info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Whatever happened to Odd Bodkin?
336 views
Skip to first unread message
Odd Bodkin
Nov 7, 2014, 1:08:39 PM11/7/14
to
On 11/7/2014 11:10 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> Searching google or wikipedia for scientific truth is like searching the bible
> for stock tips. All it's going to tell you is what most people believe.
>
This is rich, coming from the guy who said there was no need to look in
any basic textbooks, because any information that would be there would
be dead easy to find on the internet.
Notice that the information I have given you is in books.
Or are you of the opinion that looking in BOTH books AND the internet
doesn't tell you anything about scientific truth, and that the only
thing that is contained in either one is unsupported belief? If that's
so, then where do you suggest one look to find appropriately supported
information?
> Searching google or wikipedia for scientific truth is like searching the bible
> for stock tips. All it's going to tell you is what most people believe.
>
This is rich, coming from the guy who said there was no need to look in
any basic textbooks, because any information that would be there would
be dead easy to find on the internet.
Notice that the information I have given you is in books.
Or are you of the opinion that looking in BOTH books AND the internet
doesn't tell you anything about scientific truth, and that the only
thing that is contained in either one is unsupported belief? If that's
so, then where do you suggest one look to find appropriately supported
information?
R Kym Horsell
Nov 7, 2014, 1:32:08 PM11/7/14
to
Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/7/2014 11:10 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>> Searching google or wikipedia for scientific truth is like searching the bible
>> for stock tips. All it's going to tell you is what most people believe.
> This is rich, coming from the guy who said there was no need to look in
> any basic textbooks, because any information that would be there would
> be dead easy to find on the internet.
It's that creeping denialism thing. As new sources are turned up
> On 11/7/2014 11:10 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>> Searching google or wikipedia for scientific truth is like searching the bible
>> for stock tips. All it's going to tell you is what most people believe.
> This is rich, coming from the guy who said there was no need to look in
> any basic textbooks, because any information that would be there would
> be dead easy to find on the internet.
that refute some strongly-held view more and more extreme measures
are taken so they don't need to be accepted.
That and calling for cites and calculations but being unable to provide
none but one's own opinion are the hallmarks of Pure Crankdom (tm).
--
Vapor pressure is a force exerted by the gaseous phase of a two
phase-gas/liquid or gas/solid system.
All liquids and solids have vapor pressure at all temperatures except
at absolute zero, -459?F (-273?C). The pressure of the vapor that is
formed above its liquid or solid is called the vapor pressure.
EQUILIBRIUM VAPOR PRESSURE OF WATER
Temperature Water Vapor Pressure
(C) (mm Hg)
0 4.6
10 9.2
20 17.5
30 31.8
40 55
50 93
60 149
70 237
80 355
90 526
100 760
-- science.jrank.org/pages/7148/Vapor-Pressure.html
Odd Bodkin
Nov 7, 2014, 1:46:16 PM11/7/14
to
On 11/7/2014 11:35 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 8:30:22 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> However, since the formulas are easy to inspect, it is EASY for anyone
>> to see the effect of multi-molecule microdroplets of water in diffusion
>> coefficients and Rayleigh scattering, just by opening the references and
>> looking at the formulas.
>
> If it was easy (obvious) and relevant at the same time that would mean something.
> The reality is that where it is easy (obvious) it is not relevant. And where it is
> relevant it is not easy (obvious). Being stupid, lazy, and intellectually dishonest,
> you will never realize this because you refuse to put forth a cogent argument. Unless
> and until you do you will be pissing into the wind.
It's very relevant. Read the references.
>
>>> What do you expect our audience to believe, that your computer has no number keys? You keep claiming
>>> to see the emperor's new clothes but the more you talk the more obvious becomes the emperor's nudity.
>>> You have no numbers.
>>
>> You lie: I have numbers from the references for monomolecular water
>> model, which agrees with the numbers from the references for
>> measurements. You also have the references.
>
> And you are assuming you can extrapolate from largish numbers of H2O molecules (clumps/droplets) to
> smallish numbers of H2O (monomolecular H2O--steam). Right? Answer my question you evasive twit.
Yes, for diffusion and for Rayleigh scattering, you can. For chemical
reactivity, you cannot.
>
> Your assumption is mistaken.
>
>> What is true is that YOU don't have any numbers for your model. Since
>> YOU don't have any numbers for your model, you've got nothing.
>
> I am not the one that is making the positive claim in this discussion. You claim to have evidence for
> the existence of cold steam. But all you are demonstrating is that you have fallen for all of the same
> misconceptions that everybody else has fallen for.
If you believe you can show that the PUBLISHED theoretical treatment for
monomolecular water vapor in cold air is all wrong, then you should by
all means publish your correct theoretical treatment, showing that your
corrected treatment of monomolecular water vapor shows disagreement with
data.
>
> You are, essentially, making my case for me.
>
>>> What you have is a belief that science equals truth paired with a complete lack of
>>> scruples and a complete lack of personal integrity. In this respect you are extremely common. Like I
>>> said, people are stupid, lazy and intellectually dishonest when it comes to challenges to their science-based
>>> beliefs. Thank you for demonstrating my point.
>>>
>>> There is no steam in our atmosphere.
>>
>> You lie. The predictions for monomolecular water vapor in cool air agree
>> with data.
>
> Then you should make a detailed argument to that effect. You will find that the devil is in the details.
That's what the references do. You asked for references, and those were
provided.
I'm not about to recap the arguments in those references for you. I am
presuming you know how to read.
>
>>> Cold steam is physically impossible.
>>
>> You lie. Nothing that is observed in nature is impossible,
>
> It has never been observed.
That's not what the measurements in the references say.
>
>
> by
>> definition. There is a word for the mental state of people who deny the
>> existence of things in nature that are plainly obvious and
>> experimentally verified.
>>
>>> It makes no difference how
>>> many true believers claim to see the emperor's new clothes. To understand how/why we know that cold steam is
>>> physically impossible go my website and read a post entitled: Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
>>> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof.www.solvingtornadoes.com
>>
>> Why? You have no numbers for your model for the experimental tests given.
>
No numbers, you have no numbers.
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 8:30:22 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> However, since the formulas are easy to inspect, it is EASY for anyone
>> to see the effect of multi-molecule microdroplets of water in diffusion
>> coefficients and Rayleigh scattering, just by opening the references and
>> looking at the formulas.
>
> If it was easy (obvious) and relevant at the same time that would mean something.
> The reality is that where it is easy (obvious) it is not relevant. And where it is
> relevant it is not easy (obvious). Being stupid, lazy, and intellectually dishonest,
> you will never realize this because you refuse to put forth a cogent argument. Unless
> and until you do you will be pissing into the wind.
It's very relevant. Read the references.
>
>>> What do you expect our audience to believe, that your computer has no number keys? You keep claiming
>>> to see the emperor's new clothes but the more you talk the more obvious becomes the emperor's nudity.
>>> You have no numbers.
>>
>> You lie: I have numbers from the references for monomolecular water
>> model, which agrees with the numbers from the references for
>> measurements. You also have the references.
>
> And you are assuming you can extrapolate from largish numbers of H2O molecules (clumps/droplets) to
> smallish numbers of H2O (monomolecular H2O--steam). Right? Answer my question you evasive twit.
Yes, for diffusion and for Rayleigh scattering, you can. For chemical
reactivity, you cannot.
>
> Your assumption is mistaken.
>
>> What is true is that YOU don't have any numbers for your model. Since
>> YOU don't have any numbers for your model, you've got nothing.
>
> I am not the one that is making the positive claim in this discussion. You claim to have evidence for
> the existence of cold steam. But all you are demonstrating is that you have fallen for all of the same
> misconceptions that everybody else has fallen for.
If you believe you can show that the PUBLISHED theoretical treatment for
monomolecular water vapor in cold air is all wrong, then you should by
all means publish your correct theoretical treatment, showing that your
corrected treatment of monomolecular water vapor shows disagreement with
data.
>
> You are, essentially, making my case for me.
>
>>> What you have is a belief that science equals truth paired with a complete lack of
>>> scruples and a complete lack of personal integrity. In this respect you are extremely common. Like I
>>> said, people are stupid, lazy and intellectually dishonest when it comes to challenges to their science-based
>>> beliefs. Thank you for demonstrating my point.
>>>
>>> There is no steam in our atmosphere.
>>
>> You lie. The predictions for monomolecular water vapor in cool air agree
>> with data.
>
> Then you should make a detailed argument to that effect. You will find that the devil is in the details.
That's what the references do. You asked for references, and those were
provided.
I'm not about to recap the arguments in those references for you. I am
presuming you know how to read.
>
>>> Cold steam is physically impossible.
>>
>> You lie. Nothing that is observed in nature is impossible,
>
> It has never been observed.
That's not what the measurements in the references say.
>
>
> by
>> definition. There is a word for the mental state of people who deny the
>> existence of things in nature that are plainly obvious and
>> experimentally verified.
>>
>>> It makes no difference how
>>> many true believers claim to see the emperor's new clothes. To understand how/why we know that cold steam is
>>> physically impossible go my website and read a post entitled: Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
>>> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof.www.solvingtornadoes.com
>>
>> Why? You have no numbers for your model for the experimental tests given.
>
No numbers, you have no numbers.
R Kym Horsell
Nov 7, 2014, 1:55:20 PM11/7/14
to
Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/7/2014 11:35 AM, jim mcginn aka solvingtornadoes wrote:
...
--
On average, a fraction of the molecules in a glass of water have
enough heat energy to escape from the liquid. Water molecules from the
air enter the water in the glass, but as long as the relative humidity
of the air in contact is less than 100% (saturation), the net transfer
of water molecules will be to the air.
For a system consisting of vapor and liquid of a pure substance, this
equilibrium state is directly related to the vapor pressure of the
substance, as given by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation:
\ln \left( \frac{ P_2 }{ P_1 } \right) = - \frac{ \Delta H_{ vap } }{
R } \left( \frac{ 1 }{ T_2 } - \frac{ 1 }{ T_1 } \right)
The ability for a molecule of a liquid to evaporate is based largely
on the amount of kinetic energy an individual particle may
possess. Even at lower temperatures, individual molecules of a liquid
can evaporate if they have more than the minimum amount of kinetic
energy required for vaporization.
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/
Water_vapor_pressure_graph.jpg/240px-Water_vapor_pressure_graph.jpg>
Vapor pressure of water vs. temperature. 760 Torr = 1 atm.
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Watervapor_cup.jpg/
220px-Watervapor_cup.jpg>
Aerosol of microscopic water droplets suspended in the air above a hot
tea cup after that water vapor has sufficiently cooled and
condensed. Water vapor is an invisible gas, but the clouds of
condensed water droplets refract and disperse the sun light and so are
visible.
-- Wikipedia/Evaporation
> On 11/7/2014 11:35 AM, jim mcginn aka solvingtornadoes wrote:
...
> No numbers, you have no numbers.
Situation usual. :)
--
On average, a fraction of the molecules in a glass of water have
enough heat energy to escape from the liquid. Water molecules from the
air enter the water in the glass, but as long as the relative humidity
of the air in contact is less than 100% (saturation), the net transfer
of water molecules will be to the air.
For a system consisting of vapor and liquid of a pure substance, this
equilibrium state is directly related to the vapor pressure of the
substance, as given by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation:
\ln \left( \frac{ P_2 }{ P_1 } \right) = - \frac{ \Delta H_{ vap } }{
R } \left( \frac{ 1 }{ T_2 } - \frac{ 1 }{ T_1 } \right)
The ability for a molecule of a liquid to evaporate is based largely
on the amount of kinetic energy an individual particle may
possess. Even at lower temperatures, individual molecules of a liquid
can evaporate if they have more than the minimum amount of kinetic
energy required for vaporization.
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/
Water_vapor_pressure_graph.jpg/240px-Water_vapor_pressure_graph.jpg>
Vapor pressure of water vs. temperature. 760 Torr = 1 atm.
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Watervapor_cup.jpg/
220px-Watervapor_cup.jpg>
Aerosol of microscopic water droplets suspended in the air above a hot
tea cup after that water vapor has sufficiently cooled and
condensed. Water vapor is an invisible gas, but the clouds of
condensed water droplets refract and disperse the sun light and so are
visible.
-- Wikipedia/Evaporation
marfarly
Nov 7, 2014, 2:17:44 PM11/7/14
to
On 11/7/2014 11:10 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 8:09:23 AM UTC-8, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> [The Unified Theory of the Crank:] A crank is defined as a man who
>> cannot be turned. -- Nature, 8 Nov 1906
>>
>> Cranks aren't interested in debate, nor do they respond to reason,
>> they'll just blather on about their idiotic pet theory until
>> everyone in the room has fled or opened a vein. -- Mark Hoofnagle,
>> http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
or write your own book, + forget your malware website
crank
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 8:09:23 AM UTC-8, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> [The Unified Theory of the Crank:] A crank is defined as a man who
>> cannot be turned. -- Nature, 8 Nov 1906
>>
>> Cranks aren't interested in debate, nor do they respond to reason,
>> they'll just blather on about their idiotic pet theory until
>> everyone in the room has fled or opened a vein. -- Mark Hoofnagle,
>> http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
>
> Searching google or wikipedia for scientific truth is like searching
> the bible for stock tips. All it's going to tell you is what most
> people believe.
>
so go to library,
> Searching google or wikipedia for scientific truth is like searching
> the bible for stock tips. All it's going to tell you is what most
> people believe.
>
or write your own book, + forget your malware website
crank
marfarly
Nov 7, 2014, 2:18:54 PM11/7/14
to
On 11/6/2014 6:01 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Thursday, November 6, 2014 3:36:04 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
>
>> -- Mahipal 'The YAWN preventing App? Download from click Click
>> CLICK.'
>
> Strangely, Mahipal, I think Odd and Odder will consider your
> observation of their absence of originality as a compliment.
>
again, your opinion is irreverent.
> On Thursday, November 6, 2014 3:36:04 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
>
>> -- Mahipal 'The YAWN preventing App? Download from click Click
>> CLICK.'
>
> Strangely, Mahipal, I think Odd and Odder will consider your
> observation of their absence of originality as a compliment.
>
again, your opinion is irreverent.
Solving Tornadoes
Nov 7, 2014, 2:22:02 PM11/7/14
to
Solving Tornadoes
Nov 7, 2014, 2:27:51 PM11/7/14
to
On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:46:16 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > It has never been observed.
>
> That's not what the measurements in the references say.
> > It has never been observed.
>
> That's not what the measurements in the references say.
Solving Tornadoes
Nov 7, 2014, 2:32:44 PM11/7/14
to
On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:55:20 AM UTC-8, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> Water vapor is an invisible gas, but the clouds of
> condensed water droplets refract and disperse the sun light and so are
> visible.
Right. But they do so in incredibly small amounts that are not noticeable at close range. Look at a mountain far off into the distance. Only in extremely dry environments will you not notice a haze.
> Water vapor is an invisible gas, but the clouds of
> condensed water droplets refract and disperse the sun light and so are
> visible.
Solving Tornadoes
Nov 7, 2014, 2:39:08 PM11/7/14
to
On Friday, November 7, 2014 11:18:54 AM UTC-8, marfarly wrote:
> again, your opinion is irreverent.
Everybody,s opinion is irrelevant. Note that Oddball dodged my invitation to explain the physics that, supposedly, neutralize the polarity of the H2O molecule, allowing for "cold steam." That is not the least bit surprising to me. Science groupies are incapable of explaining anything that can't be stated verbatim from a book or website.
> again, your opinion is irreverent.
Solving Tornadoes
Nov 7, 2014, 2:48:52 PM11/7/14
to
On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:46:16 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> If you believe you can show that the PUBLISHED theoretical treatment for
> monomolecular water vapor in cold air is all wrong, then you should by
> all means publish your correct theoretical treatment, showing that your
> corrected treatment of monomolecular water vapor shows disagreement with
> data.
You demonstrated vividly that there is no such theoretical treatment. You've shown only that there are many like you that believe but none that can explain how they know.
> If you believe you can show that the PUBLISHED theoretical treatment for
> monomolecular water vapor in cold air is all wrong, then you should by
> all means publish your correct theoretical treatment, showing that your
> corrected treatment of monomolecular water vapor shows disagreement with
> data.
> That's not what the measurements in the references say.
Odd Bodkin
Nov 7, 2014, 3:06:02 PM11/7/14
to
reasons to ask for the references, then you shouldn't have asked.
Since what you requested has been provided, I presume you will act.
If you do not intend to act, then this will be in line with your
performance to date.
You have no model of what you think is going on. You have no numbers to
compare with experimental measurement. You have nothing.
Odd Bodkin
Nov 7, 2014, 3:08:58 PM11/7/14
to
On 11/7/2014 1:39 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 11:18:54 AM UTC-8, marfarly wrote:
>
>> again, your opinion is irreverent.
>
> Everybody,s opinion is irrelevant. Note that Oddball dodged my invitation to explain
You asked for references too. You have done nothing with them.
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 11:18:54 AM UTC-8, marfarly wrote:
>
>> again, your opinion is irreverent.
>
> Everybody,s opinion is irrelevant. Note that Oddball dodged my invitation to explain
Since the explanations are also in the references, I see no reason to
provide things twice when you haven't taken advantage of the first time.
You are stupid, lazy, and OBVIOUSLY intellectually dishonest.
Odd Bodkin
Nov 7, 2014, 3:10:09 PM11/7/14
to
On 11/7/2014 1:48 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:46:16 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> If you believe you can show that the PUBLISHED theoretical treatment for
>> monomolecular water vapor in cold air is all wrong, then you should by
>> all means publish your correct theoretical treatment, showing that your
>> corrected treatment of monomolecular water vapor shows disagreement with
>> data.
>
> You demonstrated vividly that there is no such theoretical treatment.
Denial of reality is a wonderful gift to the stupid, lazy, and
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:46:16 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> If you believe you can show that the PUBLISHED theoretical treatment for
>> monomolecular water vapor in cold air is all wrong, then you should by
>> all means publish your correct theoretical treatment, showing that your
>> corrected treatment of monomolecular water vapor shows disagreement with
>> data.
>
> You demonstrated vividly that there is no such theoretical treatment.
intellectually dishonest.
I see no further source of amusement in you.
benj
Nov 7, 2014, 5:12:21 PM11/7/14
to
On 11/07/2014 03:08 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/7/2014 1:39 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>> On Friday, November 7, 2014 11:18:54 AM UTC-8, marfarly wrote:
>>
>>> again, your opinion is irreverent.
>>
>> Everybody,s opinion is irrelevant. Note that Oddball dodged my
>> invitation to explain
>
> You asked for references too. You have done nothing with them.
> Since the explanations are also in the references, I see no reason to
> provide things twice when you haven't taken advantage of the first time.
>
> You are stupid, lazy, and OBVIOUSLY intellectually dishonest.
Oh look Muffy! It's Boinker pulling out his irrefutable scientific
> On 11/7/2014 1:39 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>> On Friday, November 7, 2014 11:18:54 AM UTC-8, marfarly wrote:
>>
>>> again, your opinion is irreverent.
>>
>> Everybody,s opinion is irrelevant. Note that Oddball dodged my
>> invitation to explain
>
> You asked for references too. You have done nothing with them.
> Since the explanations are also in the references, I see no reason to
> provide things twice when you haven't taken advantage of the first time.
>
> You are stupid, lazy, and OBVIOUSLY intellectually dishonest.
proofs again! He sure knows how to debate science issues! Just call
people stupid, lazy, and intellectually dishonest and you win the debate!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
benj
Nov 7, 2014, 5:14:56 PM11/7/14
to
On 11/07/2014 03:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/7/2014 1:48 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>> On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:46:16 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> If you believe you can show that the PUBLISHED theoretical treatment for
>>> monomolecular water vapor in cold air is all wrong, then you should by
>>> all means publish your correct theoretical treatment, showing that your
>>> corrected treatment of monomolecular water vapor shows disagreement with
>>> data.
>>
>> You demonstrated vividly that there is no such theoretical treatment.
>
> Denial of reality is a wonderful gift to the stupid, lazy, and
> intellectually dishonest.
>
> I see no further source of amusement in you.
His Majesty has spoken, S.T., and his highness no longer deigns to lower
> On 11/7/2014 1:48 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>> On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:46:16 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> If you believe you can show that the PUBLISHED theoretical treatment for
>>> monomolecular water vapor in cold air is all wrong, then you should by
>>> all means publish your correct theoretical treatment, showing that your
>>> corrected treatment of monomolecular water vapor shows disagreement with
>>> data.
>>
>> You demonstrated vividly that there is no such theoretical treatment.
>
> Denial of reality is a wonderful gift to the stupid, lazy, and
> intellectually dishonest.
>
> I see no further source of amusement in you.
himself to conversations with the peasants for his amusement!
You may now kiss his ring and back slowly out of his presence...
James McGinn
Nov 7, 2014, 7:29:40 PM11/7/14
to
On Friday, November 7, 2014 2:14:56 PM UTC-8, benj wrote:
> On 11/07/2014 03:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 11/7/2014 1:48 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:46:16 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you believe you can show that the PUBLISHED theoretical treatment for
> >>> monomolecular water vapor in cold air is all wrong, then you should by
> >>> all means publish your correct theoretical treatment, showing that your
> >>> corrected treatment of monomolecular water vapor shows disagreement with
> >>> data.
> >>
> >> You demonstrated vividly that there is no such theoretical treatment.
> >
> > Denial of reality is a wonderful gift to the stupid, lazy, and
> > intellectually dishonest.
> >
> > I see no further source of amusement in you.
>
> His Majesty has spoken, S.T., and his highness no longer deigns to lower
> himself to conversations with the peasants for his amusement!
>
> You may now kiss his ring and back slowly out of his presence...
>
Gee, golly . . . was it something I said?
> On 11/07/2014 03:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 11/7/2014 1:48 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:46:16 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you believe you can show that the PUBLISHED theoretical treatment for
> >>> monomolecular water vapor in cold air is all wrong, then you should by
> >>> all means publish your correct theoretical treatment, showing that your
> >>> corrected treatment of monomolecular water vapor shows disagreement with
> >>> data.
> >>
> >> You demonstrated vividly that there is no such theoretical treatment.
> >
> > Denial of reality is a wonderful gift to the stupid, lazy, and
> > intellectually dishonest.
> >
> > I see no further source of amusement in you.
>
> His Majesty has spoken, S.T., and his highness no longer deigns to lower
> himself to conversations with the peasants for his amusement!
>
> You may now kiss his ring and back slowly out of his presence...
>
Mahipal
Nov 7, 2014, 7:30:37 PM11/7/14
to
On Friday, November 7, 2014 8:48:54 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/6/2014 6:01 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > Strangely, Mahipal, I think Odd and Odder will consider your observation of their absence of originality as a compliment.
>
> I don't consider it either a compliment or a criticism. He might as well
> On 11/6/2014 6:01 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > Strangely, Mahipal, I think Odd and Odder will consider your observation of their absence of originality as a compliment.
>
> have made a comment about my lack of purple.
> Originality is easy.
> Any fool can be original.
> A chimp is original.
> A muttering, homeless tramp covered with pigeon shit is HIGHLY original.
> Originality is of no intrinsic value in physics.
Seriously, no physicists ever had an original thought?!
> Now, being original and verifiably RIGHT in physics is valuable.
> But to determine whether you are right, you have to compare with
> experimental data.
Like Duh. But I guess you like to babble. Verifiably RIGHT? Sure.
> Not reason, not common sense. Experimental data, and experimental data
> alone.
Are you aware words have meanings in the real world for real people?
> If your original thinking produces an original thought that is in
> conflict with experimental data, then you are original and wrong, and
> that is worth precisely nothing in science.
You are obviously and scientifically both accurately and precisely wrong.
But do keep babbling OddToyMaker.
-- Mahipal 'Genuinely UI==Useful Idiot(s), too many to count.'
marfarly
Nov 7, 2014, 8:29:19 PM11/7/14
to
marfarly
Nov 7, 2014, 8:37:43 PM11/7/14
to
On 11/7/2014 1:39 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
You have no scientific background at all.
Your flailing at H2O polarity is almost amusing.
You never presented your point in evidence, experiment or equations
(formuli).
Instead you just pointing to a known malware spam website.
How Cold ? Are you ever going to answer that ?
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 12:22:15 AM11/8/14
to
On 11/07/2014 08:16 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/7/2014 v 7:22 AM Poutnik napsal(a):
>> Dne 11/7/2014 v 5:03 AM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
>>
>>
>> Your hypothesis has to provide estimations according to general formulas
>> and compare them with experimental evidence.
>>
>> E.g., what is prediction of your hypothesis of density of gas
>> above water at 95 deg C and 101325 Pa ?
>>
>> And what is measured density ?
>>
> P.S.: Or, what is prediction for pressure,
> if water is closed together with air and heated up.
>
> This you can verify even yourself.
>
P.S.: you may also make a modification,
measuring volume of repulsed air,
if defined amount of water ( by weight of drop count )
is vaporized at kept temperature.
--
Poutnik
> Dne 11/7/2014 v 7:22 AM Poutnik napsal(a):
>> Dne 11/7/2014 v 5:03 AM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
>>
>>
>> Your hypothesis has to provide estimations according to general formulas
>> and compare them with experimental evidence.
>>
>> E.g., what is prediction of your hypothesis of density of gas
>> above water at 95 deg C and 101325 Pa ?
>>
>> And what is measured density ?
>>
> P.S.: Or, what is prediction for pressure,
> if water is closed together with air and heated up.
>
> This you can verify even yourself.
>
P.S.: you may also make a modification,
measuring volume of repulsed air,
if defined amount of water ( by weight of drop count )
is vaporized at kept temperature.
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 12:22:22 AM11/8/14
to
On 11/07/2014 04:52 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>
> Numbers don't lie. People lie.
Exactly. Stop it.
>
> There is no steam in our atmosphere. Cold steam is physically
> impossible.
You have not brought anything to scientifically support your idea,
be retorics, accusations and offenses. These do not count.
Statistical thermodynamics at molecular level says, for gases as well
for liquids, there exist for wide temperature range water molecules
that have enough kinetic energy to escape potential barrier of water
surface, becoming molecules of gas.
For a cluster to leave water surface,
there is no mechanism to escape.
end even if it existed, is would be cold steam as well,
just being with higher molar mass.
But existence of such high density gas is in strong conrary with
measurement, that you happily ignore.
--
Poutnik
>
> Numbers don't lie. People lie.
Exactly. Stop it.
>
> There is no steam in our atmosphere. Cold steam is physically
> impossible.
You have not brought anything to scientifically support your idea,
be retorics, accusations and offenses. These do not count.
Statistical thermodynamics at molecular level says, for gases as well
for liquids, there exist for wide temperature range water molecules
that have enough kinetic energy to escape potential barrier of water
surface, becoming molecules of gas.
For a cluster to leave water surface,
there is no mechanism to escape.
end even if it existed, is would be cold steam as well,
just being with higher molar mass.
But existence of such high density gas is in strong conrary with
measurement, that you happily ignore.
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 12:22:50 AM11/8/14
to
Dne 11/7/2014 v 5:03 AM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
>
It's perfectly normal, for example, for them to present a formula
>
devoid of data and claim that they have accomplished something. Surreal.
>
Yes, it is perfectly normal, as scientists know,
what to do with these formulas. You do not.
Providing formulas without provided data, aside of other things,
try to accomlish you to see consequences of your idea, if it was true.
Your hypothesis has to provide data for these formulas,
as these formulas are valid generally for all substances,
not only water.
Your hypothesis has to provide estimations according to general formulas
and compare them with experimental evidence.
E.g., what is prediction of your hypothesis of density of gas
above water at 95 deg C and 101325 Pa ?
And what is measured density ?
Poutnik
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 12:22:54 AM11/8/14
to
Dne 11/7/2014 v 7:22 AM Poutnik napsal(a):
Every honest author of scientific hypothesis
suggests and tries to initiate or manage experiments
that can clearly confirm or refute his hypothesis.
And even before that, he compares predictions
with already known data. As if they do not fit at all,
managing others experiments is useless. Such data
are already available for long time.
For every honest author, what fits reality better
takes for him precedence over if he was right or not.
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 12:23:21 AM11/8/14
to
Dne 11/7/2014 v 7:22 AM Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 11/7/2014 v 5:03 AM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
>
>
>
>
> Your hypothesis has to provide estimations according to general formulas
> and compare them with experimental evidence.
>
> E.g., what is prediction of your hypothesis of density of gas
> above water at 95 deg C and 101325 Pa ?
>
> And what is measured density ?
>
> and compare them with experimental evidence.
>
> E.g., what is prediction of your hypothesis of density of gas
> above water at 95 deg C and 101325 Pa ?
>
> And what is measured density ?
>
P.S.: Or, what is prediction for pressure,
if water is closed together with air and heated up.
This you can verify even yourself.
Find a glass or transparent heat resistent plastic container,
if water is closed together with air and heated up.
This you can verify even yourself.
with option to join a rubber a/o plastic tube.
Put there a thermometer and partly fill it by with water.
Let say 1/10-1/3 of volume is appropriate.
Join to container a narrow glass a/o transparent plastic tubes
( you can find some at pet aquarium shops )
by rubber pipe. Do it in such a way
it is filled with water as well,
joined to water in container.
You have ready water manometer.
Note water level difference at container and tubing.
Place it at heated water basin.
Verify the water boiling point at your altitude
and heat up the container 5 deg C below that.
Again, Note water level difference at container and tubing.
Compute the pressures. For finer computing,
estimate needed correction of tubing water density change.
Compare result with predictions of standard gas theory
and microdroplet hypothesis.
Make the conclusion.
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 12:23:30 AM11/8/14
to
On 11/07/2014 01:02 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Thursday, November 6, 2014 3:57:01 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/6/2014 5:36 PM, Mahipal wrote:
>>> Neither you or the OddOne 'I a ToyMaker' hold any credentials
>>> to comment on free and original scientific thought.
>>
>> Original thought is not original scientific thought, just because it's
>> about sciencey things.
>>
>> Scientific thought is that which follows the scientific method, by
>> definition.
>
> Well then you should stop whining and make an argument to that effect.
>
Cluster droplet hypothesis do not provide quantitative predictions
( therefore neither better prediction ) for observed states and
behaviour of gaseous water, than standard hypothesis.
Note that clusters (H2O)n are not earosols,
but matter of gaseous behaviour with M = ( n . 18.01) g/mol.
I has to follow usual equilibrium equations
(H2O)(n-1) + H2O <--> (H2O)n with equilibrium constant Kn.
This constant depends lightly on temperature, but not on total pressure.
So, composition of gaseous water at given temperature at equilibrium
does not depend on what is air partial pressure.
--
Poutnik
> On Thursday, November 6, 2014 3:57:01 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/6/2014 5:36 PM, Mahipal wrote:
>>> Neither you or the OddOne 'I a ToyMaker' hold any credentials
>>> to comment on free and original scientific thought.
>>
>> Original thought is not original scientific thought, just because it's
>> about sciencey things.
>>
>> Scientific thought is that which follows the scientific method, by
>> definition.
>
> Well then you should stop whining and make an argument to that effect.
>
Cluster droplet hypothesis do not provide quantitative predictions
( therefore neither better prediction ) for observed states and
behaviour of gaseous water, than standard hypothesis.
Note that clusters (H2O)n are not earosols,
but matter of gaseous behaviour with M = ( n . 18.01) g/mol.
I has to follow usual equilibrium equations
(H2O)(n-1) + H2O <--> (H2O)n with equilibrium constant Kn.
This constant depends lightly on temperature, but not on total pressure.
So, composition of gaseous water at given temperature at equilibrium
does not depend on what is air partial pressure.
--
Poutnik
R Kym Horsell
Nov 8, 2014, 12:31:01 AM11/8/14
to
Poutnik <Pou...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 11/07/2014 04:52 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>> Numbers don't lie. People lie.
> Exactly. Stop it.
>> There is no steam in our atmosphere. Cold steam is physically
>> impossible.
> You have not brought anything to scientifically support your idea,
> be retorics, accusations and offenses. These do not count.
> Statistical thermodynamics at molecular level says, for gases as well
> for liquids, there exist for wide temperature range water molecules
> that have enough kinetic energy to escape potential barrier of water
> surface, becoming molecules of gas.
> For a cluster to leave water surface,
> there is no mechanism to escape.
> end even if it existed, is would be cold steam as well,
> just being with higher molar mass.
Yes, good point. You have gone around the long way
> On 11/07/2014 04:52 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
>> Numbers don't lie. People lie.
> Exactly. Stop it.
>> There is no steam in our atmosphere. Cold steam is physically
>> impossible.
> You have not brought anything to scientifically support your idea,
> be retorics, accusations and offenses. These do not count.
> Statistical thermodynamics at molecular level says, for gases as well
> for liquids, there exist for wide temperature range water molecules
> that have enough kinetic energy to escape potential barrier of water
> surface, becoming molecules of gas.
> For a cluster to leave water surface,
> there is no mechanism to escape.
> end even if it existed, is would be cold steam as well,
> just being with higher molar mass.
and come back to the same thing. :)
> But existence of such high density gas is in strong conrary with
> measurement, that you happily ignore.
--
consistency, but it's the best explanation I have so far for the talk
I've heard around the water cooler.
James McGinn
Nov 8, 2014, 1:30:00 AM11/8/14
to
weighing moist air to dry air.
James McGinn
Nov 8, 2014, 1:34:47 AM11/8/14
to
On Friday, November 7, 2014 9:22:50 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/7/2014 v 5:03 AM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
>
> >
> It's perfectly normal, for example, for them to present a formula
> devoid of data and claim that they have accomplished something. Surreal.
> >
>
> Yes, it is perfectly normal, as scientists know,
> what to do with these formulas.
LOL. Is that what you were demonstrating?
> Dne 11/7/2014 v 5:03 AM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
>
> >
> It's perfectly normal, for example, for them to present a formula
> devoid of data and claim that they have accomplished something. Surreal.
> >
>
> Yes, it is perfectly normal, as scientists know,
> what to do with these formulas.
James McGinn
Nov 8, 2014, 1:35:44 AM11/8/14
to
On Friday, November 7, 2014 9:22:22 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> But existence of such high density gas is in strong conrary with
> measurement, that you happily ignore.
You're just babbling.
> But existence of such high density gas is in strong conrary with
> measurement, that you happily ignore.
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 1:46:58 AM11/8/14
to
Dne 11/8/2014 v 7:29 AM James McGinn napsal(a):
as it would affect multiple domains of physics.
--
Poutnik
>
> The only test necessary AFAIC, as we've discussed, involves
> weighing moist air to dry air.
>
The are many possible tests,
> The only test necessary AFAIC, as we've discussed, involves
> weighing moist air to dry air.
>
as it would affect multiple domains of physics.
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 1:49:53 AM11/8/14
to
Dne 11/8/2014 v 7:35 AM James McGinn napsal(a):
Sure, physics is just babbling to you. :-)
--
Poutnik
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 2:06:38 AM11/8/14
to
Dne 11/8/2014 v 7:34 AM James McGinn napsal(a):
--
Poutnik
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 9:22:50 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 11/7/2014 v 5:03 AM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
>>
>>>
>> It's perfectly normal, for example, for them to present a formula
>> devoid of data and claim that they have accomplished something. Surreal.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it is perfectly normal, as scientists know,
>> what to do with these formulas.
>
> LOL. Is that what you were demonstrating?
>
I am waiting for your demonstration of theoretical physical skills...
>> Dne 11/7/2014 v 5:03 AM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
>>
>>>
>> It's perfectly normal, for example, for them to present a formula
>> devoid of data and claim that they have accomplished something. Surreal.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it is perfectly normal, as scientists know,
>> what to do with these formulas.
>
> LOL. Is that what you were demonstrating?
>
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 2:30:41 AM11/8/14
to
Dne 11/8/2014 v 7:29 AM James McGinn napsal(a):
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 9:23:30 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>
> The only test necessary AFAIC, as we've discussed, involves
> weighing moist air to dry air.
>
There are even much simpler tests,
>
> The only test necessary AFAIC, as we've discussed, involves
> weighing moist air to dry air.
>
and physicists are well aware about results for at least 150-200 years.
E.g. measuring of either volume expansion,
of volume of air repulsed,
by evaporization of given amount of water
at and below boiling point for given pressure.
( As you must know boiling poit depends on pressure ).
You should also know, that even at 0 deg C
there is still a fraction of water molecules
that have much higher energy than needed to leave the liquid,
breaking the bonds.
OTOH, clusters of molecules do not have such energy.
Water would never evaporate.
--
Poutnik
Solving Tornadoes
Nov 8, 2014, 2:30:49 AM11/8/14
to
On Friday, November 7, 2014 9:22:50 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/7/2014 v 5:03 AM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
>
> >
> It's perfectly normal, for example, for them to present a formula
> devoid of data and claim that they have accomplished something. Surreal.
> >
>
> Yes, it is perfectly normal, as scientists know,
> what to do with these formulas.
I am a scientist. A formula devoid of data is worthless.
>
> >
> It's perfectly normal, for example, for them to present a formula
> devoid of data and claim that they have accomplished something. Surreal.
> >
>
> Yes, it is perfectly normal, as scientists know,
> what to do with these formulas.
Even a third grader knows that.
Solving Tornadoes
Nov 8, 2014, 2:42:03 AM11/8/14
to
R Kym Horsell
Nov 8, 2014, 2:46:09 AM11/8/14
to
Poutnik <pou...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Dne 11/8/2014 v 7:29 AM James McGinn napsal(a):
>> On Friday, November 7, 2014 9:23:30 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>> The only test necessary AFAIC, as we've discussed, involves
>> weighing moist air to dry air.
> There are even much simpler tests,
> and physicists are well aware about results for at least 150-200 years.
...
> Dne 11/8/2014 v 7:29 AM James McGinn napsal(a):
>> On Friday, November 7, 2014 9:23:30 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>> The only test necessary AFAIC, as we've discussed, involves
>> weighing moist air to dry air.
> There are even much simpler tests,
> and physicists are well aware about results for at least 150-200 years.
Poor old Jim.
Hard to see how weighing "moist air" decides the size of imputed drops.
If we discover e.g. there are 10g of h2o in a 1 kg sample of air
at a given pres and temp what does that show?
Surely whether moist air or WV in particular behaves like it has a
molecular weight of 18 or 180 is the go. P = k \rho T / (\mu M) etc.
And we all know the answer to that one from airconditioner engineer
manuals. :)
--
You have been stupid enough to write: "If a theory A predicts B and we
observe B then we have evidence the theory is true" and you are telling
me that pointing your error is some sophistry?
-- Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr>, 08 Jul 2012 18:36:01 GMT
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 2:46:16 AM11/8/14
to
Dne 11/8/2014 v 8:30 AM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
You are not a scientist,
you just call yourself so.
As you would know what to do with formulas
with data predicted by your hypothesis.
--
Poutnik
you just call yourself so.
As you would know what to do with formulas
with data predicted by your hypothesis.
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 2:50:02 AM11/8/14
to
Dne 11/8/2014 v 8:41 AM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
>
> It's comical how the most fervently self-righteous defenders of science are so ignorant about what really matters in science.
Exactly.
The only thing that matters in science
is confrontation of hypothesis prediction with experimental data.
I have not seen neither yours predictions
neither your comparisons.
It is your turn.
--
Poutnik
>
> It's comical how the most fervently self-righteous defenders of science are so ignorant about what really matters in science.
The only thing that matters in science
is confrontation of hypothesis prediction with experimental data.
I have not seen neither yours predictions
neither your comparisons.
It is your turn.
--
Poutnik
Emmitt K. Pellegrino
Nov 8, 2014, 7:24:58 AM11/8/14
to
Poutnik wrote:
> The only thing that matters in science is confrontation of hypothesis
> prediction with experimental data.
No, never, idiot. Theories does exactly not that. That's why the name,
> The only thing that matters in science is confrontation of hypothesis
> prediction with experimental data.
theories.
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 7:39:00 AM11/8/14
to
Dne 11/8/2014 v 1:24 PM Emmitt K. Pellegrino napsal(a):
Your own words say you have no idea.
--
Poutnik
--
Poutnik
Emmitt K. Pellegrino
Nov 8, 2014, 7:42:59 AM11/8/14
to
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 8:30:24 AM11/8/14
to
Dne 11/8/2014 v 1:42 PM Emmitt K. Pellegrino napsal(a):
Hypothesis,
that did not pass consistence check
and prediction verification on existing experimental data,
is not considered as a scientific theory.
What many people including you take as a theory,
is not a scientific theory, but armchair fantasy.
When you learn manners, come back,
and we will see, if you can learn some physics.
--
Poutnik
that did not pass consistence check
and prediction verification on existing experimental data,
is not considered as a scientific theory.
What many people including you take as a theory,
is not a scientific theory, but armchair fantasy.
When you learn manners, come back,
and we will see, if you can learn some physics.
--
Poutnik
marfarly
Nov 8, 2014, 9:13:39 AM11/8/14
to
On 11/7/2014 1:32 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:55:20 AM UTC-8, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>
>> Water vapor is an invisible gas, but the clouds of condensed water
>> droplets refract and disperse the sun light and so are visible.
>
> Right. But they do so in incredibly small amounts that are not
> noticeable at close range. Look at a mountain far off into the
> distance. Only in extremely dry environments will you not notice a
> haze.
>
yes, because all the water droplets have turned to gas
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:55:20 AM UTC-8, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>
>> Water vapor is an invisible gas, but the clouds of condensed water
>> droplets refract and disperse the sun light and so are visible.
>
> Right. But they do so in incredibly small amounts that are not
> noticeable at close range. Look at a mountain far off into the
> distance. Only in extremely dry environments will you not notice a
> haze.
>
yes, because all the water droplets have turned to gas
Emmitt K. Pellegrino
Nov 8, 2014, 10:12:52 AM11/8/14
to
Poutnik wrote:
>>>>> The only thing that matters in science is confrontation of
>>>>> hypothesis prediction with experimental data.
>>>>
>>>> No, never, idiot. Theories does exactly not that. That's why the
>>>> name, theories.
>>>>
>>> Your own words say you have no idea.
>>
>> Theories waits for experimental data, idiot? What theories are that.
>>
> Hypothesis,
> that did not pass consistence check and prediction verification on
> existing experimental data, is not considered as a scientific theory.
> What many people including you take as a theory,
> is not a scientific theory, but armchair fantasy.
Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring about
>>>>> The only thing that matters in science is confrontation of
>>>>> hypothesis prediction with experimental data.
>>>>
>>>> No, never, idiot. Theories does exactly not that. That's why the
>>>> name, theories.
>>>>
>>> Your own words say you have no idea.
>>
>> Theories waits for experimental data, idiot? What theories are that.
>>
> Hypothesis,
> that did not pass consistence check and prediction verification on
> existing experimental data, is not considered as a scientific theory.
> What many people including you take as a theory,
> is not a scientific theory, but armchair fantasy.
hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind. Idiot. You are so stupid.
marfarly
Nov 8, 2014, 10:19:42 AM11/8/14
to
On 11/8/2014 9:12 AM, Emmitt K. Pellegrino wrote:
Why don't you research the terms first, read and understand, perhaps on
WIKI, before posting in this group.
> Poutnik wrote:
>
> Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring about
> hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind.
>
that makes no sense at all.
>
> Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring about
> hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind.
>
Why don't you research the terms first, read and understand, perhaps on
WIKI, before posting in this group.
marfarly
Nov 8, 2014, 10:20:59 AM11/8/14
to
Emmitt K. Pellegrino
Nov 8, 2014, 10:40:55 AM11/8/14
to
marfarly wrote:
>> Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring about
>> hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind.
>>
> that makes no sense at all.
> Why don't you research the terms first, read and understand, perhaps on
> WIKI, before posting in this group.
For morons like you two make no sense, imbecile, persistent. Now go to wiki
>> Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring about
>> hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind.
>>
> that makes no sense at all.
> Why don't you research the terms first, read and understand, perhaps on
> WIKI, before posting in this group.
to see how fucking stupid persistent you can be. LOL
marfarly
Nov 8, 2014, 10:56:24 AM11/8/14
to
On 11/8/2014 9:40 AM, Emmitt K. Pellegrino wrote:
> marfarly wrote:
>
>>> Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring about
>>> hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind.
>>>
>> that makes no sense at all.
>> Why don't you research the terms first, read and understand, perhaps on
>> WIKI, before posting in this group.
>
> For morons like me two make no sense, imbecile, persistent. Now go to wiki
> marfarly wrote:
>
>>> Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring about
>>> hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind.
>>>
>> that makes no sense at all.
>> Why don't you research the terms first, read and understand, perhaps on
>> WIKI, before posting in this group.
>
> to see how fucking stupid persistent I can be. LOL
>
insults are all you have, troll.
( google "insults" )
you have no knowledge of science.
Emmitt K. Pellegrino
Nov 8, 2014, 11:12:30 AM11/8/14
to
marfarly wrote:
> On 11/8/2014 9:40 AM, Emmitt K. Pellegrino wrote:
>> marfarly wrote:
>>
>>>> Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring about
>>>> hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind.
>>>>
>>> that makes no sense at all.
>>> Why don't you research the terms first, read and understand, perhaps
>>> on WIKI, before posting in this group.
>>
>> For morons like YOU two make no sense, imbecile, persistent. Now go to
> On 11/8/2014 9:40 AM, Emmitt K. Pellegrino wrote:
>> marfarly wrote:
>>
>>>> Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring about
>>>> hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind.
>>>>
>>> that makes no sense at all.
>>> Why don't you research the terms first, read and understand, perhaps
>>> on WIKI, before posting in this group.
>>
>> wiki to see how fucking stupid persistent YOU can be. LOL
>>
> insults are all you have, troll.
This is not true, I have also your dear mother. I am smocking a cigar
> insults are all you have, troll.
right now, good
Poutnik
Nov 8, 2014, 11:13:30 AM11/8/14
to
Dne 11/8/2014 v 4:12 PM Emmitt K. Pellegrino napsal(a):
Some fools think the word idiot
is universal substitution of knowledge.
I did not say hypothesis are theories.
Hypothesis is early state of each theory.
During theory life,
every theory change is based on hypothesis.
Hypothesis and theory has in any time
to be able to be confronted with data.
Your words fall on your head.
--
Poutnik
is universal substitution of knowledge.
I did not say hypothesis are theories.
Hypothesis is early state of each theory.
During theory life,
every theory change is based on hypothesis.
Hypothesis and theory has in any time
to be able to be confronted with data.
Your words fall on your head.
--
Poutnik
Emmitt K. Pellegrino
Nov 8, 2014, 11:24:06 AM11/8/14
to
Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/8/2014 v 4:12 PM Emmitt K. Pellegrino napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> The only thing that matters in science is confrontation of
>>>>>>> hypothesis prediction with experimental data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, never, idiot. Theories does exactly not that. That's why the
>>>>>> name, theories.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your own words say you have no idea.
>>>>
>>>> Theories waits for experimental data, idiot? What theories are that.
>>>>
>>> Hypothesis,
>>> that did not pass consistence check and prediction verification on
>>> existing experimental data, is not considered as a scientific theory.
>>> What many people including you take as a theory,
>>> is not a scientific theory, but armchair fantasy.
>>
>> Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring about
>> hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind. Idiot. You are so
>> stupid.
>
> Some fools think the word idiot is universal substitution of knowledge.
>
> I did not say hypothesis are theories.
>
> Hypothesis is early state of each theory.
Noo, imbecile!! Hypothesises only takes place AFTER a phenomenon already
> Dne 11/8/2014 v 4:12 PM Emmitt K. Pellegrino napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> The only thing that matters in science is confrontation of
>>>>>>> hypothesis prediction with experimental data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, never, idiot. Theories does exactly not that. That's why the
>>>>>> name, theories.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your own words say you have no idea.
>>>>
>>>> Theories waits for experimental data, idiot? What theories are that.
>>>>
>>> Hypothesis,
>>> that did not pass consistence check and prediction verification on
>>> existing experimental data, is not considered as a scientific theory.
>>> What many people including you take as a theory,
>>> is not a scientific theory, but armchair fantasy.
>>
>> Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring about
>> hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind. Idiot. You are so
>> stupid.
>
> Some fools think the word idiot is universal substitution of knowledge.
>
> I did not say hypothesis are theories.
>
> Hypothesis is early state of each theory.
happened.
Good theories before, and does not even need a phenomenon to happen. You
are so fucking stupid.
> During theory life, every theory change is based on hypothesis.
> Hypothesis and theory has in any time to be able to be confronted with
> data.
James McGinn
Nov 8, 2014, 12:36:15 PM11/8/14
to
James McGinn
Nov 8, 2014, 12:38:38 PM11/8/14
to
Mica Choo
Nov 13, 2014, 12:00:38 PM11/13/14
to
On 11/8/2014 11:38 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, November 8, 2014 7:40:55 AM UTC-8, Emmitt K. Pellegrino
> wrote:
>> marfarly wrote:
>>
>>>> Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring
>>>> about hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind.
>>>>
>>> that makes no sense at all. Why don't you research the terms
>>> first, read and understand, perhaps on WIKI, before posting in
>>> this group.
>>
>> For morons like you two make no sense, imbecile, persistent. Now go
>> to wiki to see how fucking stupid persistent you can be. LOL
>
> The really troubling thing about all this is that and people
> On Saturday, November 8, 2014 7:40:55 AM UTC-8, Emmitt K. Pellegrino
> wrote:
>> marfarly wrote:
>>
>>>> Hypothesises are not theories and theories are not caring
>>>> about hypothesises, nor need confrontation of any kind.
>>>>
>>> that makes no sense at all. Why don't you research the terms
>>> first, read and understand, perhaps on WIKI, before posting in
>>> this group.
>>
>> For morons like you two make no sense, imbecile, persistent. Now go
>> to wiki to see how fucking stupid persistent you can be. LOL
>
> like him often end up in positions where they are teaching
> myselfs about science.
>
Common early symptoms of Alzheimer's include repetition, getting lost,
difficulties keeping track of bills, problems with cooking especially
new or complicated meals, forgetting to take medication, and
word-finding problems.
The part of the brain most affected by Alzheimer's is the hippocampus.
Other parts of the brain that will show shrinking (atrophy) include the
temporal and parietal lobes.[1] Although this pattern suggests
Alzheimer's, the brain shrinkage in Alzheimer's disease is very
variable, and a scan of the brain cannot actually make the diagnosis.
soltag1
Nov 26, 2014, 12:28:33 AM11/26/14
to
On 11/2/2014 2:12 PM, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Odd Bodkin:
> Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling point, as has been
> shown extensively in experimental data.
>
sure it does.
>
> Odd Bodkin:
> Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling point, as has been
> shown extensively in experimental data.
>
sure it does.
solvingt...@gmail.com
Nov 2, 2014, 3:12:16 PM11/2/14
to
Poutnik
Nov 2, 2014, 3:24:24 PM11/2/14
to
Dne 11/2/2014 v 9:12 PM solvingt...@gmail.com napsal(a):
--
Poutnik
>
> Odd Bodkin:
> Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling point, as has been
> shown extensively in experimental data.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram
> Odd Bodkin:
> Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling point, as has been
> shown extensively in experimental data.
>
--
Poutnik
solvingt...@gmail.com
Nov 2, 2014, 3:52:37 PM11/2/14
to
Ultimately all your efforts have done nothing more than confirm the premise I presented in another post: Humans are stupid, lazy, and intellectually dishonest when it comes to challenges to their science-based beliefs.
Poutnik
Nov 2, 2014, 3:58:14 PM11/2/14
to
Dne 11/2/2014 v 9:52 PM solvingt...@gmail.com napsal(a):
Funny provoking troll
with lack of ability and willingness to self educate.
--
Poutnik
with lack of ability and willingness to self educate.
--
Poutnik
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Nov 2, 2014, 4:16:06 PM11/2/14
to
solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 12:24:24 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 11/2/2014 v 9:12 PM solvingt...@gmail.com napsal(a):
>> >
>> > Odd Bodkin:
>> > Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling point, as has been
>> > shown extensively in experimental data.
>> >
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram
>>
>> --
>> Poutnik
>
> Evaporate isn't gas. It's a liquid suspended in air.
What a buffoon.
> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 12:24:24 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 11/2/2014 v 9:12 PM solvingt...@gmail.com napsal(a):
>> >
>> > Odd Bodkin:
>> > Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling point, as has been
>> > shown extensively in experimental data.
>> >
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram
>>
>> --
>> Poutnik
>
> Evaporate isn't gas. It's a liquid suspended in air.
--
Jim Pennino
solvingt...@gmail.com
Nov 2, 2014, 4:35:58 PM11/2/14
to
you dishonest or stupid. Maintaining a scientific belief
that is false and then concealing the falsity behind
pretentious rhetoric and blatantly false claims along the
lines that you have seen empirical evidence confirming it
does make you dishonest. And being dishonest about anything
as banal as science-based facts does make you stupid.
People that maintain a scientific falsehood of one kind or
another are extremely common. Using deceptive tactics to
maintain or defend the perceived validity of a scientific
falsehood, on the otherhand, takes a special kind of idiocy.
Eduard Wooten
Nov 2, 2014, 6:38:05 PM11/2/14
to
solvingtornadoes wrote:
> Evaporate isn't gas. It's a liquid suspended in air.
How about a fart, what is it?
> Evaporate isn't gas. It's a liquid suspended in air.
samsoia
Nov 2, 2014, 11:03:52 PM11/2/14
to
On 11/2/2014 2:52 PM, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 12:24:24 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 11/2/2014 v 9:12 PM solvingt...@gmail.com napsal(a):
>>>
>>> Odd Bodkin: Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling
>>> point, as has been shown extensively in experimental data.
>>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram
>>
>> -- Poutnik
>
> Evaporate isn't gas. It's a liquid suspended in air.
no, it is more complicated that that simplistic idea.
> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 12:24:24 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 11/2/2014 v 9:12 PM solvingt...@gmail.com napsal(a):
>>>
>>> Odd Bodkin: Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling
>>> point, as has been shown extensively in experimental data.
>>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram
>>
>> -- Poutnik
>
> Evaporate isn't gas. It's a liquid suspended in air.
when water evaporates it turns into a gas called water vapor.
your point is that some of the water molicules have stuck on to each
other, which is partially true,
plot the # globed together vs distance from the evaporation surface.
what do you get ?
solvingt...@gmail.com
Nov 3, 2014, 12:19:32 AM11/3/14
to
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:03:52 PM UTC-8, samsoia wrote:
> On 11/2/2014 2:52 PM, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 2, 2014 12:24:24 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> >> Dne 11/2/2014 v 9:12 PM solvingt...@gmail.com napsal(a):
> >>>
> >>> Odd Bodkin: Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling
> >>> point, as has been shown extensively in experimental data.
> >>>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram
> >>
> >> -- Poutnik
> >
> > Evaporate isn't gas. It's a liquid suspended in air.
>
> no, it is more complicated that that simplistic idea.
>
> when water evaporates it turns into a gas called water vapor.
>
> your point is that some of the water molicules have stuck on to each
> other, which is partially true,
Can you be more specific?
> On 11/2/2014 2:52 PM, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 2, 2014 12:24:24 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> >> Dne 11/2/2014 v 9:12 PM solvingt...@gmail.com napsal(a):
> >>>
> >>> Odd Bodkin: Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling
> >>> point, as has been shown extensively in experimental data.
> >>>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram
> >>
> >> -- Poutnik
> >
> > Evaporate isn't gas. It's a liquid suspended in air.
>
> no, it is more complicated that that simplistic idea.
>
> when water evaporates it turns into a gas called water vapor.
>
> your point is that some of the water molicules have stuck on to each
> other, which is partially true,
> plot the # globed together vs distance from the evaporation surface.
>
> what do you get?
You aren't being very specific. Nor are you being very explicit about indicating how it is you know what you think you know.
Just a suggestion.
Poutnik
Nov 3, 2014, 1:26:47 AM11/3/14
to
Dne 11/3/2014 v 12:38 AM Eduard Wooten napsal(a):
There is zero experimental evidence
vapours are not gas, but liquid.
--
Poutnik
> solvingtornadoes wrote:
>
>> Evaporate isn't gas. It's a liquid suspended in air.
>
> How about a fart, what is it?
>
Science is based on refutations.
>
>> Evaporate isn't gas. It's a liquid suspended in air.
>
> How about a fart, what is it?
>
There is zero experimental evidence
vapours are not gas, but liquid.
--
Poutnik
Y.Porat
Nov 3, 2014, 9:47:55 AM11/3/14
to
The real name of Odd Bodkin''
is Paul Draper !!
a crook that is fishing for real good ideas
and findings
he is associated with a publishing company
Y.Porat
============================
Odd Bodkin
Nov 3, 2014, 11:00:59 AM11/3/14
to
those data. You want them spoonfed to you here, because you're
incompetent. No.
Odd Bodkin
Nov 3, 2014, 11:08:04 AM11/3/14
to
Eduard Wooten
Nov 3, 2014, 11:24:04 AM11/3/14
to
shadow of a doubt?
Poutnik
Nov 3, 2014, 11:32:58 AM11/3/14
to
--
Poutnik
Eduard Wooten
Nov 3, 2014, 11:37:43 AM11/3/14
to
benj
Nov 3, 2014, 2:14:34 PM11/3/14
to
this will have to do for his Bio. Certainly works for me. The way he
always calls everyone kooks and stupid it's no wonder he wants to stay
CB anonymous. All he does is lie and try to disrupt any sensible
conversation.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Odd Bodkin
Nov 3, 2014, 2:38:21 PM11/3/14
to
On 11/3/2014 1:14 PM, benj wrote:
>>
>> More bullshit
>
> Dodge and weave. He's anonymous so until he gives up being a girlie-man
> this will have to do for his Bio. Certainly works for me.
Sure does work for you.
>>
>> More bullshit
>
> Dodge and weave. He's anonymous so until he gives up being a girlie-man
> this will have to do for his Bio. Certainly works for me.
What works for you is making something up if an answer isn't provided.
What also works for you is lying when something is provided after all.
So that's your MO, and you're welcome to it, you worthless nutjob.
> The way he
> always calls everyone kooks and stupid
making something up?
benj
Nov 4, 2014, 2:36:33 AM11/4/14
to
On 11/03/2014 02:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/3/2014 1:14 PM, benj wrote:
>>>
>>> More bullshit
>>
>> Dodge and weave. He's anonymous so until he gives up being a girlie-man
>> this will have to do for his Bio. Certainly works for me.
>
> Sure does work for you.
> What works for you is making something up if an answer isn't provided.
> What also works for you is lying when something is provided after all.
> So that's your MO, and you're welcome to it, you worthless nutjob.
Schoolyard taunts and name-calling. I guess this is how publishers do
> On 11/3/2014 1:14 PM, benj wrote:
>>>
>>> More bullshit
>>
>> Dodge and weave. He's anonymous so until he gives up being a girlie-man
>> this will have to do for his Bio. Certainly works for me.
>
> Sure does work for you.
> What works for you is making something up if an answer isn't provided.
> What also works for you is lying when something is provided after all.
> So that's your MO, and you're welcome to it, you worthless nutjob.
what they call "science".
>> The way he
>> always calls everyone kooks and stupid
>
> Mostly just you. You're not everyone. See what I mean about lying and
> making something up?
all supposed to forget what he just said a couple of sentences ago and
believe him with all your heart that every lie he spouts "now" is the
truth.
Notice that I didn't "name-call" but only correctly characterized
Boinker's name calling the truth of which exists right on this page,
while he couldn't resist school-yard taunts.
>> it's no wonder he wants to stay
>> CB anonymous. All he does is lie and try to disrupt any sensible
>> conversation.
Y.Porat
Nov 4, 2014, 2:50:39 AM11/4/14
to
Paul Draper (P D )
you are much worse than a B S
you are a professional *** crook thief** !!!
and (among the other pigs )
a walking disaster to advance of science
criminal against mankind !!
Y.Porat
=====================================
Y.Porat
Nov 5, 2014, 1:52:58 AM11/5/14
to
which data ??
Y.P
=================================
Odd Bodkin
Nov 5, 2014, 9:10:46 AM11/5/14
to
If you don't know how to use your usenet reader to read posts in the
past, then there's no point in discussing anything.
James McGinn
Nov 5, 2014, 10:58:12 AM11/5/14
to
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 6:10:46 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/5/2014 12:52 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
> > On Monday, November 3, 2014 6:00:59 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 11/2/2014 2:12 PM, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Odd Bodkin:
> >>> Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling point, as has been
> >>> shown extensively in experimental data.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yup, and I've pointed to several kinds of measurements that provide
> >> those data. You want them spoonfed to you here, because you're
> >> incompetent. No.
> >
> > ========================
> > which data ??
> >
> > Y.P
> > =================================
> >
>
> Read the back posts, Porat. They've been listed at least three times.
I wonder why nobody can see them except you?
> On 11/5/2014 12:52 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
> > On Monday, November 3, 2014 6:00:59 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 11/2/2014 2:12 PM, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Odd Bodkin:
> >>> Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling point, as has been
> >>> shown extensively in experimental data.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yup, and I've pointed to several kinds of measurements that provide
> >> those data. You want them spoonfed to you here, because you're
> >> incompetent. No.
> >
> > ========================
> > which data ??
> >
> > Y.P
> > =================================
> >
>
> Read the back posts, Porat. They've been listed at least three times.
> If you don't know how to use your usenet reader to read posts in the
> past, then there's no point in discussing anything.
Odd Bodkin
Nov 5, 2014, 11:47:34 AM11/5/14
to
On 11/5/2014 9:58 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> I wonder why nobody can see them except you?
Don't be an idiot. You say that if you can't find it, then nobody can
>
> I wonder why nobody can see them except you?
find it.
Do you know how insane a statement that is?
Solving Tornadoes
Nov 5, 2014, 12:42:34 PM11/5/14
to
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 8:47:34 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/5/2014 9:58 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> >
> > I wonder why nobody can see them except you?
>
> Don't be an idiot. You say that if you can't find it, then nobody can
> find it.
Maybe someday we will be presented with noncontroversial evidence of space aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, and the tooth fairy.
> On 11/5/2014 9:58 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> >
> > I wonder why nobody can see them except you?
>
> Don't be an idiot. You say that if you can't find it, then nobody can
> find it.
Odd Bodkin
Nov 5, 2014, 12:53:18 PM11/5/14
to
But the evidence of monomolecular water vapor at temperatures below
boiling is noncontroversial.
Despite your laziness, stupidity, and intellectual dishonesty about that
evidence and where it can be found.
James McGinn
Nov 5, 2014, 1:50:26 PM11/5/14
to
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 9:53:18 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> I couldn't say.
> But the evidence of monomolecular water vapor at temperatures below
> boiling is noncontroversial.
> Despite your laziness, stupidity, and intellectual dishonesty about that
> evidence and where it can be found.
The rules of evidence don't allow for what you thought you saw, what somebody told you, what you think you know, or what you think you will someday find.
> I couldn't say.
> But the evidence of monomolecular water vapor at temperatures below
> boiling is noncontroversial.
> Despite your laziness, stupidity, and intellectual dishonesty about that
> evidence and where it can be found.
Odd Bodkin
Nov 5, 2014, 2:05:35 PM11/5/14
to
not a court of law. It is not an online game. There are no "rules of
evidence" that are pertinent here in a science newsgroup.
Like I just told Ken Seto, real scientists either go to the library or
they pay for online access to research the published work of other
physicists. They do not whine and complain that all the relevant
evidence be brought forth to the venue where the discussion is being held.
People who do not know how to, or don't want to, go find the evidence
documented in the published work of scientists cannot be and never will
be real scientists, because they are stupid, lazy, and intellectually
dishonest. The stupid, lazy, and intellectually dishonest, however, will
whine endlessly that "rules of evidence" require that everything be
spoonfed to them on a newsgroup, just because they want it that way.
Solving Tornadoes
Nov 5, 2014, 2:25:29 PM11/5/14
to
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 11:05:35 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > The rules of evidence don't allow for what you
> > thought you saw, what somebody told you, what
> > you think you know, or what you think you will
> > someday find.
> >
>
> This is a discussion forum about physics.
Right. It's not a discussion about fantasy.
> > The rules of evidence don't allow for what you
> > thought you saw, what somebody told you, what
> > you think you know, or what you think you will
> > someday find.
> >
>
> This is a discussion forum about physics.
Poutnik
Nov 5, 2014, 2:49:50 PM11/5/14
to
about implications of cluster hypothesis,
which are in contrary with observations
in multiple domains of physics and chemistry.
You do not do so for a good reason,
as you would catch yourself to web of your ignorance in physics.
Like 2 examples from many:
Heat of evaporation increases with decreasing temperature,
but according of cluster hypothesis should rapidly decrease
below boiling point, when clusters are made,
instead of single molecules.
Adiabatic expansion of air would have no reason to create fog,
as expansion would dramatically increase creation of single molecules,
in opposite to need to create big droplets.
--
Poutnik
Odd Bodkin
Nov 5, 2014, 2:53:53 PM11/5/14
to
evidence. Which you have to find outside of this venue.
Tough shit, Sherlock.
James McGinn
Nov 5, 2014, 3:00:39 PM11/5/14
to
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 11:49:50 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> And that is the reason, why you are not talking
> about implications of cluster hypothesis,
> which are in contrary with observations
> in multiple domains of physics and chemistry.
. . . that exist only in your imagination. Right?
> And that is the reason, why you are not talking
> about implications of cluster hypothesis,
> which are in contrary with observations
> in multiple domains of physics and chemistry.
James McGinn
Nov 5, 2014, 3:01:31 PM11/5/14
to
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 11:53:53 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> What is fantasy and what is not is what's supported by scientific
> evidence.
I wonder why nobody can see it except you?
> What is fantasy and what is not is what's supported by scientific
> evidence.
Poutnik
Nov 5, 2014, 4:32:47 PM11/5/14
to
Dne 11/5/2014 v 9:00 PM James McGinn napsal(a):
Only if you cut away everything that says otherwise,
as you have done just now for this purpose.
--
Poutnik
as you have done just now for this purpose.
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
Nov 5, 2014, 4:33:30 PM11/5/14
to
Dne 11/5/2014 v 9:00 PM James McGinn napsal(a):
--
Poutnik
Solving Tornadoes
Nov 5, 2014, 4:45:40 PM11/5/14
to
marfarly
Nov 5, 2014, 4:55:55 PM11/5/14
to
makem...@paypal.com and mention "babyduckspoonfeeding" and I will send
you an ebook on the subject, no problem
Poutnik
Nov 5, 2014, 5:00:10 PM11/5/14
to
Dne 11/5/2014 v 10:45 PM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
Yes, this is good list of items.
You may start to fill the lines of the table.
--
Poutnik
You may start to fill the lines of the table.
--
Poutnik
Solving Tornadoes
Nov 5, 2014, 5:15:15 PM11/5/14
to
Solving Tornadoes
Nov 5, 2014, 5:16:04 PM11/5/14
to
Mahipal
Nov 5, 2014, 7:19:25 PM11/5/14
to
1. Do not hold your breath ST.
2. O wait... this request from someone named Solving Tornadoes?!
-- Mahipal 'Poutnik + Odd BlowsKin hold no original thoughts'
marfarly
Nov 5, 2014, 9:13:18 PM11/5/14
to
( you can't find the information, you can't google for it, you can't
find a libarary, you can't find a physics book, you can't find latent
heat, you can't find enthalpy, you believe steam cold )
marfarly
Nov 5, 2014, 9:15:42 PM11/5/14
to
marfarly
Nov 5, 2014, 9:31:40 PM11/5/14
to
On 11/2/2014 11:19 PM, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:03:52 PM UTC-8, samsoia wrote:
>> On 11/2/2014 2:52 PM, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 12:24:24 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>>>> Dne 11/2/2014 v 9:12 PM solvingt...@gmail.com napsal(a):
>>>>
>>>> -- Poutnik
>>>
>>> Evaporate isn't gas. It's a liquid suspended in air.
>>
>> no, it is more complicated that that simplistic idea.
>>
>> when water evaporates it turns into a gas called water vapor.
>>
>> your point is that some of the water molicules have stuck on to
>> each other, which is partially true,
>
> Can you be more specific?
what temperature ? what pressure ?
>
>> plot the # globed together vs distance from the evaporation
>> surface.
>>
>> what do you get?
>
> You lost me. I don't see what you are getting at.
Imagine two water molecules, both are polar right ?
How would they attach to each other ?
Does that make them bipolar?
for our advanced readers;
Cold steam in action;
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevaporation.html
sticky water molecules;
http://plantphys.info/plant_physiology/watermove.shtml
>
>
> You aren't being very specific. Nor are you being very explicit
> about indicating how it is you know what you think you know.
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:03:52 PM UTC-8, samsoia wrote:
>> On 11/2/2014 2:52 PM, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 12:24:24 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>>>> Dne 11/2/2014 v 9:12 PM solvingt...@gmail.com napsal(a):
>>>>>
>>>>> Odd Bodkin: Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling
>>>>> point, as has been shown extensively in experimental data.
>>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram
>>>>> Odd Bodkin: Gas does exist at temperatures below the boiling
>>>>> point, as has been shown extensively in experimental data.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Poutnik
>>>
>>> Evaporate isn't gas. It's a liquid suspended in air.
>>
>> no, it is more complicated that that simplistic idea.
>>
>> when water evaporates it turns into a gas called water vapor.
>>
>> your point is that some of the water molicules have stuck on to
>> each other, which is partially true,
>
> Can you be more specific?
what temperature ? what pressure ?
>
>> plot the # globed together vs distance from the evaporation
>> surface.
>>
>> what do you get?
>
> You lost me. I don't see what you are getting at.
Imagine two water molecules, both are polar right ?
How would they attach to each other ?
Does that make them bipolar?
for our advanced readers;
Cold steam in action;
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevaporation.html
sticky water molecules;
http://plantphys.info/plant_physiology/watermove.shtml
>
>
> You aren't being very specific. Nor are you being very explicit
> about indicating how it is you know what you think you know.
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages