info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Go on, Jim... describe for us the jet stream...
48 views
Skip to first unread message
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 15, 2016, 1:20:04 AM3/15/16
to
James McGinn k'lames:
> Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
No, Jim. Jet streams and vortices (tornadoes) are not the same thing.
One is a vortex, whereas the jet stream is a flat, spread-out stream
of fast non-vortex air. If the jet stream were a vortex, planes would
find it extremely difficult to fly in the jet stream.
The updrafting air attempts to minimize aerodynamic drag, thus it
forms a wedge shape with highest speeds at the center of this wedge,
and air speed tapering off further away from the wedge center. As the
air rises, the surrounding air temperature falls, intensifying the
differential between that updrafting air and the surrounding air. At
the top of the troposphere, however, temperature begins climbing with
altitude, thus that updrafting air hits a "ceiling" where the air
density can no longer drive convective updraft.
The vertical component of that wedge shape is squashed, the horizontal
component is spread out, but the air still attempts to maintain its
wedge shape, thus the jet stream is a flat, wide stream of fast air.
The Coriolis Effect forces this stream into a roughly circular shape
which encircles the globe.
http://langleyflyingschool.com/Pages/CPGS%20Meteorology,%20Part%201.html
http://langleyflyingschool.com/Images/CPL%20Weather/5%20Jet%20Stream%20Core.gif
http://kkd.ou.edu/METR%201004/Jet%20St1.gif
http://www.webairlines.com/wa20jetstream.gif
https://climate.ncsu.edu/secc_edu/images/jetstream5.jpg
*Not* a vortex. Merely a "wedge" consisting of higher-speed air in the
center of the stream, the speed tapering off with distance from the
aerodynamic center of that stream.
Now, you'll get right on answering those tough questions, James:
=======================================================
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma,
Jim?
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 so your claims have even a semblance of
plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation
energy of water are identical, and thus the water will 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
claims are workable, Jim?
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?
--
Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).
That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.
That superposition is the same as wave interference.
That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.
That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.
That RMS isn't a DC voltage.
That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.
That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.
The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.
That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.
What a positive or negative vector is.
That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.
That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".
That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.
That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.
What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.
That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.
That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.
That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.
That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.
That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".
That water can be plasmized.
That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.
And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================
SPNAK!
<snicker>
> Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
No, Jim. Jet streams and vortices (tornadoes) are not the same thing.
One is a vortex, whereas the jet stream is a flat, spread-out stream
of fast non-vortex air. If the jet stream were a vortex, planes would
find it extremely difficult to fly in the jet stream.
The updrafting air attempts to minimize aerodynamic drag, thus it
forms a wedge shape with highest speeds at the center of this wedge,
and air speed tapering off further away from the wedge center. As the
air rises, the surrounding air temperature falls, intensifying the
differential between that updrafting air and the surrounding air. At
the top of the troposphere, however, temperature begins climbing with
altitude, thus that updrafting air hits a "ceiling" where the air
density can no longer drive convective updraft.
The vertical component of that wedge shape is squashed, the horizontal
component is spread out, but the air still attempts to maintain its
wedge shape, thus the jet stream is a flat, wide stream of fast air.
The Coriolis Effect forces this stream into a roughly circular shape
which encircles the globe.
http://langleyflyingschool.com/Pages/CPGS%20Meteorology,%20Part%201.html
http://langleyflyingschool.com/Images/CPL%20Weather/5%20Jet%20Stream%20Core.gif
http://kkd.ou.edu/METR%201004/Jet%20St1.gif
http://www.webairlines.com/wa20jetstream.gif
https://climate.ncsu.edu/secc_edu/images/jetstream5.jpg
*Not* a vortex. Merely a "wedge" consisting of higher-speed air in the
center of the stream, the speed tapering off with distance from the
aerodynamic center of that stream.
Now, you'll get right on answering those tough questions, James:
=======================================================
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma,
Jim?
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 so your claims have even a semblance of
plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation
energy of water are identical, and thus the water will 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
claims are workable, Jim?
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?
--
Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).
That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.
That superposition is the same as wave interference.
That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.
That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.
That RMS isn't a DC voltage.
That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.
That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.
The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.
That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.
What a positive or negative vector is.
That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.
That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".
That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.
That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.
What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.
That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.
That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.
That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.
That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.
That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".
That water can be plasmized.
That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.
And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================
SPNAK!
<snicker>
"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
Mar 15, 2016, 1:20:55 AM3/15/16
to
describe your wife's "jet stream"
> How are your atmospheric “water droplets†forming if they’re
> plasma,
> Jim?
>
> Do you not know what the definition of “plasma†is, James?
>
> How is your “plasma not-a-plasma†(which you have admitted is a
>
> How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma†not
>
--
"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.
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.
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.
*/
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
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
> plasma,
> Jim?
>
> 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 so your claims have even a semblance of
> plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation
> energy of water are identical, and thus the water will 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
> plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation
> energy of water are identical, and thus the water will 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,
> 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?
> the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
>
> 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
> planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
> all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
>
> 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
> claims are workable, Jim?
>
> Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?
> molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
> for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
> claims are workable, Jim?
>
>
--
"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.
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.
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.
*/
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
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
James McGinn
Mar 15, 2016, 2:09:58 AM3/15/16
to
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 10:20:04 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> James McGinn k'lames:
>
> > Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
>
> No, Jim. Jet streams and vortices (tornadoes) are not the same thing.
> One is a vortex, whereas the jet stream is a flat, spread-out stream
> of fast non-vortex air. If the jet stream were a vortex, planes would
> find it extremely difficult to fly in the jet stream.
>
> The updrafting air attempts to minimize aerodynamic drag, thus it
> forms a wedge shape with highest speeds at the center of this wedge,
> and air speed tapering off further away from the wedge center.
When you see a tornado you are seeing the somewhat wildly, whipping tails of a much larger and generally benign dog. Also, a tornado (thunderstorm) is more like a tributary to a much larger river. The reason the jet stream tends to be lateral is because so much of the surface takes place on the boundary between the stratosphere and the troposphere, this being where the tributaries feed into the main flow. Tornadoes grown down from jet streams following vertical boundary layers. This explains the "dry line" phenomena. (Look it up.)
> James McGinn k'lames:
>
> > Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
>
> No, Jim. Jet streams and vortices (tornadoes) are not the same thing.
> One is a vortex, whereas the jet stream is a flat, spread-out stream
> of fast non-vortex air. If the jet stream were a vortex, planes would
> find it extremely difficult to fly in the jet stream.
>
> The updrafting air attempts to minimize aerodynamic drag, thus it
> forms a wedge shape with highest speeds at the center of this wedge,
> and air speed tapering off further away from the wedge center.
The energy from the jet stream is delivered to create storms as vortices grow upwind, and down, bringing energy with them as they grow. Convection plays no role at all.
HVAC
Mar 15, 2016, 7:30:13 AM3/15/16
to
"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
-------------
Is Bobbie Wolfe actually still around? The Mop Jockey?
It was a decade or two ago when I sent him packing from another group. He quit for a while. Did he come back?
I used to teasingly call him gay back in the old days... Until I discovered an actual picture of him in drag. Oops!
Then, just as now, there was the good guys (my side) vs the bad guys (anyone who opposes me).
The more things change, the more they stay the same?
-------------
Is Bobbie Wolfe actually still around? The Mop Jockey?
It was a decade or two ago when I sent him packing from another group. He quit for a while. Did he come back?
I used to teasingly call him gay back in the old days... Until I discovered an actual picture of him in drag. Oops!
Then, just as now, there was the good guys (my side) vs the bad guys (anyone who opposes me).
The more things change, the more they stay the same?
Sam Wormley
Mar 15, 2016, 8:43:31 AM3/15/16
to
On 3/15/16 1:09 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> When you see a tornado you are seeing the somewhat wildly, whipping tails of a much larger and generally benign dog. Also, a tornado (thunderstorm) is more like a tributary to a much larger river.
Have you seen a tornado, James? The real thing?
> When you see a tornado you are seeing the somewhat wildly, whipping tails of a much larger and generally benign dog. Also, a tornado (thunderstorm) is more like a tributary to a much larger river.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
Sergio
Mar 15, 2016, 8:52:03 AM3/15/16
to
On 3/15/2016 1:09 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 10:20:04 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James McGinn k'lames:
>>
>>> Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
>>
>> No, Jim. Jet streams and vortices (tornadoes) are not the same
>> thing. One is a vortex, whereas the jet stream is a flat,
>> spread-out stream of fast non-vortex air. If the jet stream were a
>> vortex, planes would find it extremely difficult to fly in the jet
>> stream.
>>
>> The updrafting air attempts to minimize aerodynamic drag, thus it
>> forms a wedge shape with highest speeds at the center of this
>> wedge, and air speed tapering off further away from the wedge
>> center.
>
> When you see a tornado you are seeing the somewhat wildly, whipping
> tails of a much larger and generally benign dog.
tornado is wind, NOT a Dog. Got That ?
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 10:20:04 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James McGinn k'lames:
>>
>>> Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
>>
>> No, Jim. Jet streams and vortices (tornadoes) are not the same
>> thing. One is a vortex, whereas the jet stream is a flat,
>> spread-out stream of fast non-vortex air. If the jet stream were a
>> vortex, planes would find it extremely difficult to fly in the jet
>> stream.
>>
>> The updrafting air attempts to minimize aerodynamic drag, thus it
>> forms a wedge shape with highest speeds at the center of this
>> wedge, and air speed tapering off further away from the wedge
>> center.
>
> When you see a tornado you are seeing the somewhat wildly, whipping
> tails of a much larger and generally benign dog.
> Also, a tornado
> (thunderstorm)
a tornado is NOT a thunderstorm. Got THat ?
> is more like a tributary to a much larger river.
Wrong. it is more like denser air above less dense air.
> The
> reason the jet stream
<snip magical stuff>
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 15, 2016, 11:52:22 AM3/15/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
binky feel stoooopid (aka Julian Waldby), in
<news:c8c6846f-ec14-494b...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 11:20:02 PM UTC-6,
> the usual that everyone is already aware of?
Because some people are far too delusional and retarded to grasp the
obvious.
<snicker>
binky feel stoooopid (aka Julian Waldby), in
<news:c8c6846f-ec14-494b...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 11:20:02 PM UTC-6,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James McGinn k'lames:
>>> Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
>> No, Jim. Jet streams and vortices (tornadoes) are not the same thing.
>> One is a vortex, whereas the jet stream is a flat, spread-out stream
>> of fast non-vortex air. If the jet stream were a vortex, planes would
>> find it extremely difficult to fly in the jet stream.
> People have known this for hundreds of years. Why are you trotting out
>>> Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
>> No, Jim. Jet streams and vortices (tornadoes) are not the same thing.
>> One is a vortex, whereas the jet stream is a flat, spread-out stream
>> of fast non-vortex air. If the jet stream were a vortex, planes would
>> find it extremely difficult to fly in the jet stream.
> the usual that everyone is already aware of?
Because some people are far too delusional and retarded to grasp the
obvious.
<snicker>
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 15, 2016, 12:44:28 PM3/15/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James McGinn, in
<news:59496c87-5aa1-4517...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 10:20:04 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James McGinn k'lames:
>>> Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
>> No, Jim. Jet streams and vortices (tornadoes) are not the same thing.
>> One is a vortex, whereas the jet stream is a flat, spread-out stream
>> of fast non-vortex air. If the jet stream were a vortex, planes would
>> find it extremely difficult to fly in the jet stream.
>>
>> The updrafting air attempts to minimize aerodynamic drag, thus it
>> forms a wedge shape with highest speeds at the center of this wedge,
>> and air speed tapering off further away from the wedge center.
> When you see a tornado you are seeing the somewhat wildly, whipping
> tails of a much larger and generally benign dog. Also, a tornado
> (thunderstorm) is more like a tributary to a much larger river.
> The reason the jet stream tends to be lateral is because so much
> of the surface takes place on the boundary between the stratosphere
> and the troposphere, this being where the tributaries feed into the
> main flow. Tornadoes grown down from jet streams following vertical
Bwahahahaaa! James McGinn k'lames tornadoes originate from the jet
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James McGinn k'lames:
>>> Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
>> No, Jim. Jet streams and vortices (tornadoes) are not the same thing.
>> One is a vortex, whereas the jet stream is a flat, spread-out stream
>> of fast non-vortex air. If the jet stream were a vortex, planes would
>> find it extremely difficult to fly in the jet stream.
>>
>> The updrafting air attempts to minimize aerodynamic drag, thus it
>> forms a wedge shape with highest speeds at the center of this wedge,
>> and air speed tapering off further away from the wedge center.
> When you see a tornado you are seeing the somewhat wildly, whipping
> tails of a much larger and generally benign dog. Also, a tornado
> (thunderstorm) is more like a tributary to a much larger river.
> The reason the jet stream tends to be lateral is because so much
> of the surface takes place on the boundary between the stratosphere
> and the troposphere, this being where the tributaries feed into the
> main flow. Tornadoes grown down from jet streams following vertical
stream.
> boundary layers. This explains the "dry line" phenomena. (Look it up.)
dense than warm humid air (which, I will note, you deny), thus that
warm dry air wedges beneath that warm humid air, sending the warm
humid air aloft in a process known as frontal lifting.
The warm humid air at altitude is less dense than the cooler, drier
air surrounding it, creating a boundary slope of reversal. The change
in wind direction due to this boundary slope of reversal causes a
horizontal spinning effect in the mid troposphere... *not* in the
fucking jet stream at the tropopause. You're looking at 5 to 20
*thousand* *feet* altitude difference, you moron.
That warm moist updrafting air tilts this horizontally spinning air
vertically, creating a mesocyclone. This can, under strong updraft,
generate cyclonic vortexes... and hence tornadoes.
This is why I told you that roller clouds are failed tornadoes...
those roller clouds are the horizontally spinning air which the warm
humid updraft air tilt vertically to form tornadoes. Roller clouds are
formed and not tilted vertically because insufficient warm humid air
exists to tilt them.
<http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/atmo202/Severedir/severe-wx-stu.html>
> The energy from the jet stream is delivered to create storms as
> vortices grow upwind, and down, bringing energy with them as they
> grow. Convection plays no role at all.
convecting air, primarily from convection lifting and convergence
lifting, but also from orographic lifting and frontal lifting (for
unusually strong fronts).
Holy fuck, Jim, how much of reality are you going to deny and have
your stupid ass kicked for before you realize you are a fully
delusional idiot?
Now you'll get right on explaining exactly 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? Idiot.
Or were you not aware that the jet, powered by updrafting air itself,
acts to help move upwardly drafting air upward by moving the air far
above that upward draft from the region? The jet is acting similar to
a vacuum cleaner at upper levels, drawing cool air upward and into
itself, advecting the cooler upper atmosphere air away and allowing
that warm humid updrafting air to updraft higher.
<http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/atmo202/Severedir/severe-wx-stu.html>
====================================================================
Notice the purple arrow labeled High tropospheric jet. The jet, region
of fastest moving air in the upper troposphere, is lying across the
low level jet of mT air. This high tropospheric jet will further aid
in lifting the air since it is moving air at upper levels away from
the region as air from low levels is rising.
This high tropospheric jet acts similar to a vacuum sweeper at upper
levels, drawing air upward and into it. Additionally, This jet is
advecting cool to cold air at upper levels.
====================================================================
Aren't you embarrassed to be *so* wrong about *so* much, Jim?
James McGinn
Mar 15, 2016, 1:25:24 PM3/15/16
to
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:44:28 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> the dry line is a result of warm dry air being more
> dense than warm humid air (which, I will note, you deny),
Right. I deny it because it is fiction. As I've explained, explicitly.
> the dry line is a result of warm dry air being more
> dense than warm humid air (which, I will note, you deny),
> thus that
> warm dry air wedges beneath that warm humid air,
One can only imagine what other explanations you might have bought. If they had described a big hammer and nails in the sky would you have agreed with that too? How about a saw? We could even go further and describe the winds as the result of a big fan in the sky.
Gee golly, science is fun!
BTW, there are people going around telling other people that 1/20th of one percent of the gasses in the atmosphere (CO2) effectuate the same properties of a glass enclosure, trapping heat the same way your car does on a sunny day. This is referred to as the greenhouse effect. Surely you believe that too, right?
I've been developing my own theory about regional shifts air pressure. It involves a great big, invisible seesaw.
Sam Wormley
Mar 15, 2016, 1:34:35 PM3/15/16
to
On 3/15/16 12:25 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> BTW, there are people going around telling other people that 1/20th
> of one percent of the gasses in the atmosphere (CO2) effectuate the
> same properties of a glass enclosure, trapping heat the same way your
> car does on a sunny day. This is referred to as the greenhouse
> effect. Surely you believe that too, right?
For more information:
> BTW, there are people going around telling other people that 1/20th
> of one percent of the gasses in the atmosphere (CO2) effectuate the
> same properties of a glass enclosure, trapping heat the same way your
> car does on a sunny day. This is referred to as the greenhouse
> effect. Surely you believe that too, right?
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the
planet's temperature. These scientists were interested
chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon
dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past.
At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that
emissions from human industry might someday bring a global
warming. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of
carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature,
but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was
almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s
discovered that global warming truly was possible.
In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began
to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.
Sam Wormley
Mar 15, 2016, 1:56:53 PM3/15/16
to
On 3/15/16 12:25 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> BTW, there are people going around telling other people that 1/20th of one percent of the gasses in the atmosphere (CO2) effectuate the same properties of a glass enclosure, trapping heat the same way your car does on a sunny day. This is referred to as the greenhouse effect. Surely you believe that too, right?
If you are willing to look at the science of the greenhouse gas
effect, please study this material.
Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
http://scienceofdoom.com/about/
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 15, 2016, 11:59:56 PM3/15/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James McGinn, in
<news:d3de10ac-621d-4177...@googlegroups.com> did
James McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:44:28 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> You kooktard, the dry line is a result of warm dry air being more
>> dense than warm humid air (which, I will note, you deny), thus that
>> warm dry air wedges beneath that warm humid air, sending the warm
>> humid air aloft in a process known as frontal lifting.
>> dense than warm humid air (which, I will note, you deny), thus that
>> warm dry air wedges beneath that warm humid air, sending the warm
>> humid air aloft in a process known as frontal lifting.
> Right. I deny it because it is fiction. As I've explained, explicitly.
And that's a result of your inability to comprehend let alone
calculate molar volume and molar mass, James. Your stupidity and lack
of education yet again bite you on the ass.
>> The warm humid air at altitude is less dense than the cooler, drier
>> air surrounding it, creating a boundary slope of reversal. The change
>> in wind direction due to this boundary slope of reversal causes a
>> horizontal spinning effect in the mid troposphere... *not* in the
>> fucking jet stream at the tropopause. You're looking at 5 to 20
>> *thousand* *feet* altitude difference, you moron.
>>
>> That warm moist updrafting air tilts this horizontally spinning air
>> vertically, creating a mesocyclone. This can, under strong updraft,
>> generate cyclonic vortexes... and hence tornadoes.
>>
>> This is why I told you that roller clouds are failed tornadoes...
>> those roller clouds are the horizontally spinning air which the warm
>> humid updraft air tilt vertically to form tornadoes. Roller clouds are
>> formed and not tilted vertically because insufficient warm humid air
>> exists to tilt them.
>>
>> <http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/atmo202/Severedir/severe-wx-stu.html>
> It wedges? So, you believe dry air has the ability to "wedge?"
That's exactly what it does, James. Thus frontal lifting occurs. Now
you're denying that warmer air is less dense and thus has more
buoyancy than cooler air. Again.
Why can't your broken brain acknowledge reality, Jim? 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 k'laming that convection doesn't exist means you're
further k'laming 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?
> And you believe this because a site on the internet offered
> this explanation.
internet offers the same explanation, because it represents reality. A
reality that has been closely empirically studied for far longer than
you've been alive.
In addition, the explanation on those websites coincides with what has
been empirically observed via rigorous scientific experiments for 250+
years, whereas your kooky 'theory' has to rely upon fairy tale
constructs and impossibilities, and even then you can't explain a wide
swath of common phenomena.
> It never occurred to you to think carefully about what a wedge
> actually is and the fact that it is impossible for a gas to
> possess the structural properties necessary to actually effectuate
> such mechanical abilities.
In fact, air can form all sorts of aerodynamics shapes. Do you deny
that air can form vortexes in the form of tornadoes, Jim? That's a
pretty severe "structural property" with a high energy gradient, yet
you deny that air can form "structural properties" with lower energy
gradients?
Do you know anything about aerodynamics, James? Do you not realize
that according to Stoke's Law and the Navier-Stokes Equations, a
denser air front moving into a less-dense air front *must* form a
wedge shape to minimize aerodynamic drag? That's why the Navier-Stokes
equation is used to model the atmosphere, James.
The downwardly drafting wedge, constrained by the ground, forms a
streamlined half-body shape. This forces the warm moist air to updraft
due to density differences. The warm updrafting air reaches an
altitude where temperature drops enough that the gaseous-phase water
can condense, forming clouds. The shear between the upwardly and
downwardly drafting air fronts creates a horizontal rolling. If the
updraft is strong enough, it can tilt this vertically, forming a
mesocyclone. Dependent upon updraft speed and shear differential
speed, this can develop into a tornado. Once the tornado reaches near
the ground, it actively sucks up that warm moist air, thereby
strengthening because the updraft is faster. You'll note tornadoes are
not sustainable over water colder than the air, or over snow if the
air temperature is at or above ground temperature. Because cloud
formation and tornadoes are a form of heat movement. No temperature
differential, no density differential, no energy for movement.
Perhaps if you educated yourself, rather than blathering out your
moronism, you'd realize why you're a laughingstock, Jim.
Oh look, a photograph of an exceptionally strong wedge as a result of
orographic lifting:
<http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud10.jpg>
Oh look, a roll cloud, a result of the same shear phenomenon I told
you about, a failed mesocyclone because insufficient warm humid
updrafting air existed to tilt it vertically:
<http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud13.jpg>
Oh look, another well-defined wedge as outlined along the right-hand
edge of the clouds:
<http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud15.jpg>
Oh look, more roll clouds, multiples of them, brought about by the
unique geography of North Australia's Gulf of Carpentaria:
<http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud21.jpg>
Don't you hate that you're so delusional that you've been proven
*wrong* on every single thing you've been blathering, James?
> One can only imagine what other explanations you might have bought.
> If they had described a big hammer and nails in the sky would you
> have agreed with that too? How about a saw? We could even go
> further and describe the winds as the result of a big fan in the sky.
>
> Gee golly, science is fun!
Try presenting corroborating evidence to support your contentions...
oh, wait, you can't because there is none. LOL
> BTW, there are people going around telling other people that
> 1/20th of one percent of the gasses in the atmosphere (CO2)
> effectuate the same properties of a glass enclosure, trapping
> heat the same way your car does on a sunny day. This is
> referred to as the greenhouse effect. Surely you believe that
> too, right?
destroyed CO2-induced AGW. Reality dictates that you're wrong.
Further, your refusal to perform that simple experiment which will
definitively null your premise and thus null your suppositions and
thus null your kooky 'theory' stands as your tacit admission that you
know you're wrong, but you're too cowardly to admit it, James.
======================================================
If, as you claim, latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist because a
phase change doesn't occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water
are launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that
can be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to
2326 J/kg.
If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the
1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will
be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying
premise of your claims, James, thus disproving your entire "theory".
======================================================
It's a simple experiment, and given that you, James Bernard McGinn,
Jr. of Antioch, CA, have made claims that fly in the face of 250+
years of experimentally, empirically measured data, the onus is upon
you to prove your claims.
In the balance hangs Mr. McGinn either likely being nominated for a
Nobel Prize for overturning 250+ years of rigorously and empirically
measured scientific data, or his being forced to retract his claims,
and his claims being subsumed into the heap of odd theories that are
used as examples of wrong-headedness. And in the process, his being
forced to admit he is a delusional kooktard.
Does anyone wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his
claims?
Your refusal to substantiate your claims, Mr. McGinn, further proves
what I said was right... you prefer your delusion, in which you paint
yourself as smarter than every scientist in the last 250+ years, to
reality.
But you're not smarter, James. You are demonstrably delusional.
> I've been developing my own theory about regional shifts air
> pressure. It involves a great big, invisible seesaw.
constructs such as atmospheric water plasma; your denial of latent
heat of evaporation; your kooky claim that the jet stream is a giant
tornado just waiting to reach down and wreak destruction upon the
planet's surface; and various and sundry other babbling insanity.
I also note you ran away from yet another tough question, James.
They're stacking up and you're finding yourself utterly unable to
answer any of them...
============================================================
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 k'laming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further k'laming 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 what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of
plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation
energy of water are identical, and thus the water will 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,
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
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
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?
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
Skeeter
Mar 17, 2016, 12:02:09 PM3/17/16
to
0 new messages