info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Tallbloke's fair and right question
78 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Feb 9, 2016, 2:09:28 PM2/9/16
to
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-7/#comment-113587
Tall Bloke:
Maybe you need to explain how the ten water molecules dispersed in 10,000 molecules of N2, O2, Ar and CO2 always get together really efficiently to hold a dewdrop party.
Jim McGinn:
Not only is this a fair question but it is the right question.
However, if you are looking for a simple answer I suggest to you stick with Meteorology. Their notion that H2O turns to steam at temperatures well below those that have ever been detected in a laboratory is easy to comprehend even though it is plainly absurd. And once you accept this absurdity it is easier to accept other observational inconsistencies, like the fact that heavier clouds don't fall out of the sky like bricks as convection theory would seem to predict.
The correct understanding of what is happening in the atmosphere with H2O is incredibly complex. There is a dichotomy. And, Roger, the way you worded the question gets right to the crux of the dichotomy. I would rephrase it as follows: Are individual H2O molecules more electromagnetically active than collective H2O molecules? And might this explain why/how they are able to get together efficiently to form a dewdrop. For purposes of argument, let's just say the answer to this question is yes. And this brings us right to the dichotomy: If they are highly charged why aren't the droplets highly charged? In other words, if gaseous H2O molecules have such extreme electromagnetic charges that they are able to find one another despite being dispersed amongst 10,000 N2, O2 and such then why oh why aren't droplets/clusters of H2O electromagnetic powerhouses that would begin to attract any other droplets in their vicinity? In short, if monomolecular H2O (gaseous H2O -- steam) is so electromagnetically active why are droplets, collective H2O, so electromagnetically passive?
I struggled with this issue for about 2 years before I solved it. The solution has to do with the fact that H2O polarity is not a constant it is a variable. And hydrogen bonds are the mechanism that neutralizes H2O polarity. In other words, collectively H2O (liquid) is electromagnetically passive because its polarity has been neutralized by hydrogen bonds. It is at this point that things become extremely complex and confusing.
I have written a paper on this. If you are interested do a search for the following:
Hydrogen Bonds Neutralize H2O Polarity James McGinn
Tall Bloke:
Maybe you need to explain how the ten water molecules dispersed in 10,000 molecules of N2, O2, Ar and CO2 always get together really efficiently to hold a dewdrop party.
Jim McGinn:
Not only is this a fair question but it is the right question.
However, if you are looking for a simple answer I suggest to you stick with Meteorology. Their notion that H2O turns to steam at temperatures well below those that have ever been detected in a laboratory is easy to comprehend even though it is plainly absurd. And once you accept this absurdity it is easier to accept other observational inconsistencies, like the fact that heavier clouds don't fall out of the sky like bricks as convection theory would seem to predict.
The correct understanding of what is happening in the atmosphere with H2O is incredibly complex. There is a dichotomy. And, Roger, the way you worded the question gets right to the crux of the dichotomy. I would rephrase it as follows: Are individual H2O molecules more electromagnetically active than collective H2O molecules? And might this explain why/how they are able to get together efficiently to form a dewdrop. For purposes of argument, let's just say the answer to this question is yes. And this brings us right to the dichotomy: If they are highly charged why aren't the droplets highly charged? In other words, if gaseous H2O molecules have such extreme electromagnetic charges that they are able to find one another despite being dispersed amongst 10,000 N2, O2 and such then why oh why aren't droplets/clusters of H2O electromagnetic powerhouses that would begin to attract any other droplets in their vicinity? In short, if monomolecular H2O (gaseous H2O -- steam) is so electromagnetically active why are droplets, collective H2O, so electromagnetically passive?
I struggled with this issue for about 2 years before I solved it. The solution has to do with the fact that H2O polarity is not a constant it is a variable. And hydrogen bonds are the mechanism that neutralizes H2O polarity. In other words, collectively H2O (liquid) is electromagnetically passive because its polarity has been neutralized by hydrogen bonds. It is at this point that things become extremely complex and confusing.
I have written a paper on this. If you are interested do a search for the following:
Hydrogen Bonds Neutralize H2O Polarity James McGinn
James McGinn
Feb 11, 2016, 1:53:34 AM2/11/16
to
James McGinn
Feb 13, 2016, 3:31:08 PM2/13/16
to
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:09:28 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Feb 16, 2016, 5:43:32 PM2/16/16
to
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:09:28 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Notwithstanding all of this semi-interesting, continued chatter about convection, it is indisputable that the up-down nature of convection cannot explain the lateral and highly focused flow of the jet streams. Thus there must be some other source of flow in the atmosphere that is independent of convection. Given the jet streams magnitude, supporting wind speeds upward of 300 mph, it is undeniable that this unnamed alternate source of flow is much more energetic than is that of convection. Moreover, there is no reason not to speculate that this unnamed form of flow might be oriented vertically to explain some, or even most all, of the observations that have been attributed to convection.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-113801
James McGinn
Feb 18, 2016, 2:03:24 AM2/18/16
to
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:09:28 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Kristian says: February 18, 2016 at 6:26 am
Ben, again, uneven surface warming and deep moist convection constitute the DRIVING force behind the Hadley Cells. This is common knowledge.
Kristian, I think it plainly obvious that moist air is heavier than dry air. I say this not only because it is physically impossible to produce gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures and only if H2O was gaseous could it possibly be lighter but also because it is plainly observable that the vast majority of warm, moist air on this planet exist close to the surface and the vast majority of cool dry air is but a few miles above. If it was true that warm, moist air was lighter and cool dry air was heavier and if it was true that convection was the only process that dictated air flow then, obviously, the warm, moist air would be rushing upward constantly. And we just don't see that.
Hadley cell circulation is a consequence of jet stream. Neither the jet streams or Hadley cell circulation is a consequence of convection because is impossible.
James McGinn
Feb 18, 2016, 1:38:31 PM2/18/16
to
James McGinn says:
[Reply] We've already been round this straw man.
What in the world are you talking about? You all have done nothing but assume convection. You've never established it scientifically. This is science, not religion. Not politics.
Evaporation occurs because individual H2O molecules can be knocked free from liquid water by high energy incident photons (sunlight).
Surreal. So, evaporation doesn't happen at night?
Evaporation is caused by electrostatic forces, not light. Not heat. And it DOES NOT produce gaseous H2O. That is pseudoscience. I know. I'm an expert on this subject. If anybody tells you otherwise ask for reproducible evidence. They won't produce it.
You then claimed that 100 singleton H2O molecules dispersed in 10,000 N2 and O2 molecules had a very strong attraction to each other. Still waiting for some evidence relating to that.
Surreal. Honestly? H2O polarity is well accepted. This is standard. This is known. You made the claim that air molecules overcome H2O polarity. I didn't make the extraordinary claim. You did. Then you failed to provide support. Nevertheless I addressed your (absurd) claim here:
Convection Versus Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/UXdiB8sebPg/poFT0PwqHwAJ
James McGinn
Feb 18, 2016, 1:51:57 PM2/18/16
to
Kristian says:February 18, 2016 at 5:43 pm
Well, sure. But then again, I'm not saying thermal wind isn't an integral part of the circulation. It is indeed.
There is no such thing as a thermal wind. That is but a fairy tale. Moist air does not convect. It is heavier. And if it did it wouldn't result in tight, jet streams. Reading this is like listening to children talk about the tooth fairy.
Well, sure. But then again, I'm not saying thermal wind isn't an integral part of the circulation. It is indeed.
There is no such thing as a thermal wind. That is but a fairy tale. Moist air does not convect. It is heavier. And if it did it wouldn't result in tight, jet streams. Reading this is like listening to children talk about the tooth fairy.
James McGinn
Feb 18, 2016, 10:11:40 PM2/18/16
to
So you for you geniuses there is no other process in the atmosphere that can explain the origin of winds other than convection, heat, or pressure differential. Nothing else is possible. You have done an exhaustive analysis and you've eliminated any possibility that there could be any other cause of wind flow. You know beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Right? Nothing else is possible. Right?
So, after 4,000 posts, you still can't even agree on anything--accept this.
You think like children.
Solving Tornadoes
Feb 19, 2016, 3:02:48 AM2/19/16
to
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:09:28 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Sam Wormley
Feb 19, 2016, 9:48:03 AM2/19/16
to
On 2/19/16 2:02 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> I struggled with this issue for about 2 years before I solved it.
> The solution has to do with the fact that H2O polarity is not a
> constant it is a variable. And hydrogen bonds are the mechanism that
> neutralizes H2O polarity. In other words, collectively H2O (liquid)
> is electromagnetically passive because its polarity has been
> neutralized by hydrogen bonds. It is at this point that things become
> extremely complex and confusing.
You say, "at this point that things become extremely complex and
> I struggled with this issue for about 2 years before I solved it.
> The solution has to do with the fact that H2O polarity is not a
> constant it is a variable. And hydrogen bonds are the mechanism that
> neutralizes H2O polarity. In other words, collectively H2O (liquid)
> is electromagnetically passive because its polarity has been
> neutralized by hydrogen bonds. It is at this point that things become
> extremely complex and confusing.
confusing". That is not unexpected when your assumption are
contradicted by observational physical chemistry and physics.
Basics
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmWh9jV_1ac
Tornadoes from Below and Above
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaLJJtVHTA
Supercomputer Simulation of how Hurricanes Intensifies;
'hot tower' Phenomena
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e8mBZaFhyg
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
Sergio
Feb 19, 2016, 9:57:42 AM2/19/16
to
On 2/19/2016 2:02 AM, Stupid Porntatoes wrote:
>>
> I struggled with this issue for about 2 years before I solved it.
keep trying....
>>
> I struggled with this issue for about 2 years before I solved it.
> In other words, collectively H2O (liquid)
> is electromagnetically passive because its polarity has been
> neutralized by hydrogen bonds.
> It is at this point that things become
> extremely complex and confusing.
James McGinn
Feb 19, 2016, 5:39:26 PM2/19/16
to
oldbrew says: February 18, 2016 at 9:36 pm
Wikipedia says the thermal wind is really a wind shear - but admits its 'article has multiple issues' and 'needs attention from an expert in Meteorology.' (September 2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_wind
I think what we are seeing here is a group delusion in that everybody here has had their misconceptions reinforced by each others misconceptions. I imagine it will go on for 4000 more posts and the only result will be that you will all be even further away from making the breakthrough that convection has little to do with what is taking place in the atmosphere.
Sheep follow sheep.
Wikipedia says the thermal wind is really a wind shear - but admits its 'article has multiple issues' and 'needs attention from an expert in Meteorology.' (September 2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_wind
I think what we are seeing here is a group delusion in that everybody here has had their misconceptions reinforced by each others misconceptions. I imagine it will go on for 4000 more posts and the only result will be that you will all be even further away from making the breakthrough that convection has little to do with what is taking place in the atmosphere.
Sheep follow sheep.
Mahipal
Feb 19, 2016, 5:56:04 PM2/19/16
to
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 5:39:26 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
Is that really your photo on your account, Insane James? I doubt it.
> I think what we are seeing here is a group delusion in that
> everybody here has had their misconceptions reinforced by each
> others misconceptions. I imagine it will go on for 4000 more posts
> and the only result will be that you will all be even further away
> from making the breakthrough that convection has little to do with
> what is taking place in the atmosphere.
Do you Insane James, Insane James, get paid for being annoying?
What you lack in manners you make up for by lacking in imagination.
You complete and totally nauseating shithead to the point of making
Usenet vomit Idiot James Insane! Kill your computer access right now.
> Sheep follow sheep.
Troll trumps troll.
Orange apples orange?!
Hey I too can rhyme,
even while doing ...youKnow.
-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८”
Is that really your photo on your account, Insane James? I doubt it.
> I think what we are seeing here is a group delusion in that
> everybody here has had their misconceptions reinforced by each
> others misconceptions. I imagine it will go on for 4000 more posts
> and the only result will be that you will all be even further away
> from making the breakthrough that convection has little to do with
> what is taking place in the atmosphere.
What you lack in manners you make up for by lacking in imagination.
You complete and totally nauseating shithead to the point of making
Usenet vomit Idiot James Insane! Kill your computer access right now.
> Sheep follow sheep.
Troll trumps troll.
Orange apples orange?!
Hey I too can rhyme,
even while doing ...youKnow.
-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८”
James McGinn
Feb 19, 2016, 6:14:09 PM2/19/16
to
James McGinn
Feb 19, 2016, 6:24:40 PM2/19/16
to
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 2:56:04 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
So, uh, let me get this straight. You are sure I'm wrong, but . . . you don't know how or why?
Hmm.
I wonder how I should interpret that?
Hmm.
Mahipal
Feb 19, 2016, 6:24:44 PM2/19/16
to
Is that your photo Insane James? If so or not, how old is the photo?
-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I want to know whom not to walk by...”
James McGinn
Feb 19, 2016, 6:44:14 PM2/19/16
to
Sergio
Feb 19, 2016, 7:51:50 PM2/19/16
to
Solving Tornadoes
Feb 20, 2016, 8:51:26 PM2/20/16
to
suricat says:
February 21, 2016 at 1:02 am
More understanding is demanded from disciplines that encompass 'moments and inertia'
You're never going to find anything. There is no magic bullet. The solution is to understand what is going on with the water molecule under wind shear conditions. Once you've figured that out you can explain jet streams. And once JS are explained the rest of the pieces of the puzzle fall in place. But none of you are going to even come close to figuring it out unless you first get beyond the intellectual grasp of convection mythology. That is the biggest problem. That is the obstacle that you will probably never overcome. suricat says:
February 21, 2016 at 1:02 am
More understanding is demanded from disciplines that encompass 'moments and inertia'
You're never going to find anything. There is no magic bullet. The solution is to understand what is going on with the water molecule under wind shear conditions. Once you've figured that out you can explain jet streams. And once JS are explained the rest of the pieces of the puzzle fall in place. But none of you are going to even come close to figuring it out unless you first get beyond the intellectual grasp of convection mythology. That is the biggest problem. That is the obstacle that you will probably never overcome.
February 21, 2016 at 1:02 am
More understanding is demanded from disciplines that encompass 'moments and inertia'
You're never going to find anything. There is no magic bullet. The solution is to understand what is going on with the water molecule under wind shear conditions. Once you've figured that out you can explain jet streams. And once JS are explained the rest of the pieces of the puzzle fall in place. But none of you are going to even come close to figuring it out unless you first get beyond the intellectual grasp of convection mythology. That is the biggest problem. That is the obstacle that you will probably never overcome. suricat says:
February 21, 2016 at 1:02 am
More understanding is demanded from disciplines that encompass 'moments and inertia'
You're never going to find anything. There is no magic bullet. The solution is to understand what is going on with the water molecule under wind shear conditions. Once you've figured that out you can explain jet streams. And once JS are explained the rest of the pieces of the puzzle fall in place. But none of you are going to even come close to figuring it out unless you first get beyond the intellectual grasp of convection mythology. That is the biggest problem. That is the obstacle that you will probably never overcome.
James McGinn
Apr 14, 2016, 11:56:38 AM4/14/16
to
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:09:28 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>
>
James McGinn
Aug 26, 2016, 3:05:31 PM8/26/16
to
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:09:28 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Oct 12, 2016, 12:03:03 PM10/12/16
to
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:09:28 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
0 new messages