Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Bob Johnson: Plasma in the Atmosphere

140 views
Skip to first unread message

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 4:39:03 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Bob Johnson's Talk
https://archive.org/details/BJ250415/v2

Jet Stream
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/jet-stream.htm-0

Electromagnetism
30 Apr 2015
For those unable to attend our AGM and Spring meeting they missed a real treat. Both talks were excellent and videos of them will be uploaded in due course (after a bit of work by Chris Phillips). However, the transcript of Bob Johnson's talk is already there (go to meetings page) and has the title 'The variability of the Sun and the effects on Earth' so you can settle down later in a comfy armchair with a print-out or simply scan the piece from your computer chair. Unfortunately, I don't know for the moment how we can get around those elderly members not on the internet and who would likewise be very interested in reading what he has to say.

The presentation outlines how the Sun affects the weather on Earth - and suggests what might make the Jet Stream tick. We have all heard of the Jet Stream as the Met Office constantly tell us about its changing position - and how when overhead we get bucket fulls of rain and when we are inside or outside a loop it can either be cold, or unusually hot.

How do we get from how the Sun works to how the jet streams perform in the atmosphere of the Earth. Bob Johnson begins by saying space is not a vacuum (as once thought) but is filled with plasma. The atmosphere of the Earth is not an electrified insulator either - but a weak plasm. This is an important point as it enables the Sun to play around with our weather - which is a fundamental change in thinking. Plasma can form cells and filaments and behaves differently to other gases. It has been described as a fourth state of matter. The presentation is written in a clear and concise manner and is designed to be transparent for a popular audience and the general public at large and is free of as much jargon as possible. It explains everything about plasma (well, almost) and how it is capable of conducting electricity. It can also contain magnetic energy embedded within itself - under the right conditions. Plasma has been the subject of research for a century and scientists know a lot about it - and so on.

The solar wind plasma is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field and this induces a complex system of electric currents which input energy to the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. The input depends on the velocity of the solar wind and the presence of a plasma filled solar wind interacts with the plasma in the Earth's atmosphere (and ionosphere).

Later, when looking at jet streams, which are quite narrow bands, he says they behave somewhat like plasma - or are influenced by plasma. In addition, sea water is an insulator and it is known that El Nino events and other ENSO cycles (the movement of ocean currents around the globe) move in synchronism with solar activity. We are essentially a water planet so this point is interesting to say the least (not least the role of evaporation and the formation of clouds etc).

Bob Johnson has produced an impressive presentation and quotes a host of scientific papers by people such as Akasofu, JA Eddy, H Alfven, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle, Lockwood, Zhang, Feng, Svalgaard, Svensmark, Vahrenholt and Luning, Wang, and so on (being just a few names that immediately ring a bell, although some of the others will, I'm sure, ring the door bell later). A terrific piece of endeavour to bring all this together and present it in such an easily digested manner. Highly recommended even if you are non-scientific, and let's face it, we've all heard of the jet stream but not many of us know what it entails, what it does, and what makes it move around and change our weather.

Sergio

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 5:15:39 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 3/11/2016 3:39 PM, James McGinn wrote:

>
> How do we get from how the Sun works to how the jet streams perform
> in the atmosphere of the Earth. Bob Johnson begins by saying space is
> not a vacuum (as once thought) but is filled with plasma.

space has plasma, ions, atoms, molecules in it, this has been known for
decades.


> The
> atmosphere of the Earth is not an electrified insulator either - but
> a weak plasma.

Atmosphere is an insulator, that is why we have lightning, the
insluation of air breaking down.

no, it is gas. the plasma combines with air.

> This is an important point as it enables the Sun to
> play around with our weather - which is a fundamental change in
> thinking. Plasma can form cells and filaments and behaves differently
> to other gases.

in a vaccum, not in air.

> It
> explains everything about plasma (well, almost) and how it is capable
> of conducting electricity.

in evacuated tubes, no air. or in outter space.



>
> The solar wind plasma is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field and
> this induces a complex system of electric currents which input energy
> to the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. The input depends on the
> velocity of the solar wind and the presence of a plasma filled solar
> wind interacts with the plasma in the Earth's atmosphere (and
> ionosphere).

very high up.

>
> Later, when looking at jet streams, which are quite narrow bands, he
> says they behave somewhat like plasma - or are influenced by plasma.

wrong. not influenced by plasma, plasma to light to influence large
volume of air.

> In addition, sea water is an insulator

Wrong. sea water good conductor, it has salt in it, everyone knows that.


I can see where you got the mis-information on Plasma, this guy is wrong
on it extending so far down into the atmosphere, to jet streams.

Aurora Borealis is your plasma particals slamming into the atmosphere
recombining with O or N

for study tonight, read up on the ionosphere, how it is created, and how
it fluxuates up and down.




Poutnik

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 5:22:35 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Dne 11/03/2016 v 23:15 Sergio napsal(a):
>
>> In addition, sea water is an insulator
>
> Wrong. sea water good conductor, it has salt in it, everyone knows that.


Nothing beats a good experiment.

Let him to make salt water,
plug in the wall socket voltage
and make him put there his fingers....

Then he may survive to tell us
if it was good insulator or good conductor.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 5:27:31 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Hmm. Well. He seems like a pretty smart guy to me. Yourself on the otherhand . . . well, uh . . . well . . . uh

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 6:01:25 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 3/11/16 3:39 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> The solar wind plasma is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field and this induces a complex system of electric currents which input energy to the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. The input depends on the velocity of the solar wind and the presence of a plasma filled solar wind interacts with the plasma in the Earth's atmosphere (and ionosphere).
>

There is no plasma in the earth's troposphere.


--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

Sergio

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 6:06:14 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
he got some plasma stuff right, but extended it into non-science areas,
so he gets a D

What is very cool today though, is you can explore on your own, read
lots of articles, books, papers in the area you are interested in, get
photos of things.

but why limit yourself to what other people write, do real experiments
yourself.

there is an electrostatic charge drift you can measure in the
atmosphere, it is about 1 nano amp per 10 square meters(?), and its
polarity depends upon nearby clouds, and how high up off the ground your
antenna/electrode is.

You can assemble Plasma detectors from parts off eBay, also Cosmic ray,
and gamma ray detectors. not hard.

there is a lot of interesting things going on with atmospherics.

but you have to vet a lot of written info, there are excellent sources,
but there are some vast areas of BS out there, much in general public
ranks on the west coast, like the "Ascended Masters", book of Enoch, on
and on, psudo-science.




James McGinn

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 6:29:54 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 3:06:14 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> . . . there are some vast areas of BS out there, much in general public
> ranks on the west coast, like the "Ascended Masters", book of Enoch, on
> and on, pseudo-science.

Hmm. BS? Pseudoscience? Strong words. Well, since you mention it. What do you think about this notion that storms are caused by the buoyancy of moist air--despite never having been measured--being 1% lighter than the dry air that it, supposedly, rushes up through, based on the belief--despite never having been detected and being in stark contradiction to all known laboratory evidence--that moist air can remain gaseous at ambient temperatures?

Just wondering what you think about that.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Sergio

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 7:15:08 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
on your question,
I just go to a phase diagram for water, near the liquid/gas boundries
there may be some water stcking together in chains, but as you move to
less pressure and/or more temp, the molecules un stick, now full gas.

about 1/4 way down;
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html

and you are missing ground heat that heats up air into vertical currents
of air, called thermals.

and water vapor can be made to condence out of room air just with a
glass of ice water, so who ever told you "no water vapor at ambient" is
totally wrong and simplistic to prove it is there at room temp


Instead, do stuff with your hands, and find out yourself, (eBay has lots
of good stuff cheap)

You could build a ELF radio detector to pick up the Schumann Resonances,
it would probably have to be out in the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonances


You could build another ELF radio detector to watch changes in the
ionosphere, where outer space plasma hits earths atmosphere. (called SID
receiver)

http://abelian.org/sid/

http://vlf.stanford.edu/research/introduction-vlf


there are about 20 more things you can build, small easy projects that
actually measure real plasma, charges, air characteristics, cosmic
particles, magnetic field changes,

rain drop charge detection...

lots of fun, verifiable, no need to depend upon someone elses
imagination, real stuff,


Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 7:16:18 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 3/11/16 5:29 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> being 1% lighter than the dry air

Moist air is a lot lighter than 1% James. I suspect you are
smart enough to add up the atomic weight in the O2, N2 and H2O
molecules to get a better answer. Assume a relative humidity of
50% ...

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 8:04:05 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 4:16:18 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/11/16 5:29 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > being 1% lighter than the dry air
>
> Moist air is a lot lighter than 1% James. I suspect you are
> smart enough to add up the atomic weight in the O2, N2 and H2O
> molecules to get a better answer. Assume a relative humidity of
> 50% ...

Can you show us how the math works out, Sam?

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 8:21:55 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Can't do it yourself, James? It has been posted in this newsgroup in
the last 30 days, in response to you.

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 8:42:22 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:21:55 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/11/16 7:03 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 4:16:18 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 3/11/16 5:29 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>> being 1% lighter than the dry air
> >>
> >> Moist air is a lot lighter than 1% James. I suspect you are
> >> smart enough to add up the atomic weight in the O2, N2 and H2O
> >> molecules to get a better answer. Assume a relative humidity of
> >> 50% ...
> >
> > Can you show us how the math works out, Sam?
> >
>
> Can't do it yourself, James? It has been posted in this newsgroup in
> the last 30 days, in response to you.

Embarassed to provide a direct link?

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 9:02:43 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 4:16:18 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/11/16 5:29 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > being 1% lighter than the dry air
>
> Moist air is a lot lighter than 1% James. I suspect you are
> smart enough to add up the atomic weight in the O2, N2 and H2O
> molecules to get a better answer. Assume a relative humidity of
> 50% ...

Make sure you account for the fact that only 3% of the molecules in the air (at 100% humidity) are H2O molecules. And so, at 50% humidity--after you do the math correctly--you will end up with it being a measley 0.5% lighter. And also, keep in mind, this ASSUMES that the lighter one is gaseous H2O. If that is not the case then, most likely, the moist air will be anywhere from 2 to 10 percent HEAVIER.



Sergio

unread,
Mar 11, 2016, 9:23:38 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
gosh James, you are the guy who states moist air is lighter by 1%, and
now you cannot show where you got that number from ?

Is this like your "Magical Plasma", which you admited you also made up ?

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Mar 12, 2016, 10:56:20 AM3/12/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 4:16:18 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/11/16 5:29 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > being 1% lighter than the dry air
>
> Moist air is a lot lighter than 1% James. I suspect you are
> smart enough to add up the atomic weight in the O2, N2 and H2O
> molecules to get a better answer. Assume a relative humidity of
> 50% ...

Show us your math, Sam. Go ahead, you moron.

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 12, 2016, 11:14:53 AM3/12/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
People lie. Numbers don't. Do the math Sergio.

Sergio

unread,
Mar 12, 2016, 11:20:04 AM3/12/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
So you are saying you are lying ?

You did not provide any numbers, and you said they do not lie.

show us what you have and we will review/correct it for you.




James McGinn

unread,
Mar 12, 2016, 11:41:04 AM3/12/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:20:04 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> > People lie. Numbers don't. Do the math Sergio.
> >
>
> So you are saying you are lying ?
>
> You did not provide any numbers, and you said they do not lie.
>
> show us what you have and we will review/correct it for you.

Do you refuse to do the math?

Sergio

unread,
Mar 12, 2016, 12:10:27 PM3/12/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
It is easy for me, and impossible for you, as you do not have any
scientific background.

I knew you would fail this test.

But that is what you do, make ridiculous airy-fairy claims without any
supporting data or math.

So you have admitted your "Magical Plasma" is made up from your imagination.

Now you admit your 1% water is a made up number from your imagination.


Are you allowed to drive a car ? Where do they keep you ?

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 12, 2016, 12:23:47 PM3/12/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:10:27 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> It is easy for me,

That we can see.

Sergio

unread,
Mar 12, 2016, 1:33:16 PM3/12/16
to
On 3/12/2016 11:23 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:10:27 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
It is easy for me, and impossible for you, as you do not have any
scientific background.

I knew you would fail this test.

I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory,
James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on.

I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility.
That's, what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky
conspiracy theory?

Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma
existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from
that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well
impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning
strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never
stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near
clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who
knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor,
apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled
you.

Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere,
just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere.
That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.

For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy.
It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few
microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no
appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and
updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface
area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its
radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is
proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized
water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet
radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest
average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they
stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which
is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting
the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls,
thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous
phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets
grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface
area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall
to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different
updraft speeds) cause different types of rain.

Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an
environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s);
convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are
associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second.

For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its
fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air
down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of
sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as
compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of
air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further
proves this fact.

Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is
another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas
where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating
lightning... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the
Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by
rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a
dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced
tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle
being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the
P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and
telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination
signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their
Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically
the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster,
thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger.

So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which
types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?

As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the
atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere,
given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin,
wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds:

<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
=========================================================
It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a
water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at
least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if
you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only
you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of
energy about 12 electron volts of higher. That means the water
molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about
this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation
energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K.
So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to
make such a plasma.
=========================================================

Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32
nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet
light, nearly in the x-ray range.

And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of
plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere
is plasma.

Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through
the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less
energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.

In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so
strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, plasma
*cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of
atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those
wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.

Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the
troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting
of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because
he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're
just a delusional kooktard?

So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky
conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.

<snicker>

--

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>


James McGinn

unread,
Mar 12, 2016, 1:58:47 PM3/12/16
to
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:33:16 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/12/2016 11:23 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:10:27 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >
> It is easy for me, and impossible for you, as you do not have any
> scientific background.
>
> I knew you would fail this test.
>
> I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory,
> James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on.
>
> I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility.
> That's, what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky
> conspiracy theory?

I think to convince anybody of that you'd first have to demonstrate that you understand it. And you haven't done that.

> Do you not understand what plasma is,

Perfectly.

> you fecking nong? If plasma
> existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from
> that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well
> impossible.

Our atmosphere is a weak plasma. This explains how the heavier water droplets in moist air stay suspended. Plasma is more common that simpletons assume, because simpletons see things in absolutes.

It's absolutely stupid to believe gaseous H2O can exist at ambient temps.

> If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning
> strikes right out of the blue...

What kind of retarded reasoning brought you to this conclusion?

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 12, 2016, 3:01:54 PM3/12/16
to
For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy.
It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few
microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no
appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and
updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface
area.

No matter how small a droplet is heavier than the surrounding N2 and O2 and will, as a result, begin to fall unless some force is keeping it suspended.

It's really that simple.

Alie...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 12, 2016, 3:34:45 PM3/12/16
to
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:58:47 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> Our atmosphere is a weak plasma.

No, it is not. The air around you is an insulator. That means it does not conduct electricity as plasma does. If it did, the electrical outlets in the walls of your home would arc as the voltage forced current through the air between the socket holes.

Why do you insist on believing something demonstrably false?


Mark L. Fergerson

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 12, 2016, 4:51:21 PM3/12/16
to
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:34:45 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:58:47 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>
> > Our atmosphere is a weak plasma.
>
> No, it is not.

Actually, it is.

The air around you is an insulator.

Not in an absolute sense. Consider static electricity.

That means it does not conduct electricity as plasma does.

It does conduct electricity as plasma does.

If it did, the electrical outlets in the walls of your home would arc as the voltage forced current through the air between the socket holes.

Uh, it's relative, dumbass.

>
> Why do you insist on believing something demonstrably false?

Why do you insist on believing something that is demonstrably false?

Sergio

unread,
Mar 12, 2016, 8:14:10 PM3/12/16
to
On 3/12/2016 3:51 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:34:45 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:58:47 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>>
>>> Our atmosphere is a weak plasma.
>>
>> No, it is not.
>


No, it is not. The air around you is an insulator. That means it does
not conduct electricity as plasma does. If it did, the electrical
outlets in the walls of your home would arc as the voltage forced
current through the air between the socket holes.

Why do you insist on believing something demonstrably false?


Mark L. Fergerson

Alie...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 13, 2016, 3:51:23 AM3/13/16
to
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 1:51:21 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:34:45 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:58:47 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > > Our atmosphere is a weak plasma.
> >
> > No, it is not.
>
> Actually, it is.

Saying a thing does not make it so. Evidence does, and you have none.

> The air around you is an insulator.
>
> Not in an absolute sense. Consider static electricity.

Static electricity can only exist in a nonconductive medium, like air. Immerse the classical charged pith balls in plasma and the plasma conducts the charges from one to the other so that they neutralize. This does not occur in air, therefore air is an insulator. Plasma is a conductor because it contains free charged particles that can move under the application of electrostatic fields.

> That means it does not conduct electricity as plasma does.
>
> It does conduct electricity as plasma does.

It can not UNTIL enough energy is applied to break electrons free of air molecules. That's the meaning of "breakdown voltage".

You would have me believe that air has an effective breakdown voltage of zero (that it contains free charges capable of sustaining current) even with no energy applied, and I know that not to be true because I've tested it.

> If it did, the electrical outlets in the walls of your home would arc as the
> voltage forced current through the air between the socket holes.
>
> Uh, it's relative, dumbass.

Meaningless ad hominem bullshit, dumbass. Address the physics.

Air demonstrably insulates electric charges from each other. Its breakdown voltage per unit distance is easily measured.

For instance, consider Tesla coils and other high-voltage devices. I've built several Tesla coils capable of various output voltages specifically to examine the behavior of air (and other gases) under the application of electrostatic stress. Most educational- you should try it. Apply enough energy with a Tesla coil and air does indeed become a plasma, in the volume defined by the "sparks" (arcs) such coils produce, but that plasma recombines and vanishes when you stop supplying energy.

> > Why do you insist on believing something demonstrably false?
>
> Why do you insist on believing something that is demonstrably false?

I have worked very hard at not having a belief system. That's why I learned how to actually build things with my own hands to test other peoples' claims.

I asked you if you've ever built and operated a radio, and you failed to answer. I'll bet you have not. If you had you would not harbor your illusions about how physics works.

Have you ever actually built any instruments with which to test your claims, or is your belief all you have?


Mark L. Fergerson

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 13, 2016, 5:11:07 AM3/13/16
to
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:51:23 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> > > > Our atmosphere is a weak plasma.
> > >
> > > No, it is not.
> >
> > Actually, it is.
>
> Saying a thing does not make it so.

Likewise.

> Evidence does, and you have none.

Do you have any that disputes it? More importantly, do you have an alternate eplanation that achieves the explanatory power that this notion achieves with such parsimony?

No?

>
> > The air around you is an insulator.
> >
> > Not in an absolute sense. Consider static electricity.
>
> Static electricity can only exist in a nonconductive medium, like air.

Now you are sounding ridiculous. If air could not conduct electricity then static electricity could not exist.

I'm a physicist. Trust me.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Alie...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 13, 2016, 10:25:45 PM3/13/16
to
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 1:11:07 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:51:23 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > > > > Our atmosphere is a weak plasma.
> > > >
> > > > No, it is not.
> > >
> > > Actually, it is.
> >
> > Saying a thing does not make it so.
>
> Likewise.
>
> > Evidence does, and you have none.
>
> Do you have any that disputes it?

Yes. I keep providing examples and you keep looking away, pretending they don't exist.

> > > The air around you is an insulator.
> > >
> > > Not in an absolute sense. Consider static electricity.
> >
> > Static electricity can only exist in a nonconductive medium, like
> > air.
>
> Now you are sounding ridiculous. If air could not conduct electricity
> then static electricity could not exist.

Consider the word "static". Do you know what it means, and why it differentiates static electricity from the kind that occurs in conductors?

> I'm a physicist.

In your world, the word "physicist" must mean something different from what it means in the real world, just as your "boiling point" and "plasma" have meanings not equivalent to their real world meanings.

I keep asking you if you've ever tested your claims empirically, you know, with instruments, and you keep ducking.

Apparently you have not, or else you would not keep repeating your false claims.

So, you are not an experimental physicist. I haven't seen you provide any math to describe the physical characteristics of air that make you call it a plasma, so you aren't a mathematical physicist either.

What kind of physicist do you imagine yourself to be?

> Trust me.

No.


Mark L. Fergerson

Sergio

unread,
Mar 13, 2016, 10:37:05 PM3/13/16
to
On 3/13/2016 4:11 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:51:23 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes
> wrote:
>
>>>>> Our atmosphere is a weak plasma.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not.
>>>
>>> Actually, it is.
>>
>> Saying a thing does not make it so.
>
> Likewise.
>
>> Evidence does, and you have none.
>
> Do you have any that disputes it? More importantly, do you have an
> alternate eplanation that achieves the explanatory power that this
> notion achieves with such parsimony?

common knowledge disputes your beliefs.

you have been in a closet for 30 years.

I do not owe you any explanation of anything,
get off your butt and do it yourself troll.



>>
>>> The air around you is an insulator.
>>>
>>> Not in an absolute sense. Consider static electricity.
>>
>> Static electricity can only exist in a nonconductive medium, like
>> air.
>
> Now you are sounding ridiculous. If air could not conduct
> electricity then static electricity could not exist.

air is not a conductor.
this is common knowledge.

you believe in things that all scientists reject.

Go post in alt.crazy.delusional.boy.don'tknowany.science


>
> I'm a physicist.

liar.

> Trust me.

no way, you lie.

>
> James McGoonie Soylent Pornadoes
>

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 13, 2016, 11:32:27 PM3/13/16
to
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 7:25:45 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> > Do you have any that disputes it?
>
> Yes. I keep providing examples and you keep looking away, pretending they don't exist.

You don't have anything.


>
> > > > The air around you is an insulator.
> > > >
> > > > Not in an absolute sense. Consider static electricity.
> > >
> > > Static electricity can only exist in a nonconductive medium, like
> > > air.
> >
> > Now you are sounding ridiculous. If air could not conduct electricity
> > then static electricity could not exist.
>
> Consider the word "static". Do you know what it means, and why it differentiates static electricity from the kind that occurs in conductors?

Surreal.

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus

unread,
Mar 13, 2016, 11:45:05 PM3/13/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

nu...@bid.nes, in
<news:42c018bc-2d80-45bb...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> So, you are not an experimental physicist. I haven't seen you
> provide any math to describe the physical characteristics of
> air that make you call it a plasma, so you aren't a
> mathematical physicist either.

He's not any kind of physicist. He once took an elective class in
Basic Meteorology, and thinks that qualifies him as a physicist.

James McGinn is a moronic delusional kooktard suffering from
Dunning-Kruger and a lack of scientific education, and hence an
inability to grok what the scientific method entails.

He rapes Google, then strings together whatever he finds into the most
implausible of theories, throwing away anything that nulls his kooky
theory as "irrelevant", "not empirical", "not observable", etc.

He continues heaping stupid upon stupid, compounding his errors as he
goes. Such is the way for Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards such as
James McGinn.

He refuses to go back and review his underlying supposition which led
to his hypothesis which led to his kooky discredited theory, despite
the science having been posted which proves his kooky theory is a
fairy tale.

In reality, all he's got is a supposition pulled straight from his
ass, as his kooky claims don't even rise to the level of hypothesis.
Even a hypothesis is based upon very limited data, whereas James
McGinn has the sum total of zero corroborating data, and a veritable
mountain of scientific *fact* nulling his supposition. To even call it
a theory is being extremely generous... a theory is backed up by a
very wide set of data.

The only theory in McGinn's "theory" is that of a conspiracy theory,
another manifestation of his Dunning-Kruger affliction.

He won't ever provide any proof or math, because he has none. He has
none because he's never done any experiments other than his
fourth-grade level experiment he keeps bleating about. You'll note he
provides no results for even that, because the results either null his
supposition or the experiment is so uncontrolled the results are
random.

You'll further note he cannot answer those tough questions I've been
asking, to wit:
=============================================================
How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
plasma, Jim?

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, 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 kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "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, 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 kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

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

--

Kensi the moron 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

Sergio

unread,
Mar 13, 2016, 11:49:31 PM3/13/16
to
On 3/42/1016 2:01 PM, James McGinn wrote crap again:
> For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy.

your "magical plasma" perhaps invisible balloons hold them up ?

> It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few
> microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no
> appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and
> updraft.

wrong, they go with the wind, updraft which is convection current, or
downdraft, also an air current.

> The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface area.

too simplistic;

"fall speed" is incorrect terminology, it is "terminal velocity", and it
is dependent upon the viscosity, pressure field, of the air it is
falling through, and g, and Re.


>
> No matter how small a droplet is heavier than the surrounding N2 and
> O2 and will, as a result, begin to fall unless some force is keeping
> it suspended.

Wrong, H2O is lighter than N2 or O2, do the math,dummy

>
> It's really that simple.

no, you are that simple.


James McGinn

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 12:28:54 AM3/14/16
to
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:45:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> nu...@bid.nes, in
> <news:42c018bc-2d80-45bb...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > So, you are not an experimental physicist. I haven't seen you
> > provide any math to describe the physical characteristics of
> > air that make you call it a plasma, so you aren't a
> > mathematical physicist either.
>
> He's not any kind of physicist. He once took an elective class in
> Basic Meteorology, and thinks that qualifies him as a physicist.

I love it when my opponent resorts to ad hominen be cause it indicates that they have lost the argument.

benj

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 12:48:06 AM3/14/16
to
:-)

Mustaffa Sheboygan

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 1:11:37 AM3/14/16
to
In article <3186ef619eae0d82...@dizum.com>,
FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx says...


> rapes Google
>
> continues heaping stupid upon stupid
>
> a supposition pulled straight from his ass

Dat kettle's awful black...


--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 1:31:50 AM3/14/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:b0f96cf5-727f-4d8e...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:45:05 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> nu...@bid.nes, in
>> <news:42c018bc-2d80-45bb...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> So, you are not an experimental physicist. I haven't seen you
>>> provide any math to describe the physical characteristics of
>>> air that make you call it a plasma, so you aren't a
>>> mathematical physicist either.

>> He's not any kind of physicist. He once took an elective class in
>> Basic Meteorology, and thinks that qualifies him as a physicist.
>>
> I love it when my opponent resorts to ad hominen be cause it indicates that they have lost the argument.

Except I've won the argument, James. You cannot refute scientific
fact, which is why you've been doing nothing but spewing non sequiturs
and backpedaling.

==========================================================

Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous
phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully
explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has
been utterly demolished.

You postulate the following:

1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere,
which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can
continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.

2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source
that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without
dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water
will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely
energetic laser.

3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only
atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound
water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the
*minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be
equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just
3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the
problem inherent in your contention, James.

4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except
it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than
~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to
ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the
overwhelming majority of all water is.

5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which
direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why?
Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus
convects upward.

6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air,
except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and
molar volume...

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than
humidity.

The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.

Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for dry air

Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.

Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.

Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude
decreases.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water
partial pressure will have the same density.

At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous
water partial pressure will have higher density.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous
water partial pressure will have lower density.

For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure,
air at a higher altitude will have lower density.

(1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative
humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.

Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative
humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C,
the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.

Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to
increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the
air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the
air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or
the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater
than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.

Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas
relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that
temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather
systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.

IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which
requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air
itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of
monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of
higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).

It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is
"heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not
applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the
calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in
agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even
with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same
relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and
more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der
Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and
increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the
difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der
Waals equation... notice the converging trend?

Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with
gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error
to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't
understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf.

7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding...
which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties,
and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim.
You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there
are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths:

<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's
photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
phases.

<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304>
You'll note the double peak of liquid water.

Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
====================================================
Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.
====================================================

You betcha... para and ortho-form water.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html>
====================================================
Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated
with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2),
the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess
parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are
parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a
magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three
symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three
states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state
always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7
J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1)
H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a].

When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called
para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin
state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in
this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room
temperature.

Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but
ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden
for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular
species. They can change spin state on interaction with another
particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of
these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where
the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting
to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative
amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures
(>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish
itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It
is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much
closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076].
This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of
non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or
para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two
forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186],
which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water
clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due
to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835].

The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a
significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin
interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural
rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion
[1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O,
possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than
hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that
ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150]
with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally
coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density
clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated.
Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a
strong dc electric field [2156].
====================================================

The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when
water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water
clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily
broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be
ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is
very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray
spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration
temperature and phase.

Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than
the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated
removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm
thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================

As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in
which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer
of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is
happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with
other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving
off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially
condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note
above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same
properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the
difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and
phase.

For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater
water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the
condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O
gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of
ice is melted.

So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the
water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because
there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two
different hydrogen bonding strengths.

Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by
scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done
utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL

<http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html>
==============================================
A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable
to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the
nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined
in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric
wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called
para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called
ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is
"forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin
isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as
collisions.
==============================================

Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and
para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen
atoms, also has two spin isomers?

<https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e>
<http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif>

In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at
low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously
converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has
implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by
this spin isomer conversion.

In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to
para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via
partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which
would cause spin isomer conversion.

Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking,
Jim...

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

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, 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 kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "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, 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 kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<snicker>

--

Cipher (aka Dave A. Howard the Coward) is an ancient mainframe Usenet
bot that never got shut off. He walkered his way back into AUK after
an eternity spent in an infinite loop, started clacking his dentures
and bragging about what a big man he *used* to be and how we kids
should get the hell off his lawn, promptly outed himself, slipped in
the urine dribbling down his leg from his over-full Depends, his
walker went flying, his dentures clattered to the floor, and he lay
there, hearing aid squealing, stabbing an arthritic finger at his
Life-Alert pendant and crying "Help, I've soiled myself and I can't
get up!" as we youngsters laughed raucously at him. Don't ask him
about the Port-A-Potty that drove him so bonkers that he ended up in a
tight-white jacket in a rubber room in a mental institution... that
wasn't Dave, man. He's blocked all that out.

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 1:58:46 AM3/14/16
to
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:31:50 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > I love it when my opponent resorts to ad hominen be cause it indicates that they have lost the argument.
>
> Except I've won the argument,

LOL.

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 2:23:54 AM3/14/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:f0c33022-e7f6-4d43...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>> Except I've won the argument, James. You cannot refute scientific
>> fact, which is why you've been doing nothing but spewing non sequiturs
>> and backpedaling.

> LOL.

Your insane laughter doesn't constitute a defense of your kooky
claims, Jim. You lose. Again.
Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 2:34:39 AM3/14/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Chimpy the Coin-Slot
Operated SuckMonkey, aka Checkmate The PickleTickler), socked up as
Mustaffa Sheboygan, in
<news:MPG.314fe7e18...@news.altopia.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> Dat kettle's awful black...

Den pull dat 'kettle' out yo mouf and stop suckin' it, Phaggot.
'Less'n you likes dem big black 'kettles'. An' we'uns knows you do.

<snicker>

--

FNVWe:
"The Man Who Spanked Chimpy Checkmate The Cowardly CockSmoker Out Of
AUK, Then Out Of The Flonk, Then Into Insanity, Then Made Him Run Away
Like A Little Spankard Bitch. Again."

In which Checkmate admits to being a faggot and fantasizing about men:
MID: <feb093af883d0bf2...@dizum.com>
MID: <ab050c692202f7d9...@dizum.com>

In which Checkmate says he wants to spank guys all night long:
MID: <k3m5ls$3pr$1...@news.mixmin.net>

In which Checkmate confesses his desire to fuck who he claims is a
guy:
MID: <k3oolf$cpe$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k9nj0v$u4a$2...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <l8ogd6$1cd$4...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lclrtd$eei$4...@news.mixmin.net>

In which Checkmate admits he'd definitely fuck a male dog:
MID: <k2h0j1$6ll$5...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k4dsc7$l32$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k5m8o5$vmq$5...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>

In which Checkmate admits to having a golden showers fetish:
MID: <k79p80$9ps$3...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k8t9l0$nf0$5...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k8t9kv$nev$5...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k994eg$77l$1...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k9i8is$sna$3...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <lf3noh$sqv$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <76b587bf03232be2...@dizum.com>
MID: <d1590e1490afb949...@dizum.com>
MID: <4c614669bd9da0e2...@dizum.com>

In which Checkmate asks a guy for a blowjob (again):
MID: <ka4m1r$8rs$2...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <knd50p$7ni$2...@news.albasani.net>
MID: <knnmme$3a4$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kp77db$rqk$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kvvjjb$a8t$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kvvjjb$a8u$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l069qt$g3j$9...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l1b6g1$qqv$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l65hh2$jpd$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9b7ha$ret$4...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lfe72e$q0s$4...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lffimp$k2f$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <13de9e018d33aa5c...@dizum.com>
MID: <ddfe5035129d525f...@dizum.com>
MID: <8352c247386df605...@dizum.com>
MID: <863c1b2a4221005e...@dizum.com>
MID: <9d7e6e672aa61c16...@dizum.com>
MID: <aacd887c22128680...@dizum.com>
MID: <372519cc110e5acf...@dizum.com>
MID: <1b8820753ce4e2da...@dizum.com>

Checkmate's got a thing about tickling guy's asses with random
objects:
MID: <l8rapt$rfm$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lfm4f8$3jb$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <li2ao1$3rf$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <37fb49820eaf36d0...@dizum.com>
MID: <13badb999438389e...@dizum.com>
MID: <2ce704d96dbf41ca...@dizum.com>
MID: <f9b10e223db85839...@dizum.com>
MID: <184091e3de3a1009...@dizum.com>
MID: <ee740ba6bc409af0...@dizum.com>
MID: <d1d62217afbcbf98...@dizum.com>
MID: <ac96244a69bc75dd...@dizum.com>
MID: <9f02c35ef6d67ac0...@dizum.com>
MID: <3e4b3a8bb953839b...@dizum.com>
MID: <9ec2ad3439122a90...@dizum.com>
MID: <761ef52f7fc54d46...@dizum.com>
MID: <8ef71d83a5af476e...@dizum.com>

Checkmate's so gay he repeatedly insists that a picture of a vagina is
actually an asshole and balls... he went on and on about assholes and
balls... couldn't shut up about them... come to find out, he was just
trying to tell us that his lost love was actually a man:
MID: <l84jo7$cnd$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l84oip$icu$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l85ste$ao$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l87aud$saf$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l88ptv$nlj$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8dvdt$tj2$4...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8kl20$91i$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8psgt$m7d$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8rapv$rfm$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l98brg$6hp$6...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <ldg914$pel$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <31e4747ee7179064...@dizum.com>
MID: <4dba3edb9556cb8d...@dizum.com>

Chimpy the neurotic overwrought hysterical hissy-fit ninny escalates
his prescription drug abuse to "calm the fuck down" (Chimpy's words):
MID: <512f192b17a529cc...@dizum.com> - Oxy, Neurontin
MID: <kjucol$ckr$3...@newsfeed.x-privat.org> - Oxy, Vicodin
MID: <kmqoip$cg3$8...@news.albasani.net> - Norco
MID: <knc9l2$e66$2...@news.albasani.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6lnn79.p...@news.alt.net> - Oxycodone, Vicodin
MID: <6lo0dt....@news.alt.net> - Xanax
MID: <krt925$u63$3...@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <6o9mv7....@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6os03j....@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6p12vg....@news.alt.net> - Marijuana
MID: <6pg2lv....@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <kuqmlq$mi7$1...@news.mixmin.net> - Amphetamine (!)
MID: <6qprvj....@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6r26ti....@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6stbk8.p...@news.alt.net> - Ecstasy
MID: <l1b6g2$qr0$2...@news.mixmin.net> - Vicodin
MID: <l5kd53$8kd$1...@news.mixmin.net> - Norco
MID: <lanvc8$f06$2...@news.mixmin.net> - Norco
MID: <larrim$lft$1...@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <lcckii$mue$3...@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <e7848d7ebc7f0b52...@dizum.com> - Hydrocodone,
Alprazolam
MID: <MPG.2eb9f496c...@news.alt.net> - Percocet

Chimpy Checkmate's Famous Faggotisms:
=====================================
Chimpy tries enticing a straight man who lives with a woman to join
him in his lonely faggoty lifestyle:
Message-ID: <b1ae7a665b08a82e...@dizum.com>
"How about I put the squirrel up your ass to keep your gerbil
company?"

Chimpy's desperate plea to a dude:
MID: <5b690abba10d04da...@dizum.com>
"Diddle me!"

MID: <07b50fac74279fab...@dizum.com>
"Trojans are a condiment."

Chimpy discusses his new boyfriend, Dave "SnuhWolf" Norris:
MID: <c565ada4723ca2e5...@dizum.com>
"Snuhbaby makes a good cock warmer."

MID: <ffd2a514115a20cb...@dizum.com>
"Pack your donut hole, any time, anywhere!"

Chimpy discussing the relative merits of 4 inches versus 10 inches:
MID: <b62ad5949e43f369...@dizum.com>
"Plus, I suppose it doesn't hurt as much when they stuff it up your
butt."

MID: <MPG.2a5ec5516...@news.alt.net>
"Best you keester a kielbasa."

Message-ID: <kvvjjb$a8t$3...@news.mixmin.net>
"Brag about it to my dick."
"My dick can't quite hear you, could you come a little closer?"

MID: <knnmmb$3a4$1...@news.mixmin.net>
"If you see a dick, suck it."

MID: <6qft9a....@news.alt.net>
"The Winchester 1892 would make a damned-good dildo."

MID: <l61jjg$tth$1...@news.mixmin.net>
"Pump a rump."

MID: <l9d76m$k1v$4...@news.mixmin.net>
"You gerbils are always in the dark."

MID: <lal84d$g2u$5...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <97bfaeca4f3abe27...@dizum.com>
"I gotta gay named Guido from Jersey"

MID: <lamgt8$b2d$1...@news.mixmin.net>
"If they're soft, yer probably blowin' it all wrong."

MID: <lchub0$q96$5...@news.mixmin.net>
"Hitler would have made a damned good Queen."

MID: <lcsgjb$obk$2...@news.mixmin.net>
"Don't get slapped by the cocks you crave."

MID: <b068d280517a2d6c...@dizum.com>
To a nearly toothless man:
"I wouldn't pay you to suck my dick if your last tooth fell out."
So Chimpy prefers paying *nearly* toothless men for blowjobs, but not
*fully* toothless men. LOL

MID: <afe97a65ff77e738...@dizum.com>
"If I send you some money, will you suck Greg's dick?"
Chimpy likes to watch. LOL

MID: <9d7e6e672aa61c16...@dizum.com>
"Suck my clit."
Chimpy's proposition to a tranny sucking faggot who gets around being
gay by claiming tranny cocks are 'huge dangling clits'. LOL

Chimpy is confused again: "giant ball-like labia". LOL
MID: <4dba3edb9556cb8d...@dizum.com>
=====================================

What a FAG!

Melt, Chimpy, melt.
Froth, Chimpy, froth.
Dance, Chimpy, dance!

<snicker>

/\ Properly known as Bill
\ /\ The Monster You Kooks Can't Handle
\ / \ THERE IS NO CABAL - LONG LIVE THE NEW CABAL
\/ The AUK coup is complete. The Old Cabal is no more.

Accept no substitutes...
if it's from Databasix, it's a sure bet it's from a kook.

databasix.com / PacketDerm, LLC / COTSE:
all branches of the same malignant tree.

Message-ID: <l7m8ig$1ld$7...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8jh$1le$8...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8lh$1le$9...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8ne$1ld$8...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8pc$1le$1...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8rb$1ld$9...@news.mixmin.net>

Mustaffa Sheboygan

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 2:41:51 AM3/14/16
to
In article <a495fd09821b261b...@dizum.com>,
FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx says...


> > Dat kettle's awful black...
>
> Den pull dat 'kettle' out yo mouf and stop suckin' it, Phaggot.
> 'Less'n you likes dem big black 'kettles'. An' we'uns knows you do.
>
> <snicker>
>

Cowardly snipping noted. Thanks for sucking up the bait again... I know
you really have no choice in the matter.


j

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

Skeeter

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 8:27:29 AM3/14/16
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 04:34:51 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>He rapes Google, then strings together whatever he finds into the most
>implausible of theories, throwing away anything that nulls his kooky
>theory as "irrelevant", "not empirical", "not observable", etc.


As the faketard looks into the mirror.

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 12:11:09 PM3/14/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Chimpy the Coin-Slot
Operated SuckMonkey, aka Checkmate The PickleTickler), socked up as
Mustaffa Sheboygan, in
<news:MPG.314ffd07e...@news.altopia.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> In article <a495fd09821b261b...@dizum.com>,
> Chimpy's Usenet Lord and Master
> <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> says...

>>> Dat kettle's awful black...

>> Den pull dat 'kettle' out yo mouf and stop suckin' it, Phaggot.
>> 'Less'n you likes dem big black 'kettles'. An' we'uns knows you do.
>>
>> <snicker>

> sucking again... I
> have no choice in the matter.

Chimpy's in prison!

edpr...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 4:32:05 PM3/14/16
to
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:41:04 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:20:04 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
> > > People lie. Numbers don't. Do the math Sergio.
> > >
> >
> > So you are saying you are lying ?
> >
> > You did not provide any numbers, and you said they do not lie.
> >
> > show us what you have and we will review/correct it for you.
>
> Do you refuse to do the math?

James cannot do the math because, although he has claimed to be a
"real physicist", he never got a degree. At least he has never been
able to produce the name of the school he attended.

he is just another troll craving attention.
ed

edpr...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 4:41:08 PM3/14/16
to
WOW. You really do not understand physics.

Okay, try calculating the rate of fall as a function of drop size
(mass, diameter, whatever starting parameters you prefer). Show
us an equation. Show us you know some math JM.

Of course you are just going to dodge this with a reply like:
"read my paper"
or
"I can do it but you would not understand it."

I have often said, the best way to learn something is to teach
it to others. So teach us JM. Maybe you'll learn something.

Ed

edpr...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 4:46:00 PM3/14/16
to
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 5:11:07 AM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
[]
> Now you are sounding ridiculous. If air could not conduct
> electricity then static electricity could not exist.

Are you really claiming this?????
>
> I'm a physicist. Trust me.
>
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes

Okay, what school granted your degree?
It is a simple question. No math involved.
Comon, answer!

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 5:21:01 PM3/14/16
to
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:32:05 PM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:41:04 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:20:04 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >
> > > > People lie. Numbers don't. Do the math Sergio.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you are saying you are lying ?
> > >
> > > You did not provide any numbers, and you said they do not lie.
> > >
> > > show us what you have and we will review/correct it for you.
> >
> > Do you refuse to do the math?
>
> James cannot do the math

I've already done it, dumbass.

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 5:21:52 PM3/14/16
to
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:41:08 PM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Okay, try calculating the rate of fall as a function of drop size
> (mass, diameter, whatever starting parameters you prefer). Show
> us an equation. Show us you know some math JM.

Go ahead. What are you waiting for?

Sergio

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 5:52:21 PM3/14/16
to
no, you have not.
you do not understand math at all.

Alie...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 14, 2016, 8:23:33 PM3/14/16
to
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:32:27 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 7:25:45 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > > Do you have any that disputes it?
> >
> > Yes. I keep providing examples and you keep looking away,
> > pretending they don't exist.
>
> You don't have anything.

What I have is empirical evidence; you know, the kind you get by doing actual experiments.

What you have is a lot of handwaving poorly bolstered by abusing terms from real physics.

> > > > > The air around you is an insulator.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not in an absolute sense. Consider static electricity.
> > > >
> > > > Static electricity can only exist in a nonconductive
> > > > medium, like air.
> > >
> > > Now you are sounding ridiculous. If air could not conduct
> > > electricity then static electricity could not exist.
> >
> > Consider the word "static". Do you know what it means, and why
> > it differentiates static electricity from the kind that occurs in
> > conductors?
>
> Surreal.

No, it doesn't mean "surreal", it means "not moving".

> > > I'm a physicist.

Clearly you are not.

The serious students of physics here (including me) have written you off as a crackpot.

That's bad enough, but even the resident crackpots (also including me, on some topics) have written you off as a completely shattered pot.

Get a clue, Jim, you're full of shit.


Mark L. Fergerson

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 15, 2016, 2:54:18 PM3/15/16
to
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:23:33 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> What I have is empirical evidence; you know, the kind you get by doing actual experiments.

What good are they if you don't share them with somebody?

noTthaTguY

unread,
Mar 15, 2016, 7:33:09 PM3/15/16
to
think of how two molecules of water would "dock,
in order to precipitate
(2HOH is heavier than air

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 24, 2016, 12:16:55 AM3/24/16
to
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:23:33 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> The serious students of physics here (including me)
> have written you off as a crackpot.

Well, being called a crackpot is pretty normal for two type of
people: 1) Crackpots and 2) People leading scientific revolutions

Do ya wanna know how you tell the difference?

You address their arguments in a substantive manner.

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus

unread,
Mar 24, 2016, 12:53:44 AM3/24/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:9fb9e98e-e3cd-4232...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:23:33 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

>> The serious students of physics here (including me)
>> have written you off as a crackpot.

> Well, being called a crackpot is pretty normal for two type of
> people: 1) Crackpots and 2) People leading scientific revolutions
>
> Do ya wanna know how you tell the difference?

The ones leading scientific revolutions build off of existing
knowledge to form a more coherent view of reality; whereas the
crackpots concoct elaborate conspiracy theories and complicated
constantly-shifting "theories not-theories" involving fantastical
fairy tale physical processes as they deny all of known science and
denigrate the scientists who discovered it, CrackPot.

> You address their arguments in a substantive manner.

Drop-kicking a moronic ignorant anti-science halfwit, laughingstock
and scientific fraud doesn't lend any credence to your moronic
ignorant anti-science halfwittery, TornadoTard.

--

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?
============================================================

Poutnik

unread,
Mar 24, 2016, 2:50:31 AM3/24/16
to
Dne 24/03/2016 v 05:16 James McGinn napsal(a):
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:23:33 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
>> The serious students of physics here (including me)
>> have written you off as a crackpot.
>
> Well, being called a crackpot is pretty normal for two type of
> people: 1) Crackpots and 2) People leading scientific revolutions
>
> Do ya wanna know how you tell the difference?
>

The latter have state of art knowledge of science.

You have troubles with basics,
not limited to physics of gases and thermodynamics.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Mar 24, 2016, 4:31:29 AM3/24/16
to
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:45:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote

> > So, you are not an experimental physicist. I haven't seen you
> > provide any math to describe the physical characteristics of
> > air that make you call it a plasma, so you aren't a
> > mathematical physicist either.
>
> He's not any kind of physicist.

Like you'd have a clue.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 24, 2016, 9:51:45 AM3/24/16
to
On 3/23/16 11:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Well, being called a crackpot is pretty normal for two type of
> people: 1) Crackpots and 2) People leading scientific revolutions


Well if behave like a cracked pot... I just say'n...


--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 24, 2016, 10:29:26 AM3/24/16
to
On 3/24/16 3:31 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:45:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote
>>
>> He's not any kind of physicist.
>
> Like you'd have a clue.
>


The key clue is that physicists typically have formal education in
physics.

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 24, 2016, 12:20:34 PM3/24/16
to
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 7:29:26 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/24/16 3:31 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:45:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote
> >>
> >> He's not any kind of physicist.
> >
> > Like you'd have a clue.
> >
>
>
> The key clue is that physicists typically have formal education in
> physics.

Which you obviously don't have.

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus

unread,
Mar 24, 2016, 1:57:25 PM3/24/16
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:35bcc2c5-5c15-474f...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:45:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus drop-kicked a retard:

>>> So, you are not an experimental physicist. I haven't seen you
>>> provide any math to describe the physical characteristics of
>>> air that make you call it a plasma, so you aren't a
>>> mathematical physicist either.

>> He's not any kind of physicist. He once took an elective class in
>> Basic Meteorology, and thinks that qualifies him as a physicist.
>>
>> James McGinn is a moronic delusional kooktard suffering from
>> Dunning-Kruger and a lack of scientific education, and hence an
>> inability to grok what the scientific method entails.
>>
>> He rapes Google, then strings together whatever he finds into the most
>> implausible of theories, throwing away anything that nulls his kooky
>> theory as "irrelevant", "not empirical", "not observable", etc.
>>
>> He continues heaping stupid upon stupid, compounding his errors as he
>> goes. Such is the way for Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards such as
>> James McGinn.
>>
>> He refuses to go back and review his underlying supposition which led
>> to his hypothesis which led to his kooky discredited theory, despite
>> the science having been posted which proves his kooky theory is a
>> fairy tale.
>>
>> In reality, all he's got is a supposition pulled straight from his
>> ass, as his kooky claims don't even rise to the level of hypothesis.
>> Even a hypothesis is based upon very limited data, whereas James
>> McGinn has the sum total of zero corroborating data, and a veritable
>> mountain of scientific *fact* nulling his supposition. To even call it
>> a theory is being extremely generous... a theory is backed up by a
>> very wide set of data.
>>
>> The only theory in McGinn's "theory" is that of a conspiracy theory,
>> another manifestation of his Dunning-Kruger affliction.
>>
>> He won't ever provide any proof or math, because he has none. He has
>> none because he's never done any experiments other than his
>> fourth-grade level experiment he keeps bleating about. You'll note he
>> provides no results for even that, because the results either null his
>> supposition or the experiment is so uncontrolled the results are
>> random.

> Like you'd have a clue.

You took a single elective class in Basic Meteorology and failed out,
James.

What universities did you attend, what were your majors, and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James?

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Mar 24, 2016, 2:08:37 PM3/24/16
to
Bob Johnson's Talk
https://archive.org/details/BJ250415/v2

Jet Stream
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/jet-stream.htm-0

Electromagnetism
30 Apr 2015
For those unable to attend our AGM and Spring meeting they missed a real treat. Both talks were excellent and videos of them will be uploaded in due course (after a bit of work by Chris Phillips). However, the transcript of Bob Johnson's talk is already there (go to meetings page) and has the title 'The variability of the Sun and the effects on Earth' so you can settle down later in a comfy armchair with a print-out or simply scan the piece from your computer chair. Unfortunately, I don't know for the moment how we can get around those elderly members not on the internet and who would likewise be very interested in reading what he has to say.

The presentation outlines how the Sun affects the weather on Earth - and suggests what might make the Jet Stream tick. We have all heard of the Jet Stream as the Met Office constantly tell us about its changing position - and how when overhead we get bucket fulls of rain and when we are inside or outside a loop it can either be cold, or unusually hot.

How do we get from how the Sun works to how the jet streams perform in the atmosphere of the Earth. Bob Johnson begins by saying space is not a vacuum (as once thought) but is filled with plasma. The atmosphere of the Earth is not an electrified insulator either - but a weak plasm. This is an important point as it enables the Sun to play around with our weather - which is a fundamental change in thinking. Plasma can form cells and filaments and behaves differently to other gases. It has been described as a fourth state of matter. The presentation is written in a clear and concise manner and is designed to be transparent for a popular audience and the general public at large and is free of as much jargon as possible. It explains everything about plasma (well, almost) and how it is capable of conducting electricity. It can also contain magnetic energy embedded within itself - under the right conditions. Plasma has been the subject of research for a century and scientists know a lot about it - and so on.

The solar wind plasma is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field and this induces a complex system of electric currents which input energy to the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. The input depends on the velocity of the solar wind and the presence of a plasma filled solar wind interacts with the plasma in the Earth's atmosphere (and ionosphere).

Later, when looking at jet streams, which are quite narrow bands, he says they behave somewhat like plasma - or are influenced by plasma. In addition, sea water is an insulator and it is known that El Nino events and other ENSO cycles (the movement of ocean currents around the globe) move in synchronism with solar activity. We are essentially a water planet so this point is interesting to say the least (not least the role of evaporation and the formation of clouds etc).

Bob Johnson has produced an impressive presentation and quotes a host of scientific papers by people such as Akasofu, JA Eddy, H Alfven, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle, Lockwood, Zhang, Feng, Svalgaard, Svensmark, Vahrenholt and Luning, Wang, and so on (being just a few names that immediately ring a bell, although some of the others will, I'm sure, ring the door bell later). A terrific piece of endeavour to bring all this together and present it in such an easily digested manner. Highly recommended even if you are non-scientific, and let's face it, we've all heard of the jet stream but not many of us know what it entails, what it does, and what makes it move around and change our weather.

Sergio

unread,
Mar 24, 2016, 9:29:37 PM3/24/16
to
On 3/24/2016 8:51 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/23/16 11:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> Well, being called a crackpot is pretty normal for two type of
>> people: 1) Crackpots and 2) People leading scientific revolutions
>
>
> Well if behave like a cracked pot... I just say'n...
>
>


James McGinn is a Crank. Crackpot.

He has posting nothing of any value on the internet, only his airy-fairy
imagination to get attention.

PLONK him. use your filters to discard all his posts.

no need to waste your time, that melon is already quite rotten.

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus

unread,
Mar 25, 2016, 1:37:16 AM3/25/16
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:ff0a6c37-7800-437a...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> In addition, sea water is an insulator

Bwahahaaaa! Oh, man, now that's funny stuff, James. Only a fully
delusional kooktard off his meds would make such a stupid claim.

Ok, James... take a non-metallic dish filled with pure water and set
it on your counter. Get an extension cord and cut the female plug off.
Strip back 1/2" of insulation on each wire at the cut. Put one wire in
the water, and one on the counter. Plug the extension cord into the
nearest energized wall outlet.

Now, put the fingers of your left hand in the water, being sure not to
touch the wire. With your right hand, touch the other wire on the
counter.

You'll note nothing much happens.

Now, get your mommy's salt shaker from the kitchen table and dump 10
shakes of salt into the water, stir it a bit, and repeat the
experiment, James.

Have someone standing by with a defib unit.

Moron. LOL

Yeah, folks, he's James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch,
CA... the only reason he's lived as long as he has is because he lives
at home with mommy and daddy and they watch over him like he's a
retarded drooling baby bent on licking electrical outlets. LOL

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 20, 2016, 10:40:55 AM4/20/16
to

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 29, 2016, 12:26:43 PM4/29/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse

James McGinn

unread,
Jun 14, 2016, 12:55:40 AM6/14/16
to

Mikkel Haaheim

unread,
Jun 14, 2016, 1:53:48 PM6/14/16
to
Le vendredi 11 mars 2016 23:15:39 UTC+1, Sergio a écrit :
> On 3/11/2016 3:39 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> >
> > How do we get from how the Sun works to how the jet streams perform
> > in the atmosphere of the Earth. Bob Johnson begins by saying space is
> > not a vacuum (as once thought) but is filled with plasma.
>
> space has plasma, ions, atoms, molecules in it, this has been known for
> decades.
>
>
> > The
> > atmosphere of the Earth is not an electrified insulator either - but
> > a weak plasma.
>
> Atmosphere is an insulator, that is why we have lightning, the
> insluation of air breaking down.
>
> no, it is gas. the plasma combines with air.

Sergio, in this case, James is trying to report what Johnson has stated, to the best of his (limited) ability to understand it. It actually was Johnson who said that the atmosphere is not an insulator... however, I attribute this more to shorthand.

>
> > This is an important point as it enables the Sun to
> > play around with our weather - which is a fundamental change in
> > thinking. Plasma can form cells and filaments and behaves differently
> > to other gases.
>
> in a vaccum, not in air.

Again, it is Johnson who states that the sun interacts (indirectly) with even the lower atmosphere. What James is not including is the mechanism that Johnson hypothesises: increased solar activity shielding against cosmic radiation, and it is actually the cosmic radiation that is interacting directly with the lower atmosphere through radiative ionisation.


>
> > It
> > explains everything about plasma (well, almost) and how it is capable
> > of conducting electricity.
>
> in evacuated tubes, no air. or in outter space.

Granted, plasma does not exist for very long in the atmosphere; but, again, james is just reporting Johnson's argument... although James has no comprehension about what plasma really is, and takes Johnson's shorthand too literally.

>
>
>
> >
> > The solar wind plasma is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field and
> > this induces a complex system of electric currents which input energy
> > to the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. The input depends on the
> > velocity of the solar wind and the presence of a plasma filled solar
> > wind interacts with the plasma in the Earth's atmosphere (and
> > ionosphere).
>
> very high up.
>
> >
> > Later, when looking at jet streams, which are quite narrow bands, he
> > says they behave somewhat like plasma - or are influenced by plasma.
>
> wrong. not influenced by plasma, plasma to light to influence large
> volume of air.

Again, this is Johnson who is presenting this hypothesis. I tend to agree that it is not vey likely, and I believe Johnson is on the wrong track. In any case, James is unaware that Johnson's hypothesis is quite different from his, and would actually work in opposition.


>
> > In addition, sea water is an insulator
>
> Wrong. sea water good conductor, it has salt in it, everyone knows that.
>
>
> I can see where you got the mis-information on Plasma, this guy is wrong
> on it extending so far down into the atmosphere, to jet streams.

Okay, perhaps you have noticed that he is just trying to eport Johnsonswork... although twisting it to try to support his own. In any case, I agree with you that Johnson is probably wrong... but at least he presents a much more rational argument than James.

>
> Aurora Borealis is your plasma particals slamming into the atmosphere
> recombining with O or N
>
> for study tonight, read up on the ionosphere, how it is created, and how
> it fluxuates up and down.

Mikkel Haaheim

unread,
Jun 14, 2016, 2:28:13 PM6/14/16
to
Le lundi 14 mars 2016 05:28:54 UTC+1, James McGinn a écrit :
> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:45:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> >
> > nu...@bid.nes, in
> > <news:42c018bc-2d80-45bb...@googlegroups.com> did
> > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> >
> > > So, you are not an experimental physicist. I haven't seen you
> > > provide any math to describe the physical characteristics of
> > > air that make you call it a plasma, so you aren't a
> > > mathematical physicist either.
> >
> > He's not any kind of physicist. He once took an elective class in
> > Basic Meteorology, and thinks that qualifies him as a physicist.
>
> I love it when my opponent resorts to ad hominen be cause it indicates that they have lost the argument.

And when you do likewise?

Sergio

unread,
Jun 14, 2016, 3:01:13 PM6/14/16
to
On 6/14/2016 12:53 PM, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:

>>
>>> In addition, sea water is an insulator
>>
>> Wrong. sea water good conductor, it has salt in it, everyone knows
>> that.
>>
>>
>> I can see where you got the mis-information on Plasma, this guy is
>> wrong on it extending so far down into the atmosphere, to jet
>> streams.
>
> Okay, perhaps you have noticed that he is just trying to eport
> Johnsonswork... although twisting it to try to support his own. In
> any case, I agree with you that Johnson is probably wrong... but at
> least he presents a much more rational argument than James.
>



Bob Johnson does some seemingly solid stuff, but it is missing major
pieces, and has influence of the new age airy fairy cozmic stuff in it.

He is involved with these guys, or is one of them (cant find a name)
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/index.html


And poor James, *not knowing any science*, is a believer and mis
understander.

and James has kicked this one up to the top of the pile, as the op is 4
or 5 months old.

there are a lot of whorle pools of sciency blather around, and it drifts
over to Ascended master, Keys of the Enoch, etc, cultish and religious
like stuff california acid leftovers of the late 70's. Scientology lead
the way...


https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA

James McGinn

unread,
Jun 19, 2016, 11:38:49 AM6/19/16
to
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> Le vendredi 11 mars 2016 23:15:39 UTC+1, Sergio a écrit :
> > On 3/11/2016 3:39 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > How do we get from how the Sun works to how the jet streams perform
> > > in the atmosphere of the Earth. Bob Johnson begins by saying space is
> > > not a vacuum (as once thought) but is filled with plasma.
> >
> > space has plasma, ions, atoms, molecules in it, this has been known for
> > decades.
> >
> >
> > > The
> > > atmosphere of the Earth is not an electrified insulator either - but
> > > a weak plasma.
> >
> > Atmosphere is an insulator, that is why we have lightning, the
> > insluation of air breaking down.
> >
> > no, it is gas. the plasma combines with air.
>
> Sergio, in this case, James is trying to report what Johnson has stated, to the best of his (limited) ability to understand it. It actually was Johnson who said that the atmosphere is not an insulator... however, I attribute this more to shorthand.

The atmosphere is, literally, a semi-conductor.


>
> >
> > > This is an important point as it enables the Sun to
> > > play around with our weather - which is a fundamental change in
> > > thinking. Plasma can form cells and filaments and behaves differently
> > > to other gases.
> >
> > in a vaccum, not in air.
>
> Again, it is Johnson who states that the sun interacts (indirectly) with even the lower atmosphere. What James is not inclluding is the mechanism that Johnson hypothesises: increased solar activity shielding against cosmic radiation, and it is actually the cosmic radiation that is interacting directly with the lower atmosphere through radiative ionisation.

Yeah, so? You are so desperate that you are basing your arguments on what you think I don't think? You seem to not realize what bad form this is. Believers think that anything that confirms their belief is fair play. Believers use tactics to protect what they want to continue to believe. The end justifies the means.


>
>
> >
> > > It
> > > explains everything about plasma (well, almost) and how it is capable
> > > of conducting electricity.
> >
> > in evacuated tubes, no air. or in outter space.
>
> Granted, plasma does not exist for very long in the atmosphere; but, again, james is just reporting Johnson's argument... although James has no comprehension about what plasma really is, and takes Johnson's shorthand too literally.

You have nothing.


>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The solar wind plasma is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field and
> > > this induces a complex system of electric currents which input energy
> > > to the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. The input depends on the
> > > velocity of the solar wind and the presence of a plasma filled solar
> > > wind interacts with the plasma in the Earth's atmosphere (and
> > > ionosphere).
> >
> > very high up.
> >
> > >
> > > Later, when looking at jet streams, which are quite narrow bands, he
> > > says they behave somewhat like plasma - or are influenced by plasma.
> >
> > wrong. not influenced by plasma, plasma to light to influence large
> > volume of air.
>
> Again, this is Johnson who is presenting this hypothesis. I tend to agree that it is not vey likely, and I believe Johnson is on the wrong track. In any case, James is unaware that Johnson's hypothesis is quite different from his, and would actually work in opposition.

You don't have an argument. You just believe.


>
>
> >
> > > In addition, sea water is an insulator
> >
> > Wrong. sea water good conductor, it has salt in it, everyone knows that.
> >
> >
> > I can see where you got the mis-information on Plasma, this guy is wrong
> > on it extending so far down into the atmosphere, to jet streams.
>
> Okay, perhaps you have noticed that he is just trying to eport Johnsonswork... although twisting it to try to support his own. In any case, I agree with you that Johnson is probably wrong... but at least he presents a much more rational argument than James.

LOL. I can explain evaporation in a manner that conincides with Johnson and you pretenders have no alternative but to continue pretending that H2O turns to steam and temperatures far below those in which steam has ever been detected.

My explanation makes sense. You explanation is designed to seem simple to simpletons.

Simpletons change the facts to fit what they want to believe. And they always want to believe things are simpler than they actually are.

Mikkel Haaheim

unread,
Jun 20, 2016, 3:38:07 AM6/20/16
to
Ctually, your hypothesis of evaporation does NOT coincide with Johnson. Quite the opposit: Johnson sites the effect of ions on condensation -the transition of gas into a liquid. Again, this assumes that the H2O in the atmosphere is a gas to begin with.

James McGinn

unread,
Jun 20, 2016, 9:06:49 AM6/20/16
to
I know it doesn't fully coincide. He hardly mentions weather, for example.

James McGinn

unread,
Sep 8, 2016, 10:38:43 PM9/8/16
to
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:39:03 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Bob Johnson's Talk
> https://archive.org/details/BJ250415/v2
>
> Jet Stream
> http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/jet-stream.htm-0
>
> Electromagnetism
> 30 Apr 2015
> For those unable to attend our AGM and Spring meeting they missed a real treat. Both talks were excellent and videos of them will be uploaded in due course (after a bit of work by Chris Phillips). However, the transcript of Bob Johnson's talk is already there (go to meetings page) and has the title 'The variability of the Sun and the effects on Earth' so you can settle down later in a comfy armchair with a print-out or simply scan the piece from your computer chair. Unfortunately, I don't know for the moment how we can get around those elderly members not on the internet and who would likewise be very interested in reading what he has to say.
>
> The presentation outlines how the Sun affects the weather on Earth - and suggests what might make the Jet Stream tick. We have all heard of the Jet Stream as the Met Office constantly tell us about its changing position - and how when overhead we get bucket fulls of rain and when we are inside or outside a loop it can either be cold, or unusually hot.
>
> How do we get from how the Sun works to how the jet streams perform in the atmosphere of the Earth. Bob Johnson begins by saying space is not a vacuum (as once thought) but is filled with plasma. The atmosphere of the Earth is not an electrified insulator either - but a weak plasm. This is an important point as it enables the Sun to play around with our weather - which is a fundamental change in thinking. Plasma can form cells and filaments and behaves differently to other gases. It has been described as a fourth state of matter. The presentation is written in a clear and concise manner and is designed to be transparent for a popular audience and the general public at large and is free of as much jargon as possible. It explains everything about plasma (well, almost) and how it is capable of conducting electricity. It can also contain magnetic energy embedded within itself - under the right conditions. Plasma has been the subject of research for a century and scientists know a lot about it - and so on.
>
> The solar wind plasma is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field and this induces a complex system of electric currents which input energy to the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. The input depends on the velocity of the solar wind and the presence of a plasma filled solar wind interacts with the plasma in the Earth's atmosphere (and ionosphere).
>
0 new messages