasn't expecting that. I don't know what
> > > to say. I'm welling up. Tears are coming to my eyes. I'm crying like a baby.
> >
> > And yet, you have never provided any direct, non-evasive answer to any
> question, if memory serves me correctly. Like, for example, when I asked you
> for your definition of the dew point. Can you finally provide a direct, non-
> evasive definition now? Probably not...
> >
> > > You just made me the happiest person on usenet!
> > >
> > > > That does not negate the simple fact that gaseous water also comes from
> > > > evaporation and is unrelated to the boiling process.
> > >
> > > Even your continued evasiveness can't erase the joy you just brought me. Thank
> > > you. I'm still crying.
> >
> > Errr... just what is it that I am continuing to evade? Gaseous water (water
> vapor) exists in the air, and most of it gets there without needing the boiling
> process, and that statement doesn't seem to be evading anything. Can you prove
> otherwise?
>
> Do you know how big a water cluster has to become before it becomes visible to
> the naked eye? Of course you don't. You want to know how I know that you
> don't know that? BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS THAT. So, stop pretending that you know
> something that we know that nobody knows.
>
> If you had the sophisticated understanding of H bonding of water that I have
> you would realize how plainly absurd it is to suggest that a singular H2O
> molecule (and, therefore, an H2O molecule that has NOT had its polarity
> neutralized by H bonding) can exist at ambient temperatures.
So... prove it! Talk is cheap, put your money where you mouth is. You make a claim, it is up to you to prove it.
> If you had the sophisticated understanding of H bonding of water that I have
> you would realize how plainly absurd it is to suggest that a singular H2O
> molecule (and, therefore, an H2O molecule that has NOT had its polarity
> neutralized by H bonding) can exist at ambient temperatures.
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
>
> > > > It is YOU who has the wild imagination and delusions of grandeur.
> > >
> > > I know I'm never going to have to pay out the 100 thousand grand. But in
> my heart I would want it to go to you.
> >
> > I would claim that it is you who is evasive. You have posted here hundreds of
> times and have never once provided anything to support your views except for
> your very own paper and your YouTube videos, but there is not a shred of proof
> to be found among those.
>
> The cognitive dissonance you are feeling is a normal part of science and,
> frankly, a normal part of being an adult. If you have trouble dealing with it
> without throwing a temper tantrum I would suggest you avoid science and
> adulthood.
> > I think you should either put up or shut up, your wild and unsubstantiated
> claims are quite tiresome at this point in time, and you are not getting
> anywhere.
>
> I think that with you that is very likely the case. I can only hope that some
> of the lurkers are not as obtuse.
I'm not the guy making wild and unsubstantiated claims, and I have no reason or need to defend my position. I have virtually all of the scientific community saying the same thing as I say. You, on the other hand, are standing all alone out in the cold, with nary a supporter to be found. You've got nothing but bluster, you've never had anything more, and that is not likely to change anytime soon.
James McGinn
Apr 8, 2016, 11:41:43 PM4/8/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2016, 1:26:33 AM4/9/16
to
Like I said, put up or shut up. Go big or go home.
Bye-bye...
Good luck!
James McGinn
Apr 9, 2016, 2:57:38 AM4/9/16
to
James McGinn
Apr 9, 2016, 12:10:33 PM4/9/16
to
If you ever find evidence of cold steam let us know. In my opinion, however, your time would be better spent looking for the holy grail because there is at least an outside chance that it actually exists.
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2016, 2:36:28 PM4/9/16
to
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 9:10:33 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> If you ever find evidence of cold steam let us know. In my opinion, however, your time would be better spent looking for the holy grail because there is at least an outside chance that it actually exists.
WTF is your definition of cold steam?
> If you ever find evidence of cold steam let us know. In my opinion, however, your time would be better spent looking for the holy grail because there is at least an outside chance that it actually exists.
Hot steam, of course, a result of boiling water, is a mixture of water vapor, which can't be seen, and water in aerosol form, which can be seen.
Remember my request that you give me your definition of the dew point? The question you still refuse to answer, or are unable to answer? When you open a freezer door and very cold air pours out into your warm kitchen, some of the water vapor in that kitchen air very suddenly drops to a temperature that is below the dew point, and instantly condenses into the aerosol form of liquid water, which is, in my view, a perfect example of cold steam. Evidence enough? The stuff you see when opening a refrigerator door, or you see when you exhale while outside in freezing temperatures, or that you see from a pot of boiling water, is all the same stuff, liquid water as an aerosol. What is so hard to understand about this very simple concept? Perhaps you have a different definition of the stuff you see from the fridge, from your breath or from boiling water, but there is no denying the fact that it exists. If you don't wish to call it cold steam, fine... so, what DO you call it?
And to think that you call yourself a physicist... and then call ME a liar! Oh, the irony!
James McGinn
Apr 9, 2016, 2:46:55 PM4/9/16
to
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:36:28 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 9:10:33 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>
> > If you ever find evidence of cold steam let us know. In my opinion, however, your time would be better spent looking for the holy grail because there is at least an outside chance that it actually exists.
>
> WTF is your definition of cold steam?
Surreal. Read the first post in this thread again, carefully. Think deeply. Do research.
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 9:10:33 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>
> > If you ever find evidence of cold steam let us know. In my opinion, however, your time would be better spent looking for the holy grail because there is at least an outside chance that it actually exists.
>
> WTF is your definition of cold steam?
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2016, 5:23:51 PM4/9/16
to
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:46:55 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:36:28 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 9:10:33 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > > If you ever find evidence of cold steam let us know. In my opinion, however, your time would be better spent looking for the holy grail because there is at least an outside chance that it actually exists.
> >
> > WTF is your definition of cold steam?
>
> Surreal. Read the first post in this thread again, carefully. Think deeply. Do research.
Well, the first post in this thread is almost total hogwash, as the gaseous form of water (water vapor) is NOT liquid water, as virtually any actual physicist or chemist knows. You are the guy who needs to do the research. You will not find a single source to support your idiotic notion... outside of your own scribbles, which don't count for anything.
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:36:28 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 9:10:33 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > > If you ever find evidence of cold steam let us know. In my opinion, however, your time would be better spent looking for the holy grail because there is at least an outside chance that it actually exists.
> >
> > WTF is your definition of cold steam?
>
> Surreal. Read the first post in this thread again, carefully. Think deeply. Do research.
The first post in the thread does not mention one word about cold steam. You are one hard-headed dude who is either unable or unwilling to answer simple questions... are you perhaps actually a politician in the real world? You claim there is no such thing as cold steam, but then refuse to provide a definition. I, however, did provide a plausible definition, which you have not commented about. Too hard for you?
>
> >
> > Hot steam, of course, a result of boiling water, is a mixture of water vapor, which can't be seen, and water in aerosol form, which can be seen.
> >
> > Remember my request that you give me your definition of the dew point? The question you still refuse to answer, or are unable to answer? When you open a freezer door and very cold air pours out into your warm kitchen, some of the water vapor in that kitchen air very suddenly drops to a temperature that is below the dew point, and instantly condenses into the aerosol form of liquid water, which is, in my view, a perfect example of cold steam. Evidence enough? The stuff you see when opening a refrigerator door, or you see when you exhale while outside in freezing temperatures, or that you see from a pot of boiling water, is all the same stuff, liquid water as an aerosol. What is so hard to understand about this very simple concept? Perhaps you have a different definition of the stuff you see from the fridge, from your breath or from boiling water, but there is no denying the fact that it exists. If you don't wish to call it cold steam, fine... so, what DO you call it?
James McGinn
Apr 9, 2016, 8:14:51 PM4/9/16
to
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 2:23:51 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:46:55 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:36:28 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 9:10:33 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you ever find evidence of cold steam let us know. In my opinion, however, your time would be better spent looking for the holy grail because there is at least an outside chance that it actually exists.
> > >
> > > WTF is your definition of cold steam?
> >
> > Surreal. Read the first post in this thread again, carefully. Think deeply. Do research.
>
> Well, the first post in this thread is almost total hogwash, as the gaseous form of water (water vapor) is NOT liquid water,
Evidence?
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:46:55 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:36:28 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 9:10:33 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you ever find evidence of cold steam let us know. In my opinion, however, your time would be better spent looking for the holy grail because there is at least an outside chance that it actually exists.
> > >
> > > WTF is your definition of cold steam?
> >
> > Surreal. Read the first post in this thread again, carefully. Think deeply. Do research.
>
> Well, the first post in this thread is almost total hogwash, as the gaseous form of water (water vapor) is NOT liquid water,
as virtually any actual physicist or chemist knows.
know say they know. Your argument is not based on an experiment that I could
reproduce to reproduce their results. Right?
noTthaTguY
Apr 10, 2016, 12:31:42 AM4/10/16
to
in deed, partial pressuers are rlated
to the boilingpoints of constituent gasses;
congradulation
to the boilingpoints of constituent gasses;
congradulation
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 10, 2016, 1:15:05 AM4/10/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:812d35e6-9a16-493d...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Well, the first post in this thread is almost total hogwash,
>> as the gaseous form of water (water vapor) is NOT liquid water,
> Evidence?
Nilsson's study:
<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.
Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... 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.
Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.
>> as virtually any actual physicist or chemist knows.
> So, let me get this straight. You argument is base on what people you don't
> know say they know. Your argument is not based on an experiment that I could
> reproduce to reproduce their results. Right?
The experiments are above, in addition to the three experiments I've
already suggested you try, James, which can be done by pretty much
anyone without requiring sophisticated equipment.
You've made an unusual claim that flies in the face of reality, the
onus of proof is upon you. No one is required to hold your moronic
hand and do the work for you. Test your suppositions, or reconcile
yourself to the fact that you're practicing cargo cult 'science',
James, and even then fucking it up badly.
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
--
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 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:812d35e6-9a16-493d...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Well, the first post in this thread is almost total hogwash,
>> as the gaseous form of water (water vapor) is NOT liquid water,
> Evidence?
<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.
Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... 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.
Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.
>> as virtually any actual physicist or chemist knows.
> So, let me get this straight. You argument is base on what people you don't
> know say they know. Your argument is not based on an experiment that I could
> reproduce to reproduce their results. Right?
already suggested you try, James, which can be done by pretty much
anyone without requiring sophisticated equipment.
You've made an unusual claim that flies in the face of reality, the
onus of proof is upon you. No one is required to hold your moronic
hand and do the work for you. Test your suppositions, or reconcile
yourself to the fact that you're practicing cargo cult 'science',
James, and even then fucking it up badly.
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
--
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
Apr 10, 2016, 2:30:10 AM4/10/16
to
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 10, 2016, 12:03:09 PM4/10/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, in
No reply, James? You've been proven wrong, James, your retarded
uneducated 'cargo-cult science' blather utterly demolished. You have
no leg to stand on, Tardnado. And you're running away.
You're defeated, James.
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
fraud?
James McGinn
Apr 10, 2016, 7:28:52 PM4/10/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 10, 2016, 8:12:12 PM4/10/16
to
So let me get this straight. Your argument is based on your personal speculation, without the support of any experiments that you have performed and without the support if a single physicist or chemist, because they ALL disagree with you. You, apparently, have never learned anything from people that you don't know...
Speaking of answering questions, you must have missed a couple of my posts where I asked the following...
1. What's the name of that whitish foggy stuff that comes out of your mouth when you exhale while outside in very cold weather?
2. How do YOU choose to define the term 'dew point'?
3. What is YOUR definition of cold steam, which you claim doesn't exist? Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't, but it is pretty hard to judge when it is not defined...
If you can't answer these simple questions, or won't, I would have to say that it is YOU who is the evasive twit here...
James McGinn
Apr 10, 2016, 8:30:25 PM4/10/16
to
further substantiated by the fact that you still refuse to answer my question.
> So let me get this straight. Your argument is based on your personal
speculation, without the support of any experiments that you have performed and
without the support if a single physicist or chemist, because they ALL disagree
with you. You, apparently, have never learned anything from people that you
don't know...
>
> Speaking of answering questions, you must have missed a couple of my posts
where I asked the following...
>
> 1. What's the name of that whitish foggy stuff that comes out of your mouth
when you exhale while outside in very cold weather?
>
> 2. How do YOU choose to define the term 'dew point'?
>
> 3. What is YOUR definition of cold steam, which you claim doesn't exist?
Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't, but it is pretty hard to judge when it is
not defined...
>
> If you can't answer these simple questions, or won't, I would have to say
that it is YOU who is the evasive twit here...
chance of ever discovering the big things.
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 10, 2016, 8:46:39 PM4/10/16
to
> > So let me get this straight. Your argument is based on your personal
> speculation, without the support of any experiments that you have performed and
> without the support if a single physicist or chemist, because they ALL disagree
> with you. You, apparently, have never learned anything from people that you
> don't know...
> >
> > Speaking of answering questions, you must have missed a couple of my posts
> where I asked the following...
> >
> > 1. What's the name of that whitish foggy stuff that comes out of your mouth
> when you exhale while outside in very cold weather?
> >
> > 2. How do YOU choose to define the term 'dew point'?
> >
> > 3. What is YOUR definition of cold steam, which you claim doesn't exist?
> Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't, but it is pretty hard to judge when it is
> not defined...
> >
> > If you can't answer these simple questions, or won't, I would have to say
> that it is YOU who is the evasive twit here...
>
> People that are incapable of being honest about the little things have no
> chance of ever discovering the big things.
Your abject refusal to answer my simple little questions speaks volumes about your credentials. Clearly, you have been dishonest about your claim of being a physicist. Talk about being dishonest! You are just a fucking liar with nothing to offer on these forums. ZERO!
Go away, you are wasting bandwidth.
James McGinn
Apr 10, 2016, 9:26:47 PM4/10/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 10, 2016, 10:52:56 PM4/10/16
to
On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 6:26:47 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> You will never answer the question. And I will never stop drawing attention to it.
Imbecile. I answered the question.
> You will never answer the question. And I will never stop drawing attention to it.
Your turn to provide a few simple answers... but you won't because you can't...
James McGinn
Apr 11, 2016, 1:36:08 AM4/11/16
to
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 11, 2016, 10:04:50 AM4/11/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:1fb29d91-282e-4c2d...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> FNVWe drop-kicked a retard. Again:
>> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 5:14:51 PM UTC-7,
>> Nilsson's study:
>> <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
>> If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
>> Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
>> bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
>> the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
>> photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
>> than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
>> you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
>> liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
>> monomolecular with no H bonding.
>>
>> Water In The Gas Phase -
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
>> Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
>> LOL)... 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.
>>
>> Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
>> delusional reality-denying kooktard.
>>
>> <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
>> If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
>> Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
>> bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
>> the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
>> photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
>> than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
>> you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
>> liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
>> monomolecular with no H bonding.
>>
>> Water In The Gas Phase -
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
>> Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
>> LOL)... 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.
>>
>> Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
>> delusional reality-denying kooktard.
>>
>> The experiments are above, in addition to the three experiments I've
>> already suggested you try, James, which can be done by pretty much
>> anyone without requiring sophisticated equipment.
>>
>> You've made an unusual claim that flies in the face of reality, the
>> onus of proof is upon you. No one is required to hold your moronic
>> hand and do the work for you. Test your suppositions, or reconcile
>> yourself to the fact that you're practicing cargo cult 'science',
>> James, and even then fucking it up badly.
>> already suggested you try, James, which can be done by pretty much
>> anyone without requiring sophisticated equipment.
>>
>> You've made an unusual claim that flies in the face of reality, the
>> onus of proof is upon you. No one is required to hold your moronic
>> hand and do the work for you. Test your suppositions, or reconcile
>> yourself to the fact that you're practicing cargo cult 'science',
>> James, and even then fucking it up badly.
> Answer the question you evasive twit.
Face reality, you delusional shitbag.
"Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117
Apr 11, 2016, 10:27:05 AM4/11/16
to
have you heard about the lotusLoser?
he's a loser but he still keeps on tryin'...
-
"People didn't cause the Great Depression, Liberal ko0kTarD. Governmental
policy did." - Fakey in MID <7880b90ad2ecebe35ba01b4557597d80%40dizum.com>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
"The initial stock market crash triggered a "panic sell-off" that made the
stock market go even lower."
so... so the "government" panicked, snickers?
funny that a bona-fide conservative horatio alger hero type would want the
government stepping in to save the stock market.
"Current theories may be broadly classified into two main points of view
and several heterodox points of view.
First, there are demand-driven theories, from Keynesian and institutional
economists who argue that the depression was caused by a widespread loss
of confidence that led to underconsumption. The demand-driven theories
argue that the financial crisis following the 1929 crash led to a sudden
and persistent reduction in consumption and investment spending.[1] Once
panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could avoid further
losses by keeping clear of the markets. Holding money therefore became
profitable as prices dropped lower and a given amount of money bought ever
more goods, exacerbating the drop in demand.
Second, there are the monetarists, who believe that the Great Depression
started as an ordinary recession, but that significant policy mistakes by
monetary authorities (especially the Federal Reserve), caused a shrinking
of the money supply which greatly exacerbated the economic situation,
causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression. Related to this
explanation are those who point to debt deflation causing those who borrow
to owe ever more in real terms."
wait? what? no major "third" konservative k0okTheory blaming the
government for everything mentioned?
odd, that. eh, lotusLoser?
-
the never-ending saga of fakey's "lotus"...
https://web.archive.org/web/20160408001051/http://i.imgur.com/e3OrQSq.png
-
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu
-
FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:
<3dcad3dd0a0d3972...@dizum.com>
">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>> phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>> voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)
Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking
*moron*?
"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""
it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds. it says that you're in denial
about the inversion of your AC legs.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png
http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf
on page 2:
** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)
*COUGH*
SPNAK!!
-
i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII
art if you ask nicely.</GROUCHO MARX>
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb...@dizum.com>
-
snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:
- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:
http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html
place those files in a directory and save this file as
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.
compiles with:
gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++
run with:
./a.out
enjoy the LULZ ;)
*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>
using namespace std;
int main(){
//float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
//float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);
float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
float_precision t=float_precision(0); // time variable
float_precision sum=float_precision(0); // sum of SnickerTurd's
ridiculous sinewave mess
float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25); //
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
float_precision PI;
PI =_float_table(_PI,25);
// this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
while(sum < snickerPrediction){
// fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:
<db672705e57e4932...@dizum.com>
sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))
+
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));
// perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh
snickerTurds
if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
}
t = t+STEP;
}
/*
Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e328...@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"
Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves
never reaches that. They never reach their max values at the same time.
That's how stupid you are.
Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8...@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"
Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when
summed.
the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages that are archived FOREVER.
*/
cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
-
Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."
<f4f9193fa7d28b76...@dizum.com>
-
Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
<snicker>
Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL
<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">
on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*
*hell doesn't exist. hope everybody is having a productive evening.
-
http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg
http://cafepress.com/kooktown
http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg
-
If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "ro...@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)
if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2
-
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd
-
Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:
$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!
(just as useful as the original!)
-
snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message
<b5e7da79a455d0c9...@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden
service. It's not rocket science.
_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._ (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a
kiddie pr0n network.)
That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
noTthaTguY
Apr 11, 2016, 5:00:07 PM4/11/16
to
seems as if there was an accident in the kitchen,
but you cannot recall that for some\a reason
> in deed, partial pressureare reated
but you cannot recall that for some\a reason
> in deed, partial pressureare reated
> to the boilingpoints of constituent gasses;
>
>
James McGinn
Apr 27, 2016, 1:09:19 PM4/27/16
to
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:55:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Isaac Newton was a human being
> by James McGinn
>
> In response to:
> Understanding air density and its effects
> 05/17/2005 - Updated 09:46 AM ET
> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm
>
>
> Was Isaac Newton omniscient? Or was he a human being, capable of making a
> mistake? I think the latter is the case. But according to this USA Today
> article you might think it the former.
>
> The article addresses the comparative weight of moist air to dry air. It
> purports to address a common misconception, that moist air is heavier than dry
> air. It turns out they are wrong. This is not a misconception. Moist air
> actually is heavier than dry air, which is what most people generally assume
> anyways. So the misconception, I contend, is this notion that moist air is
> lighter than dry air, a notion that is generally foisted upon us from academia.
>
> According to this article, the originator of this is none other than Isaac
> Newton. Apparently, in his 1717 in his book, Optics Newton made a statement to
> this effect. The article then goes on to describe the reasoning, which I
> present below. Continuing on, the article describes this erroneous notion that
> moist air is lighter than dry air as being, "known." But it actually isn't
> known and never has been. For something to be known it has to be tested,
> measured, or observed. Or it has to be calculated based on assumptions that
> themselves are tested, measured, or observed. And, apparently, that is where
> Newton, and all of academia hence, made an error.
>
> USA Today:
> To see why humid air is less dense than dry air, we need to turn to one of the
> laws of nature the Italian physicist Amadeo Avogadro discovered in the early
> 1800s. In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas, say one cubic
> meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would always have the same number
> of molecules no matter what gas is in the container.
>
> James McGinn:
> This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient
> temperatures/pressures. It is still liquid. It consists of microdroplets of
> liquid H2O suspended by electro-static forces between air molecules. Often
> these microdroplets are very small, so small they are invisible--just as
> invisible as gaseous H2O (this is what confuses most of us). All in all, there
> is zero evidence that moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous)
> and there is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can
> only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available in
> our ambient environment.
>
> USA Today:
> Most beginning chemistry books explain how this works. Imagine a cubic foot of
> perfectly dry air. It contains about 78% nitrogen molecules, which each have a
> molecular weight of 28 (2 atoms with atomic weight 14) . Another 21% of the air
> is oxygen, with each molecule having a molecular weight of 32 (2 stoms with
> atomic weight 16). The final one percent is a mixture of other gases, which we
> won't worry about. Molecules are free to move in and out of our cubic foot of
> air.
>
> James McGinn:
> Up to this point everything they are saying here is accurate. Here is where
> the problem lies:
>
> USA Today:
> What Avogadro discovered leads us to conclude that if we added water vapor
> molecules to our cubic foot of air, some of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules
> would leave -- remember, the total number of molecules in our cubic foot of air
> stays the same. The water molecules, which replace nitrogen or oxygen, have a
> molecular weight of 18. (One oxygen atom with atomic weight of 16, and two
> hydrogen atoms each with atomic weight of 1). This is lighter than both
> nitrogen and oxygen. In other words, replacing nitrogen and oxygen with water
> vapor decreases the weight of the air in the cubic foot; that is, it's density
> decreases.
>
> James McGinn:
> The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the
> number of H2O molecules in the microdroplet. What is the correct number for X?
> Well, the truth is we don't know. It is, in my opinion, most likely never
> smaller than 10, thus the correct number to put into this equation wouldn't be
> 18 it would be 180 or larger. It is possible it might be as small as 3 in some
> particularly dry bodies of air, in which case it would be 54, still making
> moist air considerably heavier than dry air. But even if it is only 2 X would
> be 36, still making moist air heavier than dry air.
>
> So, if somebody tells you that the notion that moist air is heavier than dry
> air is a myth you can tell them that this myth is actually a myth. You can
> also tell them that Isaac Newton was not a deity sent from heaven but a normal
>
human being, prone to the foibles of failing to confirm his assumptions, just
>
like the rest of us.
> Isaac Newton was a human being
> by James McGinn
>
> In response to:
> Understanding air density and its effects
> 05/17/2005 - Updated 09:46 AM ET
> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm
>
>
> Was Isaac Newton omniscient? Or was he a human being, capable of making a
> mistake? I think the latter is the case. But according to this USA Today
> article you might think it the former.
>
> The article addresses the comparative weight of moist air to dry air. It
> purports to address a common misconception, that moist air is heavier than dry
> air. It turns out they are wrong. This is not a misconception. Moist air
> actually is heavier than dry air, which is what most people generally assume
> anyways. So the misconception, I contend, is this notion that moist air is
> lighter than dry air, a notion that is generally foisted upon us from academia.
>
> According to this article, the originator of this is none other than Isaac
> Newton. Apparently, in his 1717 in his book, Optics Newton made a statement to
> this effect. The article then goes on to describe the reasoning, which I
> present below. Continuing on, the article describes this erroneous notion that
> moist air is lighter than dry air as being, "known." But it actually isn't
> known and never has been. For something to be known it has to be tested,
> measured, or observed. Or it has to be calculated based on assumptions that
> themselves are tested, measured, or observed. And, apparently, that is where
> Newton, and all of academia hence, made an error.
>
> USA Today:
> To see why humid air is less dense than dry air, we need to turn to one of the
> laws of nature the Italian physicist Amadeo Avogadro discovered in the early
> 1800s. In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas, say one cubic
> meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would always have the same number
> of molecules no matter what gas is in the container.
>
> James McGinn:
> This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient
> temperatures/pressures. It is still liquid. It consists of microdroplets of
> liquid H2O suspended by electro-static forces between air molecules. Often
> these microdroplets are very small, so small they are invisible--just as
> invisible as gaseous H2O (this is what confuses most of us). All in all, there
> is zero evidence that moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous)
> and there is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can
> only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available in
> our ambient environment.
>
> USA Today:
> Most beginning chemistry books explain how this works. Imagine a cubic foot of
> perfectly dry air. It contains about 78% nitrogen molecules, which each have a
> molecular weight of 28 (2 atoms with atomic weight 14) . Another 21% of the air
> is oxygen, with each molecule having a molecular weight of 32 (2 stoms with
> atomic weight 16). The final one percent is a mixture of other gases, which we
> won't worry about. Molecules are free to move in and out of our cubic foot of
> air.
>
> James McGinn:
> Up to this point everything they are saying here is accurate. Here is where
> the problem lies:
>
> USA Today:
> What Avogadro discovered leads us to conclude that if we added water vapor
> molecules to our cubic foot of air, some of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules
> would leave -- remember, the total number of molecules in our cubic foot of air
> stays the same. The water molecules, which replace nitrogen or oxygen, have a
> molecular weight of 18. (One oxygen atom with atomic weight of 16, and two
> hydrogen atoms each with atomic weight of 1). This is lighter than both
> nitrogen and oxygen. In other words, replacing nitrogen and oxygen with water
> vapor decreases the weight of the air in the cubic foot; that is, it's density
> decreases.
>
> James McGinn:
> The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the
> number of H2O molecules in the microdroplet. What is the correct number for X?
> Well, the truth is we don't know. It is, in my opinion, most likely never
> smaller than 10, thus the correct number to put into this equation wouldn't be
> 18 it would be 180 or larger. It is possible it might be as small as 3 in some
> particularly dry bodies of air, in which case it would be 54, still making
> moist air considerably heavier than dry air. But even if it is only 2 X would
> be 36, still making moist air heavier than dry air.
>
> So, if somebody tells you that the notion that moist air is heavier than dry
> air is a myth you can tell them that this myth is actually a myth. You can
> also tell them that Isaac Newton was not a deity sent from heaven but a normal
>
human being, prone to the foibles of failing to confirm his assumptions, just
>
like the rest of us.
Solving Tornadoes
Apr 27, 2016, 3:02:52 PM4/27/16
to
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 2:50:37 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:57:54 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:47:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:07:05 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:45:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
> > > > >
> > > > > You obviously didn't understand a single word of that video!
> > > > >
> > > > > "If is disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!"
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, you have exactly ZERO experiments to share here...
> > > >
> > > > There is zero experimental evidence associated with our brain-dead belief in cold steam. There is a lot of experimental evidence that establishes the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O.
> > > >
> > > > All of the experimental evidence falls my way, dumbass.
> > >
> > > I've got a rock with more brains than you have.
> > >
> > > You've got NO experiments that support your notion, for example, that humid air is heavier than dry air, whereas there are uncounted experiments that prove otherwise. There are also uncounted experiments that prove that water vapor is a gaseous form of water. Many papers in support of this have been linked for you, but you've choosen to either not read them or not respond to them, provide no critical feedback for any of them, while at the same time fail to show your own experimental evidence in support of your own tenuous stance.
> > >
> > > Sure, there are lots of experiments that deal with boiling water, just as there are lots of experiments that deal with evaporation.
> > >
> > > The main difference between evaporation and boiling are :
> > >
> > > 1. Evaporation takes place at all temperatures, while boiling occurs at a particular temperature.
> > >
> > > 2. Evaporation takes place from the surface, whereas the entire liquid boils.
> > >
> > > 3. Evaporation can occur using the internal energy of the system, while boiling requires an external source of heat.
> > >
> > > 4. Evaporation produces cooling but boiling does not.
> > >
> > > 5. Evaporation is a slow process while boiling is a rapid process.
> > >
> > > However, in each case gaseous water (water vapor) is produced. To deny this fact is an extraordinary claim, which requires an extraordinary proof, of which you have shown NONE!
> > >
> > > There is virtually NO experimental evidence that 'falls your way', dumbass.
> >
> > So, your whole argument boils down to, "let's pretend to know that all moisture
> > in the atmosphere is gaseous even though we don't have a clue.
> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:57:54 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:47:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:07:05 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:45:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
> > > > >
> > > > > You obviously didn't understand a single word of that video!
> > > > >
> > > > > "If is disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!"
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, you have exactly ZERO experiments to share here...
> > > >
> > > > There is zero experimental evidence associated with our brain-dead belief in cold steam. There is a lot of experimental evidence that establishes the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O.
> > > >
> > > > All of the experimental evidence falls my way, dumbass.
> > >
> > > I've got a rock with more brains than you have.
> > >
> > > You've got NO experiments that support your notion, for example, that humid air is heavier than dry air, whereas there are uncounted experiments that prove otherwise. There are also uncounted experiments that prove that water vapor is a gaseous form of water. Many papers in support of this have been linked for you, but you've choosen to either not read them or not respond to them, provide no critical feedback for any of them, while at the same time fail to show your own experimental evidence in support of your own tenuous stance.
> > >
> > > Sure, there are lots of experiments that deal with boiling water, just as there are lots of experiments that deal with evaporation.
> > >
> > > The main difference between evaporation and boiling are :
> > >
> > > 1. Evaporation takes place at all temperatures, while boiling occurs at a particular temperature.
> > >
> > > 2. Evaporation takes place from the surface, whereas the entire liquid boils.
> > >
> > > 3. Evaporation can occur using the internal energy of the system, while boiling requires an external source of heat.
> > >
> > > 4. Evaporation produces cooling but boiling does not.
> > >
> > > 5. Evaporation is a slow process while boiling is a rapid process.
> > >
> > > However, in each case gaseous water (water vapor) is produced. To deny this fact is an extraordinary claim, which requires an extraordinary proof, of which you have shown NONE!
> > >
> > > There is virtually NO experimental evidence that 'falls your way', dumbass.
> >
> > So, your whole argument boils down to, "let's pretend to know that all moisture
> >
> > The fact is we do have a clue. We boiling point of H2O is firmly established.
> > You imagination does not dispute it.
>
>
> No, my whole argument boils down to "air contains gaseous water (water vapor) because thousands of experiments tell us so".
So, thousands of experiments. And you can't even find one?
It is YOU who has no clue! Just ask Dr. Salkalley... YOU, on the other hand, cannot point to even a single experiment to support your positions, not one!
>
> Yes, the boiling point of water is well established at any pressure,
Yeah so?
> Yes, the boiling point of water is well established at any pressure,
who would ever dispute that? That does not negate the simple fact that gaseous water also comes from evaporation and is unrelated to the boiling process.
>
> It is YOU who has the wild imagination and delusions of grandeur.
It's too bad nobody can find your elusive evidence. Hmm. I wonder why? Hmm.
> It is YOU who has the wild imagination and delusions of grandeur.
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 28, 2016, 12:12:44 AM4/28/16
to
That is the way it works in science...
The experiments that prove you wrong are all over the internet... it is not my fault that you are too stupid to find them! ANYONE with half a brain can find them... except you, who clearly does not have even half a brain!
Get busy!
James McGinn
Apr 28, 2016, 12:36:04 AM4/28/16
to
>
> That is the way it works in science...
> The experiments that prove you wrong are all over the internet... it is not my fault that you are too stupid to find them! ANYONE with half a brain can find them... except you, who clearly does not have even half a brain!
What do you think that indicates?
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 28, 2016, 10:06:20 AM4/28/16
to
> What do you think that indicates?
James McGinn
Apr 28, 2016, 11:32:50 AM4/28/16
to
pnal...@gmail.com
Apr 29, 2016, 12:03:03 AM4/29/16
to
James McGinn
Apr 29, 2016, 12:05:53 AM4/29/16
to
James McGinn
Apr 29, 2016, 11:17:30 AM4/29/16
to
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 7:06:20 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:12:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > The experiments that prove you wrong are all over the internet... it is not my fault that you are too stupid to find them! ANYONE with half a brain can find them... except you, who clearly does not have even half a brain!
> >
> > So, they are all over the internet . . . and you can't find even one?
>
> LOL! I can find hundreds... why can't you?
Because I don't have access to your imagination.
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 9:12:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > The experiments that prove you wrong are all over the internet... it is not my fault that you are too stupid to find them! ANYONE with half a brain can find them... except you, who clearly does not have even half a brain!
> >
> > So, they are all over the internet . . . and you can't find even one?
>
> LOL! I can find hundreds... why can't you?
James McGinn
Jul 4, 2016, 11:59:13 AM7/4/16
to
noTthaTguY
Jul 5, 2016, 7:15:52 PM7/5/16
to
actually, I have ne'er used a hygromoter, either
0 new messages