info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Biggest Advance Ever in the Environmental Sciences
88 views
Skip to first unread message
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 28, 2016, 5:14:33 PM3/28/16
to
NOY:
Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
James McGinn:
It's way, way, too advanced. Academia still thinks clear air contains gaseous H2O. They only look for what confirms what they already believe. Nobody ever imagined that this was possible. This is the same reason you won't find any definitive experimental evidence on this issue (except steam tables).
The big advances always come from outside academia. This is a huge advance. Maybe the biggest advance ever in the environmental sciences. And I mean that literally--the biggest ever. Because it, essentially, solves a puzzle that had so many people so completely confused that they collectively gave up looking a long, long time ago. H2O is the key. Once I figured out that the role of water in the atmosphere was that of being the conduit of energy (vortices) and not the source of the energy (convection) all the rest of the pieces fell into place.
Obviously you have no rational dispute with my hypothesis. I knew you would not because I know that nobody can dispute it. I also knew that this was much bigger than you. You would not know how to deal with it. You would resort to desperation tactics, as you have done. This is too big for you. It's too big for meteorology. None of them knows how to deal with this.
NOY:
Why are there *no* corroborating studies.
James McGinn:
You could have asked Einstein the same question at one time, couldn't you?
It's funny how despite your complete failure to support the consensus position you are desperate to claw you way back to the comfort of believing what everybody believes. I'm like Einstein or Feynman. I don't care what everybody believes. It means nothing to me. I only care what the facts indicate. If I was as sheepishly concerned with what everybody believes as you are I couldn't possibly have made the breakthroughs I have made.
Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
James McGinn:
It's way, way, too advanced. Academia still thinks clear air contains gaseous H2O. They only look for what confirms what they already believe. Nobody ever imagined that this was possible. This is the same reason you won't find any definitive experimental evidence on this issue (except steam tables).
The big advances always come from outside academia. This is a huge advance. Maybe the biggest advance ever in the environmental sciences. And I mean that literally--the biggest ever. Because it, essentially, solves a puzzle that had so many people so completely confused that they collectively gave up looking a long, long time ago. H2O is the key. Once I figured out that the role of water in the atmosphere was that of being the conduit of energy (vortices) and not the source of the energy (convection) all the rest of the pieces fell into place.
Obviously you have no rational dispute with my hypothesis. I knew you would not because I know that nobody can dispute it. I also knew that this was much bigger than you. You would not know how to deal with it. You would resort to desperation tactics, as you have done. This is too big for you. It's too big for meteorology. None of them knows how to deal with this.
NOY:
Why are there *no* corroborating studies.
James McGinn:
You could have asked Einstein the same question at one time, couldn't you?
It's funny how despite your complete failure to support the consensus position you are desperate to claw you way back to the comfort of believing what everybody believes. I'm like Einstein or Feynman. I don't care what everybody believes. It means nothing to me. I only care what the facts indicate. If I was as sheepishly concerned with what everybody believes as you are I couldn't possibly have made the breakthroughs I have made.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 29, 2016, 12:43:13 AM3/29/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:f1800550-88a2-4508...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> FNVWe drop-kicked a moron. Again:
>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
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.
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?
Why 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?
Why are you not taking your meds, James?
Why are you *still* running away from answering those tough questions
in my .sig which highlight the logical inconsistencies and
contradictions in your moronic "theory not-a-theory", James?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:f1800550-88a2-4508...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> FNVWe drop-kicked a moron. Again:
>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
> It's way, way, too advanced.
You mean it's way, way too deluded.
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.
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?
Why 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?
Why are you not taking your meds, James?
Why are you *still* running away from answering those tough questions
in my .sig which highlight the logical inconsistencies and
contradictions in your moronic "theory not-a-theory", James?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James McGinn
Mar 29, 2016, 12:56:18 AM3/29/16
to
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:43:13 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
> Solving Tornadoes, in
> <news:f1800550-88a2-4508...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > FNVWe drop-kicked a moron. Again:
>
> >> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>
> > It's way, way, too advanced.
>
> You mean it's way, way too deluded.
You've pretty much run out of ammunition. All you got left is to make an ass of yourself.
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
> Solving Tornadoes, in
> <news:f1800550-88a2-4508...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > FNVWe drop-kicked a moron. Again:
>
> >> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>
> > It's way, way, too advanced.
>
> You mean it's way, way too deluded.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 29, 2016, 1:25:07 AM3/29/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:a25b3978-b024-4ffc...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:43:13 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
>> Solving Tornadoes, in
>> <news:f1800550-88a2-4508...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> FNVWe drop-kicked a moron. Again:
>>>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>>> It's way, way, too advanced.
>> You mean it's way, way too deluded.
>>
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
>> Solving Tornadoes, in
>> <news:f1800550-88a2-4508...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> FNVWe drop-kicked a moron. Again:
>>>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>>> It's way, way, too advanced.
>> You mean it's way, way too deluded.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
>> tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
>> you explain that, James?
>>
>> Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
>> claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
>>
>> Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
>> delusions, James?
>>
>> Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
>> 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.
>>
>> How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
>> tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
>> you explain that, James?
>>
>> Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
>> claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
>>
>> Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
>> delusions, James?
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Why are you not taking your meds, James?
>>
>> Why are you *still* running away from answering those tough questions
>> in my .sig which highlight the logical inconsistencies and
>> contradictions in your moronic "theory not-a-theory", James?
>> James?
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Why are you not taking your meds, James?
>>
>> Why are you *still* running away from answering those tough questions
>> in my .sig which highlight the logical inconsistencies and
>> contradictions in your moronic "theory not-a-theory", James?
> You've pretty much run out of ammunition.
Not so, James. We're just getting started. This doesn't end until you
acknowledge reality, apologize to the scientific community for
attempting to twist their careful research to fit your delusion, take
your meds, educate yourself and pay what you owe. Not necessarily in
that order.
> All you got left is to make an ass of yourself.
New questions in my .sig, James... are you going to run away from
reality for the rest of your pathetic stupid life, James?
--
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.
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.
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrstatic 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?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.
Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?
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
you're not a physicist, James. LOL
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
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?
Jim?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
Why are you not taking your meds, James?
James McGinn
Mar 29, 2016, 1:57:12 AM3/29/16
to
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:25:07 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > You've pretty much run out of ammunition.
>
> Not so, James. We're just getting started. This doesn't end until you
> acknowledge reality, apologize to the scientific community for
> attempting to twist their careful research to fit your delusion, take
> your meds, educate yourself and pay what you owe. Not necessarily in
> that order.
Well, I think that is just the alcohol and the narcotics talking.
> > You've pretty much run out of ammunition.
>
> Not so, James. We're just getting started. This doesn't end until you
> acknowledge reality, apologize to the scientific community for
> attempting to twist their careful research to fit your delusion, take
> your meds, educate yourself and pay what you owe. Not necessarily in
> that order.
> > All you got left is to make an ass of yourself.
>
> You're projecting, James.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 29, 2016, 1:56:10 PM3/29/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:645b7fef-6947-435a...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:25:07 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>> You've pretty much run out of ammunition.
>> Not so, James. We're just getting started. This doesn't end until you
>> acknowledge reality, apologize to the scientific community for
>> attempting to twist their careful research to fit your delusion, take
>> your meds, educate yourself and pay what you owe. Not necessarily in
>> that order.
> Well, I think that is just the alcohol and the narcotics talking.
If you insist that it's the alcohol and the narcotics that your mommy
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>> You've pretty much run out of ammunition.
>> Not so, James. We're just getting started. This doesn't end until you
>> acknowledge reality, apologize to the scientific community for
>> attempting to twist their careful research to fit your delusion, take
>> your meds, educate yourself and pay what you owe. Not necessarily in
>> that order.
> Well, I think that is just the alcohol and the narcotics talking.
abused while she was pregnant with you that resulted in your
congenital birth defect of severe mental retardation, so be it, James.
>>> All you got left is to make an ass of yourself.
>> You're projecting, James.
> You just don't have anything interesting to say.
Why can't you answer those questions, James? Are you going to be a
fucking coward for the rest of your life, on top of being a
brain-damaged halfwit, a scientific fraud and a laughingstock?
vallor
Mar 30, 2016, 1:52:55 PM3/30/16
to
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 21:46:08 -0700, binky feel good wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:43:11 PM UTC-6, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> Time to spi[chop]
>> Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
>
> He probably doesn't like being stalked online.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
FNVHe's obsession is borderline disturbing.
--
-v
> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:43:11 PM UTC-6, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> Time to spi[chop]
>> Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
>
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
FNVHe's obsession is borderline disturbing.
--
-v
Solving Tornadoes
May 22, 2016, 8:01:49 PM5/22/16
to
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
May 23, 2016, 1:48:06 AM5/23/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:ee9d22bd-335d-4e70...@googlegroups.com> did
Solving Tornadoes, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>>> It's way, way, too advanced.
>> You mean it's way, way too deluded.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
>> you explain that, James?
>>
>> Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
>> claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
>>
>> Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
>> delusions, James?
>>
>> Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
>> claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
>>
>> Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
>> delusions, James?
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Why are you not taking your meds, James?
>>
>>
>> Why are you *still* running away from answering those tough questions
>> in my .sig which highlight the logical inconsistencies and
>> contradictions in your moronic "theory not-a-theory", James?
>> in my .sig which highlight the logical inconsistencies and
>> contradictions in your moronic "theory not-a-theory", James?
> You've pretty much run out of ammunition.
Not so, James. We're just getting started. This doesn't end until you
acknowledge reality, apologize to the scientific community for
attempting to twist their careful research to fit your delusion, take
your meds, educate yourself and pay what you owe. Not necessarily in
that order.
Not so, James. We're just getting started. This doesn't end until you
acknowledge reality, apologize to the scientific community for
attempting to twist their careful research to fit your delusion, take
your meds, educate yourself and pay what you owe. Not necessarily in
that order.
> All you got left is to make an ass of yourself.
You're projecting, James.
You're projecting, James.
New questions in my .sig, James... are you going to run away from
reality for the rest of your pathetic stupid life, 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?
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
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*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?
James?
Mikkel Haaheim
May 23, 2016, 4:04:14 AM5/23/16
to
Le lundi 28 mars 2016 23:14:33 UTC+2, Solving Tornadoes a écrit :
>
> NOY:
> Why are there *no* corroborating studies.
>
> James McGinn:
> You could have asked Einstein the same question at one time, couldn't you?
Actually, no, you couldn't have, because there WERE corroborating studies. In fact, Einstein was mostly building from previous theories. The increase of mass with acceleration was already established, as was spacial contraction. Lorenz had already established the principals of relativity, although he had not yet worked in the concept of frames of reference, contributed by Einstein. With
>
> NOY:
> Why are there *no* corroborating studies.
>
> James McGinn:
> You could have asked Einstein the same question at one time, couldn't you?
in three years of the publication of special relativity, Minkowski had corroborated Einstein's work, introducing the geometric spacetime model. For a few years there was some opposition by those still trying to prove their own theories, but their theories did not fit the data available. Einstein's theory, again, corroborated by Minkowski, did. In a very short time, most physicists accepted Einstein's theory as the most correct existing model; and ongoing research has been validating that model ever since.
I am sorry, but the notion that the greats had the world against them is a fairy tale.
You are neither an Einstein nor a Feynman.
Odd Bodkin
May 23, 2016, 12:43:33 PM5/23/16
to
the delusion that the great physicists started from scratch, questioning
everything and rejecting most of it from logic and introspection. They
then congratulate themselves for questioning everything and rejecting
most of it from logic and introspection, for (in their eyes) this makes
them great physicists.
Delusion upon delusion. All to elevate their weak sense of self-worth.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
James McGinn
May 23, 2016, 6:41:36 PM5/23/16
to
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 1:04:14 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> Le lundi 28 mars 2016 23:14:33 UTC+2, Solving Tornadoes a écrit :
>
> >
> > NOY:
> > Why are there *no* corroborating studies.
> >
> > James McGinn:
> > You could have asked Einstein the same question at one time, couldn't you?
>
> Actually, no, you couldn't have, because there WERE corroborating studies.
It's funny how you always try to pretend you are an expert in everything.
> Le lundi 28 mars 2016 23:14:33 UTC+2, Solving Tornadoes a écrit :
>
> >
> > NOY:
> > Why are there *no* corroborating studies.
> >
> > James McGinn:
> > You could have asked Einstein the same question at one time, couldn't you?
>
> Actually, no, you couldn't have, because there WERE corroborating studies.
In fact, Einstein was mostly building from previous theories.
The increase of mass with acceleration was already established, as was spacial contraction. Lorenz had already established the principals of relativity, although he had not yet worked in the concept of frames of reference, contributed by Einstein. With
> in three years of the publication of special relativity, Minkowski had corroborated Einstein's work, introducing the geometric spacetime model. For a few years there was some opposition by those still trying to prove their own theories, but their theories did not fit the data available. Einstein's theory, again, corroborated by Minkowski, did. In a very short time, most physicists accepted Einstein's theory as the most correct existing model; and ongoing research has been validating that model ever since.
> I am sorry, but the notion that the greats had the world against them is a fairy tale.
> You are neither an Einstein nor a Feynman.
HVAC
May 23, 2016, 6:54:46 PM5/23/16
to
Odd Bodkin
- show quoted text -
And that's exactly why they hate you. You take something away from them
- show quoted text -
There are so many kooks that post to unmoderated forums that suffer from
the delusion that the great physicists started from scratch, questioning
everything and rejecting most of it from logic and introspection. They
then congratulate themselves for questioning everything and rejecting
most of it from logic and introspection, for (in their eyes) this makes
them great physicists.
Delusion upon delusion. All to elevate their weak sense of self-worth.
-------------
the delusion that the great physicists started from scratch, questioning
everything and rejecting most of it from logic and introspection. They
then congratulate themselves for questioning everything and rejecting
most of it from logic and introspection, for (in their eyes) this makes
them great physicists.
Delusion upon delusion. All to elevate their weak sense of self-worth.
And that's exactly why they hate you. You take something away from them
benj
May 23, 2016, 9:34:02 PM5/23/16
to
theory of the Aether and then built upon it without questioning ANY of
it and and certainly never doing any thought experiments to try to
understand it. Einstein just went to the textbooks and read what was
there and accepted it for the truth it was! And that's what made
Einstein (and hopefully Odd) a great scientist who revolutionized science!
Lucky for HVAC he's too lazy to read a textbook and too dumb to
understand any of it, so he has to rely on his "superpowers" to know
what people "believe" so as to advance science.
Odd Bodkin
May 24, 2016, 7:30:39 AM5/24/16
to
On 5/23/2016 8:33 PM, benj wrote:
> Yeah, all those kooks like Einstein who started with the classical
> theory of the Aether and then built upon it without questioning ANY of
> it and and certainly never doing any thought experiments to try to
> understand it. Einstein just went to the textbooks and read what was
> there and accepted it for the truth it was! And that's what made
> Einstein (and hopefully Odd) a great scientist who revolutionized science!
Well, let's see.
> Yeah, all those kooks like Einstein who started with the classical
> theory of the Aether and then built upon it without questioning ANY of
> it and and certainly never doing any thought experiments to try to
> understand it. Einstein just went to the textbooks and read what was
> there and accepted it for the truth it was! And that's what made
> Einstein (and hopefully Odd) a great scientist who revolutionized science!
Einstein started with the Galilean principle of relativity without
questioning it, and he started with the Maxwellian laws of
electrodynamics without questioning any of that, and then he simply
asked, what would be the case if we demanded that the unquestioned
Maxwellian laws of electrodynamics were asked to comply with the
unquestioned Galilean principle of relativity? And he also started with
the observational facts (no question here either) that no variation from
c for the speed of light had been seen. And so yes, there were things
that Einstein took from previous work done by others, unquestioned, and
then leveraged them to come up with a revolutionary idea.
So maybe if you had a better idea of what Einstein actually did, Ben,
you'd not fall under the illusion that he questioned everything and
started from scratch.
>
> Lucky for HVAC he's too lazy to read a textbook and too dumb to
> understand any of it, so he has to rely on his "superpowers" to know
> what people "believe" so as to advance science.
HVAC
May 24, 2016, 7:53:11 AM5/24/16
to
BJ quacked
BJ believes in god, ghosts and ether. There is not one shred of evidence for either. Also, none matter IN ANY WAY in any equation or calculation. So the question becomes, why does BJ believe in these things that have no impact on anything in our universe and can be treated exactly as I'd they don't exist at all?
BJ please respond. And note that i did no name calling in my reply to you. I want you to explain why you believe using science principles.
Yeah, all those kooks like Einstein who started with the classical
theory of the Aether and then built upon it without questioning ANY of
it and and certainly never doing any thought experiments to try to
understand it. Einstein just went to the textbooks and read what was
there and accepted it for the truth it was! And that's what made
Einstein (and hopefully Odd) a great scientist who revolutionized science!
----------
theory of the Aether and then built upon it without questioning ANY of
it and and certainly never doing any thought experiments to try to
understand it. Einstein just went to the textbooks and read what was
there and accepted it for the truth it was! And that's what made
Einstein (and hopefully Odd) a great scientist who revolutionized science!
BJ believes in god, ghosts and ether. There is not one shred of evidence for either. Also, none matter IN ANY WAY in any equation or calculation. So the question becomes, why does BJ believe in these things that have no impact on anything in our universe and can be treated exactly as I'd they don't exist at all?
BJ please respond. And note that i did no name calling in my reply to you. I want you to explain why you believe using science principles.
benj
May 24, 2016, 10:52:30 AM5/24/16
to
that stuff (except for the principle of Relativity by Galileo) was all
in textbooks. Fact it it was all new ideas being promoted by a variety
of people that Einstein plagiarized. So clearly, in Einstein's case all
his theory WAS built on the work of others. The folks here in Sci.phys
will go over the details for you if you wish.
benj
May 24, 2016, 11:04:07 AM5/24/16
to
evidence for is that I "believe" in God, god, Gott or ghosts or ether
(aether...HVAC too uneducated like Herb to actually spell... I DO
believe in ether. Doctor put me out with it as a kid when I broke my
arm). For someone who refuses to read or discuss any science (at least
Odd can point to others supporting his fucked-up views) you have no
basis for your repeated lies except to try to fool readers and ridicule
me with slander and libel. Why do you hate truth and people who search
for it so much?
What you 'want" is of no concern to anyone here. That you demand "proof"
and verification of your lies is irrational and trying to pretend you
are not doing a hatchet job doesn't mean everyone else will suddenly
also pretend to be nice to you. You are a gay psychopath and it's simple
as that. Posting on the internet does not cure mental illness.
Odd Bodkin
May 24, 2016, 11:19:06 AM5/24/16
to
development.
> Fact it it was all new ideas being promoted by a variety
> of people that Einstein plagiarized.
their contributions by leveraging the work of predecessors. Even the
great physicists acknowledged that (Newton's "standing on the shoulders
of giants" comments). You obviously hoped that this wasn't true, and
that great physicists started from scratch, thinking it all up on their
own with no reference to the work of predecessors. But just because
that's not so doesn't mean that they are plagiarists.
> So clearly, in Einstein's case all
> his theory WAS built on the work of others. The folks here in Sci.phys
> will go over the details for you if you wish.
>
>
HVAC
May 24, 2016, 12:28:12 PM5/24/16
to
BJ quacked
You have no
Please point out where I have slandered you or libeled you.
All I have done is expose you for the fraud you are. You have zero actual science knowledge or training as evidenced by your belief in the paranormal and your denial of scientifically accepted subjects such as evolution. This is the sign of a kook, not a scientist... Despite your (cough) business card
You have no
basis for your repeated lies except to try to fool readers and ridicule
me with slander and libel
---------------
me with slander and libel
Please point out where I have slandered you or libeled you.
All I have done is expose you for the fraud you are. You have zero actual science knowledge or training as evidenced by your belief in the paranormal and your denial of scientifically accepted subjects such as evolution. This is the sign of a kook, not a scientist... Despite your (cough) business card
benj
May 24, 2016, 2:09:17 PM5/24/16
to
speech or writing?) is right in the above paragraph that you repeat that
I have no science knowledge or training over and over and over and over
and over, hoping that will make it true.
You say I have no actual science knowledge or training, yet I have the
degrees and the employment record to prove you are a liar. It's only
not libel if what you say is true. What you are saying is NOT true.
Since I have never posted what I "believe" in regard to paranormal
(except to point out the million dollar government research into remote
viewing which you deny ever happened along with your denial of any
German scientists coming her after WWII) it is not possible for you to
point to ANY statement of mine where I said I believed in the things you
are lying and saying I believe in. Hence you must be using your ESP to
know what I believe. And that means you not only believe in ESP, but you
ALSO believe you possess it!
Nobody here answers to you. Nobody has to prove anything unless someone
finally hauls your lazy ass into a courtroom for Internet bullying and
slander and libel. Did I say that I was going to do it? No. So just keep
your pie hole shut that I am threatening to sue you. I'm not.
You truly are a pathological liar and need help.
I pity you. It must be really lonely and sad to be so incompetent and
ignorant that one must live by lies and their wits.
Odd Bodkin
May 24, 2016, 3:06:57 PM5/24/16
to
On 5/24/2016 1:09 PM, benj wrote:
> You say I have no actual science knowledge or training, yet I have the
> degrees and the employment record to prove you are a liar. It's only
> not libel if what you say is true.
For it to be libel, you have to show damage to your reputation, market
> You say I have no actual science knowledge or training, yet I have the
> degrees and the employment record to prove you are a liar. It's only
> not libel if what you say is true.
value, or livelihood. I'd be interested to see you try to do that.
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 20, 2017, 2:05:10 PM3/20/17
to
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 2:14:33 PM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
Trump Team
Mar 20, 2017, 11:53:09 PM3/20/17
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked
up as Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:5efecd0b-398a-47f5...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>>> It's way, way, too advanced.
>> You mean it's way, way too deluded.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
>> tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
>> you explain that, James?
>>
>> Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
>> claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
>>
>> Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
>> delusions, James?
>>
>> Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
>> tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
>> you explain that, James?
>>
>> Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
>> claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
>>
>> Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
>> delusions, James?
>>
>> James?
>>
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
James?
Solving Tornadoes
Apr 10, 2017, 11:04:08 PM4/10/17
to
Libtard Snowflakes Are Laughingstocks
Apr 11, 2017, 9:42:51 PM4/11/17
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked
up as Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:6e7cdc34-dd1e-4f66...@googlegroups.com> did
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked
up as Solving Tornadoes, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>>> It's way, way, too advanced.
>> You mean it's way, way too deluded.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
>> tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
>> you explain that, James?
>>
>> Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
>> claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
>>
>> Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
>> delusions, James?
>>
>> Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
>> tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
>> you explain that, James?
>>
>> Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
>> claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
>>
>> Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
>> delusions, James?
>>
>> James?
>>
James?
James McGinn
Mar 25, 2022, 7:09:38 PM3/25/22
to
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 2:14:33 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> NOY:
> NOY:
> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>
>
Jim Pennino
Mar 25, 2022, 8:01:11 PM3/25/22
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 2:14:33 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
>> NOY:
>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>>
>> James McGinn:
>> Because I am an insane crackpot.
> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 2:14:33 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
>> NOY:
>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>>
>> James McGinn:
Yep.
Claudius Denk
Apr 25, 2022, 2:28:25 PM4/25/22
to
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 2:14:33 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> NOY:
> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>
> James McGinn:
> NOY:
> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>
> James McGinn:
Solving Tornadoes
Jun 1, 2022, 4:30:28 PM6/1/22
to
James McGinn
Jul 3, 2022, 7:16:40 PM7/3/22
to
On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 10:48:06 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1 wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
> Solving Tornadoes, in
> <news:ee9d22bd-335d-4e70...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> >>>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
> >>> It's way, way, too advanced.
> >> You mean it's way, way too deluded.
No, because of greater group delusions that dominate science, as I will further explicate below:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
> Solving Tornadoes, in
> <news:ee9d22bd-335d-4e70...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> >>>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
> >>> It's way, way, too advanced.
> >> You mean it's way, way too deluded.
> > You've pretty much run out of ammunition.
>
> Not so, James. We're just getting started. This doesn't end until you
> acknowledge reality, apologize to the scientific community for
> attempting to twist their careful research to fit your delusion,
> 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?
My theory explains this:
https://youtu.be/ejJ4HLfQWRM?t=320
> 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?
https://youtu.be/-cLI_nlEbJ4?t=106
> According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
> distance
(in violation of Coulomb's Law),
https://youtu.be/-cLI_nlEbJ4?t=480
> 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.
I make this PERFECTLY clear in the link above.
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?
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
> point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
> hydrides,
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
> cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that,
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
> splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions,
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
> such a high latent heat of vaporization,
> you deny that water has any latent heat of
> vaporization...
> your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase,
> become much more dense upon fully H bonding,
> 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?
No, they just follow the path of least resistance.
>
> Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
> troposphere and the stratosphere...
> 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 get your delusions through the peer-review process,
> Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up
> Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
> upon H bonding
Whew!
James McGinn / Genius
Jim Pennino
Jul 3, 2022, 8:01:08 PM7/3/22
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 10:48:06 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1 wrote:
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
>> Solving Tornadoes, in
>> <news:ee9d22bd-335d-4e70...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> >>>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>> >>> It's way, way, too advanced.
>> >> You mean it's way, way too deluded.
>
> No, because of greater group delusions that dominate science, as
> I will further explicate below:
It only took you *6 years* to come up with this delusionally insane
> On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 10:48:06 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1 wrote:
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
>> Solving Tornadoes, in
>> <news:ee9d22bd-335d-4e70...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> >>>> Why can't you get your theory through the peer-review process, James?
>> >>> It's way, way, too advanced.
>> >> You mean it's way, way too deluded.
>
> No, because of greater group delusions that dominate science, as
> I will further explicate below:
response, crackpot?
<snip remaining delusional raving>
> James McGinn / Delusionally Insane Crackpot
James McGinn
Jul 4, 2022, 3:19:20 AM7/4/22
to
James McGinn / Genius
Jim Pennino
Jul 4, 2022, 11:16:10 AM7/4/22
to
read any books, including a dictionary.
Solving Tornadoes
Jul 4, 2022, 11:37:03 AM7/4/22
to
James McGinn / Genius
Jim Pennino
Jul 4, 2022, 12:01:12 PM7/4/22
to
Solving Tornadoes
Jul 4, 2022, 12:36:18 PM7/4/22
to
Jim Pennino
Jul 4, 2022, 1:31:08 PM7/4/22
to
I am not the one denying reality, such as the fact that Dalton's
experiments of 1802 conclusively prove that all your "theories"
are just insane nonsense, crackpot.
James McGinn
Jul 4, 2022, 1:35:59 PM7/4/22
to
Jim Pennino
Jul 4, 2022, 2:16:09 PM7/4/22
to
0 new messages