Pennino: Stay out of scientific discussions, you fucking moron

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:31:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 8:46:12 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 7:46:10 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> >> >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 7:36:38 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >> On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-8, claudi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > LOL!!! So, let me get this straight. Your whole argument can be parsed down to: Orthodox theories are correct by default. Right?
> >> >> >> No, not right. Orthodox theories are considered to be the best model until evidence shows a different model is superior.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wrong. Only a nonscientist would make such an obviously non-scientific
> >> >> > assertion. The best model is the one that best matches the evidence.
> >> >> And that best model is called the orthodox model, blithering idiot.
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip remaining reposted babble>
> >> >
> >> > This is how retards do science. Orthodoxy is not a sign of anything
> >> > other than orthodoxy. Orthodoxy IS NOT A CRITERIA OF SCEINTIFIC
> >> > VALIDITY, YOU MOTHER FUCKING STUPID SON OF A BITCH.
> >> And yet again a repost of the original illiterate post where McGinn
> >> shows he does not know what the word orthodox means.
> >>
> >> Scientific validity IS THE CRITERIA for something to be called orthodox.
> >
> > Then you admit you got it backwards.
> Nope, it is you that got it backwards and are demonstrating again with
> this repost that you are clueless as to the definition of the words
> criteria and orthodox as used in science.
>
> Orthodox science is that science which, using the scientific method, has
> been shown to be the best current explaination of the current evidence.

We already agreed on this point, you convoluted nitwit.

Now explain why you think orthodoxy is itself evidence of scientific validity.

>
> Criteria means the standard by which something is judged or decided,
> which means the previous sentence means the same thing as:
>
> Scientific validity is the criteria for something to be called orthodox.
>
> This is because the phrase "Scientific validity" means evaluating the
> best current evidence by the scientific method.

Right. And like a perfect retard, you ALSO want us to believe that it being orthodox is evidence.

It's a label, moron. Labels are not evidence.

Stay out of scientific discussions, you fucking moron.

>
> > Right?
>
> You are wrong as usual because you refuse to be bothered by learning the
> actual meaning of words and make them up as you go along.
> > You got nothing, you fucking imbecile.
> Oh no, not the dreaded and often repeated "You got nothing!!!" when
> McGinn/Denk/Delusional is backed into a corner by facts.

[Jim Pennino]

Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:31:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:

<snp\ip>

>> Orthodox science is that science which, using the scientific method, has
>> been shown to be the best current explaination of the current evidence.
>
> We already agreed on this point, you convoluted nitwit.
>
> Now explain why you think orthodoxy is itself evidence of scientific validity.

Orthodox science is DEFINED as that science which, using the

scientific method, has been shown to be the best current
explaination of the current evidence.

That means that it is not called orthodox until AFTER the demonstration
of scientific validity.

QED

<snip raving babble>

> Stay out of scientific discussions, you fucking moron.

Stay out of any discussions where you don't know the meaning of words
and can't be bothered by looking up the meaning, delusional illiterate.

<snip remaining delusional babble>

[Paul Alsing]

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-8, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:31:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:

> > Orthodox science is that science which, using the scientific method, has
> > been shown to be the best current explaination of the current evidence.
>
> We already agreed on this point, you convoluted nitwit.

Orthodox science and mainstream science are the same exact thing, Jimbo... or are you too stupid to understand this? I used a different word on purpose just to confuse you... and I see I was successful... again!

It may be wrong for me to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person, but for you, I'll make an exception, since you have earned ALL of your apparently desired criticism...

[Claudius Denk]

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:16:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:31:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> <snp\ip>
> >> Orthodox science is that science which, using the scientific method, has
> >> been shown to be the best current explaination of the current evidence.
> >
> > We already agreed on this point, you convoluted nitwit.
> >
> > Now explain why you think orthodoxy is itself evidence of scientific validity.
> Orthodox science is DEFINED as that science which, using the
> scientific method, has been shown to be the best current
> explaination of the current evidence.

Like anybody needs a moron like you to tell us how words are defined.

> That means that it is not called orthodox until AFTER the demonstration
> of scientific validity.

Provide a fucking reference to your imaginary "demonstration," you fucking moron. Otherwise go fuck yourself.

You got nothing, you confused nitwit.

James McGinn / Genius

[Claudius Denk]

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:14:45 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-8, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:31:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>
> > > Orthodox science is that science which, using the scientific method, has
> > > been shown to be the best current explaination of the current evidence.
> >
> > We already agreed on this point, you convoluted nitwit.
> Orthodox science and mainstream science are the same exact thing

Morons and frauds hide behind orthodoxy.

You got nothing!!!

James McGinn / Genius

[Jim Pennino]

Claudius Denk <claudi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:16:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:31:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> <snp\ip>
>> >> Orthodox science is that science which, using the scientific method, has
>> >> been shown to be the best current explaination of the current evidence.
>> >
>> > We already agreed on this point, you convoluted nitwit.
>> >
>> > Now explain why you think orthodoxy is itself evidence of scientific validity.
>> Orthodox science is DEFINED as that science which, using the
>> scientific method, has been shown to be the best current
>> explaination of the current evidence.
>
> Like anybody needs a moron like you to tell us how words are defined.

Most people don't, but you obviously do since you seem unable to use a
dictionary.

>> That means that it is not called orthodox until AFTER the demonstration
>> of scientific validity.
>
> Provide a fucking reference to your imaginary "demonstration,"
> you fucking moron. Otherwise go fuck yourself.

The demonstration is to be found in standard literature, such as text
books and research papers.

Here is some you can look at.

Here are links to 6 articles on the properties of water along with
links to 192 books and papers that according to you do not exist
and no one can find that show the sources of information on the
articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#References

footnote references: 102
Bibliography: 15 books and papers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page)#References

footnote references: 25
Bibliography: 4 books and papers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam#References

references: 12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation#References

references: 6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)#References

references: 17

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point#References

references: 11

Here is a link to an article on what a vortex is along with
supporting links to 13 books and papers specifically about vortices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex#References

Here are links to projects that actually have studied tornadoes and
26 books and papers about research on tornadoes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VORTEX_projects#References

Here are links to 2 articles about what a plasma actually is along
with 87 links to books and papers on the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)#References

84 books and papers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_important_publications_in_physics#Plasma_physics

3 books containing collected papers on plasma

Here is a link to a graph of the electromagnetic absorption spectrum
of ice, liquid water and gaseous water from low infrared to high
ultraviolet clearly showing that each phase of water has a unique
spectrum making it trivial to decern one from the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_infrared_absorption_coefficient_large.gif

> You got nothing, you confused nitwit.

Oh no, not the dreaded and often repeated "You got nothing!!!" when
McGinn/Denk/Delusional is backed into a corner by facts.

> James McGinn / Delusonal illiterate

[sergio]

On 1/22/2022 10:53 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 10:16:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:


> We already agreed on this point, you convoluted nitwit.
>

> Like anybody needs a moron like you to tell us how words are defined.
>

> Provide a fucking reference to your imaginary "demonstration," you fucking moron. Otherwise go fuck yourself.
>
> You got nothing, you confused nitwit.
>
> James McGinn / Genius

Only people that know they have totally lost, result to insults to try to cover up how badly they failed.

Accept the Fact that you failed, McGinn.

[Jim Pennino]

It seems you still haven't learned what orthodoxy means in science.

In summary, orthodoxy in science means it has been proven.

> You got nothing!!!

Oh no, not the dreaded and often repeated "You got nothing!!!" when
McGinn/Denk/Delusional is backed into a corner by facts.

> James McGinn / Delusional illiterate

[Claudius Denk]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 7:31:08 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:14:45 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-8, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:31:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Orthodox science is that science which, using the scientific method, has
> >> > > been shown to be the best current explaination of the current evidence.
> >> >
> >> > We already agreed on this point, you convoluted nitwit.
> >> Orthodox science and mainstream science are the same exact thing
> >
> > Morons and frauds hide behind orthodoxy.
> It seems you still haven't learned what orthodoxy means in science.
>
> In summary, orthodoxy in science means it has been proven.

It means you failed to debate McGinn and now, like the child you are, you are looking for a way to conceal your failure.

Everybody knows what orthodoxy means, moron.

Go find another hobby. Science ain't your thing.

Claudius Denk

[Jim Pennino]

Claudius Denk <claudi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 7:31:08 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> Claudius Denk <claudi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:14:45 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-8, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:31:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > Orthodox science is that science which, using the scientific method, has
>> >> > > been shown to be the best current explaination of the current evidence.
>> >> >
>> >> > We already agreed on this point, you convoluted nitwit.
>> >> Orthodox science and mainstream science are the same exact thing
>> >
>> > Morons and frauds hide behind orthodoxy.
>> It seems you still haven't learned what orthodoxy means in science.
>>
>> In summary, orthodoxy in science means it has been proven.
>
> It means you failed to debate McGinn and now, like the child you

You ARE McGinn, you delusional mental patient.

> are, you are looking for a way to conceal your failure.
>
> Everybody knows what orthodoxy means, moron.

Apparently everyone but you, delusional illiterate.

In science, orthodox science means that science that has been proven to
be correct.

> Go find another hobby. Science ain't your thing.

Take some English classes, your language skills are almost nonexistent.

> Claudius Denk/James McGinn/Delusional illiterate

[Claudius Denk]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 8:31:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:

> > Everybody knows what orthodoxy means, moron.
> Apparently everyone but you, delusional illiterate.
>
> In science, orthodox science means that science that has been proven to
> be correct.

The scientific method doesn't ever involve proof, you fucking moron.

Other than Sergio and Alsing, who is going to be dumb enough to believe such nonsense.

You retards expose your stupidity on a post by post basis.

Claudius Denk

[sergio]

that is CRAZY talk!

[Jim Pennino]

Claudius Denk <claudi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 8:31:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>
>> > Everybody knows what orthodoxy means, moron.
>> Apparently everyone but you, delusional illiterate.
>>
>> In science, orthodox science means that science that has been proven to
>> be correct.
>
> The scientific method doesn't ever involve proof, you fucking moron.

Oh lord, yet another blazingly insane statement.

It appears we can add "scientific method" to the list of things about
which McGinn/Denk knows nothing.

<snip delusonal raving>

> Claudius Denk/James McGinn/Free range mental patient

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 9:16:10 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:

> >> In science, orthodox science means that science that has been proven to
> >> be correct.
> >
> > The scientific method doesn't ever involve proof, you fucking moron.
> Oh lord, yet another blazingly insane statement.

Uh, er, uh . . . I'm a scientist. You obviously don't even know what this means.

Find another hobby, moron. Science ain't your thing.

James McGinn / Genius

[Jim Pennino]

Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 9:16:10 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>
>> >> In science, orthodox science means that science that has been proven to
>> >> be correct.
>> >
>> > The scientific method doesn't ever involve proof, you fucking moron.
>> Oh lord, yet another blazingly insane statement.
>
> Uh, er, uh . . . I'm a scientist. You obviously don't even know
> what this means.

Sure you are a scientist, about as much as I am Emperor of the
Klingon Empire...

> Find another hobby, moron. Science ain't your thing.

The English language evidently ain't (sic) your thing.

> James McGinn / Claudius Denk / Free range mental patient

[Paul Alsing]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 7:31:08 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In summary, orthodoxy in science means it has been proven.

Actually...

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

"... Stephen Hawking states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He also discusses the "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories, which is a necessary consequence of inductive logic, and that "you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory"

The key phrase here is "unprovable but falsifiable". You can never actually "prove" a theory, you can only supply lots and lots of evidence in support of a theory. A theory can have a well-substantiated explanation, but never a proof.

Jimbo's theories, however, have neither observations or experiments to support them, and have been falsified millions of times over the last century or 2, even by schoolchildren in the 5th grade... Jimbo is NOT smarter than a 5th grader.

[Jim Pennino]

Paul Alsing <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 7:31:08 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>
>> In summary, orthodoxy in science means it has been proven.
>
> Actually...
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
>
> "... Stephen Hawking states, "A theory is a good theory if it
> satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large
> class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only
> a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions
> about the results of future observations." He also discusses the
> "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories, which is a
> necessary consequence of inductive logic, and that "you can
> disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that
> disagrees with the predictions of the theory"
>
> The key phrase here is "unprovable but falsifiable". You can
> never actually "prove" a theory, you can only supply lots and
> lots of evidence in support of a theory. A theory can have a
> well-substantiated explanation, but never a proof.
>

I would then ask if the following are not provable, why not?

Gravity is an attractive force.

The magnitude of the force of gravity between objects is dependent on
the masses of the objects.

Electric current in a metallic wire is a cascade of electrons.

Radio waves and light are the same thing at different frequencies.

Stars generate energy through nuclear reactions.

It would seem that Hawking's interpretation of the word theory depends
on "a large class of observations" while many theories actually depend
on only a single class of observation.

Do we need two words, one for "a large class of observations" and
another for a single class of observation?

Or maybe two words, one for those things obviously true and one for
things well-substantiated but potentially falsifiable?

BTW, could you please set your line length to something less than or
equal to 72 characters per line?

[Paul Alsing]

All the examples that you mentioned are models. You may claim that some of them are "obviously true" but if Hawking says otherwise, I'm not going to argue with him! They are all supported by the aforementioned well-substantiated explanations, so they fall into the "theory" category and are based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment... which means that they can only be disproven but never proven. This is not *my* decree, I'm only repeating what I was taught in virtually every physics class that I attended, which was dozens by the time I eventually earned my degree...

Regarding the 72 characters, I have no idea how to do that, my computer skills are *very* basic...

[Paul Alsing]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 9:27:10 AM UTC-8, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:

> Uh, er, uh . . . I'm a scientist. You obviously don't even know what this means.

That is a lie. You are not smarter t han a 5th grader. My dog knows more physics than you do.

[Michael Moroney]

On 1/23/2022 12:27 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 9:16:10 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>
>>>> In science, orthodox science means that science that has been proven to
>>>> be correct.
>>>
>>> The scientific method doesn't ever involve proof, you fucking moron.
>> Oh lord, yet another blazingly insane statement.
>
> Uh, er, uh . . . I'm a scientist. You obviously don't even know what this means.

Quit lying, McTard. You know about as much science as I know about Swahili.

[Jim Pennino]

OK, but McGinn will never comprehend any of the subtleties involved and
declare he was right for all the wrong reasons.

So before he even begins yet another posting frenzy...

FIRST science is repeatedly confirmed through observation and
experiment.

THEN science is declared to be orthodox.

> Regarding the 72 characters, I have no idea how to do that, my
> computer skills are *very* basic...

If there is no setup setting, simply hit Enter when the line looks to be
about 70 characters.

[James McGinn]

That truth is obvious is the default argument for all of you brian-dead science groupies.

> but if Hawking says otherwise, I'm not going to argue with him!

You need an "expert" to confirm this obvious aspect of reality? Are you, possibly, some kind of mental retard?

> what I was taught in virtually every physics class that I attended, which was dozens by the time I eventually earned my degree...

If you needed to be taught this you are not a genuine scientist.

James McGinn / Genius

[James McGinn]

This never happens and in fact is impossible, as was just explained to you, you fucking dimwitted science groupie.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 11:45:50 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

I'm only repeating what I was taught in virtually every physics class that I attended, which was dozens by the time I eventually earned my degree...

There isn't the slightest possibility you have a degree in physics

[Jim Pennino]

There isn't the slightest possibility you have a high school degree.

[Jim Pennino]

Like I said, McGinn will never comprehend any of the subtleties

involved and declare he was right for all the wrong reasons.

Nailed it again.

[Paul Alsing]

... and also in math and astronomy... which is probably 10 timed the education that you have!

[James McGinn]

Have you tried getting your money back?

LOL.

James McGinn / Genius

[sergio]

My dog also knows more physics than McGinn.

[Jim Pennino]

So once again McGinn/Denk, the delusional half wit with multiple
personality disorder, is backed into a corner by facts threatening
his delusions and has no response other than a childish attempt at
an insult for a provider of facts.

> LOL.

[Michael Moroney]

My dog also knows more physics than McGinn, and she's dead!

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-8, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:31:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> > James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 8:46:12 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> > >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 7:46:10 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> > >> >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> >> > On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 7:36:38 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-8, claudi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > LOL!!! So, let me get this straight. Your whole argument can be parsed down to: Orthodox theories are correct by default. Right?
> > >> >> >> No, not right. Orthodox theories are considered to be the best model until evidence shows a different model is superior.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Wrong. Only a nonscientist would make such an obviously non-scientific
> > >> >> > assertion. The best model is the one that best matches the evidence.
> > >> >> And that best model is called the orthodox model, blithering idiot.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> <snip remaining reposted babble>
> > >> >
> > >> > This is how retards do science. Orthodoxy is not a sign of anything
> > >> > other than orthodoxy. Orthodoxy IS NOT A CRITERIA OF SCEINTIFIC
> > >> > VALIDITY, YOU MOTHER FUCKING STUPID SON OF A BITCH.
> > >> And yet again a repost of the original illiterate post where McGinn
> > >> shows he does not know what the word orthodox means.
> > >>
> > >> Scientific validity IS THE CRITERIA for something to be called orthodox.
> > >
> > > Then you admit you got it backwards.
> > Nope, it is you that got it backwards and are demonstrating again with
> > this repost that you are clueless as to the definition of the words
> > criteria and orthodox as used in science.

> >
> > Orthodox science is that science which, using the scientific method, has
> > been shown to be the best current explaination of the current evidence.
>
> We already agreed on this point, you convoluted nitwit.
>

> Now explain why you think orthodoxy is itself evidence of scientific validity.
>
> >
> > Criteria means the standard by which something is judged or decided,
> > which means the previous sentence means the same thing as:
> >
> > Scientific validity is the criteria for something to be called orthodox.
> >
> > This is because the phrase "Scientific validity" means evaluating the
> > best current evidence by the scientific method.
>
> Right. And like a perfect retard, you ALSO want us to believe that it being orthodox is evidence.
>
> It's a label, moron. Labels are not evidence.
>
> Stay out of scientific discussions, you fucking moron.
>
> >
> > > Right?
> >
> > You are wrong as usual because you refuse to be bothered by learning the
> > actual meaning of words and make them up as you go along.
> > > You got nothing, you fucking imbecile.

> > Oh no, not the dreaded and often repeated "You got nothing!!!" when

> > McGinn/Denk/Delusional is backed into a corner by facts.

[Solving Tornadoes]

[James McGinn]