Alsing Gets Backed Into a Corner With No Escape

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 21, 2021, 1:22:56 PM7/21/21

to

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:09:00 AM UTC-7, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 9:07:30 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:11:24 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:39:05 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:30:55 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:14:54 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:08:07 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 9:44:58 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 9:09:35 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You simpletons can't explain anything, ever.
> > > > > > > > Look who's talking! YOU are the master at not explaining anything.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Where are those experiments and observations in support of your goofy theories?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You vague nitwits have nothing specific.
> > > > > > Can you share any specific experiment that you have performed that supports even a single theory of yours? Just 1?
> > > >
> > > > > Be specific.
> > > > Sure, your experimental evidence showing that water cannot exist as a gas at STP. Good luck! This needs to be experimental evidence and "steam tables" are not evidence... well, they ARE actually evidence, for anyone who actually knows what they men... which is absolutely not you!
> > > This is like somebody that believes in bigfoot asking for evidence that bigfoot does not exist.
> > > >
> > > > However, it does not really matter, pick any of your theories at all and show some specific experimental evidence, but it must be an experiment that any competent person can successfully recreate. Competence, Jim... got any?
> > > You expect me to debate your imagination?
> > > >
> > > > "The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence, just simple
> > > > competence, in any field from adultery to zoology."
> > > > - H.L. Mencken
> > > >
> > > > You cannot possibly complete this simple request, and everyone knows it.
> >
> > > You got nothing, you vague nitwit. Go debate Sergio about his brand preference for adult diapers.
> > >
> > > Leave science to people that understand it.
> > See? I knew you couldn't do it, and so does everyone else..

So, if the evidence is so clear and unambiguous why not just present the evidence? Seriously. Think about that. If you had clear, unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. Wouldn't it?

Don't evade my questions, you lying POS. Answer the question.

Why do you expect me to prove something when the only evidence that disputes it exists only in the collective imagination of millions who never devoted more than a fraction of a second of thought on the truth or falsity of thereof?

Answer the question, you lying POS.

James McGinn / Genius
Pollack's flawed thinking diverts attention away from deeper flaws
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=420#p4170

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 21, 2021, 6:09:44 PM7/21/21

to

Why no response?

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 22, 2021, 1:47:53 AM7/22/21

to

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 22, 2021, 3:51:37 AM7/22/21

to

If you had clear, unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. Wouldn't it?

The only argument you nitwits got is based on coercion, name calling, and desperation.

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 22, 2021, 9:58:38 AM7/22/21

to

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 22, 2021, 12:19:53 PM7/22/21

to

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 23, 2021, 10:08:13 AM7/23/21

to

Sergio

unread,

Jul 23, 2021, 10:46:28 AM7/23/21

to

On 7/22/2021 2:51 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> If you had clear, unambiguous evidence this would be an open and shut argument. Wouldn't it?
>
> The only argument you nitwits got is based on coercion, name calling, and desperation.
>

McFly's desperate projections

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 23, 2021, 9:32:01 PM7/23/21

to

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 24, 2021, 11:17:49 AM7/24/21

to

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 25, 2021, 5:56:05 PM7/25/21

to

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 26, 2021, 6:43:32 PM7/26/21

to

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 26, 2021, 9:19:49 PM7/26/21

to

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 27, 2021, 3:09:44 AM7/27/21

to

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 27, 2021, 6:54:55 AM7/27/21

to

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 12:25:17 PM7/30/21

to

Answer the questions, you lying asshole.

whodat

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 12:57:48 PM7/30/21

to

This sounds so much like drink driving "bravery."

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 1:11:06 PM7/30/21

to

On 7/30/2021 12:25 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:22:56 AM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Why do you expect me to prove something

Because of what Dr. Saykally told you, James.

"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is
incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an
experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard
Saykally, to you.

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 1:55:53 PM7/30/21

to

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 2:03:45 PM7/30/21

to

Answer the question, you goon.

James McGinn / Genius

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 2:42:00 PM7/30/21

to

On 7/30/2021 2:03 PM, James McGinn wrote:

> Answer the question, you goon.
>

> James McGinn / Tard
>

Already answered.

> Why do you expect me to prove something

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 2:59:48 PM7/30/21

to

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 4:25:42 PM7/30/21

to

Answer the questions in your own words. Don't hide behind Saykally, you goon.

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 6:40:12 PM7/30/21

to

You imbeciles can't think for yourself.

whodat

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 6:55:20 PM7/30/21

to

The drink talking again.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 7:13:21 PM7/30/21

to

And you imbeciles (James, Denk sock, Solving Tornados sock), cannot
produce any scientific evidence or observations of your kooky claims.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 7:46:55 PM7/30/21

to

You retards come to a scientific forum so you can pretend to be smart.

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 9:47:30 PM7/30/21

to

Like the tea party in Wonderland.
No room, no room, is the first cry.
But there is plenty of room, Alice observed.

Ably representing the March Hare in sci.physics is the basTURD whodumbo.
The moron Moroney with all his smugness becomes the Mad Hatter.
Squeezed between them is the squeaking Alsing, the Dormouse.

Cheshire Cats abound, here.

Quite a scene!

Cheers,
Arindam (Alice) Banerjee

Paul Alsing

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 10:10:48 PM7/30/21

to

Alice is the right name for you, Arindam, since you squeal like a little girl. My youngest grandson knows more physics than you do, and he is about to become 3 years old!

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 10:48:19 PM7/30/21

to

Don't be silly. You are a snotty squeaking schoolboy pretending to be otherwise, Alsing. Any 3 year old is far superior to you in charm.

Alice stands for curiosity and adventure, and in another sphere finds the pretentious ones like you to be strangely twisted. Warped, peculiar, like the "minds" of Einsteinians.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 10:48:19 PM7/30/21

to

You talk like a child. You try to pretend you are so smart but you won't even answer a simple question.

Phoney, coward.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Paul Alsing

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 11:13:27 PM7/30/21

to

Keep in mind that Alice went so far down the rabbit hole that she could no longer see the light...

Paul Alsing

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 11:19:44 PM7/30/21

to

Look who is talking about not answering simple questions! Tell us, Jimbo, why does an airplane need a lot more runway when the air is humid? Let's just see who the coward is here... we all know that you cannot and will not ever answer this question... so here is the answer...

https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae652.cfm#:~:text=Humidity%20has%20a%20major%20affect,air%20when%20it%20is%20humid.&text=This%20causes%20pilots%20to%20have,if%20the%20air%20were%20dry.

" When air is humid, it is actually lighter then dry air, contrary to common belief. That is because the water (H2O) weighs less then the N2 or O2 that it replaces."

You are such a dumbfuck... if you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it... but *you* are the coward here and have no prayer of answering...

whodat

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 11:48:30 PM7/30/21

to

He is taking my advice and trying to be funny. After all this time being
a boring crank it will take him may failed attempts. Hopefully
eventually he will succeed.

Paul Alsing

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 11:50:13 PM7/30/21

to

Yeah, he is becoming a laugh riot...

whodat

unread,

Jul 30, 2021, 11:53:35 PM7/30/21

to

Compared to the *nothing* he has been for years...

As far as real(tm) science goes, it has become clear that he will never
achieve redemption. Tat thought is heartwarming.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 1:57:02 AM7/31/21

to

This place is actually where many come to laugh at idiots who call
themselves "genius", "King of Science" or whatever, and really hasn't
been a "scientific forum" for a couple decades, when the kꙩꙩks overran
this place.

This is kind of like visiting the monkeys at the zoo, without the risk
of having poop thrown at you. Actually you're throwing poop at
everyone, James, but all you accomplish is hitting your computer screen
with it.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 7:09:40 AM7/31/21

to

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 7:46:06 AM7/31/21

to

I went down the rabbit hole in 1987, landed up in LA. There I started the googling ball rolling, the Americans lapped up my work all the more happily because they could safely ignore me.
But then there was some honesty, for the chairman of my session, on Perrizzo of NDSU, spent half the night talking to me and asked me to come to NDSU.
Americans were so much better then, now they are unspeakable.

So take care, dormouse. When Alice last saw you at the tea party the other two were trying to drown you in the teapot. Squeaky and small though you are, you are competition for the two other lunatics.

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 11:00:53 AM7/31/21

to

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:22:56 AM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 12:13:25 PM7/31/21

to

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 8:19:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> > You talk like a child. You try to pretend you are so smart but you won't even answer a simple question.
> >
> > Phoney, coward.

> Look who is talking about not answering simple questions!

Go suck a d**k you lying POS. I provided the correct answer to the question. My answer was based on a sophisticated understanding of the physics of water and the physics of its role in the atmosphere, a subject for which I am the foremost authority on this planet. You failed to counter my expert opinion with anything remotely resembling reproducible experimental evidence. Instead you provided the anecdote-based opinions of a pilot and a high school student. You present this as definitive. For a real scientists such anecdote might be the beginning of an examination. It certainly would not be the end.

> Tell us, Jimbo, why does an airplane need a lot more runway when the air is humid?

You know i've already answered this question, you cowardly piece of shit.

> " When air is humid, it is actually lighter then dry air, contrary to common belief. That is because the water (H2O) weighs less then the N2 or O2 that it replaces."

You about have to be retarded to not notice the high boiling temperature of H2O.

You are a worthless, lying coward.

James McGinn / Genius
The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16652

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 1:32:39 PM7/31/21

to

On 7/31/2021 12:13 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 8:19:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> You talk like a child. You try to pretend you are so smart but you won't even answer a simple question.
>>>
>>> Phoney, coward.
>
>> Look who is talking about not answering simple questions!
>
> Go suck a d**k you lying POS. I provided the correct answer to the question. My answer was based on a sophisticated understanding of the physics of water and the physics of its role in the atmosphere, a subject for which I am the foremost authority on this planet. You failed to counter my expert opinion with anything remotely resembling reproducible experimental evidence. Instead you provided the anecdote-based opinions of a pilot and a high school student. You present this as definitive. For a real scientists such anecdote might be the beginning of an examination. It certainly would not be the end.
>
>> Tell us, Jimbo, why does an airplane need a lot more runway when the air is humid?
>
> You know i've already answered this question, you cowardly piece of shit.

But you've never given any scientific evidence validating your answers.
Otherwise the answer "there are more invisible pink elephants when
it's humid and the elephants weigh down the plane" is equally valid (as
in not at all).

>
>> " When air is humid, it is actually lighter then dry air, contrary to common belief. That is because the water (H2O) weighs less then the N2 or O2 that it replaces."
>
> You about have to be retarded to not notice the high boiling temperature of H2O.

And you'd have to be retarded not to notice the nonzero vapor pressure
of H2O at normal temperature and Dalton's Law.

whodat

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 1:46:58 PM7/31/21

to

On 7/31/2021 11:13 AM, James McGinn wrote:

[...]

> You are a worthless, lying coward.

You're sounding more like Banerjee all the time. Perhaps you two should
get a room?

[...]

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 2:59:04 PM7/31/21

to

The only tactic you frauds have is to create obfuscation to draw attention away from the fact that your whole argument is selective anecdote. If the evidence was clear and unambiguous you would have no motivation for the obfuscation and cowardly propaganda tactics. Once again, you resort to desperation. I suppose lying comes easy to believers.

Paul Alsing

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 3:45:14 PM7/31/21

to

On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 9:13:25 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 8:19:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > You talk like a child. You try to pretend you are so smart but you won't even answer a simple question.
> > >
> > > Phoney, coward.
>
> > Look who is talking about not answering simple questions!
> Go suck a d**k you lying POS. I provided the correct answer to the question. My answer was based on a sophisticated understanding of the physics of water and the physics of its role in the atmosphere, a subject for which I am the foremost authority on this planet. You failed to counter my expert opinion with anything remotely resembling reproducible experimental evidence. Instead you provided the anecdote-based opinions of a pilot and a high school student. You present this as definitive. For a real scientists such anecdote might be the beginning of an examination. It certainly would not be the end.

> > Tell us, Jimbo, why does an airplane need a lot more runway when the air is humid?

> You know i've already answered this question, you cowardly piece of shit.

> > " When air is humid, it is actually lighter than dry air, contrary to common belief. That is because the water (H2O) weighs less than the N2 or O2 that it replaces."

> You about have to be retarded to not notice the high boiling temperature of H2O.

You are not even up to the 'retarded' level, Jim...

>
> You are a worthless, lying coward.
>
> James McGinn / Genius
> The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16652

It looks to me like you have once again removed your brain and played with it improperly... here, this describes you perfectly...

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

Jim Pennino

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 4:01:10 PM7/31/21

to

You do understand that this guy is delusional and delusional people will
ignore, reject and deny anything contrary to their delusions?

Attempting to get them to even address reality is about as fruitful as
attempting to teach a gold fish to play the piano.

In bygone days before budget cuts he would have been 5150ed long ago,
and if he is old enough, probably has been.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 6:41:39 PM7/31/21

to

On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 1:01:10 PM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > On 7/31/2021 12:13 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 8:19:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You talk like a child. You try to pretend you are so smart but you won't even answer a simple question.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phoney, coward.
> >>
> >>> Look who is talking about not answering simple questions!
> >>
> >> Go suck a d**k you lying POS. I provided the correct answer to the question. My answer was based on a sophisticated understanding of the physics of water and the physics of its role in the atmosphere, a subject for which I am the foremost authority on this planet. You failed to counter my expert opinion with anything remotely resembling reproducible experimental evidence. Instead you provided the anecdote-based opinions of a pilot and a high school student. You present this as definitive. For a real scientists such anecdote might be the beginning of an examination. It certainly would not be the end.
> >>
> >>> Tell us, Jimbo, why does an airplane need a lot more runway when the air is humid?
> >>
> >> You know i've already answered this question, you cowardly piece of shit.
> >
> > But you've never given any scientific evidence validating your answers.
> > Otherwise the answer "there are more invisible pink elephants when
> > it's humid and the elephants weigh down the plane" is equally valid (as
> > in not at all).
> >>
> >>> " When air is humid, it is actually lighter then dry air, contrary to common belief. That is because the water (H2O) weighs less then the N2 or O2 that it replaces."
> >>
> >> You about have to be retarded to not notice the high boiling temperature of H2O.
> >
> > And you'd have to be retarded not to notice the nonzero vapor pressure
> > of H2O at normal temperature and Dalton's Law.
> You do understand that this guy is delusional and delusional people will
> ignore, reject and deny anything contrary to their delusions?

So, uh, 500 years ago most people went to their deathbed maintaining the firm belief that the earth was the center of the universe.

The freekin universe!!!

If you were to have asked them to explain why they believed such a crazy supposition their response would have been the following:
"What?"

With that inane response in mind I would like to give you, Jim Dumbass Pennino an opportunity to show that the human condition has improved over the last 500 years. Along these lines here is a question for you. Can you explain why you, apparently, believe the atmosphere is a magical place in which the laws of physics do not apply?

James McGinn / Genius
The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

Jim Pennino

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 7:01:08 PM7/31/21

to

Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 1:01:10 PM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

>> You do understand that this guy is delusional and delusional people will
>> ignore, reject and deny anything contrary to their delusions?
>
> So, uh, 500 years ago most people went to their deathbed maintaining the
> firm belief that the earth was the center of the universe.
>
> The freekin universe!!!
>
> If you were to have asked them to explain why they believed such a crazy
> supposition their response would have been the following:
> "What?"
>
> With that inane response in mind I would like to give you, Jim Dumbass
> Pennino an opportunity to show that the human condition has improved
> over the last 500 years. Along these lines here is a question for you.
> Can you explain why you, apparently, believe the atmosphere is a
> magical place in which the laws of physics do not apply?
>
> James McGinn / Genius
> The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
> https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

Your proof that everything I wrote is true is the highlight of my day.

So, how many times have you been 5150ed?

whodat

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 7:08:38 PM7/31/21

to

Too sophisticated for the target.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 7:20:47 PM7/31/21

to

Uh, er . . . uh. Uh, uh, . . . er er. Uh.

Uh?

James McGinn / Genius

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 7:24:25 PM7/31/21

to

- flush -
Whodumbo is so evil, I coined a word to describe it!
BasTURD.
I predict it will enter the OED in the next century if not earlier.
Whodumbo's contribution, then, to enhance the English vocabulary, will not be entirely negative.
Some good from this super-Goebbelsian creature thus extracted.

Sergio

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 7:48:46 PM7/31/21

to

"What does 5150 mean?

5150 refers to the California law code for the temporary, involuntary
psychiatric commitment of individuals who present a danger to themselves
or others due to signs of mental illness. It has been more generally
applied to people who are considered threateningly unstable or “crazy.”"

so fess up, James McGinn, are or are you not, mental ?

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 10:45:45 PM7/31/21

to

Translation: So many times that I've lost count.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 10:50:18 PM7/31/21

to

On 7/31/2021 7:24 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> - flush -
> Whodumbo is so evil, I coined a word to describe it!
> BasTURD.
> I predict it will enter the OED in the next century if not earlier.

1) Already in Urbandictionary.com. Credit to 'The Third Monkey August
30, 2011'.

2) The term describes yourself, not whodat.

Paul Alsing

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 11:29:27 PM7/31/21

to

Never stretch the truth beyond the capabilities of the recipient... it would just be a waste of your time...

Paul Alsing

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 11:30:11 PM7/31/21

to

The most honest reply of your lifetime...

Sergio

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 11:32:42 PM7/31/21

to

more like;
DUh, er . . . duh. dUh, duh, . . . er er. dUh.

whodat

unread,

Jul 31, 2021, 11:33:15 PM7/31/21

to

Not original, but Banerjee attempts to steal credit anyway. Most boring.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Basturd

He will be best remembered for coining fake science. Unfortunately for
him he is already lost in the plethora of cranks. There's nothing
original or unique about Arindam Banerjee who is as crazy as batshit
diarrhea. That's why I killfiled him here, and probably will do the same
in soc.culture.indian, now that it is clear his own countrymen want
nothing to do with him. He is the Gollum in sci.physics. I think Rowling
used Arindam as the pattern model for the more famous Gollum.

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 1:23:14 AM8/1/21

to

In its most presentable form, basTURD whodumbo is the March Hare.
Ably supported by the Mad Hatter Moroney, and the squeaky Dormouse Alsing.

So far Moroney, unlike whodumbo, has not expanded the English vocabulary from my attention.
That deficiency should be rectified.
The term "moronics" meaning the copycat antics of the surly moron Moroney here, should be part of the OED in the next century.
That will make him immortal, like the basTURD whodumbo.
But they won't thank me for that.
Churls are like that.

All for truth, goodness, love and beauty, what.

"My good blade carves the casques of men,
My tough lance thrusteth sure.
My strength is as the strength of ten
Because my heart is pure."

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 1:55:26 PM8/1/21

to

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 8:19:44 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae652.cfm#:~:text=Humidity%20has%20a%20major%20affect,air%20when%20it%20is%20humid.&text=This%20causes%20pilots%20to%20have,if%20the%20air%20were%20dry.

>
> " When air is humid, it is actually lighter then dry air, contrary to common belief. That is because the water (H2O) weighs less then the N2 or O2 that it replaces."

This is a plainly ignorant explanation. Nobody in the history of mankind has ever presented any evidence that H2O becomes genuinely gaseous upon evaporation (at ambient temperatures). So this is just fantasy. Moreover, if it was true then there would never be so much moist air hugging the surface of our planet. It would instantly begin rising up in mass quantity, which certainly does not happen.

When heavier nanodroplets (which are usually so small as to be invisible) do rise up in the atmosphere it is because of electrostatic forces. Convection/buoyancy plays no role at all.

You silly nitwits don't think anything through.

James McGinn / Genius

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 2:49:16 PM8/1/21

to

Well, let's see your peer reviewed scientific paper with reproducible
observations and scientific evidence which proves this.
>
> James McGinn / Tardboy
>

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 3:23:33 PM8/1/21

to

Where's yours?

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 3:48:21 PM8/1/21

to

> Where's yours?

You should not answer a question with another question, it only makes you look incapable... but then, you HAVE no answer, and never will!

Tell me, Jim, what is inside those bubbles we can all see when water is boiling... or even 'before the water is actually boiling?

You can now proceed with your typical projection vulgarity...

Sergio

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 4:02:44 PM8/1/21

to

James McGinn and his Pretend Science.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 4:36:35 PM8/1/21

to

Naughty naughty, James. You remember what the real water science genius
told you about whose responsibility it is to validate a new theory?
Besides, you already know the answer is 'every chemistry textbook on the
planet'.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 4:44:35 PM8/1/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 12:48:21 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 12:23:33 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 11:49:16 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > > Well, let's see your peer reviewed scientific paper with reproducible
> > > observations and scientific evidence which proves this.
> > Where's yours?
>
> You should not answer a question with another question, it only makes you look incapable... but then, you HAVE no answer, and never will!

LOL You goons never learn.

> Tell me, Jim, what is inside those bubbles we can all see when water is boiling... or even 'before the water is actually boiling?

Gaseous H2O is in those bubbles. The temperature in these bubbles is over 100 Celsius.

What do you think happens when those bubble break the surface and get mixed into air at 30 Celsius?

>
> You can now proceed with your typical projection vulgarity...

Okay, answer my question, asshole.

James McGinn / Genius

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 4:46:41 PM8/1/21

to

Oh, so, the rules of science don't apply to academics? Is that what you believe? Surreal.

> Besides, you already know the answer is 'every chemistry textbook on the
> planet'.

R U retarded. Do you think textbooks delineate truth. Fucking moron.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 5:06:38 PM8/1/21

to

Now now, tardboy. The rules of science do apply to academics, which is
why it's up to YOU to provide that science paper with reproducible
observations and scientific evidence. I know that you don't like that
but too bad for you, that's how science works.

>
>> Besides, you already know the answer is 'every chemistry textbook on the
>> planet'.
>
> R U retarded. Do you think textbooks delineate truth. Fucking moron.

Textbooks reflect what's in all those scientific papers which prove you
wrong, just translated into a teaching form by an expert in the field.
Almost all of them have example problems which can be reproduced by
anyone competent in the field. If you don't like 'textbooks' as an
answer, then I'll change my answer to 'every physical chemistry paper
discussing the properties of water'.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 5:15:14 PM8/1/21

to

Papers don't delineate reality either, moron.

Only reproducible experimental evidence counts.

Leave science to scientists.

James McGinn / Genius

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 5:27:22 PM8/1/21

to

And that is EXACTLY what the papers have and you DON'T have!!

Which is why you have how many research papers on water? Was it zero,
zilch, zip, 0, nada or ничего?
>
> Leave science to scientists.

You wouldn't know a scientist if one kicked you in the ass. (which is
exactly what Dr. Saykally did to you, and you STILL haven't figured that
out!)

Sergio

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 5:44:32 PM8/1/21

to

James McGinn of Pretend Science...

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 6:27:18 PM8/1/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 2:27:22 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:

> >>>> Besides, you already know the answer is 'every chemistry textbook on the
> >>>> planet'.
> >>>
> >>> R U retarded. Do you think textbooks delineate truth. Fucking moron.
> >> Textbooks reflect what's in all those scientific papers
> >
> > Papers don't delineate reality either, moron.
> >
> > Only reproducible experimental evidence counts.
> And that is EXACTLY what the papers have and you DON'T have!!

Jesus Christ you are stupid.

No, moron. Rarely do papers reference original experimental evidence. And if they do then the paper will refer to the exact experiment IN THE FUCKING TITLE.

You idiots need to stay out of science forums. You are ruining it for everybody.

Go find another hobby so that you are not bothering scientists.

James McGinn / Genius

whodat

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 6:34:58 PM8/1/21

to

On 8/1/2021 5:27 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:

[...]

> Go find another hobby so that you are not bothering scientists.

delusion #n

> James McGinn / Genius

delusion #n+1

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 6:37:35 PM8/1/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 3:27:18 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 2:27:22 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>
> > >>>> Besides, you already know the answer is 'every chemistry textbook on the
> > >>>> planet'.
> > >>>
> > >>> R U retarded. Do you think textbooks delineate truth. Fucking moron.
> > >> Textbooks reflect what's in all those scientific papers
> > >
> > > Papers don't delineate reality either, moron.
> > >
> > > Only reproducible experimental evidence counts.
> > And that is EXACTLY what the papers have and you DON'T have!!
> Jesus Christ you are stupid.
>
> No, moron. Rarely do papers reference original experimental evidence. And if they do then the paper will refer to the exact experiment IN THE FUCKING TITLE.

What do you mean "rarely do papers reference original experimental evidence"? The whole reason for sriting reasearch papers in the first place is to present evidence in support of the theory! you know, evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. You obviously do not know the first thing about what research is all about!

>
> You idiots need to stay out of science forums. You are ruining it for everybody.

Look who is talking! You are the most ignorant person on this forum, and that includes everyone!

>
> Go find another hobby so that you are not bothering scientists.

You are clearly no scientist. My dog STILL knows more physics than you do...

"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."
- Isaac Asimov

Sergio

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 6:45:38 PM8/1/21

to

On 8/1/2021 5:27 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:

> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 2:27:22 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>
>>>>>> Besides, you already know the answer is 'every chemistry textbook on the
>>>>>> planet'.
>>>>>
>>>>> R U retarded. Do you think textbooks delineate truth. Fucking moron.
>>>> Textbooks reflect what's in all those scientific papers
>>>
>>> Papers don't delineate reality either, moron.
>>>
>>> Only reproducible experimental evidence counts.
>> And that is EXACTLY what the papers have and you DON'T have!!
>
> Jesus Christ you are stupid.

1. wrong.

>
> No, moron.

2. wrong.

> Rarely do papers reference original experimental evidence.

3. totally wrong.

> And if they do then the paper will refer to the exact experiment IN THE FUCKING TITLE.

4. wrong.

>
> You idiots need to stay out of science forums.

5. Wrong, we stay, you do do your Pretend Science with dilberts

>You are ruining it for everybody.

6.wrong, your opinion is caused by self-anger.

>
> Go find another hobby so that you are not bothering scientists.

7. Wrong, you are Pretend Scientist, and know nothing about science.

>
> James McGinn / Genius

8. Wrong, you retard not genus

wow, 8 wrongs in one post, -8 on the stupid meter.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 6:48:32 PM8/1/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 3:37:35 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."
> - Isaac Asimov

So, where's your evidence. You quoted a pilot and a high school student. That was your evidence. What would Isaac Asimov have to say about that?

It's the fact that there are so many of you goons that has ruined scientific forums on the internet.

Go find another hobby and stop ruining science on the internet.

James McGinn / Genius

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 6:50:55 PM8/1/21

to

Real science has been overwhelmed by the fact that there are millions and millions of Sergios.

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 7:06:36 PM8/1/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 3:48:32 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 3:37:35 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."
> > - Isaac Asimov

> So, where's your evidence. You quoted a pilot and a high school student. That was your evidence. What would Isaac Asimov have to say about that?

Asimov would have approved of the evidence from "anyone" if it was repeatable and convincing... even if it was from you!

Virtually all high-school students and all pilots know a lot more physics than do you.. but I don't need to provide any evidence myself since there are millions of textbooks that provide it. This is well-documented mainstream physics and it is easy to show the evidence. Any evidence of mine would just be repetitive. Your sacred nanodroplets, on the other hand, are just a figment of your imagination unless and until *you* provide evidence of their existence. So far, no joy for you. You can rant and rave a spit and piss into the wind for the rest of your miserable life about this, but you can NEVER provide even a scintilla of evidence they they exist, because if you could do it you certainly would have by now, and that's a FACT, just like me reminding you that the gaseous form of water existing in the atmosphere is also a fact that can be taken to the bank.

>
> It's the fact that there are so many of you goons that has ruined scientific forums on the internet.

No, that's just your assertion, not a fact.

>
> Go find another hobby and stop ruining science on the internet.

Even a dumbfuck like you cannot ruin science on the internet, although we can all see that you are trying your best!

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 7:09:07 PM8/1/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 4:06:36 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 3:48:32 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 3:37:35 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."
> > > - Isaac Asimov
>
> > So, where's your evidence. You quoted a pilot and a high school student. That was your evidence. What would Isaac Asimov have to say about that?
> Asimov would have approved of the evidence from "anyone" if it was repeatable and convincing... even if it was from you!
>
> Virtually all high-school students and all pilots know a lot more physics than do you..

Why don't you go suck Sergio's d**k.

LOL.

Goodbye asshole.

James McGinn / Genius

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 7:11:56 PM8/1/21

to

Gee, I must have struck a nerve! Did I hurt your feelings?

Is this goodbye for good? Gonna plonk me? Please, gods, make it be so!

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 7:22:23 PM8/1/21

to

Stay out of scientific discussion, you goon.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 7:22:45 PM8/1/21

to

On 8/1/2021 6:48 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 3:37:35 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."
>> - Isaac Asimov
>
> So, where's your evidence. You quoted a pilot and a high school student. That was your evidence. What would Isaac Asimov have to say about that?
>

> Since your claims are quite wild and ridiculous, he would demand very firm and solid evidence from you. But *if* you could provide solid, repeatable evidence, he would believe you. (and if pigs had wings...)

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 7:31:31 PM8/1/21

to

Fucking retard. Explain how it s wild and ridiculous to say H2O complies with the H2O phase diagram'.

Go ahead, retard, explain that.

You moron need to stop pretending to be smart.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 7:35:17 PM8/1/21

to

On 8/1/2021 6:27 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 2:27:22 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>
>>>>>> Besides, you already know the answer is 'every chemistry textbook on the
>>>>>> planet'.
>>>>>
>>>>> R U retarded. Do you think textbooks delineate truth. Fucking moron.
>>>> Textbooks reflect what's in all those scientific papers
>>>
>>> Papers don't delineate reality either, moron.
>>>
>>> Only reproducible experimental evidence counts.
>> And that is EXACTLY what the papers have and you DON'T have!!
>
> Jesus Christ you are stupid.
>
> No, moron. Rarely do papers reference original experimental evidence.

Stupid Mcginn, they *always* reference experimental evidence, and 99% of
the time it's original evidence. Very rarely it's all evidence from
others but with further interpretations of the meaning. But there
ALWAYS is experimental evidence. Otherwise it's an opinion piece.

> And if they do then the paper will refer to the exact experiment IN THE FUCKING TITLE.

Nope, the title is a one phrase description of the paper. How would you
deal with a paper with hundreds of experiments? A 1000 word title? They
freaking taught how to write a paper in my college intro physics course
(high school, too) and expected reports on experiments to be in the form
of a physics paper.

>
> You idiots need to stay out of science forums. You are ruining it for everybody.

You cranks already ruined the former science groups.

>
> Go find another hobby so that you are not bothering scientists.

Very few scientists here, and certainly not you! Plenty of cranks,
however, including you of course.
>
> James McGinn / Tard
>

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 7:38:40 PM8/1/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 4:31:31 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:

> Fucking retard. Explain how it s wild and ridiculous to say H2O complies with the H2O phase diagram'.
>
> Go ahead, retard, explain that.

If only you knew how to interpret a phase diagram... it does not say what you think it says... and the first thing you need to understand is that ALL phase diagrams refer to the gaseous state of any pure substance as "vapor". Whether you agree or disagree, scientists around the world ALL call the gaseous phase the vapor phase... because, after all, vapor = gas. if you disagree, of course, you are always welcome to provide you evidence that this is incorrect. Otherwise, get out of Dodge!

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 7:44:07 PM8/1/21

to

You don't know how to interpret the phase diagram.

>
> Go ahead, retard, explain that.
>

Because H2O(g) also obeys Dalton's Law. Explain that.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 8:56:38 PM8/1/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 4:38:40 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 4:31:31 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Fucking retard. Explain how it s wild and ridiculous to say H2O complies with the H2O phase diagram'.
> >
> > Go ahead, retard, explain that.
> If only you knew how to interpret a phase diagram... it does not say what you think it says... and the first thing you need to understand is that ALL phase diagrams refer to the gaseous state of any pure substance as "vapor".

Another braindead semantic argument. This is all you morons can muster.

> Whether you agree or disagree, scientists around the world

Fucking retard. It makes no difference what anybody thinks.

ALL call the gaseous phase the vapor phase... because, after all, vapor = gas. if you disagree, of course, you are always welcome to provide you evidence that this is incorrect. Otherwise, get out of Dodge!

Go such a d**k, asshole. You morons keep presenting the same invaldi arguments over and fucking over again.

Stay out of scientific forum, fucking fools.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 8:57:32 PM8/1/21

to

It's your argument, moron, you explain it.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 8:58:36 PM8/1/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 4:35:17 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/1/2021 6:27 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 2:27:22 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>> Besides, you already know the answer is 'every chemistry textbook on the
> >>>>>> planet'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> R U retarded. Do you think textbooks delineate truth. Fucking moron.
> >>>> Textbooks reflect what's in all those scientific papers
> >>>
> >>> Papers don't delineate reality either, moron.
> >>>
> >>> Only reproducible experimental evidence counts.
> >> And that is EXACTLY what the papers have and you DON'T have!!
> >
> > Jesus Christ you are stupid.
> >
> > No, moron. Rarely do papers reference original experimental evidence.

THEN QUOTE THE FUCKING PAPER, MORON!!!!

Sergio

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 9:13:40 PM8/1/21

to

no need, retards cannot understand Science anyway

just ask James McGinn, Pretend Scientist

Sergio

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 9:17:26 PM8/1/21

to

Presentation of McGinn's paper;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9qiZrJaLRs

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 10:27:34 PM8/1/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 5:56:38 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:

> Fucking retard. It makes no difference what anybody thinks.

Yeah, and that is especially true for YOU! No one cares what you say because it is all bullshit!

Here, just for you, Jimbo...

"A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence."
- Richard Dawkins

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 11:01:48 PM8/1/21

to

I don't have to. Zillions of scientists before me already have, and
their works are recorded in their papers and textbooks. Now you, with
something completely, err, "new" with no evidence, no papers and
certainly no textbooks, will need to prove all of your "discovery" with
experimental evidence in a paper, before all is lost and forgotten.
>

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 11:28:28 PM8/1/21

to

James hands you a personal copy of his paper.

https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1584484796952-551ae82af90c?auto=format&fit=crop&w=334&q=80

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 1, 2021, 11:34:41 PM8/1/21

to

Here's one, John, I hope you can afford it!

https://www.biblio.com/book/meteorological-observations-essays-dalton-john/d/1171076166?aid=frg&gclid=CjwKCAjwjJmIBhA4EiwAQdCbxgtxiPlc_m3SpMi4F59tyBgjAJSLNouMD1r9EqfB3lw2Xmzo28ekpRoCniQQAvD_BwE

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 2, 2021, 12:30:20 AM8/2/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 8:01:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/1/2021 8:57 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 4:44:07 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/1/2021 7:31 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 4:22:45 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/1/2021 6:48 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 3:37:35 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."
> >>>>>> - Isaac Asimov
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, where's your evidence. You quoted a pilot and a high school student. That was your evidence. What would Isaac Asimov have to say about that?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Since your claims are quite wild and ridiculous, he would demand very firm and solid evidence from you. But *if* you could provide solid, repeatable evidence, he would believe you. (and if pigs had wings...)
> >>>
> >>> Fucking retard. Explain how it s wild and ridiculous to say H2O complies with the H2O phase diagram'.
> >> You don't know how to interpret the phase diagram.
> >>>
> >>> Go ahead, retard, explain that.
> >>>
> >> Because H2O(g) also obeys Dalton's Law. Explain that.
> >
> > It's your argument, moron, you explain it.
> I don't have to. Zillions of scientists before me already have, and
> their works are recorded in their papers and textbooks.

And you can't find one?

James McGinn / Genius

Paul Alsing

unread,

Aug 2, 2021, 12:38:40 AM8/2/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 9:30:20 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:

> And you can't find one?

You keep asking people to support mainstream physics, and they all say "why should we? It is in all the textbooks, go find it yourself".

The real issue is that you cannot support your own claims. Where is your nanodroplet evidence? I say they don't exist and you say they do. Where is your evidence that water vapor is not in the air? Mainstream physics says it is and you say it is not.

So, show me. Support your claims, just like everyone else has done over the centuries. Your claims, your evidence.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 2, 2021, 12:40:16 AM8/2/21

to

You really are retarded, aren't you. I said I don't need to. Go read a
good textbook or one of those papers, as I said.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 2, 2021, 1:04:00 AM8/2/21

to

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 9:38:40 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 9:30:20 PM UTC-7, solvingt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > And you can't find one?
> You keep asking people to support mainstream physics,

There is no such thing as "mainstream" physics, you mental retard.

You ain't got shit, moron.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,

Aug 2, 2021, 1:07:18 AM8/2/21

to

Really? Explain why "you don't need to." Are you conceding the argument?

James McGinn / Genius