Discussion:
Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O?
(too old to reply)
James McGinn
2017-10-24 23:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
To be clear, that is moist air at the ambient temperatures/pressures found in Earth's atmosphere.

I predict the following. None of you will be able to give a straight answer to this question and will instead employ one or more of the following tactics/strategies:

1) Pretend you never have seen the question

2) Pretend not to understand the question

3) Attempt to obscure the issue by asking diversion questions

4) Attempt to obscure the issue by calling me names

5) Outright lies about evidence that you will never be able to find

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoe
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-25 00:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
To be clear, that is moist air at the ambient temperatures/pressures found in Earth's atmosphere.
1) Pretend you never have seen the question
2) Pretend not to understand the question
3) Attempt to obscure the issue by asking diversion questions
4) Attempt to obscure the issue by calling me names
5) Outright lies about evidence that you will never be able to find
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoe / Claudius Denk
Here you are, Jim, about 874,000 reasons for your consideration...

https://tinyurl.com/ycv6houn

I know, I know, you have a problem accepting the scientific world's definition of 'water vapor' and will insist that *your* definition says it is just little clumps of water molecules rather than individual molecules of water... but your definition has no support among the world's scientists and is therefore wrong! Of course, you can provide *no* experimental or observational evidence to support your own tenuous position.

"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
James McGinn
2017-10-25 01:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Here you are, Jim, about 874,000 reasons for your consideration...
https://tinyurl.com/ycv6houn
Worthless!
Post by p***@gmail.com
I know, I know, you have a problem accepting the scientific
world's definition of 'water vapor'
That's right!!! I would never accept a consensus as the sole
determinant of truth on a scientific issue. Never. Science that
resorts to consensus isn't science, its religion. And I doesn't
matter what label was attached to the consensus organization.
It wouldn't matter if it was every scientist in the world except
me. I would not accept it alone as the arbiter of scientific
truth.
Post by p***@gmail.com
and will insist that *your* definition says it is just little
clumps of water molecules rather than individual molecules of
water... but your definition has no support among the world's
scientists and is therefore wrong!
The only difference between a consensus of scientists and a
consensus of dunces is that there is a chance the dunces will
change their minds. A consensus of scientists is the most
brain dead entity imaginable because they have a vested
interest in remaining ignorant.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Odd Bodkin
2017-10-25 01:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Here you are, Jim, about 874,000 reasons for your consideration...
https://tinyurl.com/ycv6houn
Worthless!
Post by p***@gmail.com
I know, I know, you have a problem accepting the scientific
world's definition of 'water vapor'
That's right!!! I would never accept a consensus as the sole
determinant of truth on a scientific issue. Never. Science that
resorts to consensus isn't science, its religion. And I doesn't
matter what label was attached to the consensus organization.
It wouldn't matter if it was every scientist in the world except
me. I would not accept it alone as the arbiter of scientific
truth.
Post by p***@gmail.com
and will insist that *your* definition says it is just little
clumps of water molecules rather than individual molecules of
water... but your definition has no support among the world's
scientists and is therefore wrong!
The only difference between a consensus of scientists and a
consensus of dunces is that there is a chance the dunces will
change their minds. A consensus of scientists is the most
brain dead entity imaginable because they have a vested
interest in remaining ignorant.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
I think you’re being a chicken shit, Jim. You’ve chosen an area where
iconoclasm involves little risk. If you want to buck consensus, challenge
the consensus view that 2+2=4. Challenge the consensus view that the earth
is older than 6500 years. Challenge the conventional notion that Abraham
Lincoln was an actual human being. I mean, go for it.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Serg io
2017-10-25 02:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Here you are, Jim, about 874,000 reasons for your consideration...
https://tinyurl.com/ycv6houn
Worthless!
Post by p***@gmail.com
I know, I know, you have a problem accepting the scientific
world's definition of 'water vapor'
That's right!!! I would never accept a consensus as the sole
determinant of truth on a scientific issue. Never. Science that
resorts to consensus isn't science, its religion. And I doesn't
matter what label was attached to the consensus organization.
It wouldn't matter if it was every scientist in the world except
me. I would not accept it alone as the arbiter of scientific
truth.
McGinn, no one cares about your opinions.
No one cares about what you may/may not accept.
And we are not your collective "mommie", so go do your drama in
alt.sci.fiction.

However, James, this guy is on the edge of physics, hates water vapor,
and can instruct you, in a way that you will understand;

Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
and will insist that *your* definition says it is just little
clumps of water molecules rather than individual molecules of
water... but your definition has no support among the world's
scientists and is therefore wrong!
The only difference between a consensus of scientists and a
consensus of dunces is that there is a chance the dunces will
change their minds. A consensus of scientists is the most
brain dead entity imaginable because they have a vested
interest in remaining ignorant.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
I think you’re being a chicken shit, Jim. You’ve chosen an area where
iconoclasm involves little risk. If you want to buck consensus, challenge
the consensus view that 2+2=4. Challenge the consensus view that the earth
is older than 6500 years. Challenge the conventional notion that Abraham
Lincoln was an actual human being. I mean, go for it.
James McGinn
2017-10-25 02:51:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Here you are, Jim, about 874,000 reasons for your consideration...
https://tinyurl.com/ycv6houn
Worthless!
Post by p***@gmail.com
I know, I know, you have a problem accepting the scientific
world's definition of 'water vapor'
That's right!!! I would never accept a consensus as the sole
determinant of truth on a scientific issue. Never. Science that
resorts to consensus isn't science, its religion. And I doesn't
matter what label was attached to the consensus organization.
It wouldn't matter if it was every scientist in the world except
me. I would not accept it alone as the arbiter of scientific
truth.
Post by p***@gmail.com
and will insist that *your* definition says it is just little
clumps of water molecules rather than individual molecules of
water... but your definition has no support among the world's
scientists and is therefore wrong!
The only difference between a consensus of scientists and a
consensus of dunces is that there is a chance the dunces will
change their minds. A consensus of scientists is the most
brain dead entity imaginable because they have a vested
interest in remaining ignorant.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
I think you’re being a chicken shit, Jim. You’ve chosen an area where
iconoclasm involves little risk. If you want to buck consensus, challenge
the consensus view that 2+2=4. Challenge the consensus view that the earth
is older than 6500 years. Challenge the conventional notion that Abraham
Lincoln was an actual human being. I mean, go for it.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-25 02:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Here you are, Jim, about 874,000 reasons for your consideration...
https://tinyurl.com/ycv6houn
Worthless!
Post by p***@gmail.com
I know, I know, you have a problem accepting the scientific
world's definition of 'water vapor'
That's right!!! I would never accept a consensus as the sole
determinant of truth on a scientific issue.
The problem you have here, dumbfuck, is that the notion that water vapor is the gaseous form of water in the atmosphere is NOT just a consensus, it is a proven scientific fact, with hundreds of thousands of experiments and observations backing it up. Too bad you are too brain-dead to understand this, or find the evidence on your own. Sheesh, what a moron!
Post by James McGinn
Never. Science that
resorts to consensus isn't science, its religion. And I doesn't
matter what label was attached to the consensus organization.
It wouldn't matter if it was every scientist in the world except
me. I would not accept it alone as the arbiter of scientific
truth.
This, of course, makes you delusional... which we already know.

According to Webster;

"Definition of religion:

4 :a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

This looks and smells just like your own claims, "beliefs that you hold on to with ardor and faith", since you have zero evidence, experiments or observations to offer. Faith is all you have to offer.
Post by James McGinn
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes / Claudius Denk
James McGinn
2017-10-25 02:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
. . . the notion that water vapor is the gaseous form of
water in the atmosphere is NOT just a consensus, it is a
proven scientific fact, with hundreds of thousands of
experiments and observations backing it up.
If you ever find one be sure to let us know. In the meantime
Check this out:
Concerning the Drying of Wet Shoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-25 03:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 7:58:46 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:me
Post by James McGinn
Concerning the Drying of Wet Shoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes /Claudius Denk
Jim, you obvious moron, from your own link...

"As shown, there is a lot of moisture remaining in the inverted bottle, whereas the upright bottle is fully and completely free of any visible water.

So it seems that humid air is less dense than dry air after all.

In this case, the bottles were left in the shown position overnight. This is a room that I keep dehumidified and dust free with air filters, so it's quite climate controlled. However for the duration of the experiment all air conditioning, heating, fans, and filters were turned off, so the air in the room was still apart from normal thermal convection.

Actually I tried this several times: Sometimes with the bottles positioned so their necks were at the same level; sometimes positioned so the bodies of the bottles were at the same level; sometimes switching which bottle was inverted, in case somehow one bottle had more mineral deposits on the inner walls, or otherwise retained more adhered water than the other for some reason.

But always the result was the same - in the morning the upright bottle was dry; the inverted bottle was still wet.

Henceforth I shall leave my shoes upright to dry, and try to educate my children to do likewise."
James McGinn
2017-10-25 04:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 7:58:46 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:me
Post by James McGinn
Concerning the Drying of Wet Shoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes /Claudius Denk
Jim, you obvious moron, from your own link...
"As shown, there is a lot of moisture remaining in the inverted
bottle, whereas the upright bottle is fully and completely free
of any visible water.
So it seems that humid air is less dense than dry air after all.
Really? Are you sure of that? When an airplane goes up is it
evidence that the air plane is less dense than the surrounding
air? That is aerodynamics. Obviously aerodynamics is not
involved with shoes drying, but what else might there be?
Read this:
Millions of Tons of Water Suspended Kilometres Above
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16597

There is also one more: air moving from high pressure to
low pressure (wind).

So, whereas you can only conceive of one explanation for
how and why something moves up, convection, I can think
of four: 1) Convection 2) Aerodynamics 3) Electro-static
forces, and 4) Wind.

Who's the moron now, moron?

Read the rest of that thread and you will see where I
straightened them all out.
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-25 04:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Read the rest of that thread and you will see where I
straightened them all out.
LOL. You mean, like you've straightened out everyone here? Not very likely, since you are stump-stupid.

I mean, if you are going to post a link, why are you posting a link where virtually everyone there disagrees with you? Could it be because there aren't any links where people agree with you? That fellow did a perfectly reasonable experiment, and he did it multiple times, and got the same results each time, which sure seemed to show that humid air is lighter than drier air... simple experimental evidence that you apparently refuse to acknowledge... right there in your very own link! Why don't you perform this experiment yourself? If you get the same result, how would you explain it?

Just how stupid can you be?
James McGinn
2017-10-25 05:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
LOL. You mean, like you've straightened out everyone here?
Yep.
Post by p***@gmail.com
I mean, if you are going to post a link, why are you
posting a link where virtually everyone there disagrees
with you?
During his lifetime everybody disagreed with Galileo.

It's funny how no matter how many times you inform a
consensus dope that consensus-based reasoning is the
antithesis of empiricism they (you) just never get it.

You really should leave science to scientist.
Post by p***@gmail.com
fellow did a perfectly reasonable experiment, and he did
it multiple times, and got the same results each time,
which sure seemed to show that humid air is lighter than
drier air...
Keep reading.

I suppose that if you are dumb enough to believe that convection
is the only process that can cause moisture to go up then there
isn't much I can do for you. Let's just say that I don't suffer
the same intellectual limitation that you suffer. It's not a
problem for me to consider that there might be more than one way
that moisture can rise--AS I FUCKING JUST EXPLAINED TO YOU IN
THE PREVIOUS POST YOU FUCKING MORON!!!
Post by p***@gmail.com
simple experimental evidence that you apparently refuse to
acknowledge...
I didn't dispute the evidence, moron. I disputed the brain
dead assumption that convection is the only process that can
cause moisture to rise.
Post by p***@gmail.com
right there in your very own link! Why don't you perform
this experiment yourself? If you get the same result, how
would you explain it?
READ THE FUCKING THREAD. LEARN TO THINK FOR YOURSELF INSTEAD
OF LETTING THE MORONS ON WIKIPEDIA DO ALL YOUR THINKING FOR YOU!
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-25 05:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
... there isn't much I can do for you.
As far as I can see, there isn't much you can for anyone...
Post by p***@gmail.com
simple experimental evidence that you apparently refuse to
acknowledge...
I didn't dispute the evidence, moron.
Well, yes, you did, dumbfuck...
Post by p***@gmail.com
... Why don't you perform
this experiment yourself? If you get the same result, how
would you explain it?
Answer the fucking questions, dumbfuck. You have NEVER answered a direct question, you fucking crank. Now is the time.

Right. Now.
James McGinn
2017-10-25 06:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
... there isn't much I can do for you.
As far as I can see, there isn't much you can for anyone...
Post by p***@gmail.com
simple experimental evidence that you apparently refuse to
acknowledge...
I didn't dispute the evidence, moron.
Well, yes, you did, dumbfuck...
I disputed the interpretation and the dimwittedness of only
allowing for one process to explain the upward movement of
moist air, you fucking mental retard.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
... Why don't you perform
this experiment yourself? If you get the same result, how
would you explain it?
Answer the fucking questions, dumbfuck. You have NEVER
answered a direct question, you fucking crank. Now is the time.
Right. Now.
Due to it containing microdroplets that are large enough to be
visible to the naked eye, indisputably clouds are heavier than
the surrounding drier air. Yet they don't drop out of the sky
as the convection model predicts. So there must be something
holding them up. Right? So it's not #1 convection. It
certainly isn't #2 aerodynamics, and it couldn't be #4 winds.
The only thing left is electricity, #3. Electricity--a
consequence of the solar wind--is what allows clouds to defy
gravity and levitate. Electricity explains how heavier
microdroplets and not steam evaporates off the surface of water.
And the fact that the solar wind that delivers this electricity
comes down from above ecxplains why an inverted bottle will not
produce evaporation while a bottle that is right side up will.
James McGinn
2017-11-16 19:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
... there isn't much I can do for you.
As far as I can see, there isn't much you can for anyone...
Post by p***@gmail.com
simple experimental evidence that you apparently refuse to
acknowledge...
I didn't dispute the evidence, moron.
Well, yes, you did, dumbfuck...
I disputed the interpretation and the dimwittedness of only
allowing for one process to explain the upward movement of
moist air, you fucking mental retard.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
... Why don't you perform
this experiment yourself? If you get the same result, how
would you explain it?
Answer the fucking questions, dumbfuck. You have NEVER
answered a direct question, you fucking crank. Now is the time.
Right. Now.
Due to it containing microdroplets that are large enough to be
visible to the naked eye, indisputably clouds are heavier than
the surrounding drier air. Yet they don't drop out of the sky
as the convection model predicts. So there must be something
holding them up. Right? So it's not #1 convection. It
certainly isn't #2 aerodynamics, and it couldn't be #4 winds.
The only thing left is electricity, #3. Electricity--a
consequence of the solar wind--is what allows clouds to defy
gravity and levitate. Electricity explains how heavier
microdroplets and not steam evaporates off the surface of water.
And the fact that the solar wind that delivers this electricity
comes down from above ecxplains why an inverted bottle will not
produce evaporation while a bottle that is right side up will.
James McGinn
2018-02-07 19:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
... there isn't much I can do for you.
As far as I can see, there isn't much you can for anyone...
Post by p***@gmail.com
simple experimental evidence that you apparently refuse to
acknowledge...
I didn't dispute the evidence, moron.
Well, yes, you did, dumbfuck...
I disputed the interpretation and the dimwittedness of only
allowing for one process to explain the upward movement of
moist air, you fucking mental retard.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
... Why don't you perform
this experiment yourself? If you get the same result, how
would you explain it?
Answer the fucking questions, dumbfuck. You have NEVER
answered a direct question, you fucking crank. Now is the time.
Right. Now.
Due to it containing microdroplets that are large enough to be
visible to the naked eye, indisputably clouds are heavier than
the surrounding drier air. Yet they don't drop out of the sky
as the convection model predicts. So there must be something
holding them up. Right? So it's not #1 convection. It
certainly isn't #2 aerodynamics, and it couldn't be #4 winds.
The only thing left is electricity, #3. Electricity--a
consequence of the solar wind--is what allows clouds to defy
gravity and levitate. Electricity explains how heavier
microdroplets and not steam evaporates off the surface of water.
And the fact that the solar wind that delivers this electricity
comes down from above ecxplains why an inverted bottle will not
produce evaporation while a bottle that is right side up will.
James McGinn
2018-02-27 05:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 7:58:46 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:me
Post by James McGinn
Concerning the Drying of Wet Shoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes /Claudius Denk
Jim, you obvious moron, from your own link...
"As shown, there is a lot of moisture remaining in the inverted bottle, whereas the upright bottle is fully and completely free of any visible water.
So it seems that humid air is less dense than dry air after all.
In this case, the bottles were left in the shown position overnight. This is a room that I keep dehumidified and dust free with air filters, so it's quite climate controlled. However for the duration of the experiment all air conditioning, heating, fans, and filters were turned off, so the air in the room was still apart from normal thermal convection.
Actually I tried this several times: Sometimes with the bottles positioned so their necks were at the same level; sometimes positioned so the bodies of the bottles were at the same level; sometimes switching which bottle was inverted, in case somehow one bottle had more mineral deposits on the inner walls, or otherwise retained more adhered water than the other for some reason.
But always the result was the same - in the morning the upright bottle was dry; the inverted bottle was still wet.
Henceforth I shall leave my shoes upright to dry, and try to educate my children to do likewise."
Arindam Banerjee
2018-02-27 10:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
And when experimental evidence os produced just ignore it.
James McGinn
2018-02-27 12:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
And when experimental evidence os produced just ignore it.
Put up or shut up.
Ser gio
2018-02-27 16:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
And when experimental evidence is produced, just ignore it.
there was a post last a few days ago which showed real experimentation
and data to measure h2o in the air, on was by using diffraction, (i had
not heard of)

Posted by Steve BH a good link.

https://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/Density_of_moist_air.pdf




[poor McGinn is like a yard statue, with a bucket on his head.]

Loading...