Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Convection Versus Plasma
55 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Apr 1, 2016, 4:24:33 AM4/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible, but actually impossible.
My plasma based theory is complicated, difficult to conceptualize, seemingly implausible, but actually possible.
Convection Versus Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
Poutnik
Apr 1, 2016, 8:54:51 AM4/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Dne pátek 1. dubna 2016 10:24:33 UTC+2 James McGinn napsal(a):
> Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible, but actually impossible.
... what can say only a person who does not understand it.
James McGinn
Apr 1, 2016, 11:10:07 AM4/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 1, 2016, 1:18:47 PM4/1/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:5b99cf59-d3be-4e3b...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible,
and actually exists.
LOL!
Still denying that air density and thus buoyancy changes when air
temperature changes, KookTard?
You *still* haven't done that ultra-simple experiment of blowing up a
balloon and putting it in your mommy's freezer, have you, James?
Because you know it'd prove you wrong, and thus it'd prove that you're
psychotic.
Blow up a balloon with 1 cubic foot of air at 70 F. Put the balloon in
the freezer at 0 F, and the balloon contracts to 0.87 cubic feet,
which means the air is denser, James. That same amount of air is
occupying a smaller space.
Now blow the balloon up so that it is yet again 1 cubic foot at 0 F.
It will weigh more than the same-sized balloon at 70 F, you moron.
1 cubic foot of air at 70 F and SAP weighs 7.492e-2 lb/ft^3.
1 cubic foot of air at 0 F and SAP weighs 8.633e-2 lb/ft^3
You psychotic reality-denying halfwit.
> but actually impossible.
>
> My plasma based theory is complicated, difficult to
> conceptualize, seemingly implausible,
and is the result of a psychotic blathering moron.
LOL!
> but actually possible.
Wrong. You've provided no proof, you have no empirical evidence, you
have no experimental evidence, you have no proof, you have no
corroborating studies, you have no collaborations with legitimate
researchers, you run from doing experiments because you know they'll
prove you're insane, and you're shunned as a scientific fraud and
lying broken-brained uneducated moron, Tardnado McGinn.
You failed out of that Basic Meteorology class because you're a
reality-denying psychotic moron who's *so* insane you've been deemed
to be a danger to yourself, James, so you're legally a ward of your
elderly parents, forced to live your entire pathetic psychotic life
with your mommy and daddy because you're too insane to take care of
yourself.
That your broken little tard-brain struggles to comprehend a reality
that must utterly baffle you isn't disputed, not even by you.
Now, I know you moronic kooktards often chimp out when reality becomes
too much for you to bear, but do try your very best to resist that
overwhelming urge to shoot up a mall, James. Just because you're a
psychotic uneducated halfwit laughingstock is no reason for you to
take your frustrations out on the people laughing at your moronic
blather.
Have your mommy help you count to 10, you'll feel better. Then get out
your crayons and finish scribbling up that "class-action" kooksoot...
be sure to add *reality*, *electrons*, *photons*, the *universe* and
"FNVWe" as defendants alongside *science*... we're all conspiring to
thwart your moronic attempts at remodeling reality to fit your
delusions.
File that kooksoot, you fucking laughingstock. What are you afraid of?
That it'll get laughed out of court? It won't. *You* will be.
<snicker>
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
TornadoTard?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?
Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?
And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?
According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
because much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.
Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?
Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?
Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?
Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?
Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?
Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?
Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?
What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:5b99cf59-d3be-4e3b...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible,
LOL!
Still denying that air density and thus buoyancy changes when air
temperature changes, KookTard?
You *still* haven't done that ultra-simple experiment of blowing up a
balloon and putting it in your mommy's freezer, have you, James?
Because you know it'd prove you wrong, and thus it'd prove that you're
psychotic.
Blow up a balloon with 1 cubic foot of air at 70 F. Put the balloon in
the freezer at 0 F, and the balloon contracts to 0.87 cubic feet,
which means the air is denser, James. That same amount of air is
occupying a smaller space.
Now blow the balloon up so that it is yet again 1 cubic foot at 0 F.
It will weigh more than the same-sized balloon at 70 F, you moron.
1 cubic foot of air at 70 F and SAP weighs 7.492e-2 lb/ft^3.
1 cubic foot of air at 0 F and SAP weighs 8.633e-2 lb/ft^3
You psychotic reality-denying halfwit.
> but actually impossible.
>
> My plasma based theory is complicated, difficult to
> conceptualize, seemingly implausible,
LOL!
> but actually possible.
Wrong. You've provided no proof, you have no empirical evidence, you
have no experimental evidence, you have no proof, you have no
corroborating studies, you have no collaborations with legitimate
researchers, you run from doing experiments because you know they'll
prove you're insane, and you're shunned as a scientific fraud and
lying broken-brained uneducated moron, Tardnado McGinn.
You failed out of that Basic Meteorology class because you're a
reality-denying psychotic moron who's *so* insane you've been deemed
to be a danger to yourself, James, so you're legally a ward of your
elderly parents, forced to live your entire pathetic psychotic life
with your mommy and daddy because you're too insane to take care of
yourself.
That your broken little tard-brain struggles to comprehend a reality
that must utterly baffle you isn't disputed, not even by you.
Now, I know you moronic kooktards often chimp out when reality becomes
too much for you to bear, but do try your very best to resist that
overwhelming urge to shoot up a mall, James. Just because you're a
psychotic uneducated halfwit laughingstock is no reason for you to
take your frustrations out on the people laughing at your moronic
blather.
Have your mommy help you count to 10, you'll feel better. Then get out
your crayons and finish scribbling up that "class-action" kooksoot...
be sure to add *reality*, *electrons*, *photons*, the *universe* and
"FNVWe" as defendants alongside *science*... we're all conspiring to
thwart your moronic attempts at remodeling reality to fit your
delusions.
File that kooksoot, you fucking laughingstock. What are you afraid of?
That it'll get laughed out of court? It won't. *You* will be.
<snicker>
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
TornadoTard?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?
Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?
And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?
According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
because much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.
Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?
Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?
Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?
Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?
Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?
Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?
Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?
What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
Apr 3, 2016, 9:09:41 PM4/3/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:18:47 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:5b99cf59-d3be-4e3b...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible,
> and actually exists.
>
> LOL!
>
> Still denying that air density and thus buoyancy changes when air
> temperature changes,
Still putting words in other people's mouth, dumbass?
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:5b99cf59-d3be-4e3b...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible,
> and actually exists.
>
> LOL!
>
> Still denying that air density and thus buoyancy changes when air
> temperature changes,
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 4, 2016, 1:33:52 AM4/4/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:75481c66-40e0-4618...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:18:47 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>> Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible,
>> and actually exists.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Still denying that air density and thus buoyancy changes when air
>> temperature changes, KookTard?
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>> Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible,
>> and actually exists.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Still denying that air density and thus buoyancy changes when air
> Still putting words in other people's mouth, dumbass?
crayon-scribble "class-action" kooksoot. LOL
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <94b6a929662c285f...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Uh, 'air density and thus convection?' Gibberish.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <aca6233c926d05d0...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <6b7c70439e04102b...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly
> plausible, but actually impossible.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <d8b12acf78b013dc...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Consequently, I am looking towards doing some kind of a
> Kickstarter (or some similar website) campaign to get funds
> to hire a law firm to put forth a class action lawsuit--the
> defendent beng NOAA and/or some other meteorological
> organization--to force them to do the simple experiments that
> will refute the convection model and acknowledge the results
> publicly.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <19dbe4f7df6c6978...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Watch my video entitled: convection versus plasma.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <337ad27d8e860483...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Convection plays no role at all.
========================================================
James McGinn
Apr 7, 2016, 3:53:30 PM4/7/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:18:47 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:5b99cf59-d3be-4e3b...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible,
> and actually exists.
>
> LOL!
>
> Still denying that air density and thus buoyancy changes when air
> temperature changes, KookTard?
>
> You *still* haven't done that ultra-simple experiment of blowing up a
> balloon and putting it in your mommy's freezer, have you, James?
> Because you know it'd prove you wrong, and thus it'd prove that you're
> psychotic.
>
> Blow up a balloon with 1 cubic foot of air at 70 F. Put the balloon in
> the freezer at 0 F, and the balloon contracts to 0.87 cubic feet,
> which means the air is denser, James. That same amount of air is
> occupying a smaller space.
>
> Now blow the balloon up so that it is yet again 1 cubic foot at 0 F.
> It will weigh more than the same-sized balloon at 70 F, you moron.
>
> 1 cubic foot of air at 70 F and SAP weighs 7.492e-2 lb/ft^3.
> 1 cubic foot of air at 0 F and SAP weighs 8.633e-2 lb/ft^3
Relevance?
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:5b99cf59-d3be-4e3b...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible,
> and actually exists.
>
> LOL!
>
> Still denying that air density and thus buoyancy changes when air
> temperature changes, KookTard?
>
> You *still* haven't done that ultra-simple experiment of blowing up a
> balloon and putting it in your mommy's freezer, have you, James?
> Because you know it'd prove you wrong, and thus it'd prove that you're
> psychotic.
>
> Blow up a balloon with 1 cubic foot of air at 70 F. Put the balloon in
> the freezer at 0 F, and the balloon contracts to 0.87 cubic feet,
> which means the air is denser, James. That same amount of air is
> occupying a smaller space.
>
> Now blow the balloon up so that it is yet again 1 cubic foot at 0 F.
> It will weigh more than the same-sized balloon at 70 F, you moron.
>
> 1 cubic foot of air at 70 F and SAP weighs 7.492e-2 lb/ft^3.
> 1 cubic foot of air at 0 F and SAP weighs 8.633e-2 lb/ft^3
Solving Tornadoes
Apr 7, 2016, 6:37:25 PM4/7/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 5:54:51 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
omni...@gmail.com
Apr 7, 2016, 7:30:37 PM4/7/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
The plasma state is known for lightning, and for the ionosphere. During the night, the ionized layer reflects radio for great reception for thousands of miles. That is a thin plasma layer at night. During the day, the Sun ionizes more layers that are not so thin. That daytime extra plasma prevents reflections of radio from being clear. So there is evidence of daytime plasma, way up there. But how low is that plasma in daylight? A book on meteorology should say.
I have a book here, "Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion" by F. F. Chen. The meterological plasma theories should comprehend the Debye Length for a plasma. That makes the Debye Shielding that prevents long range electric fields.
Solving Tornadoes
Apr 7, 2016, 8:11:08 PM4/7/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 8, 2016, 3:43:56 AM4/8/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:d54b3393-afbe-40c3...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:18:47 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:5b99cf59-d3be-4e3b...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible,
>> and actually exists.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Still denying that air density and thus buoyancy changes when air
>> temperature changes, KookTard?
>>
>> You *still* haven't done that ultra-simple experiment of blowing up a
>> balloon and putting it in your mommy's freezer, have you, James?
>> Because you know it'd prove you wrong, and thus it'd prove that you're
>> psychotic.
>>
>> Blow up a balloon with 1 cubic foot of air at 70 F. Put the balloon in
>> the freezer at 0 F, and the balloon contracts to 0.87 cubic feet,
>> which means the air is denser, James. That same amount of air is
>> occupying a smaller space.
>>
>> Now blow the balloon up so that it is yet again 1 cubic foot at 0 F.
>> It will weigh more than the same-sized balloon at 70 F, you moron.
>>
>> 1 cubic foot of air at 70 F and SAP weighs 7.492e-2 lb/ft^3.
>> 1 cubic foot of air at 0 F and SAP weighs 8.633e-2 lb/ft^3
>
> Relevance?
It proves you wrong when you claim that air density doesn't change
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:5b99cf59-d3be-4e3b...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible,
>> and actually exists.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Still denying that air density and thus buoyancy changes when air
>> temperature changes, KookTard?
>>
>> You *still* haven't done that ultra-simple experiment of blowing up a
>> balloon and putting it in your mommy's freezer, have you, James?
>> Because you know it'd prove you wrong, and thus it'd prove that you're
>> psychotic.
>>
>> Blow up a balloon with 1 cubic foot of air at 70 F. Put the balloon in
>> the freezer at 0 F, and the balloon contracts to 0.87 cubic feet,
>> which means the air is denser, James. That same amount of air is
>> occupying a smaller space.
>>
>> Now blow the balloon up so that it is yet again 1 cubic foot at 0 F.
>> It will weigh more than the same-sized balloon at 70 F, you moron.
>>
>> 1 cubic foot of air at 70 F and SAP weighs 7.492e-2 lb/ft^3.
>> 1 cubic foot of air at 0 F and SAP weighs 8.633e-2 lb/ft^3
>
> Relevance?
upon temperature change, which destroys your claim that air does not
convect, which destroys your entire "theory not-a-theory", James.
I note you cannot refute that reality.
James McGinn
Apr 8, 2016, 3:48:43 AM4/8/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 8, 2016, 2:21:24 PM4/8/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:2173b7d1-a6c5-4942...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <94b6a929662c285f...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Uh, 'air density and thus convection?' Gibberish.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <aca6233c926d05d0...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <6b7c70439e04102b...@dizum.com>
========================================================
Message-ID: <94b6a929662c285f...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Uh, 'air density and thus convection?' Gibberish.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <aca6233c926d05d0...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <6b7c70439e04102b...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly
> plausible, but actually impossible.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <d8b12acf78b013dc...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Consequently, I am looking towards doing some kind of a
> Kickstarter (or some similar website) campaign to get funds
> to hire a law firm to put forth a class action lawsuit--the
> defendent beng NOAA and/or some other meteorological
> organization--to force them to do the simple experiments that
> will refute the convection model and acknowledge the results
> publicly.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <19dbe4f7df6c6978...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Watch my video entitled: convection versus plasma.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <337ad27d8e860483...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Convection plays no role at all.
========================================================
Now that you've been cornered and forced into acknowledging reality,
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <d8b12acf78b013dc...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Consequently, I am looking towards doing some kind of a
> Kickstarter (or some similar website) campaign to get funds
> to hire a law firm to put forth a class action lawsuit--the
> defendent beng NOAA and/or some other meteorological
> organization--to force them to do the simple experiments that
> will refute the convection model and acknowledge the results
> publicly.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <19dbe4f7df6c6978...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Watch my video entitled: convection versus plasma.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
Message-ID: <337ad27d8e860483...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Convection plays no role at all.
========================================================
perhaps you'll further admit that convection is a density-related
phenomenon, and thus convection is convection, whether it's contained
within the thin skin of a hot air balloon, or unconstrained in the
atmosphere.
Why does a hot air balloon rise, James?
It's a simple question. Answer it, you evasive shitbag.
Solving Tornadoes
Apr 8, 2016, 3:50:03 PM4/8/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an
aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of
meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because
here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's
futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their
understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of
the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.
I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical
thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will
see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and
for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.
Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 9, 2016, 1:05:04 AM4/9/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as
Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:72ee50b5-d0c2-4b55...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
>> Message-ID: <19dbe4f7df6c6978...@dizum.com>
>> ========================================================
>> > Watch my video entitled: convection versus plasma.
>> ========================================================
>>
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA blathered:
>> Message-ID: <337ad27d8e860483...@dizum.com>
>> ========================================================
>> > Convection plays no role at all.
>> ========================================================
>>
>> Now that you've been cornered and forced into acknowledging reality,
>> perhaps you'll further admit that convection is a density-related
>> phenomenon, and thus convection is convection, whether it's contained
>> within the thin skin of a hot air balloon, or unconstrained in the
>> atmosphere.
>>
>> Why does a hot air balloon rise, James?
>>
>> It's a simple question. Answer it, you evasive shitbag.
evade like a coward, is your admission that you and your delusion have
no defense, James, which is your admission of defeat.
> I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of
> meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an
> aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of
> meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because
> here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's
> futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their
> understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of
> the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.
>
> I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical
> thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will
> see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and
> for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.
>
> Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.
biggest, frothiest and most pathetic attempt at evasion to date, and a
massive admission to defeat on your part.
James McGinn
May 25, 2016, 9:48:18 PM5/25/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Jul 7, 2016, 2:27:33 PM7/7/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 1:24:33 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
0 new messages