Birkeland, Aurora's, Jet Streams, Tornadoes, Hurricanes and the Electric Universe

[James McGinn]

Birkeland, Aurora's, Jet Streams, Tornadoes, Hurricanes and the Electric Universe

http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/comment-page-2/#comment-39451

NOY: We know today that Birkeland was wrong. The auroras are merely charged
particles spiraling toward the pole of the planet's magnetic field, fully in
accordance with Faraday's Law of Induction. It is not stable, it does not cause
the jet stream,
James McGinn: I agree. I don't think Birkeland's thinking describe the basis
of or even sets the stage for describing the basis of the jet streams
NOY: . . . the jet stream is not plasmic in nature,
James McGinn: The whole atmosphere is plasmic in nature. It is charged by the
solar wind.
NOY: The jet stream is not a vortex.
James McGinn: I believe it is. It is a plasma vortex. But to understand how
and in what manner the jet streams are a plasmic vortex you have to consider
the larger context of the the whole atmosphere being plasmic:
Dry, electrically charged air is a weak plasma. This weak plasma causes
evaporation and the additional moisture makes it is a stronger plasma due to
added tensional forces associated with the water microdroplets surface tension.
Lastly, when the surface area of the water microdroplets therein are increased
by windshear (spinning) you get an even stronger plasma. It is this strongest
plasma that is the plasma that is the basis of jet streams (and hurricanes and
tornadoes). And the fact that it occurs along the most extensive windshear
boundary in our atmosphere--the tropopause--explains why the jet streams are
found in the tropopause.
NOY: It is a flat stream of fast air
James McGinn: It's not flat:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/images/jetstream5.jpg

NOY: The jet stream is created by up-drafting air hitting the tropopause . . .
James McGinn: Hitting the tropopause? What the hell does that mean? Is the
tropopause not gaseous?
NOY: . . . and thus being unable to convect upward any further.
James McGinn: There is no convection in earth's atmosphere. Updrafts are
created by down-growing vortices, tendrils that branch off the main jet stream.
NOY: This air, in attempting to minimize its aerodynamic drag against the
surrounding air, forms a wedge shape with the fastest winds at the leading
point of the wedge, and the speed profile tapering off with distance from this
point. When that air hits the tropopause and cannot convect upward anymore, the
vertical component of this wedge squashes, the horizontal component flattens
out, creating a vertically-thin but horizontally-wide band of fast air.
James McGinn: Your explanation has turned into a cartoon. Just as there is no
magic convection in the lower atmosphere there are no magic wedges in the upper
sky. Sorry to burst your bubble.
NOY: Your confusion over the jet stream likely arises because of this picture:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/images/jetstream5.jpg
You'll note it sort of looks like a vortex, but it's an air speed profile.
James McGinn: Uh, so, let me get this straight, the thing that you say is flat
but that actually looks like a vortex isn't a vortex. Hmm. Is that your
argument?
NOY: Further, Earnshaw's theorem states that a collection of point charges
cannot be maintained in a stable stationary equilibrium configuration solely by
the electrostatic interaction of the charges. Configurations of classical
charged particles orbiting one another are unstable due to losses of energy by
electromagnetic radiation.
James McGinn: I don't understand your point. (But that doesn't mean you are
wrong.) But it seems like your argument is an argument a general argument that
all plasmas cannot exist. Obviously they do. So I must be missing your point.
Are you saying that Earnshaw's theorem proves that all electrically charged
plasmas are an illusion? Yes? No? If not then what is your point?
NOY: Thus, no matter what method you try to use to generate your "plasma not-a-
plasma", Mr. McGinn, it cannot form the "plasma / jet stream / tornado in the
sky" that you claim to exist.
James McGinn: It seems strange that you are expressing this so confidently when
all your arguments to that effect have, it seems, failed.
NOY: According to your "theory", your "plasmic jet stream / giant tornado in
the sky" should collapse nightly on the dark side of the planet due to
insufficient incoming radiation from the sun to sustain it... and we know that
does not occur.
James McGinn: My theory does not depend on visible light. It involves the
solar wind which, from what I understand, flows in constantly from all
directions.
NOY: Your theory is wholly impossible, which you would know had you bothered to
educate yourself on the fundamentals of reality.
James McGinn: LOL. Gee golly. I'm being lectured about reality from a dude
that believes in wedges in the sky.
NOY: Now, on to those questions you keep ducking which highlight the logical
inconsistencies and contradictions in your "theory":
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?

James McGinn: Because the jet stream is very big and an airplane are very small
in comparison. Think of a hurricane. Planes fly unhindered in the inner eye-
wall of a hurricane. It is the same thing in a jet stream (except the entrance
and exit is much less violent than in a hurricane).
NOY: 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?
James McGinn: Often the energy of storms is dropped off by the jet stream. For
example, the energy might be provided in spurt lasting seconds and then the
connection is broken. In that case what you describe above would be observed.
But that isn't necessarily the case in all instances. Sometimes there is a
long lasting direct connection that remains as the tornado persists for up to
an hour or more, especially the larger tornadoes.
Most importantly, this theory explains what the convection model fails to
explain: where the energy of a tornado comes from--the jet streams. And it
also explains why tornadoes, and storms in general, are associated with low
pressure and not the high pressure that the dumbass convection model predicts.
NOY: It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the
tropopause as you claim, James,
James McGinn: Actually it does on occasion, maybe even often. And that is why
pilots (in the northern hemisphere) are advised to avoid the north-east flank
of thunderstorms.
NOY: . . . 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.
James McGinn: Do some research. Thunderstorms are a major hazard for aircraft
and are often (though not always) in close proximity to a jet stream.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:aba7c86f-f915-4091...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39448
>
> Damian Scott says: 17th March 2016 at 2:23 pm
>
> DS: When the magnetisation of the globe was increased the lines moved towards the equator and a decrease in magnetisation caused the lines to move away from the equator.
>
> JM: Interesting. I hadn't heard about this. Thanks for the information.
>
> DS: My belief is that these lines were analogous to what is driving the jet streams.
>
> JM: I think it plausible. I think--as I've eluded to--that even if such cannot be fully implicated in being the driving force of the jet streams it can be instrumental in effectuating a plasma (as I describe in my videos) that--especially with the inclusion of H2O--effectuates a surface through which aerodynamics play a role with respect to tapping into the huge amount of energy that is available in air pressure.
>
> DS: In 2010, at the depth of the Solar minimum, the jet streams moved North, away from the equator (or South in the Southern Hemisphere) causing our extreme winter in Scotland and a cold dry summer in South Africa during the World Cup.
>
> JM: I don't know if this is relevant, but as I was reading this it reminded me of the following which I came across recently:
> Large Plasma Tubes Confirmed to Exist *Above* The Earth's Atmosphere
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Kjqtq0GXadg/s4utM_4DAwAJ

Bwahahaaa! That's in the magnetosphere, James. Do you not understand
where the magnetosphere is? Just above the plasmasphere? Plasma would
have far too high an energy to survive down into the troposphere,
James. Were you not aware that as air density increases due to
decreased altitude, the air absorbs electromagnetic radiation of
longer and longer wavelengths, to such an extent that most of the UV
in the troposphere is very weak (around 400 nm wavelength) and
comprises less than 3% of the total UV? Thus there is no plasma in the
troposphere, James, it's a physical impossibility except during
unusually energetic solar events.

Taken from the webpage in that post:
============================================
We measured their position to be about 600 kilometres [373 miles]
above the ground, in the upper ionosphere, and they appear to be
continuing upwards into the plasmasphere. This is around where the
neutral atmosphere ends, and we are transitioning to the plasma of
outer space.
============================================

Do you now claim the troposphere, where nearly all the water is,
extends 373 miles above the planet, James? You moron.

> DS: Plasma is matter which is actively conducting electricity which is why the Universe is 99.999999999% plasma. "Plasma which is not a plasma" would be matter which is not conducting electricity and would therefore just be matter.
>
> JM: I agree. Ultimately, the claim that the earth's atmosphere is a slight plasma is not all that big of a deal. Here is something along those lines:
> Bob Johnson:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/vpEbFkOJNT8/KE1AMiHzBAAJ
>
> DS: If you are curious about water I would strongly recommend Gerard Pollack
>
> JM: Yes, I'm well aware of Pollack. (I actually had a phone conversation with him about a year ago.) I think the problem with his exclusion zone notions isn't that it is fallacious, as some suggest, but that it is too vague and otherwise doesn't go far enough:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/WEwY3Y9sFig/_Ut3M97_FQAJ

Awww, James brings in a sock and converses with it as a pathetic
attempt at bolstering his failing position. LOL

Birkeland was studying the auroras. He didn't have a finding that "two
parallel bands formed around the northern and southern hemisphere of
the globe", he had a finding which replicated the auroras, a spiral of
charged particles toward a magnetic pole. You'll note the difference.
One is a stable band of plasma, the other is a constantly replenished
spiral of charged particles toward the magnet, viewable as a band due
to Birkeland using dopants.

A magnet has two predominant magnetic domain directions due to the
magnetic material having insufficient strength to resist internal
magnetic forces. Thus approximately half the magnetic domains unpin
and flip to minimize magnet internal energy. This creates a midline
region known as the Bloch Wall, where these two predominant magnetic
domain directions and thus fluxes meet and mutually cancel. Magnetic
force is mediated by virtual photons. Thus on each pole face of a
magnet, there is an inbound virtual photon flux at the center of the
pole face, and an outbound virtual photon flux at the perimeter in
accordance with quantum physics. Thus there is a field radiation
pressure profile across each pole face with a contour much like a
squashed donut.

For lower strength magnetic fields, the two bands observed by
Birkeland were far apart, the result of the bands of highly charged
particles seeking the lowest energy point as they spiraled toward the
magnetic pole face, which was between the virtual photon flux inbound
and outbound on each face of the magnet. Birkeland found that as he
increased magnetic field strength, the two parallel bands of charged
particles moved toward the Bloch Wall region, a natural consequence of
the virtual photon flux of the two pole faces expanding and thus
pushing that low energy point more toward the midline (Bloch Wall) of
the magnet.

If he had had a finding of two stable parallel bands formed around the
northern and southern hemisphere of the globe, rather than a spiral of
charged particles toward the magnet, that would have violated
Faraday's Law of Induction, which states that an electromotive force
is generated between a magnetic field and charged particles. That
electromotive force thereby generated compels the charged particles
toward the magnetic poles, just as we see with the auroras.

<https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmMDqTwaC505GCW5-Kxoo4Bcu8QdRTlgI0OA2Vsb3_ifQYlF0C3w>

Further, when simulating the auroras in the laboratory Birkeland had
to give the terrella some sort of atmosphere. This problem was solved
in various ways. In the early weak discharges the surface of the
terrella was covered with a phosphorescent paint that produced visible
light when hit by the cathode rays. Later he described another method
that made it easier to observe rays in the surrounding space. By
running a high current through the magnetizing coil, the terrella
surface became hot and gave off gas. He then reduced the magnetic
field to the desired value, ignited the discharge, and took pictures.
A third method was to cover the surface with a thin layer of pump oil,
which evaporated during the discharge. Birkeland was photographing
phosphorescent paint and smoke which was ionized by the high energy
cathode rays as they spiraled toward the magnet pole face.

His later experiments which purport to show stable plasmic rings were
conducted with radium bromide coating the region of the terella in
which he wanted to show a ring... likely the first ever example of
electronic sputtering, but not analogous to any atmospheric
phenomenon.

Birkeland went on from his wrong-headed experiments to analogize that
the planets somehow throw off tons of matter each passing minute which
produced these rings, using Saturn as an example. We know today that

Birkeland was wrong. The auroras are merely charged particles
spiraling toward the pole of the planet's magnetic field, fully in
accordance with Faraday's Law of Induction. It is not stable, it does

not cause the jet stream, the jet stream is not plasmic in nature, it
is not a vortex. It is a flat stream of fast air created by updrafting
air hitting the tropopause and thus being unable to convect upward any
further. This air, in attempting to minimize its aerodynamic drag

against the surrounding air, forms a wedge shape with the fastest
winds at the leading point of the wedge, and the speed profile
tapering off with distance from this point. When that air hits the
tropopause and cannot convect upward anymore, the vertical component
of this wedge squashes, the horizontal component flattens out,
creating a vertically-thin but horizontally-wide band of fast air.

Your confusion over the jet stream likely arises because of this
picture:
<http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/images/jetstream5.jpg>

You'll note it sort of looks like a vortex, but it's an air speed
profile.

Further, Earnshaw's theorem states that a collection of point charges
cannot be maintained in a stable stationary equilibrium configuration
solely by the electrostatic interaction of the charges. Configurations
of classical charged particles orbiting one another are unstable due

to losses of energy by electromagnetic radiation. Thus, no matter what
method you try to use to generate your "plasma not-a-plasma", Mr.

McGinn, it cannot form the "plasma / jet stream / tornado in the sky"

that you claim to exist. According to your "theory", your "plasmic jet

stream / giant tornado in the sky" should collapse nightly on the dark
side of the planet due to insufficient incoming radiation from the sun
to sustain it... and we know that does not occur.

Your theory is wholly impossible, which you would know had you

bothered to educate yourself on the fundamentals of reality. Now we
find you're attempting to bolster your position by bringing in sock
puppets to "agree" with you.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an

airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon

which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the

ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you

claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,

which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

[James McGinn]

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:930314e9-6822-449b...@googlegroups.com> did

produced these rings, using Saturn as an example. We know today that

Birkeland was wrong. The auroras are merely charged particles
spiraling toward the pole of the planet's magnetic field, fully in
accordance with Faraday's Law of Induction. It is not stable, it does

not cause the jet stream, the jet stream is not plasmic in nature, it
is not a vortex. It is a flat stream of fast air created by updrafting

air hitting the tropopause and thus being unable to convect upward any
further. This air, in attempting to minimize its aerodynamic drag

against the surrounding air, forms a wedge shape with the fastest
winds at the leading point of the wedge, and the speed profile
tapering off with distance from this point. When that air hits the
tropopause and cannot convect upward anymore, the vertical component
of this wedge squashes, the horizontal component flattens out,
creating a vertically-thin but horizontally-wide band of fast air.

Your confusion over the jet stream likely arises because of this
picture:
<http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/images/jetstream5.jpg>

You'll note it sort of looks like a vortex, but it's an air speed
profile.

Further, Earnshaw's theorem states that a collection of point charges
cannot be maintained in a stable stationary equilibrium configuration
solely by the electrostatic interaction of the charges. Configurations
of classical charged particles orbiting one another are unstable due

to losses of energy by electromagnetic radiation. Thus, no matter what
method you try to use to generate your "plasma not-a-plasma", Mr.

McGinn, it cannot form the "plasma / jet stream / tornado in the sky"

that you claim to exist. According to your "theory", your "plasmic jet

stream / giant tornado in the sky" should collapse nightly on the dark
side of the planet due to insufficient incoming radiation from the sun
to sustain it... and we know that does not occur.

Your theory is wholly impossible, which you would know had you

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an

airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon

which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the

ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you

claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,

which would make air travel deadly.

[Mikkel Haaheim]

I have to correct you on three major issues.
First, although I don't recall if it was in this post or another, I find that you claim that convection does not exist at all. Claiming it is not responsible for storm formation is one thing, denying its existence completely is another. Convection is not only a well established and understood process, it is reliably applied on a daily basis. Every day, for example, there are dozens to hundreds of glider pilots who use updrafts produced through convection to remain aloft and gain increased altitude, for hours of flight. They are able to do so because they are able to observe areas where there is intense solar heating of the air.
Second, you are confusing ions with plasma... or, rather, you do not undestand the distinction. Ions are molecules that have gained electrons from other molecules, or have lost electrons to other molecules. In both cases, the electrons are stll bound to a molecule, even though the binding has been transfered from one molecule to another. In the plasma phase, the energy of a molecule frees the electron. Although there ARE positively charged ions in a plasma, the plasma itself is defined by the COEXISTENCE of these positively charged ions and free electrons. The electrons do not bind with any other molecule while in this state.
Third, you appear to be confusing the solar wind with cosmic radiation. The solar wind is emited by the sun. ALL solar radiation and particulates in the solar wind flow outward from the sun. Relative to the Earth and other planets, this 'wind' DOES NOT come from all directions. Since this wind ONLY comes from the direction of the sun, with the exception of those particles following deviated paths through the energy f the Earth's magnetic field, this wnd is not present on the night side of a planet (except, again, for charged particles deviating along magnetic lines of force; but these will never approach on anything near perpendicular vectors).

[tadeus...@hotmail.com]

W dniu niedziela, 22 maja 2016 12:33:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Mikkel Haaheim napisał:
> I have to correct you on three major issues.

> Second, you are confusing ions with plasma... or, rather, you do not undestand the distinction. Ions are molecules that have gained electrons from other molecules, or have lost electrons to other molecules. In both cases, the electrons are stll bound to a molecule, even though the binding has been transfered from one molecule to another. In the plasma phase, the energy of a molecule frees the electron. Although there ARE positively charged ions in a plasma, the plasma itself is defined by the COEXISTENCE of these positively charged ions and free electrons. The electrons do not bind with any other molecule while in this state.
> Third, you appear to be confusing the solar wind with cosmic radiation. The solar wind is emited by the sun. ALL solar radiation and particulates in the solar wind flow outward from the sun. Relative to the Earth and other planets, this 'wind' DOES NOT come from all directions. Since this wind ONLY comes from the direction of the sun, with the exception of those particles following deviated paths through the energy f the Earth's magnetic field, this wnd is not present on the night side of a planet (except, again, for charged particles deviating along magnetic lines of force; but these will never approach on anything near perpendicular vectors).

For this, undoubtedly interesting topic I desire add their two cents. Welcome to the tornadosolution.com page, where you can find two articles on how to protect the area from tornadoes. Tornadoes May electric character. I'm curious about your opinion on this topic.
BReg.
Tornad

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 3:33:08 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> I have to correct you on three major issues.
> First, although I don't recall if it was in this post or another, I find that you claim that convection does not exist at all. Claiming it is not responsible for storm formation is one thing, denying its existence completely is another. Convection is not only a well established and understood process, it is reliably applied on a daily basis. Every day, for example, there are dozens to hundreds of glider pilots who use updrafts produced through convection to remain aloft and gain increased altitude, for hours of flight. They are able to do so because they are able to observe areas where there is intense solar heating of the air.

The evidence that underlies the widespread belief that "convective" updrafts are caused by convection is itself evidence that I categorize as anecdotal. The energy of these updrafts that glider pilots use actually comes from above.

> Second, you are confusing ions with plasma... or, rather, you do not undestand the distinction. Ions are molecules that have gained electrons from other molecules, or have lost electrons to other molecules.

A plasma that involves ions is a lot hotter than the plasma of my scenario because ionic bonds are much stronger than hydrogen bonds.

In both cases, the electrons are stll bound to a molecule, even though the binding has been transfered from one molecule to another. In the plasma phase, the energy of a molecule frees the electron.

It's somewhat different for the plasma of my scenario. Your argument involves an invalid apples and oranges comparison between two very different kinds/types of plasma.

Although there ARE positively charged ions in a plasma, the plasma itself is defined by the COEXISTENCE of these positively charged ions and free electrons. The electrons do not bind with any other molecule while in this state.

The plasma of my scenario is very different so everything you say here is irrelevant.

> Third, you appear to be confusing the solar wind with cosmic radiation. The solar wind is emited by the sun. ALL solar radiation and particulates in the solar wind flow outward from the sun. Relative to the Earth and other planets, this 'wind' DOES NOT come from all directions. Since this wind ONLY comes from the direction of the sun, with the exception of those particles following deviated paths through the energy f the Earth's magnetic field, this wnd is not present on the night side of a planet (except, again, for charged particles deviating along magnetic lines of force; but these will never approach on anything near perpendicular vectors).

I have no confusion about the solar wind. The solar wind constantly floods earths atmosphere with electrons, producing a net negative charge. This causes earth's atmosphere to be a slight plasma with a negative charge. When positively charged water droplets are pulled up into this slightly charged dry air we call that evaporation.

[Sergio]

On 5/19/2016 11:05 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW

#1 wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:930314e9-6822-449b...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-th

James is posting poop from 2011, old dead stuff...

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 1:35:16 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:74baf97a-f326-4d29...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>> What problem, Tardnado Jim? Water has been researched thoroughly, the
>> only anomalies that exist have to do with high-energy interactions and
>> unusual circumstances such as at extremely high pressures. The
>> inter-molecular hydrogen bond has been thoroughly researched, there
>> are no more secrets for it to reveal. You're just a reality-denying
>> kooktard.

>>> the tendency for humans to be aesthetically attracted to idealized notions.

>> "Idealized notions" like your giant sentient tornado monster in the
>> jet stream, James?
>>
>> "Idealized notions" like your now-retracted but hastily revived water
>> molecule variable polarity, Tardnado?
>>
>> "Idealized notions" like your "plasma not-a-plasma" which you've
>> *admitted* can not exist, Halfwit Jimmy?
>>
>> "Idealized notions" like your claim that air density does not change,
>> thus its buoyancy does not change, thus convection does not exist?
>>
>> Why haven't you done that simple experiment of blowing up a balloon
>> and putting it in your freezer, James? That simple experiment utterly
>> destroys your entire "theory not-a-theory", so it's no wonder you've
>> run away from doing something even a first grader would understand.
>>
>> <snicker>
>>
>> <http://www.snowcrystals.com/videos/videos.html>
>>
>> <https://carnegiescience.edu/news/unfrozen-mystery-h2o-reveals-new-secret>
>>
>> <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/108939599199783>
>>
>> <http://ftp-acd.puc-campinas.edu.br/pub/professores/ceatec/souzaef/COMPROVANTES/ARTIGOS/TESCHKE_VALENTE-FILHO_SOUZA_CPL_2010.pdf>
>>
>> So yet again you're proven to be the anti-science reality-denying
>> halfwit James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA.
>>
>> You're backpedaling after having been proven wrong again, James.

> Present your proof, dumbass.

The studies are referenced above, TornadoTard.

In addition, there are more than 2500 peer-reviewed studies proving
you *wrong*, all of which you've run away from:

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>

You'll note both Saykally's and Soper's research is included in that
list of more than 2500 studies that prove you're a moronic uneducated
delusion-blathering halfwit, James.

>> I've proven ice does form a lattice, I've proven it's been observed via
>> atomic force microscopy and other means, I've proven you're a moronic
>> uneducated halfwit sitting in mommy's basement blathering out retarded
>> twaddle you don't stand a chance of ever understanding.

>>> This notion was assumed

>> Measured.

>>> back in the 1930's

>> And empirically observed many times since then, to the point that it
>> can now be photographed. You're just a reality-denying kooktard.

>>> And it is a huge obstacle because it gives researchers the false belief
>>> that they can ignore what is actually the best evidence we will ever have
>>> to untangle the water structure problem, that being the evidence associated
>>> with the transition between liquid water and solid ice.

>> Which you've demonstrated you haven't the first faint fucking clue of
>> the underlying mechanism for. In fact, you're 180 degrees out from
>> reality. You claim ice is asymmetric, whereas you claim steam to be
>> highly symmetric.

> LOL. You are just confused.

You're projecting, TornadoTard McGinn. Why can't you refute those
thousands of peer-reviewed studies, James? Why are there *no* studies
to back up your moronic blather, James? Why can't you get your
delusion through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even
get your blather on a pre-print server, James?

>> Hence, according to your blather, plasma from water must be a solid, ice
>> must be a liquid. According to you, to get steam, one would freeze water,
>> and to get ice, one would boil it. You are a psychotic moron, after all.

> You are confused. I'm not running a hand holding service here. I you
> can't follow the discussion don't lay it on me.

I follow the discussion just fine, James. You're the
delusion-blathering schizo-brained uneducated moron who thinks ice is
asymmetrical and steam is highly symmetrical. You've admitted it, then
you backpedaled away from providing any proof of your delusions.

>> Wrong. Water molecule polarity does not change. That would mean that
>> water solvent properties would also randomly change, which we know it
>> does not do.

> Why? Be a big boy and present an argument to that effect.

Because if water molecule polarity changed randomly with H bonding,
water's solvent properties would also change randomly, because water's
solvent properties are dependent upon that H bonding. And that's just
one reason...

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?

>> Besides, you've retracted your moronic claim of variable polarity of
>> the water molecule, remember?
>>
>> 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 "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls,

> Yes, of course it would. So why don't you make an argument to that effect?

You've made that argument for me, James, by retracting the central
premise for your entire "theory not-a-theory". You've lost. You're
defeated. Stop fucking the carcass of your dead and discredited
"theory not-a-theory" and just bury it already, James.

>> 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.

> Right. So . . . what is stopping you? Make my day.

You've already retracted the central premise for your claims, James...
thus all your other claims fall, too. That's gotta be embarrassing for
you, eh? Now you're forced to admit you're just an insane uneducated
moron. 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

> LOL.

Your maniacal laughter as your delusion collapses around you is noted,
Tardnado McGinn.

>>> (Because without this there is no way to reconcile why and how this
>>> transition is so discrete and why and how there is such a sharp
>>> distinction between the hardness of ice and the fluidity of liquid water.)

>> Unless one takes into account latent heat, which you also deny,
>> because you're an anti-science reality-denying kooktard.

> You have no dipute, right? What does that indicate?

I dispute all of your moronic delusional blathering, James. In fact,
I've utterly destroyed your "theory not-a-theory". You found yourself
utterly unable to muster a defense of it.

>>> And this would force them to recognize that, therefore, polarity must be
>>> turned off (neutralized) in liquid water.

>> Wrong. You're back to blathering about variable polarity of the water
>> molecule after you were forced to retract that claim. A hilarious
>> fuckup on your part. Watching you scramble to cover up the fact that
>> you'd stupidly retracted the central premise of your entire "theory
>> not-a-theory" was especially entertaining. LOL

> Too bad you can't dispute it.

Too bad you don't have any proof to back up your delusional babbling,
James.

>> You've discovered nothing, you've revealed nothing, you've got no
>> empirical evidence, you've got no experimental evidence, you've got no
>> proof, you've changed nothing, you'll never change anything. Because
>> you're blathering out stupidity with no connection to reality. Take
>> your meds, Jim.

> Really? Hmm. Me? Hmm.

Yes, you, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn the brain-damaged moron
suffering from a crippling affliction... schizophrenia combined with
Dunning-Kruger. You're too stupid to realize how stupid you are,
James.

>> 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.

> Too bad you can't prove it. Huh?

Nilsson's study does prove it, James. Too bad you can't disprove that
study, eh?

>> 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.

> See my paper for correct details.

Your moronic conspiracy-theory schizo-brained blather has no "correct
details", James. You think scientific reality is attained by just
lying long enough that everyone gives up refuting your lies... you're
a scientific fraud. That's why you're shunned by the scientific
community.

>> What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
>> the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
>> you're not a physicist, James. LOL

> I have a theory. You can't dispute it.

I've not only disputed it, James, I've utterly destroyed it. I've
proven your moronic uneducated halfwitted blather does not and cannot
reflect reality.

> That doesn't mean I am right. But your desperation does suggest you
> tried hard and failed. Right?

Why can't you refute the thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed
studies proving you *wrong*, James? Why can't you provide any proof of

your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the

peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusions on a
pre-print server, James?

>> Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
>> tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
>> mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon

>> which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the

>> ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you

>> claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
>> thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,

>> which would make air travel deadly.

> Too bad you can't prove that, huh?

Reference from real storm trackers, James... those who have used
Doppler radar to peer inside the cloud to see how high the tornadic
vortex extends above the cloud base:
<http://stormtrack.org/community/threads/tornado-height-above-ceiling.24951/>

I note you've done *no* tornado research, *no* storm chasing, and
you've never experienced a tornado, TornadoTard.

>> 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?

> Didn't everybody learn this in the third grade?

You deny convection, James, which is the basis for your
crayon-scribble "class-action" kooksoot. So apparently you never made
it to third grade at the Speshul Skool for Speshul Peeple. LOL

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <94b6a929662c285f...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Uh, 'air density and thus convection?' Gibberish.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <aca6233c926d05d0...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <6b7c70439e04102b...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly
> plausible, but actually impossible.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <d8b12acf78b013dc...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Consequently, I am looking towards doing some kind of a
> Kickstarter (or some similar website) campaign to get funds
> to hire a law firm to put forth a class action lawsuit--the
> defendent beng NOAA and/or some other meteorological
> organization--to force them to do the simple experiments that
> will refute the convection model and acknowledge the results
> publicly.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <19dbe4f7df6c6978...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Watch my video entitled: convection versus plasma.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <337ad27d8e860483...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Convection plays no role at all.
========================================================

>> How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
>> Jim?
>>
>> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
>> How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
>> surface area as you claim?

> Didn't I explain this to you about five times now?

No, you blathered out circular stupidity, claiming the wind was
powered by your "plasma not-plasma" and your "plasma not-a-plasma" was
created by the wind... with no proof, James, while you *admitted* your
"plasma not-a-plasma" doesn't exist, and while you retracted the
central premise of your "theory not-a-theory" with which you claim
your "plasma not-a-plasma" is created. You seem to be confused,
James... perhaps if you had a higher IQ than 65, you'd understand how
moronic you sound. LOL

> Some people have a childish attachment to certainty and when that is
> challenged they lose their marbles a bit because they are not
> familiar with the feeling of uncertainty.

Some people like you, James, have no attachment to reality, so you
blather on about fairy tale fabrications as though they were real,
then backpedal like mad when proof is requested.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,

James Bernard 'TornadoTard' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an

airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon

which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the

ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you

claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,

which would make air travel deadly.

[Nadegda]

On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 Kooky McFakeTard was up until 4 AM flamewarring with
Tardnado:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:74baf97a-f326-4d29...@googlegroups.com> did thusly
> jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>

>>> Wha<MUSHROOM CLOUD!>

Are you two *still* at it as dawn's early light begins to creep in past
the sash?

[noTthaTguY]

yeah; don't mess with glider pilots assoc. (g.p.a

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Pissbum Paul G. Derbyshire the dress-wearing goat-raper, socked up as
Nadegda, in <news:nnqvl5$cir$3...@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 FNVWe was up until 4 AM

Wrong. Still too stupid to figure out time zones, Pissbum Paul? LOL

>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:74baf97a-f326-4d29...@googlegroups.com> did thusly
>> jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>> What problem, Tardnado Jim? Water has been researched thoroughly, the
>>>> only anomalies that exist have to do with high-energy interactions and
>>>> unusual circumstances such as at extremely high pressures. The
>>>> inter-molecular hydrogen bond has been thoroughly researched, there
>>>> are no more secrets for it to reveal. You're just a reality-denying
>>>> kooktard.

> Ar<SMACKASHROOMTARD!>

Look at Paul bleating all day as he obsesses over his Usenet Lord and
Master! No job to go to, Pissbum Paul? LOL

That post was sent at 2145, and I was in bed by 2230. Don't tell me
you're both too stupid to figure out time zones *and* you're too
stupid to understand remailer latency, Pissbum Paul... perhaps if
you'd not been kicked out of college for physically attacking people,
you would have learned these sorts of things. LOL

Paul G. Derbyshire melts down into paranoid insanity...

Message-ID: <75q66q$5rm$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.free.newsservers/UHhaHSDoy1M/fAYHoCgSuXUJ>

The intro:
======================================================
To recap, essentially his "raving and drooling" in the Carleton
newsgroups earned him his share of detractors. He started to believe
there was a conspiracy against him, a "Cabal" who was attempting to
ruin his life. He posted an infamous "Cabal FAQ" which resulted in
much hilarity from the supposed Cabal, who had for the most part never
met each other.

I guess the bottom line is that Usenet should not be a playground
for the insane.
======================================================

Then, Paul's paranoid delusional blathering, in long-form screedery.
The TOC is below...
======================================================
This FAQ is to bring you information about the Cabal.

1. What is the Cabal?
2. Who are the Cabal?
3. Who are their targets?
4. What do people have to do to become targets?
5. What exactly do they do to their targets?
6. What is the future of the Cabal?
7. What can be done to speed things up?
======================================================

And the paranoia flowed:
======================================================
Paul Derbyshire was targeted and given possibly their worst ever
attack for the most interesting of reasons. One of the Cabal
approached him one day on the National Capital Freenet and pretended
to befriend him. After a while she began asking him to do various
nasty things to the previous target, Patrick Campbell. These included
spreading rumors about him and hacking his account. When Paul refused
to have any part in this and began avoiding her, the Cabal used its
characteristic three-stage full frontal assault after a latency period
of less than a week.
======================================================

Translation:
"A girl showed interest in Paul, but the freak isn't interested in
girls (and even threw a chair at a kid's head for suggesting he
was)... Paul's only interested in goats. So he wrapped that little
occurrence up with his paranoia about getting his moronic ass kicked
on Usenet and twisted things until they seemed to fit... at least to
Paul. To everyone else, it was clear that Derbyshire was coming
unhinged. That's why he got kicked out of college for physically
attacking people not much later... he'd gone insane."

Yup, Paul's been a kooktard and a kicktoy for decades. After his
mother Linda Anne Louise Knight-Beland keeled over, it drove him right
round the bend... he stole mommy's hooker-pink lipstick and her
dresses, and ever since there have been sightings in the forest around
Pembroke of a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy midget in a dress, a dead and
thoroughly raped goat slung over one shoulder. They say if you listen
quietly, you can hear butthurt screams of angst from the unemployable
sociopathic midget, but I'm betting that's just Pissbum Paul and his
goat carcass getting it on. LOL

What would his father Robert Beland, brother Ian Derbyshire,
step-brother Tim Beland, step-sister Kerri Beland-Knight, aunt Brenda
Knight-Fisher, cousin Katie Fisher, cousin Alishia Fisher, cousin
Codie Fisher and cousin John-Paul Knight say if they knew? Likely
nothing... they've written the midget freak off as a lost cause.

<snicker>

Paul Derbyshire, you stupid fuck, you've been outed nine times.

03 May 2016 - MID: <ng9mdq$m43$3...@dont-email.me>
posting-host="28e199bc366b04f624161a7e7c6d9ee6"
67.70.57.221 Deep River, ON, Canada

10 Jun 2016 - MID: <njf6m0$9i5$1...@dont-email.me>
posting-host="5a7d8d855af84388d01b7dc826ef09d4"
67.70.57.173 Deep River, ON, Canada

20 Jun 2016 - MID: <nka7gl$lnq$1...@dont-email.me>
posting-host="012e03f33b086ea5f85f61609ba7b360"
67.70.98.116 Deep River, ON, Canada

01 Jul 2016 - MID: <nl6kqc$q0d$1...@dont-email.me>
posting-host="58c64c3df7194056193d4316e7d6bde7"
67.70.57.43 Deep River, ON, Canada

05 Jul 2016 - MID: <nlh8q3$sgh$1...@dont-email.me>
posting-host="ffc2b295bc7bc97250a857d253111bde"
67.70.57.183 Deep River, ON, Canada

09 Jul 2016 - MID: <nlrmrj$lqb$1...@dont-email.me>
posting-host="3eb94e9ccb87adec6bcfc39357241aba"
67.70.59.199 Deep River, ON, Canada

25 Jul 2016 - MID: <nn5vp3$r8l$1...@dont-email.me>
posting-host="a59065db82d1913c4681512d3bebf40f"
67.70.59.72 Deep River, ON, Canada

27 Jul 2016 - MID: <nnb01e$7th$1...@dont-email.me>
posting-host="f5c41237d3b36b0c5ce314ca88ca66e7"
70.48.182.126 Deep River, ON, Canada

And once by Ray Banana. LOL

Anyone can check that the IP addresses have MD5 hashes that match your
posting-host, and anyone can go to MaxMind GeoIP to determine that
you're a dress-wearing goat-raping shroomtard using IP addresses from
Deep River, ON, Canada, just down the road from Pembroke, ON, Canada.

Now you k'lame that the IPv4 address space causes MD5 collisions...
you know you want to (here's a hint, moron... look at the number of
possible IPv6 addresses, and the number of possible MD5 hashes...
they're the same (2^128), hence no collisions even for IPv6.).

You moron. LOL

Nadegda got outed as that lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard Paul G.
Derbyshire of Pembroke, Ontario, Canada by Ray Banana. When Kensi D.
LunkHead learned of this, he immediately started backpedaling and
k'laming that "Nadegda" was actually just "vacationing" in Pembroke.
LOL!

Message-ID: <a76a23be8f4a22ea...@dizum.com>
========================================================
========================================================
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.usenet.kooks/yhNtCQr1rpE/GlDtnrGgMxsJ>

From: Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid>
Subject: Re: A REVIEW: How much does Keith "Murphy" McElroy suck at
this Usenet thing?
Message-ID: <km1mfl$t4j$7...@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 00:58:29 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="67.70.58.178"; logging-data="29843";
Summary: Murphy is a kook with hundreds, if not thousands, of sock
puppets
Keywords: Murphy
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
========================================================
========================================================

Message-ID: <65d0f5e1ad03d420...@dizum.com>
========================================================
========================================================
> <http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=134389570800>

Kensi was "vacationing"... in Pembroke, Ontario, Canada... quite by
coincidence, you understand... LunkHead was there with Nadegda,
apparently.

And Nadegda and Kensi most definitely were *not* there to double-team
on Paul Derbyshire's mushroom-slathered meatpole.

Paul G. Derbyshire of Pembroke, Ontario, Canada is a life-long virgin,
you see. He'll never touch anything more feminine than his hand with a
Barbie-doll wig glued to it, paste-on eyes, and his mother's
hooker-pink lipstick smeared between thumb and index finger knuckle.
Ironically, he's named his f(e)isty lover "kensi". She's really hot in
the sack... an expert in getting anal. Sometimes, she takes it so
deeply it pokes out of her mouth!

Oh, here's Kensi:
<http://goo.gl/hdpXFC>

She's Paul Derbyshire's regular Saturday night thang. Ain't she purdy?
I'm sure a lot of guys have hit that. Chimpy's hit that... twice.

Strangely and quite coincidentally, Paul Derbyshire calls his right
thumb "Nadegda". I found a picture of Nadegda, too.

<https://goo.gl/sbdRcq>

You don't wanna know what she's into. *Really* kinky stuff. Suffice to
say sometimes she invites along her four sisters for what she calls
"sexy spelunking". You know what they say... fugly chicks gotta go
kinky. LOL

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyBYSuqQBQ>

> P.S. How's the astrophysics coming along? Have you visited
> any good telescopes lately?

Ask kensi which observatories nearby have time standard control
capability. That's something every astronomer should know, right?

<snicker>
========================================================
========================================================

Everyone is laughing at you, Paul Derbyshire. Everyone.

Spankard. ShroomTard. Failure.

<snicker>

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/carleton.chat.suggestions/XxE2PVnleGs>
Subject: The Derbyshire Saga
================================================================
[ Posted on Wed, 7 Feb 1996 18:39:04 GMT ]

Ok, kids... here's the voice from the cheap seats, on the Derbyshire
Saga (tm).

Now, having read about young Paul (the short, whiny, irritating,
psychotic child that he is) having been dragged from a lab by "the
man", I can only assume that this little story occurred a) yesterday,
and b) in the Steacie building.

The coincidence of two such occurrences cropping up in the same day
"here in the trailer park" would be just too far out to contemplate.

It would seem, then, that young Paul Derbyshire is taking first year
chemistry. As an aside, I'll note that this isn't his first little
"fling" with the department. Shortly before Christmas, the undergrads
had their lab techniques exam. Paul, to whom we can add "clumsy" as
one of his many ignoble traits, couldn't perform under pressure
(begging the question...). Long story short: He flipped... lost it
completely. Started swearing first at the proctors, then at the lab
supervisor, and lastly, after having been ejected from the lab, lashed
out at the department Chair. (Oh, yes, cursing, swearing, threatening,
the whole nine yards.)

Btw, this goes partly to the issue of "why didn't the TA in question
squash Mr. Derbyshire like a bug?". Since the repercussions could've
been significant.

In any event: Yesterday, Paul spilled something in the lab. He
refused to clean it up. (I believe his exact words were "I am not a
human mop.". He kept asking other students to clean up his mess, and
became obstinate when pushed to take care of it himself. When he
started screaming and ranting, the lab supervisor called security on
him.

The fellow who responded is a human mountain named Al. Really nice
guy. Anyway, Paul was standing at the sink with a corrosive solution
in a flask, and refused to leave. "I'm busy, can you come back when
I'm not so busy" is the purported comment he made. Al refused to
apprehend him until the chemicals were secured, so, with security and
the lab supervisor watching, Paul returned to his bench, and continued
his experiment. This involved clamping the offending flask, at which
time Al moved in for the kill (so to speak).

Paul struggled, and managed to punch Al in the face (knocking off his
hat!). Al became... vexed, shall we say, and grabbed Paul by the neck
in a sort of headlock. (If you can imagine tiny Paul hanging, feet
kicking, whilst Al lifts him from behind with one arm around the neck
you have the proper picture.) Al then removed him from the lab, put
him on the ground, and proceeded to cuff him.

(Paul: "what are you doing!?")

Al calls for backup at some point.

Al: "540, this is 8, I need backup for a..." etc.

Paul: "Talking in police code doesn't make you any better than me."

Note: All Paul comments were in a Sam Kinison-like screech at this
point.

Campus security backup arrives, as to the "real cops". They mention to
Paul that he's going "downtown" where he will be their guest for "a
long time". As he is being dragged out of the building, Paul is
screaming "What do you mean 'a long time'? I have things to do
tonight!"

Well... sorry if my prose isn't the greatest. The story is much
better with voice-over, and particularly when you know all the people
involved. (except Paul, of course). I heard it first hand from a guy
in my lab who witnessed the whole event, btw. He does great Sam
Kinison impersonations.

I hear Paul is now the proud owner of a "No Trespass" restraining
order to keep him from the premises of Carleton University.

Semper Inquirens (thx, Corey)
================================================================

Brian Publicover wrote:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/carleton.chat.suggestions/XxE2PVnleGs/lS73j-DcD04J>
================================================================
I remember in grade 8 Paul once threw a chair at my head because I
suggested that he liked girls (he used to hate females when he was
younger). This was not an isolated incident: I've seen him attack many
people. I don't think he's dangerous (unless he is holding corrosive
chemicals), but I'd hardly call these incidents "bizarre quirks."
================================================================

Awww, poor bootfucked little kooktard Paul G. Derbyshire of Pembroke,
Ontario, Canada has to relive his horrible past all over again... on
top of having his stoooopid ass drop-kicked across Usenet each and
every day. LOL

And now he's been outed as a dude who likes wearing dresses. And
raping goats. LOL!

--

Kensi the moron (aka Paul G. Derbyshire) wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron (aka Paul G. Derbyshire) said the Gaussian curvature =
1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron (aka Paul G. Derbyshire) says every sphere in the
entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a
moron, kensi didn't specify the units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron (aka Paul G. Derbyshire) was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron (aka Paul G. Derbyshire) persists in insisting
that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of
a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand
the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference
between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know
what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even
basic geometry problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron (aka Paul G. Derbyshire) has k'lamed that magnetism
has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then
backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature
due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't
know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and
denies the existence of magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron (aka Paul G. Derbyshire) has described a
universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe
in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could
not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality. Kensi the moron is Paul
G. Derbyshire.

Paul G. Derbyshire
9 Bennett St
Pembroke, Ontario, Canada K8A 3Y6
(613) 732-3590
twist...@gmail.com