info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The issue is even more comprehensive than you suggest
89 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Mar 15, 2016, 5:33:37 PM3/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Nutcase Dude:
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?
<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.
James McGinn:
These are actually good questions. The issue is even more comprehensive than you suggest in that I am proposing this as an explanation for all of the movement in the atmosphere, including storms in the tropics, hurricanes and Hadley cell circulation. The most significant concept to grasp is that the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere provides the basis of all of the atmospheric vortices on our planet and the jet stream is only the most obvious vortice flow, but it has many invisible tributaries that run along this boundary, all the way down to the tropics. (Convection plays no role whatsoever.)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/uXRWLeai3MI/pK_31BwVAQAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1IU4MoKxdyo/IIZpNLb2EwAJ
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?
<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.
James McGinn:
These are actually good questions. The issue is even more comprehensive than you suggest in that I am proposing this as an explanation for all of the movement in the atmosphere, including storms in the tropics, hurricanes and Hadley cell circulation. The most significant concept to grasp is that the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere provides the basis of all of the atmospheric vortices on our planet and the jet stream is only the most obvious vortice flow, but it has many invisible tributaries that run along this boundary, all the way down to the tropics. (Convection plays no role whatsoever.)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/uXRWLeai3MI/pK_31BwVAQAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1IU4MoKxdyo/IIZpNLb2EwAJ
Sam Wormley
Mar 15, 2016, 5:37:01 PM3/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 3/15/16 4:33 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere provides the basis of all of the atmospheric vortices on our planet
## #
> the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere provides the basis of all of the atmospheric vortices on our planet
## #
#########################################
#########################################
## ######
## ##########
############
##############
#############
#############
##############
#############
##############
#############
##############
############# #
############# #
#########################################
#########################################
#
########
###############
##################
#####################
#### ####
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ###
## ##
#### ####
#####################
##################
###############
########
--
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, 7:12:19 PM3/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 3/15/2016 4:33 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> James McGinn: The
> provides the basis of all of the
> atmospheric vortices
nope.
> on our planet and the jet stream is only the
> most obvious vortice flow,
nope.
> but it has many invisible tributaries that
> run along this boundary,
Nope.
> all the way down to the tropics.
nope.
you smoke-um dope-um to come up with that dream, your imagination
outside your box head.
got any proof ? nope, didn't think so.
your BONG is calling you ..........
>
> James McGinn: The
> most significant concept to grasp is that the boundary between the
> troposphere and the stratosphere
nope.
> troposphere and the stratosphere
> provides the basis of all of the
> atmospheric vortices
> on our planet and the jet stream is only the
> most obvious vortice flow,
> but it has many invisible tributaries that
> run along this boundary,
> all the way down to the tropics.
you smoke-um dope-um to come up with that dream, your imagination
outside your box head.
got any proof ? nope, didn't think so.
your BONG is calling you ..........
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 16, 2016, 1:30:51 AM3/16/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James McGinn, in
<news:a528c5b8-cec7-4c2c...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
Again, Mr. McGinn, referring back to your own fallacious reasoning is
akin to you standing in an echo chamber screaming incoherently, and
considering the echos as confirmation of what you're screaming.
I suggest you study the Navier-Stokes Equations and determine for
yourself why air fronts of different densities form different shapes
in attempting to minimize aerodynamic drag. I further suggest that you
study aerodynamics in depth. You'll discover just how wrong you are.
But of course, you won't. You're convinced you're right..
Dunning-Kruger afflicted individuals, after they've convinced
themselves they are right, seldom self-correct, often leading them
into full-blown psychosis.
You're being given the chance to save yourself from that unfortunate
fate, Mr. McGinn, and all it takes for you to begin is to prove one of
your claims.
You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn't exist,
that latent heat doesn't exist, that all water in the troposphere is
plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets
cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet
stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet's
surface and wreak havoc.... you've run away from substantiating any of
those claims, James.
Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, 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 wrong... which those afflicted with
Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous
lengths to avoid doing so.
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.
If your "class action lawsuit" against 250+ years of rigorous
scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be
forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of
performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you
are by your illogic.
Now, you've got a few more questions to answer... you'll note that the
harder you writhe and squirm and try to morph your kooky theory to fit
at least tangentially to reality, the worse it becomes for you,
James... and it will continue to do so until you come around to and
fully acknowledge reality.
============================================================
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel hundreds of miles away from
the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and
know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather
than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is
your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, 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,
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?
--
Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757
DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934...@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.
> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.
Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.
<snicker>
=================================================
DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfa...@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================
DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f7...@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================
This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.
150 IQ? LOL
James McGinn, in
<news:a528c5b8-cec7-4c2c...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
akin to you standing in an echo chamber screaming incoherently, and
considering the echos as confirmation of what you're screaming.
I suggest you study the Navier-Stokes Equations and determine for
yourself why air fronts of different densities form different shapes
in attempting to minimize aerodynamic drag. I further suggest that you
study aerodynamics in depth. You'll discover just how wrong you are.
But of course, you won't. You're convinced you're right..
Dunning-Kruger afflicted individuals, after they've convinced
themselves they are right, seldom self-correct, often leading them
into full-blown psychosis.
You're being given the chance to save yourself from that unfortunate
fate, Mr. McGinn, and all it takes for you to begin is to prove one of
your claims.
You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn't exist,
that latent heat doesn't exist, that all water in the troposphere is
plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets
cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet
stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet's
surface and wreak havoc.... you've run away from substantiating any of
those claims, James.
Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, 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 wrong... which those afflicted with
Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous
lengths to avoid doing so.
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.
If your "class action lawsuit" against 250+ years of rigorous
scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be
forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of
performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you
are by your illogic.
Now, you've got a few more questions to answer... you'll note that the
harder you writhe and squirm and try to morph your kooky theory to fit
at least tangentially to reality, the worse it becomes for you,
James... and it will continue to do so until you come around to and
fully acknowledge reality.
============================================================
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?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel hundreds of miles away from
the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and
know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather
than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is
your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, 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,
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?
--
Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757
DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934...@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.
> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.
Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.
<snicker>
=================================================
DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfa...@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================
DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f7...@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================
This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.
150 IQ? LOL
James McGinn
Mar 16, 2016, 1:51:45 AM3/16/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 10:30:51 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> I suggest you study the Navier-Stokes Equations
Why?
> I suggest you study the Navier-Stokes Equations
Sam Wormley
Mar 16, 2016, 12:49:43 PM3/16/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
> In physics, the Navier–Stokes equations /nævˈjeɪ stoʊks/, named after
> Claude-Louis Navier and George Gabriel Stokes, describe the motion of
> viscous fluid substances. These balance equations arise from applying
> *Newton's second law to fluid motion* , together with the assumption
> that the stress in the fluid is the sum of a diffusing viscous term
> (proportional to the gradient of velocity) and a pressure term—hence
> describing viscous flow. The main difference between them and the
> simpler Euler equations for inviscid flow is that Navier–Stokes
> equations also in the Froude limit (no external field) are not
> conservation equations, but rather a dissipative system, in the sense
> that they cannot be put into the quasilinear homogeneous form:
Y_t + A(y)y_x = 0
> Navier–Stokes equations are useful because they describe the physics
> of many phenomena of scientific and engineering interest. They may be
> used to *model the weather* .
James McGinn
Mar 23, 2016, 9:21:57 PM3/23/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Mar 24, 2016, 1:01:04 AM3/24/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 10:30:51 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/uXRWLeai3MI/pK_31BwVAQAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1IU4MoKxdyo/IIZpNLb2EwAJ
> I suggest you study the Navier-Stokes Equations and determine for
> yourself why air fronts of different densities form different shapes
> in attempting to minimize aerodynamic drag. I further suggest that you
> study aerodynamics in depth. You'll discover just how wrong you are.
> 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.
Hmm. Maybe their dog ate it.
> It's a simple experiment,
> 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,
> 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.
> If your "class action lawsuit" against 250+ years of rigorous
> scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be
> forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of
> performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you
> are by your illogic.
> Now, you've got a few more questions to answer... you'll note that the
> harder you writhe and squirm and try to morph your kooky theory to fit
> at least tangentially to reality, the worse it becomes for you,
> James... and it will continue to do so until you come around to and
> fully acknowledge reality.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 24, 2016, 1:31:33 PM3/24/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:92bc8801-93af-4eb3...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 10:30:51 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/uXRWLeai3MI/pK_31BwVAQAJ
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1IU4MoKxdyo/IIZpNLb2EwAJ
Referring back to your own insane babbling isn't proof of anything,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/uXRWLeai3MI/pK_31BwVAQAJ
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1IU4MoKxdyo/IIZpNLb2EwAJ
James, except that you're insane.
>> I suggest you study the Navier-Stokes Equations and determine for
>> yourself why air fronts of different densities form different shapes
>> in attempting to minimize aerodynamic drag. I further suggest that you
>> study aerodynamics in depth. You'll discover just how wrong you are.
> Can you tell us more about your extensive experience with Navier-Stokes
> Equations? Or is that a secret? Were you an agent working for the
> government?
If you did, you'd have realized just how retarded you were making
yourself look with all your blather.
>> 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.
> Yes.
>> 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.
> Well, yes, if they have proven it then it would be true. But,
> apparently, if they have nobody seems to have record of it.
>
> Hmm. Maybe their dog ate it.
you know it'll prove you *wrong* and *insane*. The onus is upon you to
prove your claims, Jim. You've made a claim that runs counter to
long-established science and which frankly makes absolutely no sense
even when considered empirically... so the burden of proof rests
solely with you.
>> It's a simple experiment,
> If there is no record of it then how do you know it is simple?
find them, too uneducated to understand them, and too insane to accept
them.
>> 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,
> I don't think anybody is going to nominate me for a Nobel prize for
> "overturning" something that nobody can find.
only the original experiment that Joseph Black performed, but 11
reproductions of his experiment, all of which confirmed his findings.
In fact, it's such simple science you're denying that any first year
chemistry or physical sciences student would likely be required to
confirm it... meaning it's been confirmed likely millions of times.
That you'd deny such a bedrock of science proves just how psychotic
you are, James.
>> or his being forced to retract his claims,
> On the bright side, I don't think I'll be asked to retract what I never
> stated.
only you have "the secret". You've also claimed there to be a
wide-ranging scientific conspiracy to suppress your "secret". All a
result of your paranoid schizophrenia.
>> Does anyone wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his
>> claims?
> I think steam tables are proof.
uses the Mollier diagram.
>> 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.
> I never made such a claim.
wrong and you know it.
>> If your "class action lawsuit" against 250+ years of rigorous
>> scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be
>> forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of
>> performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you
>> are by your illogic.
> I never said I haven't already performed an experiment.
might as well not have done the experiment. And your moronic 4th grade
mason jar and "fishing line, cotton, aluminum foil thingies" (your
words, Jim) "experiment" is so uncontrolled and has such wide margins
of error that it's not an experiment, it's what morons do when they
think they're doing experiments.
>> Now, you've got a few more questions to answer... you'll note that the
>> harder you writhe and squirm and try to morph your kooky theory to fit
>> at least tangentially to reality, the worse it becomes for you,
>> James... and it will continue to do so until you come around to and
>> fully acknowledge reality.
> I will gladly acknowledge the experiment, and graciously pay out the
> $100,000.00, if anybody can find it.
experiment involving a balance beam and large balloons, then. Or
intentionally ignored it... unlikely, since I've posted about it a few
times. That'd not only prove your moronic blather wrong and destroy
your ignorant "theory not-a-theory" and trigger your paying me the
$100,000, it'd also prove you're delusional. So it's little wonder
you're running away from doing those experiments.
> So don't give up. Like they used to say at the end of the X-files:
> "The truth is out there, somewhere. Go find it."
nothing, you've influenced no one. All you've done and continue to do
is get your moronic psychotic ass drop-kicked for being a TornadoTard
who's never seen a tornado up close, never been through a tornado,
never any experiments, never did anything except rape Google for bits
and pieces of studies which you claim support your anti-science
nitwittery, but on closer examination, that same evidence disproves
your "theory not-a-theory" and proves you're insane, Jim.
--
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
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
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
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
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
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
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
James McGinn
Mar 25, 2016, 8:36:18 AM3/25/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/uXRWLeai3MI/pK_31BwVAQAJ
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1IU4MoKxdyo/IIZpNLb2EwAJ
>
> Referring back to your own insane babbling isn't proof of anything,
> James, except that you're insane.
Hmm. I wonder why?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 25, 2016, 1:40:05 PM3/25/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:fd9bb37d-055a-42fe...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
issue a retraction which unwound your entire "theory not-a-theory",
James. I bet that caused you more than a little embarrassment and
consternation, Tardnado. LOL
> Hmm. I wonder why?
You refuted it yourself when you were forced to make that embarrassing
retraction, James.
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================
Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls. And
without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your "boundaries and
structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma" forms which
drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory" just came
crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build your
"theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and suppositions,
James.
Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
Thanks for playing, but you lose.
That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL
James McGinn
Mar 25, 2016, 1:57:44 PM3/25/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 10:40:05 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/uXRWLeai3MI/pK_31BwVAQAJ
> >>>
> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1IU4MoKxdyo/IIZpNLb2EwAJ
>
> >> Referring back to your own insane babbling isn't proof of anything,
> >> James, except that you're insane.
>
> > You can't dispute it. Right?
>
> I can and I have...
And everybody can see your objections and come to their own conclusion, right?
> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/uXRWLeai3MI/pK_31BwVAQAJ
> >>>
> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1IU4MoKxdyo/IIZpNLb2EwAJ
>
> >> Referring back to your own insane babbling isn't proof of anything,
> >> James, except that you're insane.
>
> > You can't dispute it. Right?
>
> I can and I have...
> You refuted it yourself when you were forced to make that embarrassing
> retraction, James.
>
> Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
> patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
> You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
> understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
>
> Thanks for playing, but you lose.
>
> That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL
>
> --
>
> 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.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 26, 2016, 1:59:17 AM3/26/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:8a7a04a1-4aa9-43c5...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 10:40:05 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/uXRWLeai3MI/pK_31BwVAQAJ
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1IU4MoKxdyo/IIZpNLb2EwAJ
>>>> Referring back to your own insane babbling isn't proof of anything,
>>>> James, except that you're insane.
>>> You can't dispute it. Right?
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/uXRWLeai3MI/pK_31BwVAQAJ
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1IU4MoKxdyo/IIZpNLb2EwAJ
>>>> Referring back to your own insane babbling isn't proof of anything,
>>>> James, except that you're insane.
>>> You can't dispute it. Right?
>> I can and I have... in fact, you're so defeated you were forced to
>> issue a retraction which unwound your entire "theory not-a-theory",
>> James. I bet that caused you more than a little embarrassment and
>> consternation, Tardnado. LOL
>> issue a retraction which unwound your entire "theory not-a-theory",
>> James. I bet that caused you more than a little embarrassment and
>> consternation, Tardnado. LOL
> And everybody can see your objections and come to their own conclusion,
> right?
The only correct conclusion is that you're a reality-denying
> right?
anti-science delusional fraud, James. You're the tornado "expert
not-an-expert" who's never even seen a tornado up close. You are James
Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, the eternal
laughingstock. LOL
>> You refuted it yourself when you were forced to make that embarrassing
>> retraction, James.
> I like usenet because there is no easy way for people to hide their
> intellectual dishonesty.
corpse and just bury it already.
Tardnado. LOL
>> Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
>> patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
>> You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
>> understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
>>
>> Thanks for playing, but you lose.
>>
>> That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL
> This is like a bad dream for you.
halfwits display their obsessive-compulsive nature. I'll be here long
after you've been driven to the point in your ever-encroaching
insanity when you pick up a weapon and go on a rampage. It's what
broken-brained delusional idiots like you do when the world so
confuses them that they become enraged by the inscrutability of it
all.
TornadoTard. LOL
>> 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.
> Do you ever read your own writing?
Tardnado?
--
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.
James McGinn
Mar 27, 2016, 5:12:41 PM3/27/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 10:59:17 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >> I can and I have... in fact, you're so defeated you were forced to
> >> issue a retraction which unwound your entire "theory not-a-theory",
> >> James. I bet that caused you more than a little embarrassment and
> >> consternation, Tardnado. LOL
>
> > And everybody can see your objections and come to their own conclusion,
> > right?
>
> The only correct conclusion is that you're a reality-denying
> anti-science delusional fraud, James. You're the tornado "expert
> not-an-expert" who's never even seen a tornado up close.
So, my theory is wrong because I haven't seen a tornado?
> >> I can and I have... in fact, you're so defeated you were forced to
> >> issue a retraction which unwound your entire "theory not-a-theory",
> >> James. I bet that caused you more than a little embarrassment and
> >> consternation, Tardnado. LOL
>
> > And everybody can see your objections and come to their own conclusion,
> > right?
>
> The only correct conclusion is that you're a reality-denying
> anti-science delusional fraud, James. You're the tornado "expert
> not-an-expert" who's never even seen a tornado up close.
Is that your argument?
> > I like usenet because there is no easy way for people to hide their
> > intellectual dishonesty.
>
> Great. Then you admit your intellectual dishonesty, James.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 28, 2016, 1:23:20 AM3/28/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:81d3e84a-d41f-4953...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 10:59:17 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>> I can and I have... in fact, you're so defeated you were forced to
>>>> issue a retraction which unwound your entire "theory not-a-theory",
>>>> James. I bet that caused you more than a little embarrassment and
>>>> consternation, Tardnado. LOL
>>> And everybody can see your objections and come to their own conclusion,
>>> right?
>> The only correct conclusion is that you're a reality-denying
>> anti-science delusional fraud, James. You're the tornado "expert
>> not-an-expert" who's never even seen a tornado up close.
> So, my theory is wrong because I haven't seen a tornado?
No, your "theory not-a-theory" is wrong because you're an ignorant
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>> I can and I have... in fact, you're so defeated you were forced to
>>>> issue a retraction which unwound your entire "theory not-a-theory",
>>>> James. I bet that caused you more than a little embarrassment and
>>>> consternation, Tardnado. LOL
>>> And everybody can see your objections and come to their own conclusion,
>>> right?
>> The only correct conclusion is that you're a reality-denying
>> anti-science delusional fraud, James. You're the tornado "expert
>> not-an-expert" who's never even seen a tornado up close.
> So, my theory is wrong because I haven't seen a tornado?
insane uneducated anti-science reality-denying kooktard too stupid to
recognize and acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it.
That you haven't even *seen* a tornado, whilst holding yourself out as
some sort of tornado "expert not-an-expert" is proof that you're a
lying scientific fraud and insane worldwide laughingstock.
> Is that your argument?
No, but your admission that you've never seen a tornado except for
what you've seen from internet searches is noted. Moron. LOL
5 tornadoes in your area in the last 27 years, none of them near you,
four of them F0 and one F1... IOW, barely tornadoes. You're a fucking
fraud, Jim.
>>> I like usenet because there is no easy way for people to hide their
>>> intellectual dishonesty.
>> Great. Then you admit your intellectual dishonesty, James.
> . . . or their desperation.
desperation, James.
You and logic aren't really on speaking terms, are you, Tardnado Jim?
LOL
You'll be getting right on providing scientific proof and the
mathematics behind your moronic claim, James... especially in light of
the fact that you've retracted your main premise, thereby destroying
your entire "theory not-a-theory"...
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================
Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.
Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
Thanks for playing, but you lose.
That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
Thanks for playing, but you lose.
That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL
James McGinn
Mar 28, 2016, 1:55:25 AM3/28/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:23:20 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > So, my theory is wrong because I haven't seen a tornado?
>
> No, your "theory not-a-theory" is wrong because you're an ignorant
> insane uneducated anti-science reality-denying kooktard too stupid to
> recognize and acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it.
Oh, okay then, nevermind. For a second there I was thinking you were saying something irrational.
> > So, my theory is wrong because I haven't seen a tornado?
>
> No, your "theory not-a-theory" is wrong because you're an ignorant
> insane uneducated anti-science reality-denying kooktard too stupid to
> recognize and acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it.
> That you haven't even *seen* a tornado, whilst holding yourself out as
> some sort of tornado "expert not-an-expert" is proof that you're a
> lying scientific fraud and insane worldwide laughingstock.
>
> > Is that your argument?
>
> No, but your admission that you've never seen a tornado except for
> what you've seen from internet searches is noted. Moron. LOL
> 5 tornadoes in your area in the last 27 years, none of them near you,
> four of them F0 and one F1... IOW, barely tornadoes. You're a fucking
> fraud, Jim.
>
> >>> I like usenet because there is no easy way for people to hide their
> >>> intellectual dishonesty.
>
> >> Great. Then you admit your intellectual dishonesty, James.
>
> > . . . or their desperation.
>
> Great. Then you admit your intellectual dishonesty *and* your
> desperation, James.
> You and logic aren't really on speaking terms, are you, Tardnado Jim?
> LOL
>
> You'll be getting right on providing scientific proof and the
> mathematics behind your moronic claim, James... especially in light of
> the fact that you've retracted your main premise, thereby destroying
> your entire "theory not-a-theory"...
> Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
> (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
> your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
> "boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
> forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
> just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
> your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
> suppositions, James.
> Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
> patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
> You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
> understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 28, 2016, 1:09:29 PM3/28/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:9db12628-2ba7-4f95...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:23:20 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>> So, my theory is wrong because I haven't seen a tornado?
>> No, your "theory not-a-theory" is wrong because you're an ignorant
>> insane uneducated anti-science reality-denying kooktard too stupid to
>> recognize and acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it.
> Oh, okay then, nevermind. For a second there I was thinking you
> were saying something irrational.
Good of you to admit that you're an ignorant insane uneducated
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>> So, my theory is wrong because I haven't seen a tornado?
>> No, your "theory not-a-theory" is wrong because you're an ignorant
>> insane uneducated anti-science reality-denying kooktard too stupid to
>> recognize and acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it.
> Oh, okay then, nevermind. For a second there I was thinking you
> were saying something irrational.
anti-science reality-denying kooktard too stupid to recognize and
acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
>> That you haven't even *seen* a tornado, whilst holding yourself out as
>> some sort of tornado "expert not-an-expert" is proof that you're a
>> lying scientific fraud and insane worldwide laughingstock.
No response, Jim? That's gotta be pretty embarrassing for you, eh,
Jim? A bit like claiming you've discovered a new island, a magical
place where the trees grow upside down, volcanoes suck lava into them
and the waves roll *away* from the shore... then when everyone
discovers you're describing Hawaii, that you've got everything
backwards, and that you've never been there... well, that means you're
a fraud, James. LOL
>>> Is that your argument?
>> No, but your admission that you've never seen a tornado except for
>> what you've seen from internet searches is noted. Moron. LOL
> Oh, uh. Okay. I just wanted to make sure you are perfectly rational.
will go down in history as an example of what *not* to do when
committing scientific fraud. LOL
>> 5 tornadoes in your area in the last 27 years, none of them near you,
>> four of them F0 and one F1... IOW, barely tornadoes. You're a fucking
>> fraud, Jim.
> Uh, . . . well, . . . not that it matters or anything. But wouldn't
> we generally consider being missed by tornadoes a good thing? I mean,
> does being shot by a gun make one any more of an expert in firearms?
chased a single storm? No, all you've done is sat in mommy's basement,
delusionally blathering on about how much of an "expert not-an-expert"
you are, to include your claiming you're a "physicist not-a-physicist"
because you failed out of an elective Basic Meteorology class. You're
a failure, a fraud, a joke, James. The entire world is laughing at
you. LOL
>>>>> I like usenet because there is no easy way for people to hide their
>>>>> intellectual dishonesty.
>>>> Great. Then you admit your intellectual dishonesty, James.
>>> . . . or their desperation.
>> Great. Then you admit your intellectual dishonesty *and* your
>> desperation, James.
> I admit I feel some guilt for enjoying this as much as I am.
the fact that you're so pathetic the only attention you can get is to
get your moronic ass drop-kicked across Usenet, James.
>> You and logic aren't really on speaking terms, are you, Tardnado Jim?
>> LOL
>>
>> You'll be getting right on providing scientific proof and the
>> mathematics behind your moronic claim, James... especially in light of
>> the fact that you've retracted your main premise, thereby destroying
>> your entire "theory not-a-theory"...
> So, let me get this straight. You want me to provide proof for a claim
> that you say I've retracted? Uh . . .
so destroyed everything you've been delusionally blathering on about
for a quarter of a century, you revived your moronic claim to save
your moronic theory to save your delusions... because to do otherwise
would mean you'd have to admit you've wasted 25 *years* of your life
being psychotic.
But that embarrassing episode is yet another in a long list of
embarrassments you've had to endure throughout your pathetic life, eh,
Jim? Such as being forced to live at home with mommy and daddy because
you're far too retarded to live on your own. LOL
You'll be getting right on providing scientific proof and the
mathematics behind your moronic claim, James... especially in light of
the fact that you've retracted your main premise, thereby destroying
>> Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
>> (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
>> your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
>> "boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
>> forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
>> just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
>> your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
>> suppositions, James.
> Uh . . . what?
defeat.
>> Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
>> patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
>> You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
>> understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
> I suppose this notion that people might come to their own conclusions
> without your assistance isn't something you give much thought to.
rightly stated that you're "insane", "delusional" and a "conspiracy
theorist". They've read your moronic babbling on Usenet and on website
comments sections and rightly come to the conclusion that you're off
your nut. I'll further add that you're retarded, dishonest, a
scientific fraud and a worldwide laughingstock.
The name McGinn will go down in the annals of science as the noun to
describe a bumbling moronic halfwit making up delusional blather sans
evidence... to wit: "I can't figure this anomaly out, but I'm sure as
hell not going to McGinn it by just throwing out a WAG."
That's reality, James. _Deal_ _with_ _it_.
<snicker>
James McGinn
Mar 28, 2016, 1:28:43 PM3/28/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:09:29 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > So, let me get this straight. You want me to provide proof for a claim
> > that you say I've retracted? Uh . . .
>
> Oh, but James, you retracted it, then when you discovered that doing
> so destroyed everything you've been delusionally blathering on about
> for a quarter of a century, you revived your moronic claim to save
> your moronic theory to save your delusions... because to do otherwise
> would mean you'd have to admit you've wasted 25 *years* of your life
> being psychotic.
>
> But that embarrassing episode is yet another in a long list of
> embarrassments you've had to endure throughout your pathetic life, eh,
> Jim? Such as being forced to live at home with mommy and daddy because
> you're far too retarded to live on your own. LOL
>
> You'll be getting right on providing scientific proof and the
> mathematics behind your moronic claim, James... especially in light of
> the fact that you've retracted your main premise, thereby destroying
> your entire "theory not-a-theory".
Do your shirts generally have drool stains?
> > So, let me get this straight. You want me to provide proof for a claim
> > that you say I've retracted? Uh . . .
>
> Oh, but James, you retracted it, then when you discovered that doing
> so destroyed everything you've been delusionally blathering on about
> for a quarter of a century, you revived your moronic claim to save
> your moronic theory to save your delusions... because to do otherwise
> would mean you'd have to admit you've wasted 25 *years* of your life
> being psychotic.
>
> But that embarrassing episode is yet another in a long list of
> embarrassments you've had to endure throughout your pathetic life, eh,
> Jim? Such as being forced to live at home with mommy and daddy because
> you're far too retarded to live on your own. LOL
>
> You'll be getting right on providing scientific proof and the
> mathematics behind your moronic claim, James... especially in light of
> the fact that you've retracted your main premise, thereby destroying
> your entire "theory not-a-theory".
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 29, 2016, 1:25:07 AM3/29/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:7ae3c1a1-a628-4f32...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:09:29 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>> So, let me get this straight. You want me to provide proof for a claim
>>> that you say I've retracted? Uh . . .
>> Oh, but James, you retracted it, then when you discovered that doing
>> so destroyed everything you've been delusionally blathering on about
>> for a quarter of a century, you revived your moronic claim to save
>> your moronic theory to save your delusions... because to do otherwise
>> would mean you'd have to admit you've wasted 25 *years* of your life
>> being psychotic.
>>
>> But that embarrassing episode is yet another in a long list of
>> embarrassments you've had to endure throughout your pathetic life, eh,
>> Jim? Such as being forced to live at home with mommy and daddy because
>> you're far too retarded to live on your own. LOL
>>
>> You'll be getting right on providing scientific proof and the
>> mathematics behind your moronic claims, James... especially in light of
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>> So, let me get this straight. You want me to provide proof for a claim
>>> that you say I've retracted? Uh . . .
>> Oh, but James, you retracted it, then when you discovered that doing
>> so destroyed everything you've been delusionally blathering on about
>> for a quarter of a century, you revived your moronic claim to save
>> your moronic theory to save your delusions... because to do otherwise
>> would mean you'd have to admit you've wasted 25 *years* of your life
>> being psychotic.
>>
>> But that embarrassing episode is yet another in a long list of
>> embarrassments you've had to endure throughout your pathetic life, eh,
>> Jim? Such as being forced to live at home with mommy and daddy because
>> you're far too retarded to live on your own. LOL
>>
>> You'll be getting right on providing scientific proof and the
>> the fact that you've retracted your main premise, thereby destroying
>> your entire "theory not-a-theory".
>>
>> your entire "theory not-a-theory".
>>
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
>> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
>> ========================================================
>> > Retracted:
>> > Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
>> > the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
>> > bonds with adjoining water molecules.
>> ========================================================
>>
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
>> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
>> ========================================================
>> > In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
>> > Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
>> > droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
>> > these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
>> > reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
>> > structural integrity. It is important to note that
>> > without the concept that is the subject of this post
>> > (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
>> > Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
>> > would not be possible.
>> ========================================================
>>
>> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
>> ========================================================
>> > Retracted:
>> > Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
>> > the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
>> > bonds with adjoining water molecules.
>> ========================================================
>>
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
>> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
>> ========================================================
>> > In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
>> > Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
>> > droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
>> > these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
>> > reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
>> > structural integrity. It is important to note that
>> > without the concept that is the subject of this post
>> > (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
>> > Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
>> > would not be possible.
>> ========================================================
>>
>> Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
>> (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
>> your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
>> "boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
>> forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
>> just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
>> your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
>> suppositions, James.
>>
>> (now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
>> your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
>> "boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
>> forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
>> just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
>> your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
>> suppositions, James.
>>
>> Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
>> patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
>> You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
>> understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
>>
>> patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
>> You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
>> understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
>>
>> Thanks for playing, but you lose.
>>
>> That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL
>>
>> That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL
> Do your shirts generally have drool stains?
You're projecting, backpedaling and throwing out non sequiturs again,
James. Proof you know you've lost.
Your sanity is cracking under the weight of all those unanswered
questions, James. I told you, the longer you run from reality, the
worse it'll get for you... and we've only just begun.
Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?
And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?
Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?
Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?
Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?
Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?
What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James?
Why are you not taking your meds, James?
Why are you *still* running away from answering those tough questions
in my .sig which highlight the logical inconsistencies and
contradictions in your moronic "theory not-a-theory", James?
James McGinn
Apr 26, 2016, 4:42:20 PM4/26/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 27, 2016, 2:10:13 AM4/27/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:22dcd92b-42a2-47a9...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
Again, Mr. McGinn, referring back to your own fallacious reasoning is
akin to you standing in an echo chamber screaming incoherently, and
considering the echos as confirmation of what you're screaming.
akin to you standing in an echo chamber screaming incoherently, and
considering the echos as confirmation of what you're screaming.
I suggest you study the Navier-Stokes Equations and determine for
yourself why air fronts of different densities form different shapes
in attempting to minimize aerodynamic drag. I further suggest that you
study aerodynamics in depth. You'll discover just how wrong you are.
yourself why air fronts of different densities form different shapes
in attempting to minimize aerodynamic drag. I further suggest that you
study aerodynamics in depth. You'll discover just how wrong you are.
But of course, you won't. You're convinced you're right..
Dunning-Kruger afflicted individuals, after they've convinced
themselves they are right, seldom self-correct, often leading them
into full-blown psychosis.
You're being given the chance to save yourself from that unfortunate
fate, Mr. McGinn, and all it takes for you to begin is to prove one of
your claims.
You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn't exist,
that latent heat doesn't exist, that all water in the troposphere is
plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets
cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet
stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet's
surface and wreak havoc.... you've run away from substantiating any of
those claims, James.
Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, James...
======================================================
Dunning-Kruger afflicted individuals, after they've convinced
themselves they are right, seldom self-correct, often leading them
into full-blown psychosis.
You're being given the chance to save yourself from that unfortunate
fate, Mr. McGinn, and all it takes for you to begin is to prove one of
your claims.
You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn't exist,
that latent heat doesn't exist, that all water in the troposphere is
plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets
cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet
stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet's
surface and wreak havoc.... you've run away from substantiating any of
those claims, James.
Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, 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.
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
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
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+
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 wrong... which those afflicted with
Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous
lengths to avoid doing so.
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 wrong... which those afflicted with
Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous
lengths to avoid doing so.
Does anyone wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his
claims?
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.
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.
If your "class action lawsuit" against 250+ years of rigorous
scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be
forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of
performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you
are by your illogic.
scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be
forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of
performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you
are by your illogic.
Now, you've got a few more questions to answer... you'll note that the
harder you writhe and squirm and try to morph your kooky theory to fit
at least tangentially to reality, the worse it becomes for you,
James... and it will continue to do so until you come around to and
fully acknowledge reality.
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
harder you writhe and squirm and try to morph your kooky theory to fit
at least tangentially to reality, the worse it becomes for you,
James... and it will continue to do so until you come around to and
fully acknowledge reality.
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?
Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?
And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
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.
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?
According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.
Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?
Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?
Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?
Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?
Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?
What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
you're not a physicist, James. LOL
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
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?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
Jim?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
Jun 18, 2016, 1:23:18 PM6/18/16
to
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 2:33:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
Jun 19, 2016, 12:20:03 AM6/19/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:8269c925-a3ad-4846...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> 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
stream.
> boundary layers. This explains the "dry line" phenomena. (Look it up.)
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.
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.
Wrong. What powers the jets streams, you moron? Oh yeah, upwardly
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
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?
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
James McGinn
Aug 18, 2016, 1:47:17 AM8/18/16
to
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 2:33:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
Aug 20, 2016, 12:57:06 AM8/20/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:0400eb9e-ab98-4b63...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
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
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.
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.
====================================================================
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.
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
0 new messages