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;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pENE1HSxa9A
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.
Arindam Banerjee
2018-03-01 05:16:19 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.
Good points, McGinn. True, as clouds are more dense than the surrounding air why do they not fall down instead of floating high up?

Very important point, really!

Well, to understand this we need to look at related phenomena.

Like, say, surface tension.

One of the experiments anyone can do is to place a razor blade on still water, very carefully.

When done carefully, it will float.

Why should it, as metal is more dense than water?

The school-level answer is, that water surface acts as a stretched skin, like some elastic, so in a sense it is acting like a solid surface preventing the sinking of the razor. When this surface is broken then the heavier body will not float any more.

Possibly, a similar thing is happening with clouds, although here we are talking of gases and not liquids as in surface tension. In which case, we can theorise that the cohesion between the air atoms is more than the adhesion of the cloud water upon them. In other words, the air pushes the cloud away.

Certainly surface tension is an electric phenomenon - the surface atoms are pulled down by the below-surface atoms, with electric forces, so there is a pressure differential causing the stretching. As much pressure from above, that will be less than this differential, will cause floation.

I don't see where "solar wind" comes into this, to create electrical attractions.

But simpler explanations are also there, relating to large scale pressure differentials between the bottom of the cloud and the top of the cloud. The air
above the cloud is less dense, the air below the cloud more dense, so there is an overall upward pressure. This sort-of relates to convection, though.

However your point about water below 100degC in gaseous state being necessarily mono-molecular, is controversial. I would think that any wet shoe, when left to dry, will do so when some water is kicked out of it by some air molecule with kinetic impact. If it pleases you, that momentary contact may raise the local temperature beyond 100degC no matter what the ambient may be, so that way your theory may still hold for then all evaporation is steamy, for steam as you say has to be monomolecular. These monomolecules rise high, as per our observation of the ways of Mother Nature, in the rare spaces high above where they get more concentration as the heavier atoms are below them. In such high concentration, they unite to form multi-molecules, forming clouds, etc.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
2018-03-01 06:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
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.
Good points, McGinn. True, as clouds are more dense than the surrounding air why do they not fall down instead of floating high up?
Very important point, really!
Well, to understand this we need to look at related phenomena.
Like, say, surface tension.
One of the experiments anyone can do is to place a razor blade on still water, very carefully.
When done carefully, it will float.
Why should it, as metal is more dense than water?
The school-level answer is, that water surface acts as a stretched skin, like some elastic, so in a sense it is acting like a solid surface preventing the sinking of the razor. When this surface is broken then the heavier body will not float any more.
Possibly, a similar thing is happening with clouds, although here we are talking of gases and not liquids as in surface tension. In which case, we can theorise that the cohesion between the air atoms is more than the adhesion of the cloud water upon them. In other words, the air pushes the cloud away.
Certainly surface tension is an electric phenomenon - the surface atoms are pulled down by the below-surface atoms, with electric forces, so there is a pressure differential causing the stretching. As much pressure from above, that will be less than this differential, will cause floation.
I don't see where "solar wind" comes into this, to create electrical attractions.
But simpler explanations are also there, relating to large scale pressure differentials between the bottom of the cloud and the top of the cloud. The air
above the cloud is less dense, the air below the cloud more dense, so there is an overall upward pressure. This sort-of relates to convection, though.
However your point about water below 100degC in gaseous state being necessarily mono-molecular, is controversial.
Oops, I meant to put a NOT before "necessarily" above. Sorry.

I would think that any wet shoe, when left to dry, will do so when some water is kicked out of it by some air molecule with kinetic impact. If it pleases you, that momentary contact may raise the local temperature beyond 100degC no matter what the ambient may be, so that way your theory may still hold for then all evaporation is steamy, for steam as you say has to be monomolecular. These monomolecules rise high, as per our observation of the ways of Mother Nature, in the rare spaces high above where they get more concentration as the heavier atoms are below them. In such high concentration, they unite to form multi-molecules, forming clouds, etc.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
James McGinn
2018-03-01 08:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message

James McGinn
2018-03-01 08:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Good points, McGinn. True, as clouds are more dense than the surrounding air why do they not fall down instead of floating high up?

The school-level answer is, that water surface acts as a stretched skin,

Yes, I can describe the why and how of H2O surface tension. People don't realize it but H2O polarity is actually reversed or neutralized in liquid water. Situational factors that break some but not all H bonds actually activate polarity. A surface is one such situation.


like some elastic, so in a sense it is acting like a solid surface preventing the sinking of the razor. When this surface is broken then the heavier body will not float any more.

Possibly, a similar thing is happening with clouds,

Yes, and it is ampllified in vortices. I can explain this too.

No time now.

See my posts on thunderbolts forum
Post by Arindam Banerjee
However your point about water below 100degC in gaseous state being necessarily mono-molecular, is controversial.
It is controversial in the emotional sense, as you can see. But that's irrelevant.
James McGinn
2018-03-01 20:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Arindham:
However your point about water below 100degC in gaseous state being not necessarily mono-molecular, is controversial.

JMcG:
Controversial? For it to be controversial there would have to be something more than superstition and anecdote opposing it. And that just isn't the case. People who believe H2O can turn to gaseous and stay gaseous at any temperature/pressure that is different from what any idiot can determine by looking at a H2O phase diagram are scientifically illiterate goons. And goons can't create controversy.

Arindham:
I would think that any wet shoe, when left to dry, will do so when some water is kicked out of it by some air molecule with kinetic impact.

JMcG:
Jesus fucking christ. What you think is irrelevant and what you imagine isn't an experiment. The properties of H2O are not a mystery. Yes, there is a lot of confusion. But that is no excuse for confusing your imagination with empirical evidence. It makes no difference that you can imagine it becoming gaseous. Hell, even if it did become gaseous for an instant (and it doesn't) in the next instant it would reform bonds and become liquid again.

Arindham:
If it pleases you, that momentary contact may raise the local temperature beyond 100degC no matter what the ambient may be, so that way your theory may still hold for then all evaporation is steamy, for steam as you say has to be monomolecular.

JMcG:
The word "Steam" is ambiguous. It has different meaning to different people. Science illiterates use ambiguous terminology.

Arindham:
These monomolecules rise high, as per our observation of the ways of Mother Nature, in the rare spaces high above where they get more concentration as the heavier atoms are below them.

JMcG:
This is a fucking retarded claim. You have never observed gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. Nobody has.

Arindham:
In such high concentration, they unite to form multi-molecules, forming clouds, etc.

JMcG:
Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Heavier moisture nanodroplets are suspended by electrostatic factors associated with air.
Steve BH
2018-03-02 02:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the
impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Heavier moisture nanodroplets
are suspended by electrostatic factors associated with air.
Incredibly, you can't read a phase diagram. That's okay, there's one in this chapter. Which you won't read.
James McGinn
2018-03-02 05:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the
impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Heavier moisture nanodroplets
are suspended by electrostatic factors associated with air.
Incredibly, you can't read a phase diagram. That's okay, there's one in this chapter. Which you won't read.
No, you fucking goon. You will find nothing that even remotely suggests the "Partial Pressure" interpretation that you suggest.

You are a genuine idiot, just like Pnal and Sergio.
James McGinn
2018-03-02 05:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the
impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Heavier moisture nanodroplets
are suspended by electrostatic factors associated with air.
Incredibly, you can't read a phase diagram. That's okay, there's one in this chapter. Which you won't read.
James McGinn
2018-03-02 05:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the
impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Heavier moisture nanodroplets
are suspended by electrostatic factors associated with air.
Incredibly, you can't read a phase diagram. That's okay, there's one in this chapter. Which you won't read.
Do you have anything substantive to support your ridiculous argument?

If what you are saying is true it should be incredibly easy to find support. Well, where is it?
Odd Bodkin
2018-03-02 13:26:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the
impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Heavier moisture nanodroplets
are suspended by electrostatic factors associated with air.
Incredibly, you can't read a phase diagram. That's okay, there's one in
this chapter. Which you won't read.
Do you have anything substantive to support your ridiculous argument?
If what you are saying is true it should be incredibly easy to find
support. Well, where is it?
(Bystander comes upon McGinn standing ankle deep in a puddle of water.)

“Uh, you know you’re wet, right?”
McGinn: “You probably believe there’s water here. I’m a physicist. I know
better.”
“You don’t see the water?”
McGinn: “And neither do you. You only believe there’s water, like billions
of unthinking people, some of whom actually have PhDs.”
“Actually, I do see water.”
McGinn: “If what you are saying is true, then it should be incredibly easy
to find support. Well, where is it?”

(Bystander reaches down to scoop up a handful of water and flings it in
McGinn’s face.)

McGinn: “I’m waiting. Steam tables are evidence there’s no water. It must
be incredibly frustrating to believe what you do but have no argument why.”
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
James McGinn
2018-03-02 16:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the
impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Heavier moisture nanodroplets
are suspended by electrostatic factors associated with air.
Incredibly, you can't read a phase diagram. That's okay, there's one in
this chapter. Which you won't read.
Do you have anything substantive to support your ridiculous argument?
If what you are saying is true it should be incredibly easy to find
support. Well, where is it?
(Bystander comes upon McGinn standing ankle deep in a puddle of water.)
“Uh, you know you’re wet, right?”
McGinn: “You probably believe there’s water here. I’m a physicist. I know
better.”
“You don’t see the water?”
McGinn: “And neither do you. You only believe there’s water, like billions
of unthinking people, some of whom actually have PhDs.”
“Actually, I do see water.”
McGinn: “If what you are saying is true, then it should be incredibly easy
to find support. Well, where is it?”
(Bystander reaches down to scoop up a handful of water and flings it in
McGinn’s face.)
McGinn: “I’m waiting. Steam tables are evidence there’s no water. It must
be incredibly frustrating to believe what you do but have no argument why.”
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
None of your retards understands any of this. Do you concur with Steve BH?

Describe his position.

He is saying moist air can have a mixture of liquid nanodroplets and gaseous H2O. I'm saying this is completely impossible. I also know that none of you retarded science groupies will ever support your argument with anything reproducible.
Odd Bodkin
2018-03-02 18:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the
impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Heavier moisture nanodroplets
are suspended by electrostatic factors associated with air.
Incredibly, you can't read a phase diagram. That's okay, there's one in
this chapter. Which you won't read.
Do you have anything substantive to support your ridiculous argument?
If what you are saying is true it should be incredibly easy to find
support. Well, where is it?
(Bystander comes upon McGinn standing ankle deep in a puddle of water.)
“Uh, you know you’re wet, right?”
McGinn: “You probably believe there’s water here. I’m a physicist. I know
better.”
“You don’t see the water?”
McGinn: “And neither do you. You only believe there’s water, like billions
of unthinking people, some of whom actually have PhDs.”
“Actually, I do see water.”
McGinn: “If what you are saying is true, then it should be incredibly easy
to find support. Well, where is it?”
(Bystander reaches down to scoop up a handful of water and flings it in
McGinn’s face.)
McGinn: “I’m waiting. Steam tables are evidence there’s no water. It must
be incredibly frustrating to believe what you do but have no argument why.”
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
None of your retards understands any of this. Do you concur with Steve BH?
Describe his position.
He is saying moist air can have a mixture of liquid nanodroplets and
gaseous H2O. I'm saying this is completely impossible. I also know that
none of you retarded science groupies will ever support your argument
with anything reproducible.
As I’m sure you stood there in the puddle with water dripping from your
eyebrows and chin, mildly stating that it is impossible you are wet, and
that no retarded science groupies are going to support the claim you’re wet
with anything reproducible.

Congrats on the perseverance of your delusions.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
James McGinn
2018-03-02 19:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the
impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Heavier moisture nanodroplets
are suspended by electrostatic factors associated with air.
Incredibly, you can't read a phase diagram. That's okay, there's one in
this chapter. Which you won't read.
Do you have anything substantive to support your ridiculous argument?
If what you are saying is true it should be incredibly easy to find
support. Well, where is it?
(Bystander comes upon McGinn standing ankle deep in a puddle of water.)
“Uh, you know you’re wet, right?”
McGinn: “You probably believe there’s water here. I’m a physicist. I know
better.”
“You don’t see the water?”
McGinn: “And neither do you. You only believe there’s water, like billions
of unthinking people, some of whom actually have PhDs.”
“Actually, I do see water.”
McGinn: “If what you are saying is true, then it should be incredibly easy
to find support. Well, where is it?”
(Bystander reaches down to scoop up a handful of water and flings it in
McGinn’s face.)
McGinn: “I’m waiting. Steam tables are evidence there’s no water. It must
be incredibly frustrating to believe what you do but have no argument why.”
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
None of your retards understands any of this. Do you concur with Steve BH?
Describe his position.
He is saying moist air can have a mixture of liquid nanodroplets and
gaseous H2O. I'm saying this is completely impossible. I also know that
none of you retarded science groupies will ever support your argument
with anything reproducible.
As I’m sure you stood there in the puddle with water dripping from your
eyebrows and chin, mildly stating that it is impossible you are wet, and
that no retarded science groupies are going to support the claim you’re wet
with anything reproducible.
Congrats on the perseverance of your delusions.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
There is not the slightest chance any of you can support your position. All you have is belief and groupthink.
Odd Bodkin
2018-03-02 20:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the
impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Heavier moisture nanodroplets
are suspended by electrostatic factors associated with air.
Incredibly, you can't read a phase diagram. That's okay, there's one in
this chapter. Which you won't read.
Do you have anything substantive to support your ridiculous argument?
If what you are saying is true it should be incredibly easy to find
support. Well, where is it?
(Bystander comes upon McGinn standing ankle deep in a puddle of water.)
“Uh, you know you’re wet, right?”
McGinn: “You probably believe there’s water here. I’m a physicist. I know
better.”
“You don’t see the water?”
McGinn: “And neither do you. You only believe there’s water, like billions
of unthinking people, some of whom actually have PhDs.”
“Actually, I do see water.”
McGinn: “If what you are saying is true, then it should be incredibly easy
to find support. Well, where is it?”
(Bystander reaches down to scoop up a handful of water and flings it in
McGinn’s face.)
McGinn: “I’m waiting. Steam tables are evidence there’s no water. It must
be incredibly frustrating to believe what you do but have no argument why.”
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
None of your retards understands any of this. Do you concur with Steve BH?
Describe his position.
He is saying moist air can have a mixture of liquid nanodroplets and
gaseous H2O. I'm saying this is completely impossible. I also know that
none of you retarded science groupies will ever support your argument
with anything reproducible.
As I’m sure you stood there in the puddle with water dripping from your
eyebrows and chin, mildly stating that it is impossible you are wet, and
that no retarded science groupies are going to support the claim you’re wet
with anything reproducible.
Congrats on the perseverance of your delusions.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
There is not the slightest chance any of you can support your position.
All you have is belief and groupthink.
While you drip.
And bluster.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-02 03:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
Jim, you dumbfuck, I've been telling you for years that you have no clue as to the meaning of a phase diagram...
James McGinn
2018-03-02 03:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
Jim, you dumbfuck, I've been telling you for years that you have no clue as to the meaning of a phase diagram...
Do you agree with Steve, you vague nitwit. Take a stand on something every once in a while. You frickin panzy.
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-02 03:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
Jim, you dumbfuck, I've been telling you for years that you have no clue as to the meaning of a phase diagram...
Do you agree with Steve, you vague nitwit. Take a stand on something every once in a while. You frickin panzy.
Jim, remove your cranial calculator from its rectal storage facility. You are toast. Deal with it, you troll...
James McGinn
2018-03-02 03:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
Jim, you dumbfuck, I've been telling you for years that you have no clue as to the meaning of a phase diagram...
Do you agree with Steve, you vague nitwit. Take a stand on something every once in a while. You frickin panzy.
Jim, remove your cranial calculator from its rectal storage facility. You are toast. Deal with it, you troll...
LOL. You got nothing.

None of you nitwits understands any of this. You just believe.
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.
Arindam Banerjee
2018-02-27 21:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I was referring to MY experimental work these guys ignore. What scum. As for you what have you got to show?
john
2018-02-27 21:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Or maybe water is moulded into tiny spheres by bubbles of air.
James McGinn
2018-02-27 21:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
I was referring to MY experimental work these guys ignore. What scum. As for you what have you got to show?
You reference was rather vague. Embarrassed?
p***@gmail.com
2018-02-27 23:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
I was referring to MY experimental work these guys ignore. What scum. As for you what have you got to show?
You reference was rather vague. Embarrassed?
Banjo is about as embarrassed as you are, which is not at all, because each of you is too stupid to know that just about everything you have to say is wrong.
James McGinn
2018-02-28 02:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
I was referring to MY experimental work these guys ignore. What scum. As for you what have you got to show?
You reference was rather vague. Embarrassed?
Banjo is about as embarrassed as you are, which is not at all, because each of you is too stupid to know that just about everything you have to say is wrong.
Can you be more specific?
Arindam Banerjee
2018-02-28 10:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pnal is an anal moron
James McGinn
2018-02-28 15:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't. They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.

It's kind of comical.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-28 15:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”

Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
James McGinn
2018-02-28 15:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-28 15:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
James McGinn
2018-02-28 16:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You can't defend your science because you don't actually understand it. You just believe it.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-28 19:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You can't defend your science because you don't actually understand it.
You just believe it.
Nobody owes it to you to convince you.
Nobody owes it to you to defend science’s results to you.
You want engagement, you want debate, you want attention. You resort to 3rd
grade playground taunts to try to get it.

As a functioning adult, I am not moved, except to mock.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
James McGinn
2018-02-28 20:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You can't defend your science because you don't actually understand it.
You just believe it.
Nobody owes it to you to convince you.
Nobody owes it to you to defend science’s results to you.
You want engagement, you want debate, you want attention. You resort to 3rd
grade playground taunts to try to get it.
As a functioning adult, I am not moved, except to mock.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
If you understand it you can explain it. The reason you retards can't explain anything is because you don't actually understand it--you just believe it.

It's that simple.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-28 20:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You can't defend your science because you don't actually understand it.
You just believe it.
Nobody owes it to you to convince you.
Nobody owes it to you to defend science’s results to you.
You want engagement, you want debate, you want attention. You resort to 3rd
grade playground taunts to try to get it.
As a functioning adult, I am not moved, except to mock.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
If you understand it you can explain it. The reason you retards can't
explain anything is because you don't actually understand it--you just believe it.
It's that simple.
Cheesy manipulations do not work on adults.

Everyone here knows you cannot take care of yourself. You have gotten used
to a lifestyle where people take care of you and give you what you want,
and you have developed habits aimed at preserving that state.

So when you want something explained to you, you dare someone to try to
explain it to you, with the ante thrown in that you will assume they don’t
understand it if they don’t pick up the dare.

When you want to be fed, I’m sure you demand to be fed, with the
alternative that you would call them a failed provider if they don’t.

What you have, Jim, is a mental incapacity that reflects itself in a very
limited and infantile repertoire of manipulative human interactions.

Please understand that grown-ups do not behave this way, and moreover they
can see right through the infantile behavior when you try it.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-28 20:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You can't defend your science because you don't actually understand it.
You just believe it.
Nobody owes it to you to convince you.
Nobody owes it to you to defend science’s results to you.
You want engagement, you want debate, you want attention. You resort to 3rd
grade playground taunts to try to get it.
As a functioning adult, I am not moved, except to mock.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
If you understand it you can explain it. The reason you retards can't
explain anything is because you don't actually understand it--you just believe it.
It's that simple.
Cheesy manipulations do not work on adults.
Everyone here knows you cannot take care of yourself. You have gotten used
to a lifestyle where people take care of you and give you what you want,
and you have developed habits aimed at preserving that state.
So when you want something explained to you, you dare someone to try to
explain it to you, with the ante thrown in that you will assume they don’t
understand it if they don’t pick up the dare.
When you want to be fed, I’m sure you demand to be fed, with the
alternative that you would call them a failed provider if they don’t.
What you have, Jim, is a mental incapacity that reflects itself in a very
limited and infantile repertoire of manipulative human interactions.
Please understand that grown-ups do not behave this way, and moreover they
can see right through the infantile behavior when you try it.
Shall I call your mother, Jim? You know how disappointed she would be if
she knew you were behaving this way....
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
James McGinn
2018-02-28 21:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You can't defend your science because you don't actually understand it.
You just believe it.
Nobody owes it to you to convince you.
Nobody owes it to you to defend science’s results to you.
You want engagement, you want debate, you want attention. You resort to 3rd
grade playground taunts to try to get it.
As a functioning adult, I am not moved, except to mock.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
If you understand it you can explain it. The reason you retards can't
explain anything is because you don't actually understand it--you just believe it.
It's that simple.
Cheesy manipulations do not work on adults.
Everyone here knows you cannot take care of yourself. You have gotten used
to a lifestyle where people take care of you and give you what you want,
and you have developed habits aimed at preserving that state.
So when you want something explained to you, you dare someone to try to
explain it to you, with the ante thrown in that you will assume they don’t
understand it if they don’t pick up the dare.
When you want to be fed, I’m sure you demand to be fed, with the
alternative that you would call them a failed provider if they don’t.
What you have, Jim, is a mental incapacity that reflects itself in a very
limited and infantile repertoire of manipulative human interactions.
Please understand that grown-ups do not behave this way, and moreover they
can see right through the infantile behavior when you try it.
Shall I call your mother, Jim? You know how disappointed she would be if
she knew you were behaving this way....
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You Getting mad at me isn't going to change anything. The delusion to believe what you really don't understand is typical. This is why philosophers write books about the difficulties of changing paradigms.

The evidence that you are wrong (phase diagrams) has always been available. Now the time has come for you to stop denying it.

Be off little butterfly.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-28 22:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You can't defend your science because you don't actually understand it.
You just believe it.
Nobody owes it to you to convince you.
Nobody owes it to you to defend science’s results to you.
You want engagement, you want debate, you want attention. You resort to 3rd
grade playground taunts to try to get it.
As a functioning adult, I am not moved, except to mock.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
If you understand it you can explain it. The reason you retards can't
explain anything is because you don't actually understand it--you just believe it.
It's that simple.
Cheesy manipulations do not work on adults.
Everyone here knows you cannot take care of yourself. You have gotten used
to a lifestyle where people take care of you and give you what you want,
and you have developed habits aimed at preserving that state.
So when you want something explained to you, you dare someone to try to
explain it to you, with the ante thrown in that you will assume they don’t
understand it if they don’t pick up the dare.
When you want to be fed, I’m sure you demand to be fed, with the
alternative that you would call them a failed provider if they don’t.
What you have, Jim, is a mental incapacity that reflects itself in a very
limited and infantile repertoire of manipulative human interactions.
Please understand that grown-ups do not behave this way, and moreover they
can see right through the infantile behavior when you try it.
Shall I call your mother, Jim? You know how disappointed she would be if
she knew you were behaving this way....
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You Getting mad at me isn't going to change anything. The delusion to
believe what you really don't understand is typical. This is why
philosophers write books about the difficulties of changing paradigms.
The evidence that you are wrong (phase diagrams) has always been available.
We’ve discussed them before. You read them wrong. You’re always going to
read them wrong. Your entire argument is based on an ignorant misreading of
a picture and your complete and utter denial of the possibility that you
could have made such a boneheaded mistake.

So as a result you have the learning capacity of a small pile of sawdust,
but with delusions of grandeur.
Post by James McGinn
Now the time has come for you to stop denying it.
Be off little butterfly.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-28 22:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You can't defend your science because you don't actually understand it.
You just believe it.
Nobody owes it to you to convince you.
Nobody owes it to you to defend science’s results to you.
You want engagement, you want debate, you want attention. You resort to 3rd
grade playground taunts to try to get it.
As a functioning adult, I am not moved, except to mock.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
If you understand it you can explain it. The reason you retards can't
explain anything is because you don't actually understand it--you just believe it.
It's that simple.
Cheesy manipulations do not work on adults.
Everyone here knows you cannot take care of yourself. You have gotten used
to a lifestyle where people take care of you and give you what you want,
and you have developed habits aimed at preserving that state.
So when you want something explained to you, you dare someone to try to
explain it to you, with the ante thrown in that you will assume they don’t
understand it if they don’t pick up the dare.
When you want to be fed, I’m sure you demand to be fed, with the
alternative that you would call them a failed provider if they don’t.
What you have, Jim, is a mental incapacity that reflects itself in a very
limited and infantile repertoire of manipulative human interactions.
Please understand that grown-ups do not behave this way, and moreover they
can see right through the infantile behavior when you try it.
Shall I call your mother, Jim? You know how disappointed she would be if
she knew you were behaving this way....
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You Getting mad at me isn't going to change anything. The delusion to
believe what you really don't understand is typical. This is why
philosophers write books about the difficulties of changing paradigms.
The evidence that you are wrong (phase diagrams) has always been available.
We’ve discussed them before. You read them wrong. You’re always going to
read them wrong. Your entire argument is based on an ignorant misreading of
a picture and your complete and utter denial of the possibility that you
could have made such a boneheaded mistake.
So as a result you have the learning capacity of a small pile of sawdust,
but with delusions of grandeur.
You should notice here, Jim, that there is no physics content in my posts
to you because you don’t have any either. All you have is a mistaken idea
and a generous dollop of bluster, and so all you’re getting from me is
mockery.

Ya like it? You wanna get some more of it? Ya sicko.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Now the time has come for you to stop denying it.
Be off little butterfly.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
James McGinn
2018-02-28 22:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You can't defend your science because you don't actually understand it.
You just believe it.
Nobody owes it to you to convince you.
Nobody owes it to you to defend science’s results to you.
You want engagement, you want debate, you want attention. You resort to 3rd
grade playground taunts to try to get it.
As a functioning adult, I am not moved, except to mock.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
If you understand it you can explain it. The reason you retards can't
explain anything is because you don't actually understand it--you just believe it.
It's that simple.
Cheesy manipulations do not work on adults.
Everyone here knows you cannot take care of yourself. You have gotten used
to a lifestyle where people take care of you and give you what you want,
and you have developed habits aimed at preserving that state.
So when you want something explained to you, you dare someone to try to
explain it to you, with the ante thrown in that you will assume they don’t
understand it if they don’t pick up the dare.
When you want to be fed, I’m sure you demand to be fed, with the
alternative that you would call them a failed provider if they don’t.
What you have, Jim, is a mental incapacity that reflects itself in a very
limited and infantile repertoire of manipulative human interactions.
Please understand that grown-ups do not behave this way, and moreover they
can see right through the infantile behavior when you try it.
Shall I call your mother, Jim? You know how disappointed she would be if
she knew you were behaving this way....
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You Getting mad at me isn't going to change anything. The delusion to
believe what you really don't understand is typical. This is why
philosophers write books about the difficulties of changing paradigms.
The evidence that you are wrong (phase diagrams) has always been available.
We’ve discussed them before. You read them wrong. You’re always going to
read them wrong. Your entire argument is based on an ignorant misreading of
a picture and your complete and utter denial of the possibility that you
could have made such a boneheaded mistake.
So as a result you have the learning capacity of a small pile of sawdust,
but with delusions of grandeur.
You should notice here, Jim, that there is no physics content in my posts
to you because you don’t have any either. All you have is a mistaken idea
and a generous dollop of bluster, and so all you’re getting from me is
mockery.
Ya like it? You wanna get some more of it? Ya sicko.
If it is any consolation there are hundreds of thousands of people who believe as you do. Likewise they can't explain the how or why thereof. Many of them have college degrees and Phds.

And there are billions of people that believe all kinds of crazy things.

So, you have lots of company. I do not. Your beliefs are typical. My beliefs are atypical--and scientifically valid.
Ser gio
2018-03-01 01:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You can't defend your science because you don't actually understand it.
You just believe it.
Nobody owes it to you to convince you.
Nobody owes it to you to defend science’s results to you.
You want engagement, you want debate, you want attention. You resort to 3rd
grade playground taunts to try to get it.
As a functioning adult, I am not moved, except to mock.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
If you understand it you can explain it. The reason you retards can't
explain anything is because you don't actually understand it--you just believe it.
It's that simple.
Cheesy manipulations do not work on adults.
Everyone here knows you cannot take care of yourself. You have gotten used
to a lifestyle where people take care of you and give you what you want,
and you have developed habits aimed at preserving that state.
So when you want something explained to you, you dare someone to try to
explain it to you, with the ante thrown in that you will assume they don’t
understand it if they don’t pick up the dare.
When you want to be fed, I’m sure you demand to be fed, with the
alternative that you would call them a failed provider if they don’t.
What you have, Jim, is a mental incapacity that reflects itself in a very
limited and infantile repertoire of manipulative human interactions.
Please understand that grown-ups do not behave this way, and moreover they
can see right through the infantile behavior when you try it.
Shall I call your mother, Jim? You know how disappointed she would be if
she knew you were behaving this way....
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You Getting mad at me isn't going to change anything. The delusion to
believe what you really don't understand is typical. This is why
philosophers write books about the difficulties of changing paradigms.
The evidence that you are wrong (phase diagrams) has always been available.
We’ve discussed them before. You read them wrong. You’re always going to
read them wrong. Your entire argument is based on an ignorant misreading of
a picture and your complete and utter denial of the possibility that you
could have made such a boneheaded mistake.
So as a result you have the learning capacity of a small pile of sawdust,
but with delusions of grandeur.
You should notice here, Jim, that there is no physics content in my posts
to you because you don’t have any either. All you have is a mistaken idea
and a generous dollop of bluster, and so all you’re getting from me is
mockery.
Ya like it? You wanna get some more of it? Ya sicko.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Now the time has come for you to stop denying it.
Be off little butterfly.
Odd - you have James McGinn nailed, about a 5 to 11 year old kid.

McGinn keeps demonstrating he does not know any physics or science with
each post.

McGinn is good at poor science fiction.
James McGinn
2018-02-28 22:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
We’ve discussed them before. You read them wrong.
I'm not good at creative reading.
James McGinn
2018-02-28 21:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You can't defend your science because you don't actually understand it.
You just believe it.
Nobody owes it to you to convince you.
Nobody owes it to you to defend science’s results to you.
You want engagement, you want debate, you want attention. You resort to 3rd
grade playground taunts to try to get it.
As a functioning adult, I am not moved, except to mock.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
If you understand it you can explain it. The reason you retards can't
explain anything is because you don't actually understand it--you just believe it.
It's that simple.
Cheesy manipulations do not work on adults.
Everyone here knows you cannot take care of yourself. You have gotten used
to a lifestyle where people take care of you and give you what you want,
and you have developed habits aimed at preserving that state.
So when you want something explained to you, you dare someone to try to
explain it to you, with the ante thrown in that you will assume they don’t
understand it if they don’t pick up the dare.
When you want to be fed, I’m sure you demand to be fed, with the
alternative that you would call them a failed provider if they don’t.
What you have, Jim, is a mental incapacity that reflects itself in a very
limited and infantile repertoire of manipulative human interactions.
Please understand that grown-ups do not behave this way, and moreover they
can see right through the infantile behavior when you try it.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
I agree. When children don't understand they don't pretend they do.
Ser gio
2018-02-28 17:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as
morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't.
They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
McGinn: “Anybody who does not engage in an argument with an unemployed nut
job like me is not a true scientist, because a true scientist would
engage.”
Red flag symptoms.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin. Reading is not scientific method. Find a new hobby.
Neither is arguing on the internet.
You are not engaged in the scientific method.
You fool no one but yourself, and even you know you are living a lie.
Find some way to actually support yourself like an adult.
James McGinn;

getting *a good job is key*, apply for a *job as a fluffer*, should be
many of those out where you live,

https://www.reference.com/business-finance/become-fluffer-d027889a8302f91b

Uniforms here;
https://www.cafepress.com/yourprofession/3936273
Arindam Banerjee
2018-02-28 22:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Pnal is an anal moron
He is a science believer. It is easy to expose science believers as morons. You ask them to explain what they claim they know. They can't. They become angry, bitter, and repetitive.
It's kind of comical.
True, but far more disgusting than comical.
Arindam Banerjee
2018-02-28 00:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
I was referring to MY experimental work these guys ignore. What scum. As for you what have you got to show?
You reference was rather vague. Embarrassed?
Many many times in this ng, I have been posting the links to the video films I have made showing my experimental work, which is of the highest significance in physics, as it overturns current theories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics

Any embarrassment is not on my side. If the pseudo-scientific scum here had any shame (they evidently haven't the faintest notion) then they should be thoroughly embarrassed for ignoring this work, or giving it nasty comments with no scientific foundation, just on the basis of their racism and other biases.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
James McGinn
2018-02-28 02:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
I was referring to MY experimental work these guys ignore. What scum. As for you what have you got to show?
You reference was rather vague. Embarrassed?
Many many times in this ng, I have been posting the links to the video films I have made showing my experimental work, which is of the highest significance in physics, as it overturns current theories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics
Any embarrassment is not on my side. If the pseudo-scientific scum here had any shame (they evidently haven't the faintest notion) then they should be thoroughly embarrassed for ignoring this work, or giving it nasty comments with no scientific foundation, just on the basis of their racism and other biases.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Do you have anything on the anomalies of H2O?
Arindam Banerjee
2018-02-28 09:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Very interesting and most important inorganic compound with many wonderful properties.
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.]
James McGinn
2018-02-27 20:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ser gio
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.]
So, uh . . . er, . . . well, I mean like, uh. I wonder why Steve refused to quote it directly. Hmm.

Maybe it's because . . . uh . . .

You got nothing!!!
john
2018-02-27 21:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
How does one determine whether H2O molecules would like to stick together or not?
I see air currents floating hairs around- why would my H2O molecules tend to form hairlike structures?
James McGinn
2018-02-27 21:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
How does one determine whether H2O molecules would like to stick together or not?
The paradigm is a mess. If you ask vague questions like that you won't get any useful answers. I am currently working to fix the paradigm and bring conceptual clarity. But the superstition surrounding H2O is layers thick, with academia's tendency to appeal to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumers being the thickest layer of all.
Post by john
I see air currents floating hairs around- why would my H2O molecules tend to form hairlike structures?
The biggest misconception you can have about water is to assume it is simple and well understood.

Read this:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582
Ser gio
2018-02-28 04:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
How does one determine whether H2O molecules would like to stick together or not?
I see air currents floating hairs around- why would my H2O molecules tend to form hairlike structures?
thats pet dander, your cat/dog is always sheading, hair and skin cells a
leaping off them criters in the millions per day.
benj
2018-02-28 17:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ser gio
Post by john
How does one determine whether H2O molecules would like to stick together or not?
I see air currents floating hairs around- why would my H2O molecules tend to form hairlike structures?
thats pet dander, your cat/dog is always sheading, hair and skin cells a
leaping off them criters in the millions per day.
eeeW!
Steve BH
2018-03-01 00:03:48 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
http://www.efunda.com/materials/water/steamtable_sat_wetsteam.cfm


You said you could read a steam table. Here's a nice steam table for you, from completely dry steam to completely wet.

Put in a temperature less than 100 C. You can go down to room temp or lower. Do not say this is hot steam from boiling water at room pressure. Put in temp lower than 100 C to insure it is not.

Put in a dryness of 100% so you have no water droplets. The steam is 100% dry. That is what "dry steam" means: water is in gas form only.

Let us try 25 C. Push "calculate".

Pressure is .0317 bar, which is close to at in atm, basically .03 atm

The pressure you see is due to water vapor (gas water with no droplets). This is the partial pressure of water gas at that temperature. It is the highest pressure at which no liquid forms. Compare with atmospheric pressure. These values are all less.

The density of gas you see is due to water vapor (no droplets). Compare with air at 1.3 kg/m^3. These values are all less. Here at 25 C, the density is .023 kg/m^3. About 2% of air density.

You can now dial down the % dryness to zero %, meaning the steam is holding all the moisture in liquid or droplet form it can hold at this temperature. Such steam would need a drier industrially.

Let us keep it at 25 C. Push "calculate":

Pressure 0.0317 bar. Hasn't changed. Apparently all the pressure is due to the gas vapor. But the density is now up to 997 kg/m^3. Wups, 100% wet steam at 25% is called "water with a few bubbles."

Anyway, you can have fun with this at temps of 60 C and different drynesses. In generally you will find that changing the dryness changes the density but NOT the pressure (in the least). That is because droplets in steam contribute density but not pressure.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Steve BH
2018-03-01 00:11:29 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
http://www.efunda.com/materials/water/steamtable_sat_wetsteam.cfm


You said you could read a steam table. Here's a nice steam table for you, from completely dry steam to completely wet.

Put in a temperature less than 100 C. You can go down to room temp or lower. Do not say this is hot steam from boiling water at room pressure. Put in temp lower than 100 C to insure it is not.

Put in a dryness of 100% so you have no water droplets. At 100% dryness the steam is 100% dry, meaning no droplets. That is what "dry steam" means: water is in gas form only.

Let us try 25 C. Push "calculate".

Pressure is .0317 bar, which is close to pressure in atm, basically .03 atm

The pressure you see is due to water vapor (gas water with no droplets). This is the partial pressure of water gas at that temperature. It is the highest pressure at which no liquid forms. Compare with atmospheric pressure. These values are all less.

The density of gas you see is due to water vapor (no droplets), since at 100% dryness they don't exist. Compare with air at 1.3 kg/m^3. These values are all less. Here at 25 C, the density is .023 kg/m^3. About 2% of air density. BUT NOT ZERO.

You can now dial down the % dryness to zero %, meaning the steam is 100% wet, or holding all the moisture in liquid or droplet form it can hold at this temperature. Such steam would need a drier industrially.

Let us keep it at 25 C. Push "calculate":

Pressure 0.0317 bar. Hasn't changed. All the pressure is due to the gas vapor (you are wrong). But the density is now up to 997 kg/m^3. Wups, 100% wet steam at 25% is called "water with a few bubbles."

Anyway, you can have fun with this at temps of 60 C and different drynesses. Enjoy. In general, you will find that changing the dryness changes the density but NOT the pressure (in the least). That is because droplets in steam contribute density to the mix, BUT NOT pressure or partial pressure. Pressure is caused by gas molecules. That's physics.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-01 00:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
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
http://www.efunda.com/materials/water/steamtable_sat_wetsteam.cfm
You said you could read a steam table. Here's a nice steam table for you, from completely dry steam to completely wet.
Put in a temperature less than 100 C. You can go down to room temp or lower. Do not say this is hot steam from boiling water at room pressure. Put in temp lower than 100 C to insure it is not.
Put in a dryness of 100% so you have no water droplets. At 100% dryness the steam is 100% dry, meaning no droplets. That is what "dry steam" means: water is in gas form only.
Let us try 25 C. Push "calculate".
Pressure is .0317 bar, which is close to pressure in atm, basically .03 atm
The pressure you see is due to water vapor (gas water with no droplets). This is the partial pressure of water gas at that temperature. It is the highest pressure at which no liquid forms. Compare with atmospheric pressure. These values are all less.
The density of gas you see is due to water vapor (no droplets), since at 100% dryness they don't exist. Compare with air at 1.3 kg/m^3. These values are all less. Here at 25 C, the density is .023 kg/m^3. About 2% of air density. BUT NOT ZERO.
You can now dial down the % dryness to zero %, meaning the steam is 100% wet, or holding all the moisture in liquid or droplet form it can hold at this temperature. Such steam would need a drier industrially.
Pressure 0.0317 bar. Hasn't changed. All the pressure is due to the gas vapor (you are wrong). But the density is now up to 997 kg/m^3. Wups, 100% wet steam at 25% is called "water with a few bubbles."
Anyway, you can have fun with this at temps of 60 C and different drynesses. Enjoy. In general, you will find that changing the dryness changes the density but NOT the pressure (in the least). That is because droplets in steam contribute density to the mix, BUT NOT pressure or partial pressure. Pressure is caused by gas molecules. That's physics.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Sorry, Steve, but McGinn is completely unable to accept this perfectly reasonable argument because McGinn is not the least bit reasonable, and is basically stump-stupid when it comes to anything scientific, and unable to learn.

I myself appreciate this proactive web page and will enjoy exploring its various facets, so thanks for that!
Steve BH
2018-03-01 00:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Steve BH
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
http://www.efunda.com/materials/water/steamtable_sat_wetsteam.cfm
You said you could read a steam table. Here's a nice steam table for you, from completely dry steam to completely wet.
Put in a temperature less than 100 C. You can go down to room temp or lower. Do not say this is hot steam from boiling water at room pressure. Put in temp lower than 100 C to insure it is not.
Put in a dryness of 100% so you have no water droplets. At 100% dryness the steam is 100% dry, meaning no droplets. That is what "dry steam" means: water is in gas form only.
Let us try 25 C. Push "calculate".
Pressure is .0317 bar, which is close to pressure in atm, basically .03 atm
The pressure you see is due to water vapor (gas water with no droplets). This is the partial pressure of water gas at that temperature. It is the highest pressure at which no liquid forms. Compare with atmospheric pressure. These values are all less.
The density of gas you see is due to water vapor (no droplets), since at 100% dryness they don't exist. Compare with air at 1.3 kg/m^3. These values are all less. Here at 25 C, the density is .023 kg/m^3. About 2% of air density. BUT NOT ZERO.
You can now dial down the % dryness to zero %, meaning the steam is 100% wet, or holding all the moisture in liquid or droplet form it can hold at this temperature. Such steam would need a drier industrially.
Pressure 0.0317 bar. Hasn't changed. All the pressure is due to the gas vapor (you are wrong). But the density is now up to 997 kg/m^3. Wups, 100% wet steam at 25% is called "water with a few bubbles."
Anyway, you can have fun with this at temps of 60 C and different drynesses. Enjoy. In general, you will find that changing the dryness changes the density but NOT the pressure (in the least). That is because droplets in steam contribute density to the mix, BUT NOT pressure or partial pressure. Pressure is caused by gas molecules. That's physics.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Sorry, Steve, but McGinn is completely unable to accept this perfectly reasonable argument because McGinn is not the least bit reasonable, and is basically stump-stupid when it comes to anything scientific, and unable to learn.
I myself appreciate this proactive web page and will enjoy exploring its various facets, so thanks for that!
Yes. Steam as engineers use the term, is a two-phase "vapor" system that can go from 100% dryness (one phase gas) to zero % dryness (essentially one phase, liquid), so you can have dry steam and wet steam, and everything in between. Nor does steam need to be hotter than 100 C if the pressure is low (though usually it is). You can have low pressure cold steam. And it can be made of nothing but water gas.

In any case, it's clear from even paper engineering steam table that the pressure does NOT come from the droplet content, as you can vary that independently of pressure and temperature, and many industrial "steam driers" (devices to input wet steam and output dry steam) do just that!

McGinn says he can read a steam table, but I think the one he's talking about, must be one he stands behind, ladling out creamed corn to inmates at the local correctional institution. Reading it is, you know what to do with the guy who says "Punk ass next to me says I get his gravy."
James McGinn
2018-03-01 01:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Yes. Steam as engineers use the term, is a two-phase "vapor" system that can go from 100% dryness (one phase gas) to zero % dryness (essentially one phase, liquid), so you can have dry steam and wet steam, and everything in between. Nor does steam need to be hotter than 100 C if the pressure is low (though usually it is). You can have low pressure cold steam. And it can be made of nothing but water gas.
In any case, it's clear from even paper engineering steam table that the pressure does NOT come from the droplet content, as you can vary that independently of pressure and temperature, and many industrial "steam driers" (devices to input wet steam and output dry steam) do just that!
McGinn says he can read a steam table, but I think the one he's talking about, must be one he stands behind, ladling out creamed corn to inmates at the local correctional institution. Reading it is, you know what to do with the guy who says "Punk ass next to me says I get his gravy."
This is a retarded explanation.
Steve BH
2018-03-01 01:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Steve BH
Yes. Steam as engineers use the term, is a two-phase "vapor" system that can go from 100% dryness (one phase gas) to zero % dryness (essentially one phase, liquid), so you can have dry steam and wet steam, and everything in between. Nor does steam need to be hotter than 100 C if the pressure is low (though usually it is). You can have low pressure cold steam. And it can be made of nothing but water gas.
In any case, it's clear from even paper engineering steam table that the pressure does NOT come from the droplet content, as you can vary that independently of pressure and temperature, and many industrial "steam driers" (devices to input wet steam and output dry steam) do just that!
McGinn says he can read a steam table, but I think the one he's talking about, must be one he stands behind, ladling out creamed corn to inmates at the local correctional institution. Reading it is, you know what to do with the guy who says "Punk ass next to me says I get his gravy."
This is a retarded explanation.
But not altogether free of humor. Big Bubba at your steam table. What DO you do?
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-01 01:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Steve BH
Yes. Steam as engineers use the term, is a two-phase "vapor" system that can go from 100% dryness (one phase gas) to zero % dryness (essentially one phase, liquid), so you can have dry steam and wet steam, and everything in between. Nor does steam need to be hotter than 100 C if the pressure is low (though usually it is). You can have low pressure cold steam. And it can be made of nothing but water gas.
In any case, it's clear from even paper engineering steam table that the pressure does NOT come from the droplet content, as you can vary that independently of pressure and temperature, and many industrial "steam driers" (devices to input wet steam and output dry steam) do just that!
McGinn says he can read a steam table, but I think the one he's talking about, must be one he stands behind, ladling out creamed corn to inmates at the local correctional institution. Reading it is, you know what to do with the guy who says "Punk ass next to me says I get his gravy."
This is a retarded explanation.
Bingo! The predicted response, which was not that hard, kinda like shooting fish in a barrel.

Like Shakespeare supposedly said, "I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed."
James McGinn
2018-03-01 01:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
I myself appreciate this proactive web page and will enjoy exploring its various facets, so thanks for that!
Because you are a fool.

Read the first post in this thread.

Thank you for you participation.
Steve BH
2018-03-01 02:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
I myself appreciate this proactive web page and will enjoy exploring its various facets, so thanks for that!
Because you are a fool.
Read the first post in this thread.
Thank you for you participation.
"What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O?"

Because clear steam, even at temps < 100 C, contains gaseous H2O. If you add air at the same temp, nothing changes.

100% dry steam with no droplets has pressure. Thus, the pressure is ENTIRELY due to H2O gas in the steam.

Adding vapor to dry steam to get "wet steam" at the same pressure does not increase the pressure, but only increases the water content. Thus liquid water droplets (which are not clear), add water content to steams, but DO NOT EXERT PRESSURE. Nor do they do so to gas in our atmosphere.

This has kinetic theory of gas and the Clausius-Clapyron equation behind it to make it quantitative. But I've used little tiny words already, and McGinn doesn't get it. The math won't help.
James McGinn
2018-03-01 07:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
I myself appreciate this proactive web page and will enjoy exploring its various facets, so thanks for that!
Because you are a fool.
Read the first post in this thread.
Thank you for you participation.
"What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O?"
Because clear steam, even at temps < 100 C, contains gaseous H2O.
Clear steam? What is this? I think you mean clear, moist air.

The question involves the nature of the moisture in clear, moist air.

The question doesn't answer itself.
Loading...