info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Our atmosphere is a big sponge for energy
46 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Mar 22, 2016, 6:33:34 AM3/22/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Are your ready for a non-conventional explanation? Other explanations (advection in this instance) are not wrong as much as they are incomplete and lacking in details (sometimes important details) that are necessary to properly conceptualize atmospheric flow.
First some basic facts:
1) Our atmosphere is a big sponge for energy. This is the result of the friction of gases.
2) Consequently there is a large amount of energy in our atmosphere. The molecules are moving very fast, 900 miles an hour. We generally refer to this energy as air pressure. Believe it or not this energy (air pressure) is the source of the energy that powers winds--but maybe not in the way you might first assume:
3) The means or mechanism by which the energy in air (air pressure) is converted to wind involves aerodynamics.
4) Aerodynamics requires a surface that can reflect energy and/or isolate a flow from the friction of gases.
5) Due to the friction of gases, streams, like jet streams, could not exist in our atmosphere unless there was some way to isolate the stream-flow from the friction of gases. Again this involves the existence of a surface that can reflect energy into a stream flow--aerodynamics.
6) At and along boundary layers between moist air and dry air, with the inclusion of energy (wind shear) a plasma phase of H2O emerges. This plasma provides the surface that reflects energy into a stream flow.
(BTW: this "plasma" is plainly observable as the "thick air" that comprises the cone/vortex of tornadoes.)
7) This plasma tends to spin around the central axis of flow producing a tubular structure (a vortex) that further isolates a stream flow (the jet streams) from the friction of gases. This isolation and the above mentioned reflection of energy into a stream flow is the reason for the high winds of the jet stream.
8) The jet stream is located at the boundary between the stratosphere and the troposphere. The reason it is located here is because, as explained in #6 above, the plasma must have a boundary between moist air and dry air and that is what exist between the very dry stratosphere and the relatively moist troposphere.
9) This is not a perfect system in that eventually the moisture falls out and the structure of the jet stream breaks down, this causes winds (advection) that generally track the same direction as the jet stream. So, in a sense, the jet stream, being a leaky pipe of directed, focused energy, drags the rest of the atmosphere along. And this explains why prevailing winds are prevailing.
10) Additionally, the jet stream itself will tend to track down producing storms. Storms pull more moisture up higher (sometimes all the way up into the lower stratosphere) and this functions to re-establishes the moisture content in the upper troposphere.
11) Sometimes these, above mentioned, down tracking jet streams will encounter a moist/dry boundary layer in the lower atmosphere. This can result in the re-invigoration of a jet stream, supplying it the resource (moist/dry boundary layer) it needs to grow. And this can, sometimes, allow it to grow all the way to the ground to produce a tornado.
12) Mitigating tornadoes can be achieved by interrupting the smoothness, length and integrity of moist/dry boundary layers in the lower troposphere.
It is important to note that without the H2O-based plasma that I mentioned above jet streams (and tornadoes) couldn't possibly exist because friction of gases would prevent the conservation of energy (wind speed) that makes them possible. And since the jet streams are what powers the prevailing winds, the prevailing winds too would not exist without this H2O-based plasma. And this is all a good thing because the (usually) relatively calm weather conditions that we experience on this planet also would not exist (theoretically).
The general misconception is that prevailing winds are produced by differential air pressure. As I explained above, although this is not completely mistaken in reality this type of flow is generally not able to overcome the sponge effect of the friction of gases.
For more, follow this link:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-4y
First some basic facts:
1) Our atmosphere is a big sponge for energy. This is the result of the friction of gases.
2) Consequently there is a large amount of energy in our atmosphere. The molecules are moving very fast, 900 miles an hour. We generally refer to this energy as air pressure. Believe it or not this energy (air pressure) is the source of the energy that powers winds--but maybe not in the way you might first assume:
3) The means or mechanism by which the energy in air (air pressure) is converted to wind involves aerodynamics.
4) Aerodynamics requires a surface that can reflect energy and/or isolate a flow from the friction of gases.
5) Due to the friction of gases, streams, like jet streams, could not exist in our atmosphere unless there was some way to isolate the stream-flow from the friction of gases. Again this involves the existence of a surface that can reflect energy into a stream flow--aerodynamics.
6) At and along boundary layers between moist air and dry air, with the inclusion of energy (wind shear) a plasma phase of H2O emerges. This plasma provides the surface that reflects energy into a stream flow.
(BTW: this "plasma" is plainly observable as the "thick air" that comprises the cone/vortex of tornadoes.)
7) This plasma tends to spin around the central axis of flow producing a tubular structure (a vortex) that further isolates a stream flow (the jet streams) from the friction of gases. This isolation and the above mentioned reflection of energy into a stream flow is the reason for the high winds of the jet stream.
8) The jet stream is located at the boundary between the stratosphere and the troposphere. The reason it is located here is because, as explained in #6 above, the plasma must have a boundary between moist air and dry air and that is what exist between the very dry stratosphere and the relatively moist troposphere.
9) This is not a perfect system in that eventually the moisture falls out and the structure of the jet stream breaks down, this causes winds (advection) that generally track the same direction as the jet stream. So, in a sense, the jet stream, being a leaky pipe of directed, focused energy, drags the rest of the atmosphere along. And this explains why prevailing winds are prevailing.
10) Additionally, the jet stream itself will tend to track down producing storms. Storms pull more moisture up higher (sometimes all the way up into the lower stratosphere) and this functions to re-establishes the moisture content in the upper troposphere.
11) Sometimes these, above mentioned, down tracking jet streams will encounter a moist/dry boundary layer in the lower atmosphere. This can result in the re-invigoration of a jet stream, supplying it the resource (moist/dry boundary layer) it needs to grow. And this can, sometimes, allow it to grow all the way to the ground to produce a tornado.
12) Mitigating tornadoes can be achieved by interrupting the smoothness, length and integrity of moist/dry boundary layers in the lower troposphere.
It is important to note that without the H2O-based plasma that I mentioned above jet streams (and tornadoes) couldn't possibly exist because friction of gases would prevent the conservation of energy (wind speed) that makes them possible. And since the jet streams are what powers the prevailing winds, the prevailing winds too would not exist without this H2O-based plasma. And this is all a good thing because the (usually) relatively calm weather conditions that we experience on this planet also would not exist (theoretically).
The general misconception is that prevailing winds are produced by differential air pressure. As I explained above, although this is not completely mistaken in reality this type of flow is generally not able to overcome the sponge effect of the friction of gases.
For more, follow this link:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-4y
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 22, 2016, 12:57:01 PM3/22/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James McGinn, in
<news:9d09755a-3433-459d...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> Are your ready for a non-conventional explanation?
You mean kook blather?
> Other explanations (advection in this instance) are not wrong as
> much as they are incomplete and lacking in details (sometimes
> important details) that are necessary to properly conceptualize
> atmospheric flow.
>
> First some basic facts:
There are no facts below. It is nothing more than your psychotic
babbling.
> 1) Our atmosphere is a big sponge for energy.
Violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. Energy flow in = Energy
flow out, you moron. Right out of the gate you destroy your entire
kooky psychotic theory.
> This is the result of the friction of gases.
Wrong. Friction results in heat. Heat is expelled to space, you moron.
Yet again you destroy your entire kooky psychotic theory.
> 2) Consequently there is a large amount of energy in our atmosphere.
> The molecules are moving very fast, 900 miles an hour. We generally
> refer to this energy as air pressure.
Wrong. Air pressure is a potential energy. Thus it cannot do any work
unless something moves that air to another potential. What is that
something, James? You can't say the wind creates the plasma and the
plasma creates the wind, that also violates the Law of Conservation of
Energy. Yet again you destroy your entire kooky psychotic theory.
> Believe it or not this energy (air pressure) is the source of the
> energy that powers winds
Wrong. It is temperature differential and thus density differential,
combined with planetary rotation that causes the winds and the
prevailing direction of the winds. Yet again you destroy your kooky
psychotic theory.
> --but maybe not in the way you might first assume:
>
> 3) The means or mechanism by which the energy in air (air pressure) is
> converted to wind involves aerodynamics.
Wrong. Aerodynamic drag is an energy sink, not a source of energy. Yet
again you destroy your entire kooky psychotic theory.
> 4) Aerodynamics requires a surface that can reflect energy
> and/or isolate a flow from the friction of gases.
Wrong. Air moves because it is gaining energy from heat, thus
increasing molecular spacing due to random thermal kinetic motion,
thus it is less dense, thus it is more buoyant, thus it trades that
random thermal kinetic motion for potential energy by convecting
upward. Yet again you deny reality and in so doing destroy your entire
kooky psychotic theory.
A secondary effect is humidity, which has the same effect upon density
by replacing some air molecules with lighter molar mass molecules,
thus causing the air to be less dense. Thus its buoyancy is greater,
thus it rises.
> 5) Due to the friction of gases, streams, like jet streams, could not
> exist in our atmosphere unless there was some way to isolate the
> stream-flow from the friction of gases.
According to your moronic theory, Jim, ocean waves could not exist
except along the shore where there is a boundary. But boundaries are
frictional surfaces. They don't provide energy. They are an energy
sink.
> Again this involves the existence of a surface that can reflect
> energy into a stream flow--aerodynamics.
Wrong. The updrafting less-dense air uplifts on top of the more-dense
downdrafting air due to temperature and/or humidity differential,
which causes horizontal vortexes which the updrafting air, if fast
enough, can tilt vertically. Continuing updrafting air feeds into this
mesocyclone, strengthening it. A downpour drags the mesocyclone down
with the rain, the mesocyclone continues feeding off the temperature
and density differential of the updrafting less-dense air, and the
cooler evaporatively cooled air at the rear of the cloud that the
mesocyclone is sucking in until its suction is sufficient to pull a
tornadic funnel down out of the mesocyclone.
> 6) At and along boundary layers between moist air and dry air, with
> the inclusion of energy (wind shear) a plasma phase of H2O emerges.
But Jim, how do the winds exist if the plasma doesn't exist to provide
your "surface" to create the winds in the first place? And weren't you
just claiming a few days ago that the plasma was *powering* the wind,
and the wind was creating the plasma, thereby creating a circulus in
probando causality dilemma which wrecked your entire theory?
Now we see you desperately changing your theory, slapping patches on
it as fast as I kick holes through it.
> This plasma provides the surface that reflects energy into a stream
> flow.
>
> (BTW: this "plasma" is plainly observable as the "thick air" that
> comprises the cone/vortex of tornadoes.)
You've never actually experienced a tornado, Jim, have you? The
mesocyclone, as it descends, is pulling air upward from ground that
has just been rained on. What happens when wind blows across water,
Jim? Oh yeah, it evaporates, and that latent heat of evaporation cools
off the air. Thus inside the funnel it's cold as fuck. Temperature can
drop by 30 degrees F. If it gets too cold, and draws too much cold air
from the storm's "cold pool", the funnel collapses.
You want to definitively kill a tornado? Lots and lots of liquid
nitrogen. Cool that fucker to death.
> 7) This plasma tends to spin around the central axis of flow
> producing a tubular structure (a vortex)
Plasma has even less coherency than gases, James. It cannot form any
"structure". You'll be getting right on providing an example of a
plasma ever forming any "structure" when it's not influenced by
magnetic or electric fields, James.
> that further isolates a stream flow (the jet streams)
No. The jet streams are anywhere from 5000 feet at the poles to 35000
feet at the equator above the cloud tops during the building or
cumulus stage when the strongly updrafting air can create the
horizontal rollers and tilt them vertically. Only when the cloud nears
the end of the mature stage does the anvil form at the top of the
troposphere, and by that time, it's nearly in the dissipating stage,
no tornadoes will form unless the storm was unusually energetic.
Your psychosis has led you to deny large swaths of scientific reality
so you can paint yourself as "special" because you've deluded yourself
into thinking you're smarter than every scientist over the past 250+
years. But you're not special, Jim. You're just a kooktard denying
reality and lying to himself. Wake the fuck up and stop making a
laughingstock of yourself.
> from the friction of gases. This isolation and the above mentioned
> reflection of energy into a stream flow is the reason for the high
> winds of the jet stream.
Wrong. The jet stream is a result of updrafting air due to convection.
This warm less-dense air forms a wedge shaped speed profile as it
rises through the atmosphere until it hits the tropopause, where
thermal inversion negates buoyancy. Thus the vertical component of the
wedge shape gets squashed flat, and the horizontal component remains,
creating a wide, flat, smooth, fast stream of air. It is not a vortex,
it does not send its tendrils thousands of miles through the
atmosphere to touch down tornadoes, because if there were true, you'd
have to explain why aircraft can fly so smoothly in the jet stream,
why we've never detected these tendrils extending thousands of miles
through the atmosphere, how it can avoid touching down out of the
clear blue sky, why it only touches down at the rear portion of
cumulonimbus clouds, how it avoids ripping aircraft to shreds... is
your "giant sky tornado" of a jet stream sentient, James?
> 8) The jet stream is located at the boundary between the stratosphere
> and the troposphere. The reason it is located here is because, as
> explained in #6 above, the plasma must have a boundary between moist
> air and dry air and that is what exist between the very dry
> stratosphere and the relatively moist troposphere.
You've yet again got it 180 degrees out from reality, James. Answer
the question, James... *why* is the stratosphere drier than the
troposphere, Jim?
You can't claim the stratosphere is drier than the troposphere because
of your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" and your "plasma not-a-plasma"
exists at the tropopause because the stratosphere is dryer, Jim.
That's yet another circulus in probando causality dilemma, James. And
that destroys your kooky psychotic "theory".
> 9) This is not a perfect system in that eventually the moisture
> falls out and the structure of the jet stream breaks down, this
> causes winds (advection) that generally track the same direction
> as the jet stream. So, in a sense, the jet stream, being a leaky
> pipe of directed, focused energy, drags the rest of the atmosphere
> along.
Wrong. What powers your kooky jet stream / giant sentient plasmic
tornado monster in the sky, James?
> And this explains why prevailing winds are prevailing.
Planetary rotation explains prevailing wind direction, you witless
nong.
> 10) Additionally, the jet stream itself will tend to track down
> producing storms. Storms pull more moisture up higher (sometimes all
> the way up into the lower stratosphere) and this functions to
> re-establishes the moisture content in the upper troposphere.
>From thousands of miles away, Jim? So you *are* claiming a sentient
"jet stream / giant plasmic tornado monster in the sky", then. How
does your kooky jet stream know what is happening thousands of miles
away, James?
> 11) Sometimes these, above mentioned, down tracking jet streams
> will encounter a moist/dry boundary layer in the lower atmosphere.
> This can result in the re-invigoration of a jet stream, supplying
> it the resource (moist/dry boundary layer) it needs to grow.
Wrong. How can you claim that moisture differential is insufficient to
cause air to rise gently through the atmosphere due to density
differential, yet now you're claiming that same moisture differential
is responsible for a jet stream that can reach 200+ MPH, all winds on
the planet, *and* tornadoes, Jim? You've just caught yourself in
another logic trap.
> And this can, sometimes, allow it to grow all the way to the ground
> to produce a tornado.
Bwahahaaaa! No. The jet stream has nothing to do with tornadoes, you
broken-brained halfwit.
> 12) Mitigating tornadoes can be achieved by interrupting the smoothness,
> length and integrity of moist/dry boundary layers in the lower troposphere.
Yeah, you get right on trying that, James. Run right up to a tornado
with a dry sponge. That'll teach it. LOL
Do you not understand that a tornado is a heat engine, James? Cold
water and/or cold air will kill it. That's why tornados so seldom form
over snow covered ground, and why they weaken over cold lakes... the
air below the cloud is too cold, it augments the cloud's 'cold pool',
and that kills the tornado. Yet again you're 180 degrees out from
reality. It's about heat, not water, you moron.
> It is important to note that without the H2O-based plasma that I
> mentioned above jet streams (and tornadoes) couldn't possibly exist
> because friction of gases would prevent the conservation of energy
> (wind speed) that makes them possible.
Wrong. Friction of gasses will occur regardless, especially if there
is *any* "surface", James. Density differential due to temperature and
humidity differential account for all atmospheric air movement. Stop
embarrassing yourself, you nutjob.
> And since the jet streams are what powers the prevailing winds,
What powers your jet stream / giant plasmic tornado monster in the
sky, Jim?
> the prevailing winds too would not exist without this H2O-based
> plasma.
Why are there polar jet streams, James? That air is dry as all hell
because it's cold. Humidity in Antarctica is nearly always near zero.
That destroys your moronic "theory" yet again, James.
> And this is all a good thing because the (usually) relatively calm
> weather conditions that we experience on this planet also would
> not exist (theoretically).
>
> The general misconception is that prevailing winds are produced by
> differential air pressure.
You kooktard, you can't even get your purported misconceptions of
reality right. The prevailing wind direction is caused by planetary
rotation. The winds themselves are caused by temperature and humidity
differential and thus thermal kinetic energy differential and thus
density differential and thus buoyancy differential. Now you're
denying that an increasing temperature causes air to expand!
Blow up a balloon at room temperature, then stick it in your freezer,
James. What happens to that unit volume of air inside the balloon?
Does it not contract, becoming denser?
Now get an empty gas can or similar. Leave the cap off and heat it up
in the sun (or, just for you, with a blowtorch. LOL), then seal it
tightly and let it cool. What happens, Jim? Does a vacuum not develop
because that unit volume of air has lower thermal energy, but the
container cannot contract along with the air, thus the pressure falls
because the air cannot become more dense *because* the container
cannot contract, thus pressure inside the container *must* fall?
Now get two large balloons and attach one to each end of a perfectly
balanced 6 foot long balance beam. Balance it with the empty balloons
in place on each end, to account for the weight of the balloons. Blow
one up with hot air, the other up with cold air, to the same size for
each. If you're able to procure it, use 0% humidity air for each
balloon. SCUBA air should suffice, it has a dew point of -50 F at any
ANDI shop, so only 0.007% humidity. Does the balance beam not tip
toward the cold balloon, James?
Now do the same experiment except this time use 0% humidity air and
90% humidity air... you'll likely need larger balloons, since the
effect is smaller than that of temperature. Does not the balance beam
tip toward the 0% humidity air, Jim?
Yeah, you fucking kooktard, you're denying reality all around you
because *you* *are* *psychotic*.
And I've just met the terms of your $100,000 challenge. Yet again, you
owe me $100,000, Jim. You may forward the money to my BitCoin account.
How does a hot air balloon work, James? There's no water, no plasma...
does your giant sentient tornado monster in the sky stretch down one
of its noodly appendages and gently lift the balloon, Jim?
Do you need to take your meds, Jim?
> As I explained above, although this is not completely mistaken in
> reality this type of flow is generally not able to overcome the
> sponge effect of the friction of gases.
Which violates the Law of Conservation of Energy, James. Christ on
crutches, Jim, you're a delusional uneducated moronic psychotic
halfwit.
You need to STFU, take your meds, educate yourself and stop being such
a fucking moron.
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
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.
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 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?
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
hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?
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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James McGinn, in
<news:9d09755a-3433-459d...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> Are your ready for a non-conventional explanation?
> Other explanations (advection in this instance) are not wrong as
> much as they are incomplete and lacking in details (sometimes
> important details) that are necessary to properly conceptualize
> atmospheric flow.
>
> First some basic facts:
babbling.
> 1) Our atmosphere is a big sponge for energy.
flow out, you moron. Right out of the gate you destroy your entire
kooky psychotic theory.
> This is the result of the friction of gases.
Yet again you destroy your entire kooky psychotic theory.
> 2) Consequently there is a large amount of energy in our atmosphere.
> The molecules are moving very fast, 900 miles an hour. We generally
> refer to this energy as air pressure.
unless something moves that air to another potential. What is that
something, James? You can't say the wind creates the plasma and the
plasma creates the wind, that also violates the Law of Conservation of
Energy. Yet again you destroy your entire kooky psychotic theory.
> Believe it or not this energy (air pressure) is the source of the
> energy that powers winds
combined with planetary rotation that causes the winds and the
prevailing direction of the winds. Yet again you destroy your kooky
psychotic theory.
> --but maybe not in the way you might first assume:
>
> 3) The means or mechanism by which the energy in air (air pressure) is
> converted to wind involves aerodynamics.
again you destroy your entire kooky psychotic theory.
> 4) Aerodynamics requires a surface that can reflect energy
> and/or isolate a flow from the friction of gases.
increasing molecular spacing due to random thermal kinetic motion,
thus it is less dense, thus it is more buoyant, thus it trades that
random thermal kinetic motion for potential energy by convecting
upward. Yet again you deny reality and in so doing destroy your entire
kooky psychotic theory.
A secondary effect is humidity, which has the same effect upon density
by replacing some air molecules with lighter molar mass molecules,
thus causing the air to be less dense. Thus its buoyancy is greater,
thus it rises.
> 5) Due to the friction of gases, streams, like jet streams, could not
> exist in our atmosphere unless there was some way to isolate the
> stream-flow from the friction of gases.
except along the shore where there is a boundary. But boundaries are
frictional surfaces. They don't provide energy. They are an energy
sink.
> Again this involves the existence of a surface that can reflect
> energy into a stream flow--aerodynamics.
downdrafting air due to temperature and/or humidity differential,
which causes horizontal vortexes which the updrafting air, if fast
enough, can tilt vertically. Continuing updrafting air feeds into this
mesocyclone, strengthening it. A downpour drags the mesocyclone down
with the rain, the mesocyclone continues feeding off the temperature
and density differential of the updrafting less-dense air, and the
cooler evaporatively cooled air at the rear of the cloud that the
mesocyclone is sucking in until its suction is sufficient to pull a
tornadic funnel down out of the mesocyclone.
> 6) At and along boundary layers between moist air and dry air, with
> the inclusion of energy (wind shear) a plasma phase of H2O emerges.
your "surface" to create the winds in the first place? And weren't you
just claiming a few days ago that the plasma was *powering* the wind,
and the wind was creating the plasma, thereby creating a circulus in
probando causality dilemma which wrecked your entire theory?
Now we see you desperately changing your theory, slapping patches on
it as fast as I kick holes through it.
> This plasma provides the surface that reflects energy into a stream
> flow.
>
> (BTW: this "plasma" is plainly observable as the "thick air" that
> comprises the cone/vortex of tornadoes.)
mesocyclone, as it descends, is pulling air upward from ground that
has just been rained on. What happens when wind blows across water,
Jim? Oh yeah, it evaporates, and that latent heat of evaporation cools
off the air. Thus inside the funnel it's cold as fuck. Temperature can
drop by 30 degrees F. If it gets too cold, and draws too much cold air
from the storm's "cold pool", the funnel collapses.
You want to definitively kill a tornado? Lots and lots of liquid
nitrogen. Cool that fucker to death.
> 7) This plasma tends to spin around the central axis of flow
> producing a tubular structure (a vortex)
"structure". You'll be getting right on providing an example of a
plasma ever forming any "structure" when it's not influenced by
magnetic or electric fields, James.
> that further isolates a stream flow (the jet streams)
feet at the equator above the cloud tops during the building or
cumulus stage when the strongly updrafting air can create the
horizontal rollers and tilt them vertically. Only when the cloud nears
the end of the mature stage does the anvil form at the top of the
troposphere, and by that time, it's nearly in the dissipating stage,
no tornadoes will form unless the storm was unusually energetic.
Your psychosis has led you to deny large swaths of scientific reality
so you can paint yourself as "special" because you've deluded yourself
into thinking you're smarter than every scientist over the past 250+
years. But you're not special, Jim. You're just a kooktard denying
reality and lying to himself. Wake the fuck up and stop making a
laughingstock of yourself.
> from the friction of gases. This isolation and the above mentioned
> reflection of energy into a stream flow is the reason for the high
> winds of the jet stream.
This warm less-dense air forms a wedge shaped speed profile as it
rises through the atmosphere until it hits the tropopause, where
thermal inversion negates buoyancy. Thus the vertical component of the
wedge shape gets squashed flat, and the horizontal component remains,
creating a wide, flat, smooth, fast stream of air. It is not a vortex,
it does not send its tendrils thousands of miles through the
atmosphere to touch down tornadoes, because if there were true, you'd
have to explain why aircraft can fly so smoothly in the jet stream,
why we've never detected these tendrils extending thousands of miles
through the atmosphere, how it can avoid touching down out of the
clear blue sky, why it only touches down at the rear portion of
cumulonimbus clouds, how it avoids ripping aircraft to shreds... is
your "giant sky tornado" of a jet stream sentient, James?
> 8) The jet stream is located at the boundary between the stratosphere
> and the troposphere. The reason it is located here is because, as
> explained in #6 above, the plasma must have a boundary between moist
> air and dry air and that is what exist between the very dry
> stratosphere and the relatively moist troposphere.
the question, James... *why* is the stratosphere drier than the
troposphere, Jim?
You can't claim the stratosphere is drier than the troposphere because
of your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" and your "plasma not-a-plasma"
exists at the tropopause because the stratosphere is dryer, Jim.
That's yet another circulus in probando causality dilemma, James. And
that destroys your kooky psychotic "theory".
> 9) This is not a perfect system in that eventually the moisture
> falls out and the structure of the jet stream breaks down, this
> causes winds (advection) that generally track the same direction
> as the jet stream. So, in a sense, the jet stream, being a leaky
> pipe of directed, focused energy, drags the rest of the atmosphere
> along.
tornado monster in the sky, James?
> And this explains why prevailing winds are prevailing.
nong.
> 10) Additionally, the jet stream itself will tend to track down
> producing storms. Storms pull more moisture up higher (sometimes all
> the way up into the lower stratosphere) and this functions to
> re-establishes the moisture content in the upper troposphere.
"jet stream / giant plasmic tornado monster in the sky", then. How
does your kooky jet stream know what is happening thousands of miles
away, James?
> 11) Sometimes these, above mentioned, down tracking jet streams
> will encounter a moist/dry boundary layer in the lower atmosphere.
> This can result in the re-invigoration of a jet stream, supplying
> it the resource (moist/dry boundary layer) it needs to grow.
cause air to rise gently through the atmosphere due to density
differential, yet now you're claiming that same moisture differential
is responsible for a jet stream that can reach 200+ MPH, all winds on
the planet, *and* tornadoes, Jim? You've just caught yourself in
another logic trap.
> And this can, sometimes, allow it to grow all the way to the ground
> to produce a tornado.
broken-brained halfwit.
> 12) Mitigating tornadoes can be achieved by interrupting the smoothness,
> length and integrity of moist/dry boundary layers in the lower troposphere.
with a dry sponge. That'll teach it. LOL
Do you not understand that a tornado is a heat engine, James? Cold
water and/or cold air will kill it. That's why tornados so seldom form
over snow covered ground, and why they weaken over cold lakes... the
air below the cloud is too cold, it augments the cloud's 'cold pool',
and that kills the tornado. Yet again you're 180 degrees out from
reality. It's about heat, not water, you moron.
> It is important to note that without the H2O-based plasma that I
> mentioned above jet streams (and tornadoes) couldn't possibly exist
> because friction of gases would prevent the conservation of energy
> (wind speed) that makes them possible.
is *any* "surface", James. Density differential due to temperature and
humidity differential account for all atmospheric air movement. Stop
embarrassing yourself, you nutjob.
> And since the jet streams are what powers the prevailing winds,
sky, Jim?
> the prevailing winds too would not exist without this H2O-based
> plasma.
because it's cold. Humidity in Antarctica is nearly always near zero.
That destroys your moronic "theory" yet again, James.
> And this is all a good thing because the (usually) relatively calm
> weather conditions that we experience on this planet also would
> not exist (theoretically).
>
> The general misconception is that prevailing winds are produced by
> differential air pressure.
reality right. The prevailing wind direction is caused by planetary
rotation. The winds themselves are caused by temperature and humidity
differential and thus thermal kinetic energy differential and thus
density differential and thus buoyancy differential. Now you're
denying that an increasing temperature causes air to expand!
Blow up a balloon at room temperature, then stick it in your freezer,
James. What happens to that unit volume of air inside the balloon?
Does it not contract, becoming denser?
Now get an empty gas can or similar. Leave the cap off and heat it up
in the sun (or, just for you, with a blowtorch. LOL), then seal it
tightly and let it cool. What happens, Jim? Does a vacuum not develop
because that unit volume of air has lower thermal energy, but the
container cannot contract along with the air, thus the pressure falls
because the air cannot become more dense *because* the container
cannot contract, thus pressure inside the container *must* fall?
Now get two large balloons and attach one to each end of a perfectly
balanced 6 foot long balance beam. Balance it with the empty balloons
in place on each end, to account for the weight of the balloons. Blow
one up with hot air, the other up with cold air, to the same size for
each. If you're able to procure it, use 0% humidity air for each
balloon. SCUBA air should suffice, it has a dew point of -50 F at any
ANDI shop, so only 0.007% humidity. Does the balance beam not tip
toward the cold balloon, James?
Now do the same experiment except this time use 0% humidity air and
90% humidity air... you'll likely need larger balloons, since the
effect is smaller than that of temperature. Does not the balance beam
tip toward the 0% humidity air, Jim?
Yeah, you fucking kooktard, you're denying reality all around you
because *you* *are* *psychotic*.
And I've just met the terms of your $100,000 challenge. Yet again, you
owe me $100,000, Jim. You may forward the money to my BitCoin account.
How does a hot air balloon work, James? There's no water, no plasma...
does your giant sentient tornado monster in the sky stretch down one
of its noodly appendages and gently lift the balloon, Jim?
Do you need to take your meds, Jim?
> As I explained above, although this is not completely mistaken in
> reality this type of flow is generally not able to overcome the
> sponge effect of the friction of gases.
crutches, Jim, you're a delusional uneducated moronic psychotic
halfwit.
You need to STFU, take your meds, educate yourself and stop being such
a fucking moron.
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
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.
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 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?
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
hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?
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 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?
Skeet
Mar 22, 2016, 1:10:58 PM3/22/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:46:28 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>There are no facts below.
"as outlined in my sig"
Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>There are no facts below.
James McGinn
Apr 16, 2016, 10:20:15 PM4/16/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
reber g=emc^2
Apr 17, 2016, 2:50:49 PM4/17/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Universes sponge up energies and create particles.BB is proof of this.Fusion too. TreBert
James McGinn
Apr 28, 2016, 1:21:33 PM4/28/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 3:33:34 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
May 31, 2016, 8:29:10 AM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 3:33:34 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Aug 12, 2016, 12:50:34 PM8/12/16
to
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 3:33:34 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Aug 13, 2016, 12:31:31 PM8/13/16
to
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 3:33:34 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Dec 22, 2018, 3:13:52 PM12/22/18
to
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 3:33:34 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
0 new messages