Discussion:
Odd Bodkin: Does it not concern you that you cannot quote Avogadro on any of this speculation?
(too old to reply)
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-13 03:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn:
Scientists debate the science. Trolls debate the scientist.

Odd Bodkin:
You haven't brought science. You've brought
profound ignorance of science.

James McGinn:
If that is what you believe one can only wonder why you don't make a substantive argument to that effect.

Odd Bodkin:
Already done.
You have a short memory about embarrassments.
Density's definition ring a bell? How about Avogadro's law and the fact
that particle size has nothing to do with it?

James McGinn:
You tried to claim that Avogadro didn't realize that H2O isn't an ideal gas.

Odd Bodkin:
Oh bullshit.
If anything, you're trying to both claim that Avogadro's law supports
your case and that water doesn't apply to Avogadro's law.
Avogadro's law pertains to gases. It is an observational law. That means
it is seen to hold true for gases found in the real world. This includes
gases that contain a significant amount of water in them, as well as
gases that do not. That is, it holds for a gas that is 70% nitrogen and
30% water by moles; and it also holds for a gas that is 80% oxygen and
20% carbon dioxide and no water; and it also holds for a gas that is
100% carbon monoxide. It also holds for a gas that is 99% water and 1%
nitrogen by moles, by the way. Those are observational facts.
Your statement is that this cannot possibly be true of gases containing
water because water is different. Thus your argument is essentially,
"Can't be, I don't believe it! You have to convince me!"
But the observational facts are otherwise, and that is what Avogadro's
law is about.

James McGinn:
LOL. So, the fact you cannot quote/reference Avogadro on any of this speculation concerns you not in the least?
benj
2014-11-13 05:50:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Scientists debate the science. Trolls debate the scientist.
You haven't brought science. You've brought
profound ignorance of science.
If that is what you believe one can only wonder why you don't make a substantive argument to that effect.
Already done.
You have a short memory about embarrassments.
Density's definition ring a bell? How about Avogadro's law and the fact
that particle size has nothing to do with it?
You tried to claim that Avogadro didn't realize that H2O isn't an ideal gas.
Oh bullshit.
If anything, you're trying to both claim that Avogadro's law supports
your case and that water doesn't apply to Avogadro's law.
Avogadro's law pertains to gases. It is an observational law. That means
it is seen to hold true for gases found in the real world. This includes
gases that contain a significant amount of water in them, as well as
gases that do not. That is, it holds for a gas that is 70% nitrogen and
30% water by moles; and it also holds for a gas that is 80% oxygen and
20% carbon dioxide and no water; and it also holds for a gas that is
100% carbon monoxide. It also holds for a gas that is 99% water and 1%
nitrogen by moles, by the way. Those are observational facts.
Your statement is that this cannot possibly be true of gases containing
water because water is different. Thus your argument is essentially,
"Can't be, I don't believe it! You have to convince me!"
But the observational facts are otherwise, and that is what Avogadro's
law is about.
LOL. So, the fact you cannot quote/reference Avogadro on any of this speculation concerns you not in the least?
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else. His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart. But when you try to get a discussion out of him all he does is
run and hide saying he won't "spoon feed" anyone. He's obviously some
idiot professor who only keeps his job because he'll flunk any student
that complains about his incompetence. I'm sure he's much better at
ruining lives than explaining science.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
Poutnik
2014-11-13 06:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else. His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart. But when you try to get a discussion out of him all he does is
run and hide saying he won't "spoon feed" anyone. He's obviously some
idiot professor who only keeps his job because he'll flunk any student
that complains about his incompetence. I'm sure he's much better at
ruining lives than explaining science.
While purpose of your life is ?
I expect you write something compliant with what you write in this group.
--
Poutnik
James McGinn
2014-11-13 06:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else. His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart.
If I hadn't experienced it first hand I would have never believed
you. Never. It's surreal. It's like talking to somebody from a
different universe.
Post by benj
But when you try to get a discussion out of him all he does is
run and hide saying he won't "spoon feed" anyone.
Strangest of all is how totally unembarrassed and unashamed he is
about it all. He's pathological. (Poutkin too.) There is no
conscience there, no allegiance to an objective reality of any
kind whatsoever. Empirical reality is but a philosophical
distraction to them.
Post by benj
He's obviously some
idiot professor who only keeps his job because he'll flunk any student
that complains about his incompetence. I'm sure he's much better at
ruining lives than explaining science.
OMG. If he's a professor things are much much worse than I ever
could have imagined. Have we really stooped this low in our society?
Poutnik
2014-11-13 07:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Strangest of all is how totally unembarrassed and unashamed he is
about it all. He's pathological. (Poutkin too.) There is no
conscience there, no allegiance to an objective reality of any
kind whatsoever. Empirical reality is but a philosophical
distraction to them.
If expirical evidence is of so big importance for you,
than go and verify you statements empirically. :-)

I am looking forward very much,
but it is a pity I will not be there to see
the surprice on your face.
--
Poutnik
R Kym Horsell
2014-11-13 15:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Poutnik
Post by James McGinn
Strangest of all is how totally unembarrassed and unashamed he is
about it all. He's pathological. (Poutkin too.) There is no
conscience there, no allegiance to an objective reality of any
kind whatsoever. Empirical reality is but a philosophical
distraction to them.
LOL. 100% projection.
Post by Poutnik
If expirical evidence is of so big importance for you,
than go and verify you statements empirically. :-)
I am looking forward very much,
but it is a pity I will not be there to see
the surprice on your face.
--
It's easy to be a crank. Just follow these simple guidelines and remember, you're never wrong. No matter what.
Step one: Develop a wacky idea.
Step two: Disseminate your idea
Step three: (Not) Responding to Criticism
Step four: Get Persecuted!
-- Mark Hoofnagle, http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
James McGinn
2014-11-13 17:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Poutnik
Post by James McGinn
Strangest of all is how totally unembarrassed and unashamed he is
about it all. He's pathological. (Poutkin too.) There is no
conscience there, no allegiance to an objective reality of any
kind whatsoever. Empirical reality is but a philosophical
distraction to them.
If expirical evidence is of so big importance for you,
than go and verify you statements empirically. :-)
I am looking forward very much,
but it is a pity I will not be there to see
the surprice on your face.
Typical troll stupidity. You are asking me empirically verify that somebody DID NOT say something. You are asking me to prove a negative.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-13 15:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by benj
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else. His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart.
If I hadn't experienced it first hand I would have never believed
you. Never. It's surreal. It's like talking to somebody from a
different universe.
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
James McGinn
2014-11-13 17:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Well, then, you can't claim to be ignorant of Avogadro, can you?
Mica Choo
2014-11-13 17:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Well, then, you can't claim to be ignorant of Avogadro, can you?
ah, just google for it, dude.

you have a very hard time understanding simple science facts.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-13 17:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Well, then, you can't claim to be ignorant of Avogadro, can you?
No, I certainly can't, and I don't believe I ever have claimed to be
ignorant of Avogadro. Now, on the other hand, you can't claim that
Avogadro's work has never been referenced or quoted, can you? Oh wait...
you've done that already, several times. Proves you're capable of
anything, doesn't it?
James McGinn
2014-11-13 17:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Well, then, you can't claim to be ignorant of Avogadro, can you?
No, I certainly can't, and I don't believe I ever have claimed to be
ignorant of Avogadro. Now, on the other hand, you can't claim that
Avogadro's work has never been referenced or quoted, can you? Oh wait...
you've done that already, several times. Proves you're capable of
anything, doesn't it?
If it will make you feel better I will allow you to make a
retraction. Fair enough?
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-13 18:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Well, then, you can't claim to be ignorant of Avogadro, can you?
No, I certainly can't, and I don't believe I ever have claimed to be
ignorant of Avogadro. Now, on the other hand, you can't claim that
Avogadro's work has never been referenced or quoted, can you? Oh wait...
you've done that already, several times. Proves you're capable of
anything, doesn't it?
If it will make you feel better I will allow you to make a
retraction. Fair enough?
Haven't we been through this? Do you live your life in a repetitive loop
of the same games over and over? You could always try doing something
different, counter to compulsion, and actually read something.
James McGinn
2014-11-13 19:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Haven't we been through this? Do you live your life in a repetitive loop
of the same games over and over? You could always try doing something
different, counter to compulsion, and actually read something.
As you have demonstrated over and over again, reading is a
poor substitute for reasoning.

You can't say I didn't give you an opportunity to make a retraction.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-13 21:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Haven't we been through this? Do you live your life in a repetitive loop
of the same games over and over? You could always try doing something
different, counter to compulsion, and actually read something.
As you have demonstrated over and over again, reading is a
poor substitute for reasoning.
So THAT'S your excuse for not reading. You believe that reading inhibits
reasoning? You believe that thinking things through on your own, without
benefit of reading, gives better scientific results?
Post by James McGinn
You can't say I didn't give you an opportunity to make a retraction.
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-13 22:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
So THAT'S your excuse for not reading. You believe that reading inhibits
reasoning? You believe that thinking things through on your own, without
benefit of reading, gives better scientific results?
It's the difference between knowing and understanding. You know Avogadro's Law, but you don't understand it. If you understood it you never would have made those absurd statements.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-13 23:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Post by Odd Bodkin
So THAT'S your excuse for not reading. You believe that reading inhibits
reasoning? You believe that thinking things through on your own, without
benefit of reading, gives better scientific results?
It's the difference between knowing and understanding. You know Avogadro's
But you understand by not reading, right? You understand by thinking
through things, right?

LOL.
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Law, but you don't understand it. If you understood it you never would have
made those absurd statements.
Because what he says is obviously different than what you understand,
right? LOL.
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-14 02:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Post by Odd Bodkin
So THAT'S your excuse for not reading. You believe that reading inhibits
reasoning? You believe that thinking things through on your own, without
benefit of reading, gives better scientific results?
It's the difference between knowing and understanding. You know Avogadro's
But you understand by not reading, right? You understand by thinking
through things, right?
LOL.
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Law, but you don't understand it. If you understood it you never would have
made those absurd statements.
Because what he says is obviously different than what you understand,
right? LOL.
You just confirmed my point. Read what you wrote here and then read the title of this thread.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-14 14:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Solving Tornadoes
You just confirmed my point. Read what you wrote here and then read the title of this thread.
Right. You asked me to give you a reference to Avogadro.
Now suddenly the goal is to QUOTE Avogadro, because you apparently can
neither click a link nor read what is on the subsequently displayed page.
Of course, if one were to then quote Avogadro in a newsgroup post (as
someone has recently done), then one could also anticipate that the
title of the thread would shift to "Does it not concern you that you
cannot explain the quotation from Avogadro on any of this speculation?"

Passive-aggressive games are boring, Mr. McGinn. You are boring.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-14 14:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
You just confirmed my point. Read what you wrote here and then read
the title of this thread.
Right. You asked me to give you a reference to Avogadro.
Now suddenly the goal is to QUOTE Avogadro, because you apparently can
neither click a link nor read what is on the subsequently displayed page.
Of course, if one were to then quote Avogadro in a newsgroup post (as
someone has recently done), then one could also anticipate that the
title of the thread would shift to "Does it not concern you that you
cannot explain the quotation from Avogadro on any of this speculation?"
Passive-aggressive games are boring, Mr. McGinn. You are boring.
You know the saying of course that you can lead a horse's ass to water,
but you can't make the horse's ass drink. I think it's a fair assessment
to say that you are proud of having not drunk the water.
Mica Choo
2014-11-14 14:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
You just confirmed my point. Read what you wrote here and then read
the title of this thread.
Right. You asked me to give you a reference to Avogadro.
Now suddenly the goal is to QUOTE Avogadro, because you apparently can
neither click a link nor read what is on the subsequently displayed page.
Of course, if one were to then quote Avogadro in a newsgroup post (as
someone has recently done), then one could also anticipate that the
title of the thread would shift to "Does it not concern you that you
cannot explain the quotation from Avogadro on any of this speculation?"
Passive-aggressive games are boring, Mr. McGinn. You are boring.
since his troll book + rest of his stuff is based upon lies,
one would expect diversionary, evasive defense.
he is a crank, troll.
he has posted nothing of any value at all.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-14 15:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mica Choo
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
You just confirmed my point. Read what you wrote here and then read
the title of this thread.
Right. You asked me to give you a reference to Avogadro.
Now suddenly the goal is to QUOTE Avogadro, because you apparently can
neither click a link nor read what is on the subsequently displayed page.
Of course, if one were to then quote Avogadro in a newsgroup post (as
someone has recently done), then one could also anticipate that the
title of the thread would shift to "Does it not concern you that you
cannot explain the quotation from Avogadro on any of this speculation?"
Passive-aggressive games are boring, Mr. McGinn. You are boring.
since his troll book + rest of his stuff is based upon lies,
one would expect diversionary, evasive defense.
he is a crank, troll.
he has posted nothing of any value at all.
A lot of what happens in cases like this can be attributed to emotional
investment, rather than intellectual investment. Like Seto and others,
he has put himself out on a limb. Regardless of the poor choices that
got him there, he has positioned himself as an iconoclast, and put
sizable investment of time and effort and money to self-publish and
self-publicize. He has had to gird himself against anticipated heat,
which means buttressing his ego and preparing canned responses against
criticism. Now he is in a no-retreat situation. He cannot acknowledge
the mistake of what he has done, because he has too much invested in the
mistake. It would mean looking at himself in the mirror and admitting
those poker chips of time, effort, money, and reputation are all just
gone, lost in a bad bet. The demolition of the reputation alone would be
too much to bear, since it was fragile to begin with. You can compare
his life story with Seto's pretty much line for line.

This is an old story, as familiar as a Grimm's fairy tale, and
completely predictable. What's spectacularly sad about Mr. McGinn is
that he thinks his case is somehow different or special, when in fact it
is pretty vanilla. Well, vanilla with a sprinkling of nuts.
James McGinn
2014-11-14 16:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Mica Choo
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
You just confirmed my point. Read what you wrote here and then read
the title of this thread.
Right. You asked me to give you a reference to Avogadro.
Now suddenly the goal is to QUOTE Avogadro, because you apparently can
neither click a link nor read what is on the subsequently displayed page.
Of course, if one were to then quote Avogadro in a newsgroup post (as
someone has recently done), then one could also anticipate that the
title of the thread would shift to "Does it not concern you that you
cannot explain the quotation from Avogadro on any of this speculation?"
Passive-aggressive games are boring, Mr. McGinn. You are boring.
since his troll book + rest of his stuff is based upon lies,
one would expect diversionary, evasive defense.
he is a crank, troll.
he has posted nothing of any value at all.
A lot of what happens in cases like this can be attributed to emotional
investment, rather than intellectual investment. Like Seto and others,
he has put himself out on a limb. Regardless of the poor choices that
got him there, he has positioned himself as an iconoclast, and put
sizable investment of time and effort and money to self-publish and
self-publicize. He has had to gird himself against anticipated heat,
which means buttressing his ego and preparing canned responses against
criticism. Now he is in a no-retreat situation. He cannot acknowledge
the mistake of what he has done, because he has too much invested in the
mistake. It would mean looking at himself in the mirror and admitting
those poker chips of time, effort, money, and reputation are all just
gone, lost in a bad bet. The demolition of the reputation alone would be
too much to bear, since it was fragile to begin with. You can compare
his life story with Seto's pretty much line for line.
This is an old story, as familiar as a Grimm's fairy tale, and
completely predictable. What's spectacularly sad about Mr. McGinn is
that he thinks his case is somehow different or special, when in fact it
is pretty vanilla. Well, vanilla with a sprinkling of nuts.
Well, if it will make you feel any better, I'll allow you to make a retraction.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-14 17:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
A lot of what happens in cases like this can be attributed to emotional
investment, rather than intellectual investment. Like Seto and others,
he has put himself out on a limb. Regardless of the poor choices that
got him there, he has positioned himself as an iconoclast, and put
sizable investment of time and effort and money to self-publish and
self-publicize. He has had to gird himself against anticipated heat,
which means buttressing his ego and preparing canned responses against
criticism. Now he is in a no-retreat situation. He cannot acknowledge
the mistake of what he has done, because he has too much invested in the
mistake. It would mean looking at himself in the mirror and admitting
those poker chips of time, effort, money, and reputation are all just
gone, lost in a bad bet. The demolition of the reputation alone would be
too much to bear, since it was fragile to begin with. You can compare
his life story with Seto's pretty much line for line.
This is an old story, as familiar as a Grimm's fairy tale, and
completely predictable. What's spectacularly sad about Mr. McGinn is
that he thinks his case is somehow different or special, when in fact it
is pretty vanilla. Well, vanilla with a sprinkling of nuts.
Well, if it will make you feel any better, I'll allow you to make a retraction.
In your case, you're not only vanilla, but repetitively vanilla. Most
cranks have a larger repertoire of games they like to play. You only
have a small handful. This makes you unimaginative as well as
emotionally committed to a mistake.
James McGinn
2014-11-14 17:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
A lot of what happens in cases like this can be attributed to emotional
investment, rather than intellectual investment. Like Seto and others,
he has put himself out on a limb. Regardless of the poor choices that
got him there, he has positioned himself as an iconoclast, and put
sizable investment of time and effort and money to self-publish and
self-publicize. He has had to gird himself against anticipated heat,
which means buttressing his ego and preparing canned responses against
criticism. Now he is in a no-retreat situation. He cannot acknowledge
the mistake of what he has done, because he has too much invested in the
mistake. It would mean looking at himself in the mirror and admitting
those poker chips of time, effort, money, and reputation are all just
gone, lost in a bad bet. The demolition of the reputation alone would be
too much to bear, since it was fragile to begin with. You can compare
his life story with Seto's pretty much line for line.
This is an old story, as familiar as a Grimm's fairy tale, and
completely predictable. What's spectacularly sad about Mr. McGinn is
that he thinks his case is somehow different or special, when in fact it
is pretty vanilla. Well, vanilla with a sprinkling of nuts.
Well, if it will make you feel any better, I'll allow you to make a retraction.
In your case, you're not only vanilla, but repetitively vanilla. Most
cranks have a larger repertoire of games they like to play. You only
have a small handful. This makes you unimaginative as well as
emotionally committed to a mistake.
It's regrettable you feel that way.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-14 17:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
In your case, you're not only vanilla, but repetitively vanilla. Most
Post by Odd Bodkin
cranks have a larger repertoire of games they like to play. You only
have a small handful. This makes you unimaginative as well as
emotionally committed to a mistake.
It's regrettable you feel that way.
Regretted by whom?
Do you regret your commitment to your mistakes?
Do you regret your game-playing in the discussion of your mistakes?
James McGinn
2014-11-14 18:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
In your case, you're not only vanilla, but repetitively vanilla. Most
Post by Odd Bodkin
cranks have a larger repertoire of games they like to play. You only
have a small handful. This makes you unimaginative as well as
emotionally committed to a mistake.
It's regrettable you feel that way.
Regretted by whom?
Do you regret your commitment to your mistakes?
Do you regret your game-playing in the discussion of your mistakes?

Mica Choo
2014-11-14 23:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
In your case, you're not only vanilla, but repetitively vanilla. Most
Post by Odd Bodkin
cranks have a larger repertoire of games they like to play. You only
have a small handful. This makes you unimaginative as well as
emotionally committed to a mistake.
It's regrettable you feel that way.
Regretted by whom?
Do you regret your commitment to your mistakes?
Do you regret your game-playing in the discussion of your mistakes?
http://youtu.be/ikssfUhAlgg
Well, if it will make you feel any better, I'll allow you to make a
retraction.

Avogadro likes you, but in a different way.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-16 21:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
In your case, you're not only vanilla, but repetitively vanilla. Most
Post by Odd Bodkin
cranks have a larger repertoire of games they like to play. You only
have a small handful. This makes you unimaginative as well as
emotionally committed to a mistake.
It's regrettable you feel that way.
Regretted by whom?
Do you regret your commitment to your mistakes?
Do you regret your game-playing in the discussion of your mistakes?
http://youtu.be/ikssfUhAlgg
Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself.

LOL.
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-23 07:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Mica Choo
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
You just confirmed my point. Read what you wrote here and then read
the title of this thread.
Right. You asked me to give you a reference to Avogadro.
Now suddenly the goal is to QUOTE Avogadro, because you apparently can
neither click a link nor read what is on the subsequently displayed page.
Of course, if one were to then quote Avogadro in a newsgroup post (as
someone has recently done), then one could also anticipate that the
title of the thread would shift to "Does it not concern you that you
cannot explain the quotation from Avogadro on any of this speculation?"
Passive-aggressive games are boring, Mr. McGinn. You are boring.
since his troll book + rest of his stuff is based upon lies,
one would expect diversionary, evasive defense.
he is a crank, troll.
he has posted nothing of any value at all.
A lot of what happens in cases like this can be attributed to emotional
investment, rather than intellectual investment. Like Seto and others,
he has put himself out on a limb. Regardless of the poor choices that
got him there, he has positioned himself as an iconoclast, and put
sizable investment of time and effort and money to self-publish and
self-publicize. He has had to gird himself against anticipated heat,
which means buttressing his ego and preparing canned responses against
criticism. Now he is in a no-retreat situation. He cannot acknowledge
the mistake of what he has done, because he has too much invested in the
mistake. It would mean looking at himself in the mirror and admitting
those poker chips of time, effort, money, and reputation are all just
gone, lost in a bad bet. The demolition of the reputation alone would be
too much to bear, since it was fragile to begin with. You can compare
his life story with Seto's pretty much line for line.
This is an old story, as familiar as a Grimm's fairy tale, and
completely predictable. What's spectacularly sad about Mr. McGinn is
that he thinks his case is somehow different or special, when in fact it
is pretty vanilla. Well, vanilla with a sprinkling of nuts.
When pretenders evade issues they tend to get more and more verbose.
Jamie soltor
2014-11-23 17:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Mica Choo
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
You just confirmed my point. Read what you wrote here and then read
the title of this thread.
Right. You asked me to give you a reference to Avogadro.
Now suddenly the goal is to QUOTE Avogadro, because you apparently can
neither click a link nor read what is on the subsequently displayed page.
Of course, if one were to then quote Avogadro in a newsgroup post (as
someone has recently done), then one could also anticipate that the
title of the thread would shift to "Does it not concern you that you
cannot explain the quotation from Avogadro on any of this speculation?"
Passive-aggressive games are boring, Mr. McGinn. You are boring.
since his troll book + rest of his stuff is based upon lies,
one would expect diversionary, evasive defense.
he is a crank, troll.
he has posted nothing of any value at all.
A lot of what happens in cases like this can be attributed to emotional
investment, rather than intellectual investment. Like Seto and others,
he has put himself out on a limb. Regardless of the poor choices that
got him there, he has positioned himself as an iconoclast, and put
sizable investment of time and effort and money to self-publish and
self-publicize. He has had to gird himself against anticipated heat,
which means buttressing his ego and preparing canned responses against
criticism. Now he is in a no-retreat situation. He cannot acknowledge
the mistake of what he has done, because he has too much invested in the
mistake. It would mean looking at himself in the mirror and admitting
those poker chips of time, effort, money, and reputation are all just
gone, lost in a bad bet. The demolition of the reputation alone would be
too much to bear, since it was fragile to begin with. You can compare
his life story with Seto's pretty much line for line.
This is an old story, as familiar as a Grimm's fairy tale, and
completely predictable. What's spectacularly sad about Mr. McGinn is
that he thinks his case is somehow different or special, when in fact it
is pretty vanilla. Well, vanilla with a sprinkling of nuts.
On 11/23/2014 1:23 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:

James McGinn or Solvent Tornadtoes solvingtornadoes, or Julius Denk or
Claudius Denk is Troll of the Meth clan. A troll since 2006 in
sci.environment, he now out of office technician work he suffers
from advanced simia cogitans.

Do Not bother repling to this guy,
**ALL** his marbles are loose, and he is only here to argue.

HE IS ONLY HERE TO ARGUE.

Jim McGinn in his Book “Solving Tornadoes: Mastering the Mystery of the
Vortex” represents ‘the beginning of the end’ of what little
rationality mankind was capable of applying to any given
subject. McGinn represents an unusually high order of the Dunning-Kruger
effect seldom seen in ‘modern’ internet work; What other
authors are to Chemtrails and HAARP mind control Jim McGinn is to
understanding (or mis-understanding) tornadoes … To cite Jim McGinn as
an idiot or a moron is to slight idiots and morons.

from wiki: Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill,
incompetent people will:
fail to recognize their own lack of skill;
fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they
are exposed to training for that skill.[5]

***James McGinn RETRACTION OF HIS TROLL BOOK !! He is proved a
plagiarist, and the book is gobblygook

nonsense **by his own admission **

Quote JM;

Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.

The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.

You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.

My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something.
*********************************************
Book review1 1.0 out of 5 stars insane rambling July 3, 2014 By K.
Parker - The author believes that elementary concepts,

which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and
Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological
conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very
basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due
to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release).
Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a
mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and
unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally
without merit.

Book Review2 1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of time, a non-funny joke July
16, 2014 By hunter - This book misleads the reader on basic physical
concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics,and offers a silly
idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with
reality. It solves nothing but does offer away to waste time and money
buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the
age of inexpensive self publishing.


***Here are more of James McGinn or Soilent Potatoes troll posts as follows;

I am diamond.

Address the issue in the subject heading or kindly go away.

Try to imagine how our audience might view this conversation.
They are going to be left wondering why it is you don't just
supply the evidence that you claim to be so prevalent.

When believers can't find confirming evidence they just
believe harder.

You can't get any more basic than comprehending the difference between a
boiling point and evaporation. If you are confused

on that issue there isn't much anybody can do for you.

So, why do you think they are hiding this data from us?

Why do you think it is that you are the only person on earth that knows
this?

Okay . . . present your argument.

Or, you could just make a retraction.

I'm not a mind reader, if that is what you mean.

I believe I am right. But I don't claim I know I am right. Nor do I
lie and claim that the experiment has already been done, or

that it can be found in a textbook or that it was done by over 200 years
ago.

Most people believe whatever is easiest or most convenient to believe.
And, as you have demonstrated vividly, once they believe

it it's just about impossible to get them to stop believing it.

Thank you for helping me perfectly exemplify the point of this thread:
Humans are Stupid, Lazy, and Intellectually Dishonest . . .
. . . When it Comes to Challenges to Their Science Based Beliefs

I hope that if you should ever come across this, "easily obtainable"
background information that you don't hesitate to spoonfeed

it to the rest of us.

So, why do you think it is that only you can see this "easily
obtainable" background information?

( Now folks, do you see that METH IS BAD ? )

Don't feel bad, you are only human.

You mean alleged resources. Remember, the resources you are
accusing me of not finding are resources for which you
failed to provide a reference. Right?

If you can't distinguish between "basics" and superstitions
you are worthless as a scientist.

Remember, humans are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing
between what they believe and what they know. This is the
reason scientific methods (which you ignore) were developed
for the sciences and why rules of evidence were developed for
our legal system.

On 11/23/2014 12:22 AM, Solving Tornadoes pooped:

Just think. If I had actual evidence of your magical cold steam
then I wouldn't have any need at all to resort to stories about
horses and crank indexes.

Maybe if I spent less time trying to distract my audience from the
fact that I have failed to support my assertion I'd have time
to, well, find my mysteriously missing evidence.

Keep looking.

Also, while your are at it, keep an eye out for the holy grail. A
lot of people are looking for that.

I haven't dropped any claims. Don't confuse you with a character in my
book. And you goons haven't provided any references.
HORSE (is horse James McGinn et al ? hell yes.)

A man had a horse that wasn't very bright. The horse also wasn't very
productive, even though it seemed to think very highly of itself.

One day the horse looked very dehydrated, so the man filled a nearby
water trough. The horse did not move but looked more thirsty than ever.

The man led the horse to the water, even though he knew the saying. The
horse looked down at the trough, then turned away from the trough,
looking at the man instead.

The horse then brayed "The world is full of people like you that can't
distinguish water they know is there and water they believe is there,"
and then "If you believed that there is water in the trough,then one
would think you'd make a cogent argument to that effect," and then "You
are nothing but a grain of sand. I am a diamond."

The man, though astounded that a horse that stupid could talk, turned
and walked away, leaving the horse to fend for itself.
What experimental assertions? The ones in some textbook that you can't
find?
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-23 07:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
You just confirmed my point. Read what you wrote here and then read the title of this thread.
Right. You asked me to give you a reference to Avogadro.
Now suddenly the goal is to QUOTE Avogadro, because you apparently can
neither click a link nor read what is on the subsequently displayed page.
Of course, if one were to then quote Avogadro in a newsgroup post (as
someone has recently done), then one could also anticipate that the
title of the thread would shift to "Does it not concern you that you
cannot explain the quotation from Avogadro on any of this speculation?"
Passive-aggressive games are boring, Mr. McGinn. You are boring.
Does it not concern you that you cannot explain the quotation
from Avogadro on any of this speculation?
Jamie soltor
2014-11-23 07:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/23/2014 1:29 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
James McGinn or Solvent Tornadtoes solvingtornadoes, or Julius Denk or
Claudius Denk is Troll of the Meth clan. A troll since 2006 in
sci.environment, he now out of office technician work he suffers
from advanced simia cogitans.

Do Not bother repling to this guy,
**ALL** his marbles are loose, and he is only here to argue.

HE IS ONLY HERE TO ARGUE.

Jim McGinn in his Book “Solving Tornadoes: Mastering the Mystery of the
Vortex” represents ‘the beginning of the end’ of what little
rationality mankind was capable of applying to any given
subject. McGinn represents an unusually high order of the Dunning-Kruger
effect seldom seen in ‘modern’ internet work; What other
authors are to Chemtrails and HAARP mind control Jim McGinn is to
understanding (or mis-understanding) tornadoes … To cite Jim McGinn as
an idiot or a moron is to slight idiots and morons.

from wiki: Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill,
incompetent people will:
fail to recognize their own lack of skill;
fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they
are exposed to training for that skill.[5]

***James McGinn RETRACTION OF HIS TROLL BOOK !! He is proved a
plagiarist, and the book is gobblygook

nonsense **by his own admission **

Quote JM;

Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.

The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.

You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.

My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something.
*********************************************
Book review1 1.0 out of 5 stars insane rambling July 3, 2014 By K.
Parker - The author believes that elementary concepts,

which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and
Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological
conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very
basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due
to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release).
Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a
mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and
unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally
without merit.

Book Review2 1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of time, a non-funny joke July
16, 2014 By hunter - This book misleads the reader on basic physical
concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics,and offers a silly
idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with
reality. It solves nothing but does offer away to waste time and money
buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the
age of inexpensive self publishing.


***Here are more of James McGinn or Soilent Potatoes troll posts as follows;

I am diamond.

Address the issue in the subject heading or kindly go away.

Try to imagine how our audience might view this conversation.
They are going to be left wondering why it is you don't just
supply the evidence that you claim to be so prevalent.

When believers can't find confirming evidence they just
believe harder.

You can't get any more basic than comprehending the difference between a
boiling point and evaporation. If you are confused

on that issue there isn't much anybody can do for you.

So, why do you think they are hiding this data from us?

Why do you think it is that you are the only person on earth that knows
this?

Okay . . . present your argument.

Or, you could just make a retraction.

I'm not a mind reader, if that is what you mean.

I believe I am right. But I don't claim I know I am right. Nor do I
lie and claim that the experiment has already been done, or

that it can be found in a textbook or that it was done by over 200 years
ago.

Most people believe whatever is easiest or most convenient to believe.
And, as you have demonstrated vividly, once they believe

it it's just about impossible to get them to stop believing it.

Thank you for helping me perfectly exemplify the point of this thread:
Humans are Stupid, Lazy, and Intellectually Dishonest . . .
. . . When it Comes to Challenges to Their Science Based Beliefs

I hope that if you should ever come across this, "easily obtainable"
background information that you don't hesitate to spoonfeed

it to the rest of us.

So, why do you think it is that only you can see this "easily
obtainable" background information?

( Now folks, do you see that METH IS BAD ? )

Don't feel bad, you are only human.

You mean alleged resources. Remember, the resources you are
accusing me of not finding are resources for which you
failed to provide a reference. Right?

If you can't distinguish between "basics" and superstitions
you are worthless as a scientist.

Remember, humans are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing
between what they believe and what they know. This is the
reason scientific methods (which you ignore) were developed
for the sciences and why rules of evidence were developed for
our legal system.

On 11/23/2014 12:22 AM, Solving Tornadoes pooped:

Just think. If I had actual evidence of your magical cold steam
then I wouldn't have any need at all to resort to stories about
horses and crank indexes.

Maybe if I spent less time trying to distract my audience from the
fact that I have failed to support my assertion I'd have time
to, well, find my mysteriously missing evidence.

Keep looking.

Also, while your are at it, keep an eye out for the holy grail. A
lot of people are looking for that.

I haven't dropped any claims. Don't confuse you with a character in my
book. And you goons haven't provided any references.
HORSE (is horse James McGinn et al ? hell yes.)

A man had a horse that wasn't very bright. The horse also wasn't very
productive, even though it seemed to think very highly of itself.

One day the horse looked very dehydrated, so the man filled a nearby
water trough. The horse did not move but looked more thirsty than ever.

The man led the horse to the water, even though he knew the saying. The
horse looked down at the trough, then turned away from the trough,
looking at the man instead.

The horse then brayed "The world is full of people like you that can't
distinguish water they know is there and water they believe is there,"
and then "If you believed that there is water in the trough,then one
would think you'd make a cogent argument to that effect," and then "You
are nothing but a grain of sand. I am a diamond."

The man, though astounded that a horse that stupid could talk, turned
and walked away, leaving the horse to fend for itself.
What experimental assertions? The ones in some textbook that you can't
find?

Passive-aggressive games are boring, Mr. McGinn. You are boring.

Does it not concern you that you cannot explain the quotation
from Avogadro on any of this speculation?
Solving Tornadoes
2016-02-27 23:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
You just confirmed my point. Read what you wrote here and then read the title of this thread.
Right. You asked me to give you a reference to Avogadro.
Now suddenly the goal is to QUOTE Avogadro, because you apparently can
neither click a link nor read what is on the subsequently displayed page.
Of course, if one were to then quote Avogadro in a newsgroup post (as
someone has recently done), then one could also anticipate that the
title of the thread would shift to "Does it not concern you that you
cannot explain the quotation from Avogadro on any of this speculation?"
Passive-aggressive games are boring, Mr. McGinn. You are boring.
Does it not concern you that you cannot explain the quotation
Post by Odd Bodkin
from Avogadro on any of this speculation?
Mica Choo
2014-11-14 01:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Post by Odd Bodkin
So THAT'S your excuse for not reading. You believe that reading inhibits
reasoning? You believe that thinking things through on your own, without
benefit of reading, gives better scientific results?
It's the difference between knowing and understanding.
Perhaps you, Soilent Tomatoes, should read it again for the first time;

Avogadro's Law (Avogadro's theory; Avogadro's hypothesis) is a principle
stated in 1811 by the Italian chemist Amedeo Avogadro (1776-1856) that
"equal volumes of gases at the same temperature and pressure contain the
same number of molecules regardless of their chemical nature and
physical properties".

This number (Avogadro's number) is 6.022 X 10^23. It is the number of
molecules of any gas present in a volume of 22.41 L and is the same for
the lightest gas (hydrogen) as for a heavy gas such as carbon dioxide or
bromine.

Now, what is so hard about that ?

Why don't you disprove him ? Show your work please.
James McGinn
2014-11-14 02:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mica Choo
Perhaps you, Soilent Tomatoes, should read it again for the first time;
Avogadro's Law (Avogadro's theory; Avogadro's hypothesis) is a principle
stated in 1811 by the Italian chemist Amedeo Avogadro (1776-1856) that
"equal volumes of gases at the same temperature and pressure contain the
same number of molecules regardless of their chemical nature and
physical properties".
This number (Avogadro's number) is 6.022 X 10^23. It is the number of
molecules of any gas present in a volume of 22.41 L and is the same for
the lightest gas (hydrogen) as for a heavy gas such as carbon dioxide or
bromine.
Your cut and paste skills are exemplary.
Post by Mica Choo
Now, what is so hard about that ?
Nothing.
Post by Mica Choo
Why don't you disprove him?
I don't dispute any of it.
Post by Mica Choo
Show your work please.
My work for what?

Do you have any idea what this discussion is about?
Mica Choo
2014-11-14 02:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mica Choo
Perhaps you, Soilent Tomatoes, should read it again for the first time;
Avogadro's Law (Avogadro's theory; Avogadro's hypothesis) is a
principle stated in 1811 by the Italian chemist Amedeo Avogadro
(1776-1856) that "equal volumes of gases at the same temperature
and pressure contain the same number of molecules regardless of
their chemical nature and physical properties".
This number (Avogadro's number) is 6.022 X 10^23. It is the number
of molecules of any gas present in a volume of 22.41 L and is the
same for the lightest gas (hydrogen) as for a heavy gas such as
carbon dioxide or bromine.
LETS TRY THIS AGAIN, BOY James McGoonie

Perhaps you, Soilent Tomatoes, should **READ** it again for the first time;

Avogadro is known principally for Avogadro’s hypothesis, which provided
a much-needed key to the problems of nineteenth-century chemistry by
distinguishing between atoms and molecules. Dalton had considered the
possibility that equal volumes of all gases might contain the same
number of atoms but had rejected it. The source of Avogadro’s
inspiration was not however Dalton but Gay-Lussac, whose law of
combining volumes of gases was published in 1809. In Avogadro’s classic
memoir of 1811 he wrote:

M. Gay-Lussac has shown in an interesting memoir... that gases
always unite in a very simple proportion by volume, and that when the
result of the union is a gas, its volume also is very simply related to
those of its components. But the quantitative proportions of substances
in compounds seem only to depend on the relative number of molecules
which combine, and on the number of composite molecules which result. It
must then be admitted that very simple relations also exist between the
volumes of gaseous substances and the numbers of simple or compound
molecules which form them. The first hypothesis to present itself in
this connection, and apparently even the only admissible one, is the
supposition that the number of integral molecules in any gas is always
the same for equal volumes, or always proportional to the volumes... The
hypothesis we have just proposed is based on that simplicity of relation
between the volumes of gases on combination, which would appear to be
otherwise inexplicable.1

Avogadro, therefore, modestly presented his hypothesis as no more than
an extension of Gay-Lussac’s law.

From Avogadro’s hypothesis there immediately follows the inference that
the relative weights of the molecules of any two gases are the same as
the ratios of the densities of these gases under the same conditions of
temperature and pressure. Molecular weights could thus be determined
directly. The hypothesis also enabled the chemist to deduce atomic
weights without recourse to Dalton’s arbitrary rule of simplicity. The
molecular weight of water would be calculated in the following way:

As water is produced by the combination of two volumes of hydrogen with
one of oxygen, this would give for the weight of two molecules of water
vapor: 15 + 2 = 17. The weight of one molecule would therefore be 8.5
(or, more accurately, 8.537). This agreed well with the known density of
water vapor referred to the hydrogen standard. It should be noted that
Avogadro’s molecular weights are values based on the comparison with the
weight of a molecule of hydrogen rather than an atom of hydrogen. The
molecular weights given in Avogadro’s paper of 1811 are therefore half
the modern values. However expressed, they were a vast improvement on
Dalton’s values.

The superiority of Avogadro’s method of deriving the molecular weights
of compounds over that of Dalton is seen not only with water but with
many other compounds. Where the values given by Avogadro were of the
same order as those given by Dalton, the Italian pointed out that this
resulted from the canceling out of errors. Avogadro was, however,
completely fair in his criticism of Dalton, and at the end of his memoir
he modestly concluded that his hypothesis was “at bottom merely Dalton’s
system furnished with a new means of precision from the connection we
have found between it and the general fact established by Gay-Lussac.”

It is necessary to comment on Avogadro’s use of the term molecule.
Although it has been suggested that he used the term inconsistently, a
close examination of his memoir enables us to distinguish four uses of
the term: molécule (“molecule”), a general term denoting either what
today would be called an atom or a molecule; molécule intégrante
(“integral molecule”), corresponding to the present-day usage of
molecule, particularly in relation to compounds; molécule constituante
(“constituent molecule”), denoting a molecule of an element; and
molécule élémentaire (“elementary molecule”), denoting an atom of an
element. Although Avogadro deserves credit for his application of these
expressions, he did not invent them. The terms partie intégrante,
molécule primitive intégrante, and partie constituante are to be found
in Macquer’s Dictionnaire de chimie of 1766 (article on “Agrégation”);
and the terms integrant, constituent, and elementary molecules are to be
found in Fourcroy’s textbook of 1800.

Avogadro had a solution to the problem that arose when the hypothesis of
equal volumes was applied to compound substances. Gay-Lussac had shown
that (above 100°C.) the volume of water vapor was twice the volume of
oxygen used to form it. This was possible only if the molecule of oxygen
was divided between the molecules of hydrogen. Dalton had seen this
difficulty and, as it was to him inconceivable that the particles of
oxygen could be subdivided, he had rejected the basic hypothesis that
Avogadro was now defending. Avogadro overcame the difficulty by
postulating compound molecules . This is the second and most important
part of Avogadro’s hypothesis . It may be regarded as his second
hypothesis ; and, unlike the first, it seems completly original.
Avogadro wrote: most important part of Avogadro’s hypothesis. It may be
regarded as his second hypothesis; and unlike the first, it seems
completely original. Avogadro wrote: “We suppose... that the constituent
molecules of any simple gas whatever... are not formed of a solitary
elementary molecule, but are made up of a certain number of these
molecules united by attraction to form a single one.” Compound molecules
of gases must therefore be composed of two or more atoms. Avogadro
implies that there are always an even number of atoms in the molecule of
a gas. For nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen it is two, “but it is possible
that in other cases, the division might be into four, eight, etc.”
Avogadro is not at his clearest in this part of the memoir, but clarity
is achieved when he gives an example: “Thus, for example, the integral
molecule of water will be composed of a half-molecule of oxygen with one
molecule, or, what is the same thing, two half-molecules, of hydrogen.”

Avogadro’s reasoning about the divisibility of the integrant molecule
raises the question of atomicity. Gases for Avogadro were usually
diatomic, but certain substances could be tetratomic in the vapor state
as indeed phosphorus is. In later memoirs he allowed for the possibility
of monatomic molecules, as, for example, in gold. In his work there is
implicit the idea of equivalence, e.g., that one atom of oxygen is
equivalent to two atoms of hydrogen, which in turn is equivalent to two
atoms of chlorine. The concept of valency, was however, not developed
until the time of Frankland (1852).

Now, what is so hard about that ?

Why don't you disprove him ? Show your work please.
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-14 02:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mica Choo
Post by Mica Choo
Perhaps you, Soilent Tomatoes, should read it again for the first time;
Avogadro's Law (Avogadro's theory; Avogadro's hypothesis) is a
principle stated in 1811 by the Italian chemist Amedeo Avogadro
(1776-1856) that "equal volumes of gases at the same temperature
and pressure contain the same number of molecules regardless of
their chemical nature and physical properties".
This number (Avogadro's number) is 6.022 X 10^23. It is the number
of molecules of any gas present in a volume of 22.41 L and is the
same for the lightest gas (hydrogen) as for a heavy gas such as
carbon dioxide or bromine.
LETS TRY THIS AGAIN, BOY James McGoonie
Perhaps you, Soilent Tomatoes, should **READ** it again for the first time;
Avogadro is known principally for Avogadro's hypothesis, which provided
a much-needed key to the problems of nineteenth-century chemistry by
distinguishing between atoms and molecules. Dalton had considered the
possibility that equal volumes of all gases might contain the same
number of atoms but had rejected it. The source of Avogadro's
inspiration was not however Dalton but Gay-Lussac, whose law of
combining volumes of gases was published in 1809. In Avogadro's classic
M. Gay-Lussac has shown in an interesting memoir... that gases
always unite in a very simple proportion by volume, and that when the
result of the union is a gas, its volume also is very simply related to
those of its components. But the quantitative proportions of substances
in compounds seem only to depend on the relative number of molecules
which combine, and on the number of composite molecules which result. It
must then be admitted that very simple relations also exist between the
volumes of gaseous substances and the numbers of simple or compound
molecules which form them. The first hypothesis to present itself in
this connection, and apparently even the only admissible one, is the
supposition that the number of integral molecules in any gas is always
the same for equal volumes, or always proportional to the volumes... The
hypothesis we have just proposed is based on that simplicity of relation
between the volumes of gases on combination, which would appear to be
otherwise inexplicable.1
Avogadro, therefore, modestly presented his hypothesis as no more than
an extension of Gay-Lussac's law.
From Avogadro's hypothesis there immediately follows the inference that
the relative weights of the molecules of any two gases are the same as
the ratios of the densities of these gases under the same conditions of
temperature and pressure. Molecular weights could thus be determined
directly. The hypothesis also enabled the chemist to deduce atomic
weights without recourse to Dalton's arbitrary rule of simplicity. The
As water is produced by the combination of two volumes of hydrogen with
one of oxygen, this would give for the weight of two molecules of water
vapor: 15 + 2 = 17. The weight of one molecule would therefore be 8.5
(or, more accurately, 8.537). This agreed well with the known density of
water vapor referred to the hydrogen standard. It should be noted that
Avogadro's molecular weights are values based on the comparison with the
weight of a molecule of hydrogen rather than an atom of hydrogen. The
molecular weights given in Avogadro's paper of 1811 are therefore half
the modern values. However expressed, they were a vast improvement on
Dalton's values.
The superiority of Avogadro's method of deriving the molecular weights
of compounds over that of Dalton is seen not only with water but with
many other compounds. Where the values given by Avogadro were of the
same order as those given by Dalton, the Italian pointed out that this
resulted from the canceling out of errors. Avogadro was, however,
completely fair in his criticism of Dalton, and at the end of his memoir
he modestly concluded that his hypothesis was "at bottom merely Dalton's
system furnished with a new means of precision from the connection we
have found between it and the general fact established by Gay-Lussac."
It is necessary to comment on Avogadro's use of the term molecule.
Although it has been suggested that he used the term inconsistently, a
close examination of his memoir enables us to distinguish four uses of
the term: molécule ("molecule"), a general term denoting either what
today would be called an atom or a molecule; molécule intégrante
("integral molecule"), corresponding to the present-day usage of
molecule, particularly in relation to compounds; molécule constituante
("constituent molecule"), denoting a molecule of an element; and
molécule élémentaire ("elementary molecule"), denoting an atom of an
element. Although Avogadro deserves credit for his application of these
expressions, he did not invent them. The terms partie intégrante,
molécule primitive intégrante, and partie constituante are to be found
in Macquer's Dictionnaire de chimie of 1766 (article on "Agrégation");
and the terms integrant, constituent, and elementary molecules are to be
found in Fourcroy's textbook of 1800.
Avogadro had a solution to the problem that arose when the hypothesis of
equal volumes was applied to compound substances. Gay-Lussac had shown
that (above 100°C.) the volume of water vapor was twice the volume of
oxygen used to form it. This was possible only if the molecule of oxygen
was divided between the molecules of hydrogen. Dalton had seen this
difficulty and, as it was to him inconceivable that the particles of
oxygen could be subdivided, he had rejected the basic hypothesis that
Avogadro was now defending. Avogadro overcame the difficulty by
postulating compound molecules . This is the second and most important
part of Avogadro's hypothesis . It may be regarded as his second
hypothesis ; and, unlike the first, it seems completly original.
Avogadro wrote: most important part of Avogadro's hypothesis. It may be
regarded as his second hypothesis; and unlike the first, it seems
completely original. Avogadro wrote: "We suppose... that the constituent
molecules of any simple gas whatever... are not formed of a solitary
elementary molecule, but are made up of a certain number of these
molecules united by attraction to form a single one." Compound molecules
of gases must therefore be composed of two or more atoms. Avogadro
implies that there are always an even number of atoms in the molecule of
a gas. For nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen it is two, "but it is possible
that in other cases, the division might be into four, eight, etc."
Avogadro is not at his clearest in this part of the memoir, but clarity
is achieved when he gives an example: "Thus, for example, the integral
molecule of water will be composed of a half-molecule of oxygen with one
molecule, or, what is the same thing, two half-molecules, of hydrogen."
Avogadro's reasoning about the divisibility of the integrant molecule
raises the question of atomicity. Gases for Avogadro were usually
diatomic, but certain substances could be tetratomic in the vapor state
as indeed phosphorus is. In later memoirs he allowed for the possibility
of monatomic molecules, as, for example, in gold. In his work there is
implicit the idea of equivalence, e.g., that one atom of oxygen is
equivalent to two atoms of hydrogen, which in turn is equivalent to two
atoms of chlorine. The concept of valency, was however, not developed
until the time of Frankland (1852).
Now, what is so hard about that ?
Why don't you disprove him ? Show your work please.
Uh, er, . . . okay. Whats your point?
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-14 14:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mica Choo
LETS TRY THIS AGAIN, BOY James McGoonie
Perhaps you, Soilent Tomatoes, should **READ** it again for the first time;
Now, what is so hard about that ?
Why don't you disprove him ? Show your work please.
I'm sure you will enjoy the passive-aggressive response, "I fail to see
the relevance," which you are free to translate as "I don't understand
how this is in disagreement with anything I've said, but perhaps you can
try to explain that to me in elaborate detail. I promise you that you
will fail in that effort."

This is perhaps as worthwhile as trying to explain 3D kinematics to a
barbecued turkey breast. The turkey breast will assuredly learn nothing.
The difference is that the turkey breast will not claim some kind of
victory for remaining unconvinced.
James McGinn
2016-04-24 02:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Well, then, you can't claim to be ignorant of Avogadro, can you?
No, I certainly can't, and I don't believe I ever have claimed to be
ignorant of Avogadro. Now, on the other hand, you can't claim that
Avogadro's work has never been referenced or quoted, can you? Oh wait...
you've done that already, several times. Proves you're capable of
anything, doesn't it?
Any idiot can post links. Explain your point.
James McGinn
2014-11-16 05:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by benj
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else. His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart.
If I hadn't experienced it first hand I would have never believed
you. Never. It's surreal. It's like talking to somebody from a
different universe.
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Do you deny that you claimed that Avogadro didn't know moist air is not an ideal gas?
Howard D
2014-11-16 05:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Do I deny that I claimed that Avogadro didn't know moist air is not an ideal gas?
Read the post very carefully, and try to comprehend Avogadro's work. If
you cannot, that is OK too.

Are you implying moist air, that is air with water vapor, is not an
ideal gas because of latent heat ?

Or are you saying that it is not an ideal gas ?

Are their any existing real ideal gasses ?
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-16 21:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by benj
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else. His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart.
If I hadn't experienced it first hand I would have never believed
you. Never. It's surreal. It's like talking to somebody from a
different universe.
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Do you deny that you claimed that Avogadro didn't know moist air is not an ideal gas?
Yes, I deny that. Care to quote me?
James McGinn
2014-11-16 22:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by benj
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else. His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart.
If I hadn't experienced it first hand I would have never believed
you. Never. It's surreal. It's like talking to somebody from a
different universe.
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Do you deny that you claimed that Avogadro didn't know moist air is not an ideal gas?
Yes, I deny that. Care to quote me?
See the first post in this thread.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-16 23:29:46 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 benj
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else. His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart.
If I hadn't experienced it first hand I would have never believed
you. Never. It's surreal. It's like talking to somebody from a
different universe.
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Do you deny that you claimed that Avogadro didn't know moist air is not an ideal gas?
Yes, I deny that. Care to quote me?
See the first post in this thread.
OK.
==============================
Odd Bodkin:
Oh bullshit.
If anything, you're trying to both claim that Avogadro's law supports
your case and that water doesn't apply to Avogadro's law.
Avogadro's law pertains to gases. It is an observational law. That means
it is seen to hold true for gases found in the real world. This includes
gases that contain a significant amount of water in them, as well as
gases that do not. That is, it holds for a gas that is 70% nitrogen and
30% water by moles; and it also holds for a gas that is 80% oxygen and
20% carbon dioxide and no water; and it also holds for a gas that is
100% carbon monoxide. It also holds for a gas that is 99% water and 1%
nitrogen by moles, by the way. Those are observational facts.
Your statement is that this cannot possibly be true of gases containing
water because water is different. Thus your argument is essentially,
"Can't be, I don't believe it! You have to convince me!"
But the observational facts are otherwise, and that is what Avogadro's
law is about.
============================

How do you read from the above that I am claiming that Avogadro did not
know that moist air is not an ideal gas?

What I said above again is that Avogadro's law is about GASES. Not just
ideal gases. GASES. Real, observed gases. Including gases containing
water. Including moist air. Very moist air. Avogadro's observations were
true even for moist air. Now, what the hell does moist air not being an
idea gas have to do with it? Avogadro's law still applies for moist air.
His statements about gases weren't even about ideal gases. They were for
GASES, period.
torspof
2014-11-17 00:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Solving Tornadoes
If anything, you're trying to both claim that Avogadro's law supports
your case and that water doesn't apply to Avogadro's law.
Avogadro's law pertains to gases. It is an observational law. That means
it is seen to hold true for gases found in the real world. This includes
gases that contain a significant amount of water in them, as well as
gases that do not. That is, it holds for a gas that is 70% nitrogen and
30% water by moles; and it also holds for a gas that is 80% oxygen and
20% carbon dioxide and no water; and it also holds for a gas that is
100% carbon monoxide. It also holds for a gas that is 99% water and 1%
nitrogen by moles, by the way. Those are observational facts.
Your statement is that this cannot possibly be true of gases containing
water because water is different. Thus your argument is essentially,
"Can't be, I don't believe it! You have to convince me!"
But the observational facts are otherwise, and that is what Avogadro's
law is about.
============================
How do you read from the above that I am claiming that Avogadro did not
know that moist air is not an ideal gas?
What I said above again is that Avogadro's law is about GASES. Not just
ideal gases. GASES. Real, observed gases. Including gases containing
water. Including moist air. Very moist air. Avogadro's observations were
true even for moist air. Now, what the hell does moist air not being an
idea gas have to do with it? Avogadro's law still applies for moist air.
His statements about gases weren't even about ideal gases. They were for
GASES, period.
Snoring Tamales (jamie the McDim, et. al.) just loves getting beat up.
Loading Image...

anyhow, Avogadro insite into gas, pressure volume caused by essentially
fixed number of partials is very interesting. little things bouncing off
each other with a mean free path of ____ etc and causing pressure
volume, nice.

Thought problem, what would happen if the partial motion within a
volume, like a box, was constrained only to one hemisphere ? (not full
range of motion, like a full sphere) If you could separate all the
molecules going to the left from those going to the right into two
separate containers, (in an instant) how much force would one container
have ?

also found this;

http://avogadro.cc/wiki/Main_Page
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-17 09:25:47 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 benj
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else. His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart.
If I hadn't experienced it first hand I would have never believed
you. Never. It's surreal. It's like talking to somebody from a
different universe.
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Do you deny that you claimed that Avogadro didn't know moist air is not an ideal gas?
Yes, I deny that. Care to quote me?
See the first post in this thread.
OK.
==============================
Oh bullshit.
If anything, you're trying to both claim that Avogadro's law supports
your case and that water doesn't apply to Avogadro's law.
Avogadro's law pertains to gases. It is an observational law. That means
it is seen to hold true for gases found in the real world. This includes
gases that contain a significant amount of water in them, as well as
gases that do not. That is, it holds for a gas that is 70% nitrogen and
30% water by moles; and it also holds for a gas that is 80% oxygen and
20% carbon dioxide and no water; and it also holds for a gas that is
100% carbon monoxide. It also holds for a gas that is 99% water and 1%
nitrogen by moles, by the way. Those are observational facts.
Your statement is that this cannot possibly be true of gases containing
water because water is different. Thus your argument is essentially,
"Can't be, I don't believe it! You have to convince me!"
But the observational facts are otherwise, and that is what Avogadro's
law is about.
============================
How do you read from the above that I am claiming that Avogadro did not
know that moist air is not an ideal gas?
What I said above again is that Avogadro's law is about GASES. Not just
ideal gases.
Evidence?
Post by Odd Bodkin
GASES. Real, observed gases. Including gases containing
water.
Evidence?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Including moist air. Very moist air. Avogadro's observations were
true even for moist air. Now, what the hell does moist air not being an
idea gas have to do with it? Avogadro's law still applies for moist air.
His statements about gases weren't even about ideal gases. They were for
GASES, period.
The reason you will NEVER find any evidence to support this assertion is because it is plainly and obviously absurd. Avogadro's law is applicable to ideal gasses ONLY!!!

Below it's boiling point not only is H2O not an ideal gas it's not a gas at all. It's a liquid. When water evaporates it evaporates in little clusters/droplet that are suspended in air due to electrostatic forces. It's the weight of the droplets (the particle weight) that is applicable in the context of Avogadro's law. (You about have to have your head up your ass to use the molecular weight when dealing with multimers.)
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-17 15:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Solving Tornadoes
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 benj
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else. His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart.
If I hadn't experienced it first hand I would have never believed
you. Never. It's surreal. It's like talking to somebody from a
different universe.
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
Do you deny that you claimed that Avogadro didn't know moist air is not an ideal gas?
Yes, I deny that. Care to quote me?
See the first post in this thread.
OK.
==============================
Oh bullshit.
If anything, you're trying to both claim that Avogadro's law supports
your case and that water doesn't apply to Avogadro's law.
Avogadro's law pertains to gases. It is an observational law. That means
it is seen to hold true for gases found in the real world. This includes
gases that contain a significant amount of water in them, as well as
gases that do not. That is, it holds for a gas that is 70% nitrogen and
30% water by moles; and it also holds for a gas that is 80% oxygen and
20% carbon dioxide and no water; and it also holds for a gas that is
100% carbon monoxide. It also holds for a gas that is 99% water and 1%
nitrogen by moles, by the way. Those are observational facts.
Your statement is that this cannot possibly be true of gases containing
water because water is different. Thus your argument is essentially,
"Can't be, I don't believe it! You have to convince me!"
But the observational facts are otherwise, and that is what Avogadro's
law is about.
============================
How do you read from the above that I am claiming that Avogadro did not
know that moist air is not an ideal gas?
What I said above again is that Avogadro's law is about GASES. Not just
ideal gases.
Evidence?
Quoted in several links, INCLUDING AVOGADRO'S OWN WORK, which you ignored.
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Post by Odd Bodkin
GASES. Real, observed gases. Including gases containing
water.
Evidence?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Including moist air. Very moist air. Avogadro's observations were
true even for moist air. Now, what the hell does moist air not being an
idea gas have to do with it? Avogadro's law still applies for moist air.
His statements about gases weren't even about ideal gases. They were for
GASES, period.
The reason you will NEVER find any evidence to support this assertion is
because it is plainly and obviously absurd. Avogadro's law is applicable to
ideal gasses ONLY!!!
Nope. That's your OWN imagining. Read Avogadro's own work. Read the
other articles about Avogadro's law already provided.
They obviously disagree with YOUR OWN MADE-UP IDEA of Avogadro's work.

The fact that you would make up what Avogadro's law pertains to, without
reference to Avogadro's own work OR the data that supports it, is just
the kind of thing that cranks do.
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Below it's boiling point not only is H2O not an ideal gas it's not a
gas at all.
Moot concern. Based on your own made-up conceptions of boiling point,
Avogadro's law, and other things. Whether it's an ideal gas is
IRRELEVANT, because Avogadro's law is an EXPERIMENTAL law that applies
to REAL gases, not ideal gases.
Post by Solving Tornadoes
It's a liquid. When water evaporates it evaporates in little
clusters/droplet that are suspended in air due to electrostatic forces.
It's the weight of the droplets (the particle weight) that is applicable
in the context of Avogadro's law. (You about have to have your head up
your ass to use the molecular weight when dealing with multimers.)
James McGinn
2014-11-17 17:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Quoted in several links, INCLUDING AVOGADRO'S OWN WORK, which you ignored.
It never ceases to amaze me the length people go to continue believing.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nope. That's your OWN imagining. Read Avogadro's own work. Read the
other articles about Avogadro's law already provided.
They obviously disagree with YOUR OWN MADE-UP IDEA of Avogadro's work.
The fact that you would make up what Avogadro's law pertains to, without
reference to Avogadro's own work OR the data that supports it, is just
the kind of thing that cranks do.
Remember the internet doesn't provide us access to your imagination, you fraud.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Moot concern. Based on your own made-up conceptions of boiling point,
Based on physical evidence of water's boiling point and complete absence of evidence to the contrary--as you've demonstrated vividly and repeatedly.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Avogadro's law, and other things. Whether it's an ideal gas is
IRRELEVANT, because Avogadro's law is an EXPERIMENTAL law that applies
to REAL gases, not ideal gases.
Loons made up the term "real" gasses. It's meaningless. All gasses are real gasses.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-17 18:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Quoted in several links, INCLUDING AVOGADRO'S OWN WORK, which you ignored.
It never ceases to amaze me the length people go to continue believing.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nope. That's your OWN imagining. Read Avogadro's own work. Read the
other articles about Avogadro's law already provided.
They obviously disagree with YOUR OWN MADE-UP IDEA of Avogadro's work.
The fact that you would make up what Avogadro's law pertains to, without
reference to Avogadro's own work OR the data that supports it, is just
the kind of thing that cranks do.
Remember the internet doesn't provide us access to your imagination, you fraud.
What's to imagine? You click on the link, and you read Avogadro's
original work that comes up in your browser. Which -- the clicking or
the reading -- are you incapable of doing?
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Moot concern. Based on your own made-up conceptions of boiling point,
Based on physical evidence of water's boiling point and complete absence of
evidence to the contrary--as you've demonstrated vividly and repeatedly.
What physical evidence are you referring to?
By the way, what's the boiling point of water at 19,000 meters up?
(63,000 ft?) Do you know? Need a hint how to look it up?
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Avogadro's law, and other things. Whether it's an ideal gas is
IRRELEVANT, because Avogadro's law is an EXPERIMENTAL law that applies
to REAL gases, not ideal gases.
Loons made up the term "real" gasses. It's meaningless. All gasses are real gasses.
If you say so. So the complaint that moist air is not an ideal gas is
moot. Moist air is a real gas just like all gases are real gases.

You loon.
James McGinn
2014-11-17 18:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Quoted in several links, INCLUDING AVOGADRO'S OWN WORK, which you ignored.
It never ceases to amaze me the length people go to continue believing.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nope. That's your OWN imagining. Read Avogadro's own work. Read the
other articles about Avogadro's law already provided.
They obviously disagree with YOUR OWN MADE-UP IDEA of Avogadro's work.
The fact that you would make up what Avogadro's law pertains to, without
reference to Avogadro's own work OR the data that supports it, is just
the kind of thing that cranks do.
Remember the internet doesn't provide us access to your imagination, you fraud.
What's to imagine? You click on the link, and you read Avogadro's
original work that comes up in your browser. Which -- the clicking or
the reading -- are you incapable of doing?
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Moot concern. Based on your own made-up conceptions of boiling point,
Based on physical evidence of water's boiling point and complete absence of
evidence to the contrary--as you've demonstrated vividly and repeatedly.
What physical evidence are you referring to?
By the way, what's the boiling point of water at 19,000 meters up?
(63,000 ft?) Do you know? Need a hint how to look it up?
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Avogadro's law, and other things. Whether it's an ideal gas is
IRRELEVANT, because Avogadro's law is an EXPERIMENTAL law that applies
to REAL gases, not ideal gases.
Loons made up the term "real" gasses. It's meaningless. All gasses are real gasses.
If you say so. So the complaint that moist air is not an ideal gas is
moot. Moist air is a real gas just like all gases are real gases.
You loon.
LOL. So the fact that "ideal" and "real" rhyme is your empirical evidence?
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-17 19:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Quoted in several links, INCLUDING AVOGADRO'S OWN WORK, which you ignored.
It never ceases to amaze me the length people go to continue believing.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nope. That's your OWN imagining. Read Avogadro's own work. Read the
other articles about Avogadro's law already provided.
They obviously disagree with YOUR OWN MADE-UP IDEA of Avogadro's work.
The fact that you would make up what Avogadro's law pertains to, without
reference to Avogadro's own work OR the data that supports it, is just
the kind of thing that cranks do.
Remember the internet doesn't provide us access to your imagination, you fraud.
What's to imagine? You click on the link, and you read Avogadro's
original work that comes up in your browser. Which -- the clicking or
the reading -- are you incapable of doing?
What? No answer about which of these you're incapable of doing?
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Moot concern. Based on your own made-up conceptions of boiling point,
Based on physical evidence of water's boiling point and complete absence of
evidence to the contrary--as you've demonstrated vividly and repeatedly.
What physical evidence are you referring to?
By the way, what's the boiling point of water at 19,000 meters up?
(63,000 ft?) Do you know? Need a hint how to look it up?
Need a hint?
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Avogadro's law, and other things. Whether it's an ideal gas is
IRRELEVANT, because Avogadro's law is an EXPERIMENTAL law that applies
to REAL gases, not ideal gases.
Loons made up the term "real" gasses. It's meaningless. All gasses are real gasses.
If you say so. So the complaint that moist air is not an ideal gas is
moot. Moist air is a real gas just like all gases are real gases.
You loon.
LOL. So the fact that "ideal" and "real" rhyme is your empirical evidence?
See Avogadro's paper for cited empirical evidence. See the other links
provided too. Unless you're incapable.
James McGinn
2014-11-17 19:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
LOL. So the fact that "ideal" and "real" rhyme is your empirical evidence?
See Avogadro's paper for cited empirical evidence. See the other links
provided too. Unless you're incapable.
You and I are very different. You can't understand why anyone
would think different from what everybody believes. I can't
understand why anyone would believe something when its sole
basis of supporting evidence is that "everybody believes it."
You are a grain of sand. I am a diamond.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-17 19:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
LOL. So the fact that "ideal" and "real" rhyme is your empirical evidence?
See Avogadro's paper for cited empirical evidence. See the other links
provided too. Unless you're incapable.
You and I are very different. You can't understand why anyone
would think different from what everybody believes. I can't
understand why anyone would believe something when its sole
basis of supporting evidence is that "everybody believes it."
You are a grain of sand. I am a diamond.
LOL. You are a diamond who generates his own concept of what Avogadro's
law says by just "thinking about it" rather that actually reading about
it. You are a diamond who believes the world has missed a serious
problem that arises because of your mistaken idea of what a boiling
point is. You are a diamond who understands, where none of the sand
understands it, that density means the fraction of water to air.

Jim, I hate to tell you this, but you are waaaaaaaaaaaay round the bend
when "I've may have made a mistake" gets turned around in your head to
"I am a diamond." That's a feature exhibited by many a crank --
delusions of persecuted genius.

So that being said, regular people know that it's impossible to remove a
delusional person's delusions with reason or evidence. Delusions don't
respond to reason or evidence. That's why they're called delusions.
That's why you're not worth the time to argue with. Instead, you're just
going to hear a lot of tut-tutting.
torspof
2014-11-17 20:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
LOL. So the fact that "ideal" and "real" rhyme is your empirical evidence?
So that being said, regular people know that it's impossible to remove a
delusional person's delusions with reason or evidence. Delusions don't
respond to reason or evidence. That's why they're called delusions.
That's why you're not worth the time to argue with. Instead, you're just
going to hear a lot of tut-tutting.
yes delusional.

If a person has a delusion, there is absolutely no way, it is imposable
to reason with them about it.

an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite
being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational
argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

so long, Snorting Tomatoes, et. al.

Now, go write another book about laser beams from peoples eyes causing
water storms in the sky.
James McGinn
2014-11-18 05:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by torspof
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite
being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational
argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
So, let me get this straight, you would describe Galileo, Newton,
Einstein and every other scientist that has made a revolutionary
discovery as having displayed symptoms of a "mental disorder?"
Is that what you are saying?

Additionally, are you saying that the assertion that the gaseous
phase of a substance will not exist at temperatures below its
boiling point is an assertion that is, to use your word,
"idiosyncratic?"
sarkonic
2014-11-18 06:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by torspof
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite
being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational
argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
So, let me get this straight, you would describe Galileo, Newton,
Einstein and every other scientist that has made a revolutionary
discovery as having displayed symptoms of a "mental disorder?"
Is that what you are saying?
that is what you are saying.

All of these scientests did the math, comprehensive experiments,
testing, theories, review of peers gained general acceptance as it is
backed up by the data and results and can be verified independently by
others, these were not contradicted but verified and implemented.

however, in your case, you hold fast to an idiosyncratic belief or
impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what
is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, additionally, you
have presented
no data,
no experimentation,
no math,
no review of peers, and
no acceptance of being in reality, and
yours is an irrational argument,
which typically a symptom of mental disorder.
Post by James McGinn
Additionally, are you saying that the assertion that the gaseous
phase of a substance will not exist at temperatures below its
boiling point is an assertion that is, to use your word,
"idiosyncratic?"
Those are your simplistic words, not mine.

You left out the demention of pressure, and the type of substance, and
its phase diagram

wiki water phase diagram here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram

google "CO2 phase diagram" and you will find gaseous phase exists below
its boiling point, where it sublimes.

we really cannot educate you here, you are too far down the curve. If
you are interested in this stuff, ask for some key books to read, and go
read them. your trolling makes you look stupid.
James McGinn
2014-11-18 08:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by sarkonic
Post by James McGinn
Post by torspof
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite
being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational
argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
So, let me get this straight, you would describe Galileo, Newton,
Einstein and every other scientist that has made a revolutionary
discovery as having displayed symptoms of a "mental disorder?"
Is that what you are saying?
that is what you are saying.
All of these scientests did the math, comprehensive experiments,
testing, theories, review of peers gained general acceptance as it is
backed up by the data and results and can be verified independently by
others, these were not contradicted but verified and implemented.
But that's not what you said above. Would you like to make a retraction?
Post by sarkonic
however, in your case, you hold fast to an idiosyncratic belief or
impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what
is generally accepted as reality or rational argument,
So, you consider the fact that something is "generally accepted," is evidence that it exists?
Post by sarkonic
additionally, you
have presented
no data,
no experimentation,
no math,
And the same is true for "cold steam." Right?
Post by sarkonic
no review of peers, and
LOL. What data did the reviewer's review? Your imagination?
Post by sarkonic
no acceptance of being in reality, and
Do you believe in the tooth fairy also. Afterall, the existence of the tooth fairy is widely accepted. Right?
Post by sarkonic
yours is an irrational argument,
Is it rational to believe in something for which you have no evidence?
Post by sarkonic
which typically a symptom of mental disorder.
Post by James McGinn
Additionally, are you saying that the assertion that the gaseous
phase of a substance will not exist at temperatures below its
boiling point is an assertion that is, to use your word,
"idiosyncratic?"
Those are your simplistic words, not mine.
You left out the demention of pressure, and the type of substance, and
its phase diagram
wiki water phase diagram here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram
google "CO2 phase diagram" and you will find gaseous phase exists below
its boiling point, where it sublimes.
Keep in mind the internet does not provide us access to your imagination.
Post by sarkonic
we really cannot educate you here, you are too far down the curve. If
you are interested in this stuff, ask for some key books to read, and go
read them. your trolling makes you look stupid.
Explain to us how you know something for which you have zero evidence.
sarkonic
2014-11-18 14:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by sarkonic
All of these scientests did the math, comprehensive experiments,
testing, theories, review of peers gained general acceptance as it
is backed up by the data and results and can be verified
independently by others, these were not contradicted but verified
and implemented.
But that's not what you said above. Would you like to make a
retraction?
you said that, and it is too late for you to "retract", now everyone
knows that you do not know science history at all, either.
Post by James McGinn
Post by sarkonic
however, in your case, you hold fast to an idiosyncratic belief or
impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by
what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument,
So, you consider the fact that something is "generally accepted," is
evidence that it exists?
is your "stuff" generally accepted ? Rational ? Reality ? no.
Post by James McGinn
Post by sarkonic
additionally, you have presented no data, no experimentation, no
math,
And the same is true for "cold steam." Right?
How Cold ?
Post by James McGinn
Post by sarkonic
no review of peers, and
LOL. What data did the reviewer's review? Your imagination?
it is your imagination,
try reading carefully,
you are forgetting the subject.

additionally, you
have presented
no data,
no experimentation,
no math,
no peer review
Post by James McGinn
Post by sarkonic
no acceptance of being in reality, and
Do you believe in the tooth fairy also. Afterall, the existence of
the tooth fairy is widely accepted. Right?
you exist in alt.fairy.tail.land, this is sci.physics
the munging together of disparate subjects is typical of stoners, try
cutting back on that smoke-um dope-um.
Post by James McGinn
Post by sarkonic
yours is an irrational argument,
Is it rational to believe in something for which you have no
evidence?
you are hung up "believe". can you define what you think it means ?
Post by James McGinn
Post by sarkonic
which typically a symptom of mental disorder.
Post by James McGinn
Additionally, are you saying that the assertion that the gaseous
phase of a substance will not exist at temperatures below its
boiling point is an assertion that is, to use your word,
"idiosyncratic?"
Those are your simplistic words, not mine.
You left out the demention of pressure, and the type of substance,
and its phase diagram
wiki water phase diagram here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram
google "CO2 phase diagram" and you will find gaseous phase exists
below its boiling point, where it sublimes.
Keep in mind the internet does not provide us access to your
imagination.
giving up so soon ? you are projecting again; and you post your
imagination, write fake science books about your beliefs in your
imagination. But that is OK, just call it Science Fiction.
Post by James McGinn
Post by sarkonic
we really cannot educate you here, you are too far down the curve.
If you are interested in this stuff, ask for some key books to
read, and go read them. your trolling makes you look stupid.
Explain to us how you know something for which you have zero
evidence.
I told you before, **do your own work** (your projecting again)
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-18 14:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by torspof
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite
being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational
argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
So, let me get this straight, you would describe Galileo, Newton,
Einstein and every other scientist that has made a revolutionary
discovery as having displayed symptoms of a "mental disorder?"
Is that what you are saying?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
McGinn is now comparing himself to Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. That's
a lot of points on the Crank Index.
McGinn is also under the impression that Galileo, Newton, and Einstein
got to their conclusions by "just thinking about things" and that they
dismissed experimental assertions as just unsupported beliefs that had
to be replaced by revolutionary ideas.
Post by James McGinn
Additionally, are you saying that the assertion that the gaseous
phase of a substance will not exist at temperatures below its
boiling point is an assertion that is, to use your word,
"idiosyncratic?"
Yeah, pretty idiosyncratic alright.
James McGinn
2014-11-18 14:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by torspof
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite
being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational
argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
So, let me get this straight, you would describe Galileo, Newton,
Einstein and every other scientist that has made a revolutionary
discovery as having displayed symptoms of a "mental disorder?"
Is that what you are saying?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
McGinn is now comparing himself to Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. That's
a lot of points on the Crank Index.
So, by your own admission, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would rank high in your "crank index." Right?
Post by Odd Bodkin
McGinn is also under the impression that Galileo, Newton, and Einstein
got to their conclusions by "just thinking about things" and that they
dismissed experimental assertions as just unsupported beliefs that had
to be replaced by revolutionary ideas.
LOL. What experimental evidence are you accusing me of ignoring. That
that can can only be found in your mysteriously missing junior high school
textbooks?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Additionally, are you saying that the assertion that the gaseous
phase of a substance will not exist at temperatures below its
boiling point is an assertion that is, to use your word,
"idiosyncratic?"
Yeah, pretty idiosyncratic alright.
You've declined my invitation to describe the magic that allows H2O's polarity to be turned off when it encounters gaseous air. One can only wonder what you might envision--Pixie dust?
sarkonic
2014-11-18 15:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Post by torspof
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained
despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as
reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental
disorder.
So, let me get this straight, you would describe Galileo,
Newton, Einstein and every other scientist that has made a
revolutionary discovery as having displayed symptoms of a "mental
disorder?" Is that what you are saying?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. McGinn is now comparing himself to
Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. That's a lot of points on the Crank
Index.
So, by your own admission, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would rank
high in your "crank index." Right?
Read it more closely for the first time, he says YOU have earned lots of
points on the Crank index, probably about 20, congratulations!

don't worry, nobody takes you seriously here, the only thing you will be
is a crank, and you have no science background.

to be more successful, Mr. Horse, try posting in

alt.sci.fiction
alt.water.does.not.evaporate
alt.cold.steam.on.you.mama
Post by James McGinn
McGinn is also under the impression that Galileo, Newton, and
Einstein got to their conclusions by "just thinking about things"
and that they dismissed experimental assertions as just unsupported
beliefs that had to be replaced by revolutionary ideas.
LOL. What experimental evidence are you accusing me of ignoring.
That that can can only be found in your mysteriously missing junior
high school textbooks?
Cold Steam. How Cold ? no run along and find these books.
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Additionally, are you saying that the assertion that the gaseous
phase of a substance will not exist at temperatures below its
boiling point is an assertion that is, to use your word,
"idiosyncratic?"
Yeah, pretty idiosyncratic alright.
You've declined my invitation to describe the magic that allows H2O's
polarity to be turned off when it encounters gaseous air. One can
only wonder what you might envision--Pixie dust?
you state you use magic to switch off H20 Molecules, do you use a wand ?
James McGinn
2014-11-18 15:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by sarkonic
Post by James McGinn
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. McGinn is now comparing himself to
Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. That's a lot of points on the Crank
Index.
So, by your own admission, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would rank
high in your "crank index." Right?
Read it more closely for the first time, he says YOU have earned lots of
points on the Crank index, probably about 20, congratulations!
How many more do I need to catch up with Galileo, Newton, and Einstein?
sarkonic
2014-11-18 15:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by sarkonic
Post by James McGinn
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. McGinn is now comparing himself to
Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. That's a lot of points on the Crank
Index.
So, by your own admission, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would rank
high in your "crank index." Right?
Read it more closely for the first time, he says YOU have earned lots of
points on the Crank index, probably about 20, congratulations!
How many more do I need to catch up with Galileo, Newton, and Einstein?
well, you in special category.

because you say you believe in magic and use a wand to turn on and off
water H2O molecules near boiling so they don't get hurt, or cause that
nasty cold steam, or even (holyshitBATMAN) "density" !

And you refuse to present any math or science for your ideas, so you got
reclassified as a non-intelligent horse with a minor in Sci-Fi moron
crank troll. No retractions on your part will be accepted. The decision
is final, there is no appeal.
Post by James McGinn
You've declined my invitation to describe the magic that allows H2O's
polarity to be turned off when it encounters gaseous air. One can
only wonder what you might envision--Pixie dust?
you state you use magic to switch off H20 Molecules, do you use a wand ?
James McGinn
2014-11-18 16:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by sarkonic
Post by James McGinn
Post by sarkonic
Post by James McGinn
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. McGinn is now comparing himself to
Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. That's a lot of points on the Crank
Index.
So, by your own admission, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would rank
high in your "crank index." Right?
Read it more closely for the first time, he says YOU have earned lots of
points on the Crank index, probably about 20, congratulations!
How many more do I need to catch up with Galileo, Newton, and Einstein?
well, you in special category.
because you say you believe in magic and use a wand to turn on and off
water H2O molecules near boiling so they don't get hurt, or cause that
nasty cold steam, or even (holyshitBATMAN) "density" !
And you refuse to present any math or science for your ideas, so you got
reclassified as a non-intelligent horse with a minor in Sci-Fi moron
crank troll. No retractions on your part will be accepted. The decision
is final, there is no appeal.
Post by James McGinn
You've declined my invitation to describe the magic that allows H2O's
polarity to be turned off when it encounters gaseous air. One can
only wonder what you might envision--Pixie dust?
you state you use magic to switch off H20 Molecules, do you use a wand ?
Just think. If you had actual evidence of your magical cold steam then you wouldn't have any need at all to resort to stories about horses and crank indexes.

Maybe if you spent less time trying to distract our audience from the fact that you have failed to support your assertion you'd have time to, well, find your mysteriously missing evidence.

Keep looking.

Also, while your are at it, keep an eye out for the holy grail. A lot of people are looking for that.
sarkonic
2014-11-18 16:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by sarkonic
Post by James McGinn
Post by sarkonic
Post by James McGinn
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. McGinn is now comparing himself
to Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. That's a lot of points on
the Crank Index.
So, by your own admission, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein
would rank high in your "crank index." Right?
Read it more closely for the first time, he says YOU have
earned lots of points on the Crank index, probably about 20,
congratulations!
How many more do I need to catch up with Galileo, Newton, and Einstein?
well, you in special category.
because you say you believe in magic and use a wand to turn on and
off water H2O molecules near boiling so they don't get hurt, or
cause that nasty cold steam, or even (holyshitBATMAN) "density" !
And you refuse to present any math or science for your ideas, so
you got reclassified as a non-intelligent horse with a minor in
Sci-Fi moron crank troll. No retractions on your part will be
accepted. The decision is final, there is no appeal.
Post by James McGinn
You've declined my invitation to describe the magic that allows
H2O's polarity to be turned off when it encounters gaseous air.
One can only wonder what you might envision--Pixie dust?
you state you use magic to switch off H20 Molecules, do you use a wand ?
Just think. If you had actual evidence of your magical cold steam
then you wouldn't have any need at all to resort to stories about
horses and crank indexes.
it is YOUR magic steam molecules with remote switches on them you
control by your wand.

cold steam on lake;
http://blogs.burlingtonfreepress.com/weather/2012/01/16/vermont-yo-yo-winter-to-continue/

cold steam also is fog
Post by James McGinn
Maybe if you spent less time trying to distract our audience from the
fact that you have failed to support your assertion you'd have time
to, well, find your mysteriously missing evidence.
you are projecting again; (re-worded to what you thought;)

" Maybe if I spent less time trying to distract our audience from the
fact that I have failed to support my assertion I'd have time
to, well, find my mysteriously missing evidence. "
Post by James McGinn
Keep looking.
Also, while your are at it, keep an eye out for the holy grail. A
lot of people are looking for that.
no, they found that in a movie.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-18 15:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by torspof
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite
being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational
argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
So, let me get this straight, you would describe Galileo, Newton,
Einstein and every other scientist that has made a revolutionary
discovery as having displayed symptoms of a "mental disorder?"
Is that what you are saying?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
McGinn is now comparing himself to Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. That's
a lot of points on the Crank Index.
So, by your own admission, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would rank high in
your "crank index." Right?
Uh, no. None of them compared themselves to the others.
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
McGinn is also under the impression that Galileo, Newton, and Einstein
got to their conclusions by "just thinking about things" and that they
dismissed experimental assertions as just unsupported beliefs that had
to be replaced by revolutionary ideas.
LOL. What experimental evidence are you accusing me of ignoring. That
that can can only be found in your mysteriously missing junior high school
textbooks?
Oh dear. I didn't say anything about junior high school textbooks.
You are looping, James, going over old ground already addressed.
Did you have an episode? Did a reset button get hit?
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Additionally, are you saying that the assertion that the gaseous
phase of a substance will not exist at temperatures below its
boiling point is an assertion that is, to use your word,
"idiosyncratic?"
Yeah, pretty idiosyncratic alright.
You've declined my invitation to describe the magic that allows H2O's polarity
to be turned off when it encounters gaseous air. One can only wonder what
you might envision--Pixie dust?
Wonder away. Or read. Your choice. No one can force you. Stop inviting
people to try to make you.
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-23 07:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by torspof
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite
being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational
argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
So, let me get this straight, you would describe Galileo, Newton,
Einstein and every other scientist that has made a revolutionary
discovery as having displayed symptoms of a "mental disorder?"
Is that what you are saying?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
McGinn is now comparing himself to Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. That's
a lot of points on the Crank Index.
So, by your own admission, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would rank high in
your "crank index." Right?
Uh, no. None of them compared themselves to the others.
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
McGinn is also under the impression that Galileo, Newton, and Einstein
got to their conclusions by "just thinking about things" and that they
dismissed experimental assertions as just unsupported beliefs that had
to be replaced by revolutionary ideas.
LOL. What experimental evidence are you accusing me of ignoring. That
that can can only be found in your mysteriously missing junior high school
textbooks?
Oh dear. I didn't say anything about junior high school textbooks.
You are looping, James, going over old ground already addressed.
Did you have an episode? Did a reset button get hit?
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Additionally, are you saying that the assertion that the gaseous
phase of a substance will not exist at temperatures below its
boiling point is an assertion that is, to use your word,
"idiosyncratic?"
Yeah, pretty idiosyncratic alright.
You've declined my invitation to describe the magic that allows H2O's polarity
to be turned off when it encounters gaseous air. One can only wonder what
you might envision--Pixie dust?
Wonder away. Or read. Your choice. No one can force you. Stop inviting
people to try to make you.
You've declined my invitation to describe the magic that allows H2O's polarity to be turned off when it encounters gaseous air. One can only wonder what you might envision--Pixie dust?
Jamie soltor
2014-11-23 17:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/23/2014 1:39 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
On 11/23/2014 1:23 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:

James McGinn or Solvent Tornadtoes solvingtornadoes, or Julius Denk or
Claudius Denk is Troll of the Meth clan. A troll since 2006 in
sci.environment, he now out of office technician work he suffers
from advanced simia cogitans.

Do Not bother repling to this guy,
**ALL** his marbles are loose, and he is only here to argue.

HE IS ONLY HERE TO ARGUE.

Jim McGinn in his Book “Solving Tornadoes: Mastering the Mystery of the
Vortex” represents ‘the beginning of the end’ of what little
rationality mankind was capable of applying to any given
subject. McGinn represents an unusually high order of the Dunning-Kruger
effect seldom seen in ‘modern’ internet work; What other
authors are to Chemtrails and HAARP mind control Jim McGinn is to
understanding (or mis-understanding) tornadoes … To cite Jim McGinn as
an idiot or a moron is to slight idiots and morons.

from wiki: Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill,
incompetent people will:
fail to recognize their own lack of skill;
fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they
are exposed to training for that skill.[5]

***James McGinn RETRACTION OF HIS TROLL BOOK !! He is proved a
plagiarist, and the book is gobblygook

nonsense **by his own admission **

Quote JM;

Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.

The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.

You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.

My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something.
*********************************************
Book review1 1.0 out of 5 stars insane rambling July 3, 2014 By K.
Parker - The author believes that elementary concepts,

which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and
Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological
conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very
basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due
to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release).
Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a
mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and
unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally
without merit.

Book Review2 1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of time, a non-funny joke July
16, 2014 By hunter - This book misleads the reader on basic physical
concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics,and offers a silly
idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with
reality. It solves nothing but does offer away to waste time and money
buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the
age of inexpensive self publishing.


***Here are more of James McGinn or Soilent Potatoes troll posts as follows;

I am diamond.

Address the issue in the subject heading or kindly go away.

Try to imagine how our audience might view this conversation.
They are going to be left wondering why it is you don't just
supply the evidence that you claim to be so prevalent.

When believers can't find confirming evidence they just
believe harder.

You can't get any more basic than comprehending the difference between a
boiling point and evaporation. If you are confused

on that issue there isn't much anybody can do for you.

So, why do you think they are hiding this data from us?

Why do you think it is that you are the only person on earth that knows
this?

Okay . . . present your argument.

Or, you could just make a retraction.

I'm not a mind reader, if that is what you mean.

I believe I am right. But I don't claim I know I am right. Nor do I
lie and claim that the experiment has already been done, or

that it can be found in a textbook or that it was done by over 200 years
ago.

Most people believe whatever is easiest or most convenient to believe.
And, as you have demonstrated vividly, once they believe

it it's just about impossible to get them to stop believing it.

Thank you for helping me perfectly exemplify the point of this thread:
Humans are Stupid, Lazy, and Intellectually Dishonest . . .
. . . When it Comes to Challenges to Their Science Based Beliefs

I hope that if you should ever come across this, "easily obtainable"
background information that you don't hesitate to spoonfeed

it to the rest of us.

So, why do you think it is that only you can see this "easily
obtainable" background information?

( Now folks, do you see that METH IS BAD ? )

Don't feel bad, you are only human.

You mean alleged resources. Remember, the resources you are
accusing me of not finding are resources for which you
failed to provide a reference. Right?

If you can't distinguish between "basics" and superstitions
you are worthless as a scientist.

Remember, humans are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing
between what they believe and what they know. This is the
reason scientific methods (which you ignore) were developed
for the sciences and why rules of evidence were developed for
our legal system.

On 11/23/2014 12:22 AM, Solving Tornadoes pooped:

Just think. If I had actual evidence of your magical cold steam
then I wouldn't have any need at all to resort to stories about
horses and crank indexes.

Maybe if I spent less time trying to distract my audience from the
fact that I have failed to support my assertion I'd have time
to, well, find my mysteriously missing evidence.

Keep looking.

Also, while your are at it, keep an eye out for the holy grail. A
lot of people are looking for that.

I haven't dropped any claims. Don't confuse you with a character in my
book. And you goons haven't provided any references.
HORSE (is horse James McGinn et al ? hell yes.)

A man had a horse that wasn't very bright. The horse also wasn't very
productive, even though it seemed to think very highly of itself.

One day the horse looked very dehydrated, so the man filled a nearby
water trough. The horse did not move but looked more thirsty than ever.

The man led the horse to the water, even though he knew the saying. The
horse looked down at the trough, then turned away from the trough,
looking at the man instead.

The horse then brayed "The world is full of people like you that can't
distinguish water they know is there and water they believe is there,"
and then "If you believed that there is water in the trough,then one
would think you'd make a cogent argument to that effect," and then "You
are nothing but a grain of sand. I am a diamond."

The man, though astounded that a horse that stupid could talk, turned
and walked away, leaving the horse to fend for itself.
What experimental assertions? The ones in some textbook that you can't
find?
S***@hotmail.com
2014-11-18 23:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
ah, yeah

ow its
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
boiling point is an assertion that is, to use your word,
"idiosyncratic?"
Yeah, pretty idiosyncratic alright.
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-23 07:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by torspof
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite
being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational
argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
So, let me get this straight, you would describe Galileo, Newton,
Einstein and every other scientist that has made a revolutionary
discovery as having displayed symptoms of a "mental disorder?"
Is that what you are saying?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
McGinn is now comparing himself to Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. That's
a lot of points on the Crank Index.
McGinn is also under the impression that Galileo, Newton, and Einstein
got to their conclusions by "just thinking about things" and that they
dismissed experimental assertions as just unsupported beliefs that had
to be replaced by revolutionary ideas.
What experimental assertions? The ones in some textbook that you can't find?
Jamie soltor
2014-11-23 07:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Troll Alert !! James McGinn or Solvent Tornadtoes solvingtornadoes, or
Julius Denk or Claudius Denk is Troll of the Meth clan. A troll since
2006 in sci.environment, he now out of office technician work he suffers
from advanced simia cogitans.

Do Not bother repling to this guy,
**ALL** his marbles are loose, and he is only here to argue.

HE IS ONLY HERE TO ARGUE.

Jim McGinn in his Book “Solving Tornadoes: Mastering the Mystery of the
Vortex” represents ‘the beginning of the end’ of what little
rationality mankind was capable of applying to any given
subject. McGinn represents an unusually high order of the Dunning-Kruger
effect seldom seen in ‘modern’ internet work; What other
authors are to Chemtrails and HAARP mind control Jim McGinn is to
understanding (or mis-understanding) tornadoes … To cite Jim McGinn as
an idiot or a moron is to slight idiots and morons.

from wiki: Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill,
incompetent people will:
fail to recognize their own lack of skill;
fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they
are exposed to training for that skill.[5]

***James McGinn RETRACTION OF HIS TROLL BOOK !! He is proved a
plagiarist, and the book is gobblygook

nonsense **by his own admission **

Quote JM;

Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.

The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.

You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.

My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something.
*********************************************
Book review1 1.0 out of 5 stars insane rambling July 3, 2014 By K.
Parker - The author believes that elementary concepts,

which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and
Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological
conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very
basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due
to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release).
Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a
mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and
unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally
without merit.

Book Review2 1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of time, a non-funny joke July
16, 2014 By hunter - This book misleads the reader on basic physical
concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics,and offers a silly
idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with
reality. It solves nothing but does offer away to waste time and money
buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the
age of inexpensive self publishing.


***Here are more of James McGinn or Soilent Potatoes troll posts as follows;

I am diamond.

Address the issue in the subject heading or kindly go away.

Try to imagine how our audience might view this conversation.
They are going to be left wondering why it is you don't just
supply the evidence that you claim to be so prevalent.

When believers can't find confirming evidence they just
believe harder.

You can't get any more basic than comprehending the difference between a
boiling point and evaporation. If you are confused

on that issue there isn't much anybody can do for you.

So, why do you think they are hiding this data from us?

Why do you think it is that you are the only person on earth that knows
this?

Okay . . . present your argument.

Or, you could just make a retraction.

I'm not a mind reader, if that is what you mean.

I believe I am right. But I don't claim I know I am right. Nor do I
lie and claim that the experiment has already been done, or

that it can be found in a textbook or that it was done by over 200 years
ago.

Most people believe whatever is easiest or most convenient to believe.
And, as you have demonstrated vividly, once they believe

it it's just about impossible to get them to stop believing it.

Thank you for helping me perfectly exemplify the point of this thread:
Humans are Stupid, Lazy, and Intellectually Dishonest . . .
. . . When it Comes to Challenges to Their Science Based Beliefs

I hope that if you should ever come across this, "easily obtainable"
background information that you don't hesitate to spoonfeed

it to the rest of us.

So, why do you think it is that only you can see this "easily
obtainable" background information?

( Now folks, do you see that METH IS BAD ? )

Don't feel bad, you are only human.

You mean alleged resources. Remember, the resources you are
accusing me of not finding are resources for which you
failed to provide a reference. Right?

If you can't distinguish between "basics" and superstitions
you are worthless as a scientist.

Remember, humans are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing
between what they believe and what they know. This is the
reason scientific methods (which you ignore) were developed
for the sciences and why rules of evidence were developed for
our legal system.

On 11/23/2014 12:22 AM, Solving Tornadoes pooped:

Just think. If I had actual evidence of your magical cold steam
then I wouldn't have any need at all to resort to stories about
horses and crank indexes.

Maybe if I spent less time trying to distract my audience from the
fact that I have failed to support my assertion I'd have time
to, well, find my mysteriously missing evidence.

Keep looking.

Also, while your are at it, keep an eye out for the holy grail. A
lot of people are looking for that.

I haven't dropped any claims. Don't confuse you with a character in my
book. And you goons haven't provided any references.
HORSE (is horse James McGinn et al ? hell yes.)

A man had a horse that wasn't very bright. The horse also wasn't very
productive, even though it seemed to think very highly of itself.

One day the horse looked very dehydrated, so the man filled a nearby
water trough. The horse did not move but looked more thirsty than ever.

The man led the horse to the water, even though he knew the saying. The
horse looked down at the trough, then turned away from the trough,
looking at the man instead.

The horse then brayed "The world is full of people like you that can't
distinguish water they know is there and water they believe is there,"
and then "If you believed that there is water in the trough,then one
would think you'd make a cogent argument to that effect," and then "You
are nothing but a grain of sand. I am a diamond."

The man, though astounded that a horse that stupid could talk, turned
and walked away, leaving the horse to fend for itself.
On 11/23/2014 1:23 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: What experimental
assertions? The ones in some textbook that you can't
find?
S***@hotmail.com
2014-11-17 22:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
air at the dewpoint has a lot of extra leeway for all sorts
of problems, depending upon a)
the temperature and b)
the relative humidity
Post by Odd Bodkin
So that being said, regular people know that it's impossible to remove a
delusional person's delusions with reason or evidence. Delusions don't
respond to reason or evidence. That's why they're called delusions.
That's why you're not worth the time to argue with. Instead, you're just
going to hear a lot of tut-tutting.
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-18 17:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Quoted in several links, INCLUDING AVOGADRO'S OWN WORK, which you ignored.
It never ceases to amaze me the length people go to continue believing.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nope. That's your OWN imagining. Read Avogadro's own work. Read the
other articles about Avogadro's law already provided.
They obviously disagree with YOUR OWN MADE-UP IDEA of Avogadro's work.
The fact that you would make up what Avogadro's law pertains to, without
reference to Avogadro's own work OR the data that supports it, is just
the kind of thing that cranks do.
Remember the internet doesn't provide us access to your imagination, you fraud.
What's to imagine? You click on the link, and you read Avogadro's
original work that comes up in your browser. Which -- the clicking or
the reading -- are you incapable of doing?
You don't have a coherent argument.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Moot concern. Based on your own made-up conceptions of boiling point,
Based on physical evidence of water's boiling point and complete absence of
evidence to the contrary--as you've demonstrated vividly and repeatedly.
What physical evidence are you referring to?
By the way, what's the boiling point of water at 19,000 meters up?
(63,000 ft?) Do you know? Need a hint how to look it up?
Relevance?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Avogadro's law, and other things. Whether it's an ideal gas is
IRRELEVANT, because Avogadro's law is an EXPERIMENTAL law that applies
to REAL gases, not ideal gases.
Loons made up the term "real" gasses. It's meaningless. All gasses are real gasses.
If you say so. So the complaint that moist air is not an ideal gas is
moot. Moist air is a real gas just like all gases are real gases.
You loon.
You're so dingy you hardly know what you are saying from one post to the next.
torspof
2014-11-17 18:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Quoted in several links, INCLUDING AVOGADRO'S OWN WORK, which you ignored.
<snip crap>
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nope. That's your OWN imagining. Read Avogadro's own work. Read
the other articles about Avogadro's law already provided. They
obviously disagree with YOUR OWN MADE-UP IDEA of Avogadro's work.
The fact that you would make up what Avogadro's law pertains to,
without reference to Avogadro's own work OR the data that supports
it, is just the kind of thing that cranks do.
<snip crap>
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Moot concern. Based on your own made-up conceptions of boiling point,
<snip crap>
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Avogadro's law, and other things. Whether it's an ideal gas is
IRRELEVANT, because Avogadro's law is an EXPERIMENTAL law that
applies to REAL gases, not ideal gases.
Loons made up the term "real" gasses. It's meaningless. All gasses are real gasses.
is that what your Bong is telling you ?
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-18 17:14:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Post by Odd Bodkin
What I said above again is that Avogadro's law is about GASES. Not just
ideal gases.
Evidence?
Quoted in several links, INCLUDING AVOGADRO'S OWN WORK, which you ignored.
Everything you posted confirmed my point. I have no dispute with Avogadro. I have a dispute with con artists that put words in Avogadro's mouth.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Post by Odd Bodkin
Including moist air. Very moist air. Avogadro's observations were
true even for moist air. Now, what the hell does moist air not being an
idea gas have to do with it? Avogadro's law still applies for moist air.
His statements about gases weren't even about ideal gases. They were for
GASES, period.
The reason you will NEVER find any evidence to support this assertion is
because it is plainly and obviously absurd. Avogadro's law is applicable to
ideal gasses ONLY!!!
Nope. That's your OWN imagining. Read Avogadro's own work. Read the
other articles about Avogadro's law already provided.
They obviously disagree with YOUR OWN MADE-UP IDEA of Avogadro's work.
The fact that you would make up what Avogadro's law pertains to, without
reference to Avogadro's own work OR the data that supports it, is just
the kind of thing that cranks do.
I wonder why only you can see it?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Below it's boiling point not only is H2O not an ideal gas it's not a
gas at all.
Moot concern. Based on your own made-up conceptions of boiling point,
Avogadro's law, and other things. Whether it's an ideal gas is
IRRELEVANT, because Avogadro's law is an EXPERIMENTAL law that applies
to REAL gases, not ideal gases.
And the fact that you cannot quote Avogadro on this assertion concerns you not in the least? Right?
James McGinn
2016-04-24 02:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Post by Odd Bodkin
What I said above again is that Avogadro's law is about GASES. Not just
ideal gases.
Evidence?
Quoted in several links, INCLUDING AVOGADRO'S OWN WORK, which you ignored.
Everything you posted confirmed my point. I have no dispute with Avogadro. I have a dispute with con artists that put words in Avogadro's mouth.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Post by Odd Bodkin
Including moist air. Very moist air. Avogadro's observations were
true even for moist air. Now, what the hell does moist air not being an
idea gas have to do with it? Avogadro's law still applies for moist air.
His statements about gases weren't even about ideal gases. They were for
GASES, period.
The reason you will NEVER find any evidence to support this assertion is
because it is plainly and obviously absurd. Avogadro's law is applicable to
ideal gasses ONLY!!!
Nope. That's your OWN imagining. Read Avogadro's own work. Read the
other articles about Avogadro's law already provided.
They obviously disagree with YOUR OWN MADE-UP IDEA of Avogadro's work.
The fact that you would make up what Avogadro's law pertains to, without
reference to Avogadro's own work OR the data that supports it, is just
the kind of thing that cranks do.
I wonder why only you can see it?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Below it's boiling point not only is H2O not an ideal gas it's not a
gas at all.
Moot concern. Based on your own made-up conceptions of boiling point,
Avogadro's law, and other things. Whether it's an ideal gas is
IRRELEVANT, because Avogadro's law is an EXPERIMENTAL law that applies
to REAL gases, not ideal gases.
And the fact that you cannot quote Avogadro on this assertion concerns you not in the least? Right?
LOL. Answer the question you evasive twit.
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-23 07:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by benj
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else. His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart.
If I hadn't experienced it first hand I would have never believed
you. Never. It's surreal. It's like talking to somebody from a
different universe.
Post on 11/10/2014, including Avogadro's original work. You are living
in a fantasy world, where things that do not go your way simply go unseen.
You can't say I didn't give you multiple opportunities to explain the relevance of your references to Avogadro. Right?
Jamie soltor
2014-11-23 17:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/23/2014 1:35 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
On 11/23/2014 1:23 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:

James McGinn or Solvent Tornadtoes solvingtornadoes, or Julius Denk or
Claudius Denk is Troll of the Meth clan. A troll since 2006 in
sci.environment, he now out of office technician work he suffers
from advanced simia cogitans.

Do Not bother repling to this guy,
**ALL** his marbles are loose, and he is only here to argue.

HE IS ONLY HERE TO ARGUE.

Jim McGinn in his Book “Solving Tornadoes: Mastering the Mystery of the
Vortex” represents ‘the beginning of the end’ of what little
rationality mankind was capable of applying to any given
subject. McGinn represents an unusually high order of the Dunning-Kruger
effect seldom seen in ‘modern’ internet work; What other
authors are to Chemtrails and HAARP mind control Jim McGinn is to
understanding (or mis-understanding) tornadoes … To cite Jim McGinn as
an idiot or a moron is to slight idiots and morons.

from wiki: Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill,
incompetent people will:
fail to recognize their own lack of skill;
fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they
are exposed to training for that skill.[5]

***James McGinn RETRACTION OF HIS TROLL BOOK !! He is proved a
plagiarist, and the book is gobblygook

nonsense **by his own admission **

Quote JM;

Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.

The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.

You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.

My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something.
*********************************************
Book review1 1.0 out of 5 stars insane rambling July 3, 2014 By K.
Parker - The author believes that elementary concepts,

which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and
Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological
conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very
basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due
to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release).
Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a
mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and
unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally
without merit.

Book Review2 1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of time, a non-funny joke July
16, 2014 By hunter - This book misleads the reader on basic physical
concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics,and offers a silly
idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with
reality. It solves nothing but does offer away to waste time and money
buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the
age of inexpensive self publishing.


***Here are more of James McGinn or Soilent Potatoes troll posts as follows;

I am diamond.

Address the issue in the subject heading or kindly go away.

Try to imagine how our audience might view this conversation.
They are going to be left wondering why it is you don't just
supply the evidence that you claim to be so prevalent.

When believers can't find confirming evidence they just
believe harder.

You can't get any more basic than comprehending the difference between a
boiling point and evaporation. If you are confused

on that issue there isn't much anybody can do for you.

So, why do you think they are hiding this data from us?

Why do you think it is that you are the only person on earth that knows
this?

Okay . . . present your argument.

Or, you could just make a retraction.

I'm not a mind reader, if that is what you mean.

I believe I am right. But I don't claim I know I am right. Nor do I
lie and claim that the experiment has already been done, or

that it can be found in a textbook or that it was done by over 200 years
ago.

Most people believe whatever is easiest or most convenient to believe.
And, as you have demonstrated vividly, once they believe

it it's just about impossible to get them to stop believing it.

Thank you for helping me perfectly exemplify the point of this thread:
Humans are Stupid, Lazy, and Intellectually Dishonest . . .
. . . When it Comes to Challenges to Their Science Based Beliefs

I hope that if you should ever come across this, "easily obtainable"
background information that you don't hesitate to spoonfeed

it to the rest of us.

So, why do you think it is that only you can see this "easily
obtainable" background information?

( Now folks, do you see that METH IS BAD ? )

Don't feel bad, you are only human.

You mean alleged resources. Remember, the resources you are
accusing me of not finding are resources for which you
failed to provide a reference. Right?

If you can't distinguish between "basics" and superstitions
you are worthless as a scientist.

Remember, humans are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing
between what they believe and what they know. This is the
reason scientific methods (which you ignore) were developed
for the sciences and why rules of evidence were developed for
our legal system.

On 11/23/2014 12:22 AM, Solving Tornadoes pooped:

Just think. If I had actual evidence of your magical cold steam
then I wouldn't have any need at all to resort to stories about
horses and crank indexes.

Maybe if I spent less time trying to distract my audience from the
fact that I have failed to support my assertion I'd have time
to, well, find my mysteriously missing evidence.

Keep looking.

Also, while your are at it, keep an eye out for the holy grail. A
lot of people are looking for that.

I haven't dropped any claims. Don't confuse you with a character in my
book. And you goons haven't provided any references.
HORSE (is horse James McGinn et al ? hell yes.)

A man had a horse that wasn't very bright. The horse also wasn't very
productive, even though it seemed to think very highly of itself.

One day the horse looked very dehydrated, so the man filled a nearby
water trough. The horse did not move but looked more thirsty than ever.

The man led the horse to the water, even though he knew the saying. The
horse looked down at the trough, then turned away from the trough,
looking at the man instead.

The horse then brayed "The world is full of people like you that can't
distinguish water they know is there and water they believe is there,"
and then "If you believed that there is water in the trough,then one
would think you'd make a cogent argument to that effect," and then "You
are nothing but a grain of sand. I am a diamond."

The man, though astounded that a horse that stupid could talk, turned
and walked away, leaving the horse to fend for itself.
What experimental assertions? The ones in some textbook that you can't
find?



I can't say you didn't give me multiple opportunities to explain the
relevance of my references to Avogadro. Wrong?
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-13 15:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Scientists debate the science. Trolls debate the scientist.
You haven't brought science. You've brought
profound ignorance of science.
If that is what you believe one can only wonder why you don't make a
substantive argument to that effect.
Already done.
You have a short memory about embarrassments.
Density's definition ring a bell? How about Avogadro's law and the fact
that particle size has nothing to do with it?
You tried to claim that Avogadro didn't realize that H2O isn't an ideal gas.
Oh bullshit.
If anything, you're trying to both claim that Avogadro's law supports
your case and that water doesn't apply to Avogadro's law.
Avogadro's law pertains to gases. It is an observational law. That means
it is seen to hold true for gases found in the real world. This includes
gases that contain a significant amount of water in them, as well as
gases that do not. That is, it holds for a gas that is 70% nitrogen and
30% water by moles; and it also holds for a gas that is 80% oxygen and
20% carbon dioxide and no water; and it also holds for a gas that is
100% carbon monoxide. It also holds for a gas that is 99% water and 1%
nitrogen by moles, by the way. Those are observational facts.
Your statement is that this cannot possibly be true of gases containing
water because water is different. Thus your argument is essentially,
"Can't be, I don't believe it! You have to convince me!"
But the observational facts are otherwise, and that is what Avogadro's
law is about.
LOL. So, the fact you cannot quote/reference Avogadro on any of this
speculation concerns you not in the least?
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else.
Posted on 11/10/2014:
If you don't read books, you could always check online.
Here are some suggestions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro%27s_law
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/avogadro.html (that's Avogadro himself
writing in this case)
http://www.chemistry.co.nz/avogadro.htm
http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/Gas-Avogadro.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/45902/Avogadros-law
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/gas-phase/v/avogadros-law

If you don't know what a mole means, you can always look that up in
books too. Or, perhaps you'd like some online resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_%28unit%29

Both of you, McGinn and Jacoby, are worthless pretenders, blustering and
posing and fundamentally lazy.

You are fine with "discussion" here, but whenever anybody points to
something that involves actually clicking a link and reading, then
suddenly that becomes distasteful and you want to go back to
"discussing". In that event, discussion becomes spelled "pointless
bickering and posturing and generally wasting everyone's time".
Post by benj
His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart. But when you try to get a discussion out of him all he does is
run and hide saying he won't "spoon feed" anyone. He's obviously some
idiot professor who only keeps his job because he'll flunk any student
that complains about his incompetence.
Another fine example of you just making shit up. When you were little,
did your mother properly punish you when you fabricated lies, or is that
a moral standard you never picked up?
Post by benj
I'm sure he's much better at
ruining lives than explaining science.
James McGinn
2014-11-13 17:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
You are fine with "discussion" here, but whenever anybody points to
something that involves actually clicking a link and reading,
I wouldn't pretend to compete with your creative reading abilities.
Odd Bodkin
2014-11-13 17:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
You are fine with "discussion" here, but whenever anybody points to
something that involves actually clicking a link and reading,
I wouldn't pretend to compete with your creative reading abilities.
Right. Nothing like reading Avogadro's original work to foment creative
understanding of what Avogadro's law says. Much better to NOT read it,
and then just make up something else about Avogadro's law and particle
size and density being a fraction of water to air and so on.

LOL.
S***@hotmail.com
2014-11-13 21:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
let's find the natural number (integer
James McGinn
2016-04-23 22:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
You are fine with "discussion" here, but whenever anybody points to
something that involves actually clicking a link and reading,
I wouldn't pretend to compete with your creative reading abilities.
Right. Nothing like reading Avogadro's original work to foment creative
understanding of what Avogadro's law says. Much better to NOT read it,
and then just make up something else about Avogadro's law and particle
size and density being a fraction of water to air and so on.
LOL.
Maybe just tell us what it is you think you see.
p***@gmail.com
2016-04-24 00:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
You are fine with "discussion" here, but whenever anybody points to
something that involves actually clicking a link and reading,
I wouldn't pretend to compete with your creative reading abilities.
Right. Nothing like reading Avogadro's original work to foment creative
understanding of what Avogadro's law says. Much better to NOT read it,
and then just make up something else about Avogadro's law and particle
size and density being a fraction of water to air and so on.
LOL.
Maybe just tell us what it is you think you see.
Jim, you are dumber than a bag of hammers.

Odd rips you a new one, and that 'whooshing' sound you hear is your credibility flying away at light speed...

I don't understand why you re-post things, like from last November, that make you look sooooo stupid....
Sergio
2016-04-24 01:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 7:39:03 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
You are fine with "discussion" here, but whenever anybody
points to something that involves actually clicking a link
and reading,
I wouldn't pretend to compete with your creative reading
abilities.
Right. Nothing like reading Avogadro's original work to foment
creative understanding of what Avogadro's law says. Much better
to NOT read it, and then just make up something else about
Avogadro's law and particle size and density being a fraction of
water to air and so on.
LOL.
Maybe just tell us what it is you think you see.
Jim, you are dumber than a bag of hammers.
more like: dumber than a bag.

I think it is drug induced stupidity, slap happy, fuzzy-wuzzy, ripped
stoner on medical meth, where words don't mean that much anymore.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Odd rips you a new one, and that 'whooshing' sound you hear is your
credibility flying away at light speed...
I don't understand why you re-post things, like from last November,
that make you look sooooo stupid....
he is too lazy to write,
He just wants his posts to be at the top of his newsreader, that way he
thinks he is ahead.

but in other newsreaders, it does not go to the top, but adds on to an
existing thread.

He is an infection needing to be cauterized.
He likes to spread his mania around.
James McGinn
2016-04-24 02:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
You are fine with "discussion" here, but whenever anybody points to
something that involves actually clicking a link and reading,
I wouldn't pretend to compete with your creative reading abilities.
Right. Nothing like reading Avogadro's original work to foment creative
understanding of what Avogadro's law says. Much better to NOT read it,
and then just make up something else about Avogadro's law and particle
size and density being a fraction of water to air and so on.
LOL.
Maybe just tell us what it is you think you see.
Jim, you are dumber than a bag of hammers.
Odd rips you a new one, and that 'whooshing' sound you hear is your credibility flying away at light speed...
I don't understand why you re-post things, like from last November, that make you look sooooo stupid....
LOL. Like yourself, oddball is a wiki scientist.
p***@gmail.com
2016-04-24 05:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
You are fine with "discussion" here, but whenever anybody points to
something that involves actually clicking a link and reading,
I wouldn't pretend to compete with your creative reading abilities.
Right. Nothing like reading Avogadro's original work to foment creative
understanding of what Avogadro's law says. Much better to NOT read it,
and then just make up something else about Avogadro's law and particle
size and density being a fraction of water to air and so on.
LOL.
Maybe just tell us what it is you think you see.
Jim, you are dumber than a bag of hammers.
Odd rips you a new one, and that 'whooshing' sound you hear is your credibility flying away at light speed...
I don't understand why you re-post things, like from last November, that make you look sooooo stupid....
LOL. Like yourself, oddball is a wiki scientist.
Make that a BIG bag of hammers...
Odd Bodkin
2016-04-24 20:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
I don't understand why you re-post things, like from last November, that make you look sooooo stupid....
Because, to Jim, any attention (bad, good) is better than no attention.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Mica Choo
2014-11-13 17:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Odd Bodkin
You are fine with "discussion" here, but whenever anybody points to
something that involves actually clicking a link and reading,
I wouldn't pretend to compete with your creative reading abilities.
Prove it, troll.
Solving Tornadoes
2014-11-23 07:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by benj
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Scientists debate the science. Trolls debate the scientist.
You haven't brought science. You've brought
profound ignorance of science.
If that is what you believe one can only wonder why you don't make a
substantive argument to that effect.
Already done.
You have a short memory about embarrassments.
Density's definition ring a bell? How about Avogadro's law and the fact
that particle size has nothing to do with it?
You tried to claim that Avogadro didn't realize that H2O isn't an ideal gas.
Oh bullshit.
If anything, you're trying to both claim that Avogadro's law supports
your case and that water doesn't apply to Avogadro's law.
Avogadro's law pertains to gases. It is an observational law. That means
it is seen to hold true for gases found in the real world. This includes
gases that contain a significant amount of water in them, as well as
gases that do not. That is, it holds for a gas that is 70% nitrogen and
30% water by moles; and it also holds for a gas that is 80% oxygen and
20% carbon dioxide and no water; and it also holds for a gas that is
100% carbon monoxide. It also holds for a gas that is 99% water and 1%
nitrogen by moles, by the way. Those are observational facts.
Your statement is that this cannot possibly be true of gases containing
water because water is different. Thus your argument is essentially,
"Can't be, I don't believe it! You have to convince me!"
But the observational facts are otherwise, and that is what Avogadro's
law is about.
LOL. So, the fact you cannot quote/reference Avogadro on any of this
speculation concerns you not in the least?
Odd Avocado won't quote or reference Avogadro or anything else.
If you don't read books, you could always check online.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro%27s_law
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/avogadro.html (that's Avogadro himself
writing in this case)
http://www.chemistry.co.nz/avogadro.htm
http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/Gas-Avogadro.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/45902/Avogadros-law
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/gas-phase/v/avogadros-law
If you don't know what a mole means, you can always look that up in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_%28unit%29
Both of you, McGinn and Jacoby, are worthless pretenders, blustering and
posing and fundamentally lazy.
You are fine with "discussion" here, but whenever anybody points to
something that involves actually clicking a link and reading, then
suddenly that becomes distasteful and you want to go back to
"discussing". In that event, discussion becomes spelled "pointless
bickering and posturing and generally wasting everyone's time".
Post by benj
His sole
purpose in life is to call everybody else stupid to make himself seem
smart. But when you try to get a discussion out of him all he does is
run and hide saying he won't "spoon feed" anyone. He's obviously some
idiot professor who only keeps his job because he'll flunk any student
that complains about his incompetence.
Another fine example of you just making shit up. When you were little,
did your mother properly punish you when you fabricated lies, or is that
a moral standard you never picked up?
Post by benj
I'm sure he's much better at
ruining lives than explaining science.
Why do you post these links if you aren't going to use them in an argument?
Jamie soltor
2014-11-23 07:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/23/2014 1:22 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
James McGinn or Solvent Tornadtoes solvingtornadoes, or Julius Denk or
Claudius Denk is Troll of the Meth clan. A troll since 2006 in
sci.environment, he now out of office technician work he suffers
from advanced simia cogitans.

Do Not bother repling to this guy,
**ALL** his marbles are loose, and he is only here to argue.

HE IS ONLY HERE TO ARGUE.

Jim McGinn in his Book “Solving Tornadoes: Mastering the Mystery of the
Vortex” represents ‘the beginning of the end’ of what little
rationality mankind was capable of applying to any given
subject. McGinn represents an unusually high order of the Dunning-Kruger
effect seldom seen in ‘modern’ internet work; What other
authors are to Chemtrails and HAARP mind control Jim McGinn is to
understanding (or mis-understanding) tornadoes … To cite Jim McGinn as
an idiot or a moron is to slight idiots and morons.

from wiki: Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill,
incompetent people will:
fail to recognize their own lack of skill;
fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they
are exposed to training for that skill.[5]

***James McGinn RETRACTION OF HIS TROLL BOOK !! He is proved a
plagiarist, and the book is gobblygook

nonsense **by his own admission **

Quote JM;

Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.

The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.

You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.

My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something.
*********************************************
Book review1 1.0 out of 5 stars insane rambling July 3, 2014 By K.
Parker - The author believes that elementary concepts,

which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and
Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological
conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very
basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due
to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release).
Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a
mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and
unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally
without merit.

Book Review2 1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of time, a non-funny joke July
16, 2014 By hunter - This book misleads the reader on basic physical
concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics,and offers a silly
idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with
reality. It solves nothing but does offer away to waste time and money
buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the
age of inexpensive self publishing.


***Here are more of James McGinn or Soilent Potatoes troll posts as follows;

I am diamond.

Address the issue in the subject heading or kindly go away.

Try to imagine how our audience might view this conversation.
They are going to be left wondering why it is you don't just
supply the evidence that you claim to be so prevalent.

When believers can't find confirming evidence they just
believe harder.

You can't get any more basic than comprehending the difference between a
boiling point and evaporation. If you are confused

on that issue there isn't much anybody can do for you.

So, why do you think they are hiding this data from us?

Why do you think it is that you are the only person on earth that knows
this?

Okay . . . present your argument.

Or, you could just make a retraction.

I'm not a mind reader, if that is what you mean.

I believe I am right. But I don't claim I know I am right. Nor do I
lie and claim that the experiment has already been done, or

that it can be found in a textbook or that it was done by over 200 years
ago.

Most people believe whatever is easiest or most convenient to believe.
And, as you have demonstrated vividly, once they believe

it it's just about impossible to get them to stop believing it.

Thank you for helping me perfectly exemplify the point of this thread:
Humans are Stupid, Lazy, and Intellectually Dishonest . . .
. . . When it Comes to Challenges to Their Science Based Beliefs

I hope that if you should ever come across this, "easily obtainable"
background information that you don't hesitate to spoonfeed

it to the rest of us.

So, why do you think it is that only you can see this "easily
obtainable" background information?

( Now folks, do you see that METH IS BAD ? )

Don't feel bad, you are only human.

You mean alleged resources. Remember, the resources you are
accusing me of not finding are resources for which you
failed to provide a reference. Right?

If you can't distinguish between "basics" and superstitions
you are worthless as a scientist.

Remember, humans are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing
between what they believe and what they know. This is the
reason scientific methods (which you ignore) were developed
for the sciences and why rules of evidence were developed for
our legal system.

On 11/23/2014 12:22 AM, Solving Tornadoes pooped:

Just think. If I had actual evidence of your magical cold steam
then I wouldn't have any need at all to resort to stories about
horses and crank indexes.

Maybe if I spent less time trying to distract my audience from the
fact that I have failed to support my assertion I'd have time
to, well, find my mysteriously missing evidence.

Keep looking.

Also, while your are at it, keep an eye out for the holy grail. A
lot of people are looking for that.

I haven't dropped any claims. Don't confuse you with a character in my
book. And you goons haven't provided any references.
HORSE (is horse James McGinn et al ? hell yes.)

A man had a horse that wasn't very bright. The horse also wasn't very
productive, even though it seemed to think very highly of itself.

One day the horse looked very dehydrated, so the man filled a nearby
water trough. The horse did not move but looked more thirsty than ever.

The man led the horse to the water, even though he knew the saying. The
horse looked down at the trough, then turned away from the trough,
looking at the man instead.

The horse then brayed "The world is full of people like you that can't
distinguish water they know is there and water they believe is there,"
and then "If you believed that there is water in the trough,then one
would think you'd make a cogent argument to that effect," and then "You
are nothing but a grain of sand. I am a diamond."

The man, though astounded that a horse that stupid could talk, turned
and walked away, leaving the horse to fend for itself.
What experimental assertions? The ones in some textbook that you can't
find?
S***@hotmail.com
2014-11-25 02:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
tHAt, is the uestio
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Why do you post these links if you aren't going to use them in an argument?
Mica Choo
2014-11-13 14:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
nothing.


just a crank
Solving Tornadoes
2016-07-16 16:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Scientists debate the science. Trolls debate the scientist.
You haven't brought science. You've brought
profound ignorance of science.
If that is what you believe one can only wonder why you don't make a substantive argument to that effect.
Already done.
You have a short memory about embarrassments.
Density's definition ring a bell? How about Avogadro's law and the fact
that particle size has nothing to do with it?
You tried to claim that Avogadro didn't realize that H2O isn't an ideal gas.
Oh bullshit.
If anything, you're trying to both claim that Avogadro's law supports
your case and that water doesn't apply to Avogadro's law.
Avogadro's law pertains to gases. It is an observational law. That means
it is seen to hold true for gases found in the real world. This includes
gases that contain a significant amount of water in them, as well as
gases that do not. That is, it holds for a gas that is 70% nitrogen and
30% water by moles; and it also holds for a gas that is 80% oxygen and
20% carbon dioxide and no water; and it also holds for a gas that is
100% carbon monoxide. It also holds for a gas that is 99% water and 1%
nitrogen by moles, by the way. Those are observational facts.
Your statement is that this cannot possibly be true of gases containing
water because water is different. Thus your argument is essentially,
"Can't be, I don't believe it! You have to convince me!"
But the observational facts are otherwise, and that is what Avogadro's
law is about.
LOL. So, the fact you cannot quote/reference Avogadro on any of this speculation concerns you not in the least?
noTthaTguY
2016-07-17 00:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I only use two decimal places in general, so
60 times ten to the twnety-second power
Post by Solving Tornadoes
LOL. So, the fact you cannot quote/reference Avogadro on any of this speculation concerns you not in the least?
Sergio
2016-07-17 02:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by noTthaTguY
I only use two decimal places in general, so
60 times ten to the twnety-second power
Post by Solving Tornadoes
LOL. So, the fact you cannot quote/reference Avogadro on any of this speculation concerns you not in the least?
it is a projection brought to you by McFly;
I fix;

"LOL. So, the fact I cannot quote/reference Avogadro on any of this
speculation concerns me not in the least ? "


that Narcissistic self referencing again, James is getting worser.
noTthaTguY
2016-12-01 20:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
the only thing of interest, other than
teh actual means of Avagadro in posing the number
of atoms of carbon in a pile of s00t,
is the integer value,
60 with twenty-two more digits after it, in base_ten
Post by noTthaTguY
60 times ten to the twnety-second power
Post by Solving Tornadoes
LOL. So, the fact you cannot quote/reference Avogadro on any of this speculation concerns you not in the least?
James McGinn
2016-11-30 02:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Scientists debate the science. Trolls debate the scientist.
You haven't brought science. You've brought
profound ignorance of science.
If that is what you believe one can only wonder why you don't make a substantive argument to that effect.
Already done.
You have a short memory about embarrassments.
Density's definition ring a bell? How about Avogadro's law and the fact
that particle size has nothing to do with it?
You tried to claim that Avogadro didn't realize that H2O isn't an ideal gas.
Oh bullshit.
If anything, you're trying to both claim that Avogadro's law supports
your case and that water doesn't apply to Avogadro's law.
Avogadro's law pertains to gases. It is an observational law. That means
it is seen to hold true for gases found in the real world. This includes
gases that contain a significant amount of water in them, as well as
gases that do not. That is, it holds for a gas that is 70% nitrogen and
30% water by moles; and it also holds for a gas that is 80% oxygen and
20% carbon dioxide and no water; and it also holds for a gas that is
100% carbon monoxide. It also holds for a gas that is 99% water and 1%
nitrogen by moles, by the way. Those are observational facts.
Your statement is that this cannot possibly be true of gases containing
water because water is different. Thus your argument is essentially,
"Can't be, I don't believe it! You have to convince me!"
But the observational facts are otherwise, and that is what Avogadro's
law is about.
LOL. So, the fact you cannot quote/reference Avogadro on any of this speculation concerns you not in the least?
James McGinn
2016-11-30 02:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Solving Tornadoes
Scientists debate the science. Trolls debate the scientist.
You haven't brought science. You've brought
profound ignorance of science.
If that is what you believe one can only wonder why you don't make a substantive argument to that effect.
Already done.
You have a short memory about embarrassments.
Density's definition ring a bell? How about Avogadro's law and the fact
that particle size has nothing to do with it?
You tried to claim that Avogadro didn't realize that H2O isn't an ideal gas.
Oh bullshit.
If anything, you're trying to both claim that Avogadro's law supports
your case and that water doesn't apply to Avogadro's law.
Avogadro's law pertains to gases. It is an observational law. That means
it is seen to hold true for gases found in the real world. This includes
gases that contain a significant amount of water in them, as well as
gases that do not. That is, it holds for a gas that is 70% nitrogen and
30% water by moles; and it also holds for a gas that is 80% oxygen and
20% carbon dioxide and no water; and it also holds for a gas that is
100% carbon monoxide. It also holds for a gas that is 99% water and 1%
nitrogen by moles, by the way. Those are observational facts.
Your statement is that this cannot possibly be true of gases containing
water because water is different. Thus your argument is essentially,
"Can't be, I don't believe it! You have to convince me!"
But the observational facts are otherwise, and that is what Avogadro's
law is about.
LOL. So, the fact you cannot quote/reference Avogadro on any of this speculation concerns you not in the least?
Loading...