Discussion:
So, uh, what's the problem, fellas?
(too old to reply)
James McGinn
2016-02-20 02:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.

Hmm.

I wonder what the problem is.

Keep trying . . . I guess . . .

Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4

H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ

How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU

Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss

Convection Versus Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo

Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
Sergio
2016-02-20 03:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/19/2016 8:41 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet
> access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental
> evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just
> whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of
> Meteorology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
>
>

trying to get people to watch your vids to up the count ?

did you use a camera stand ?

did you keep the copyrights to your works ?

You could try to sell them on epsy too as a package, on a CD. or package
the CD with a book
Sam Wormley
2016-02-20 04:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/19/16 8:41 PM, James McGinn wrote:

The problem appears to be your lack of understanding of the following:

Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
gas. There is nothing to see.

> Water vapour (H2O molecules)

> Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
> water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
> can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
> from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
> vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
> is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
> It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
> lead to clouds.


--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
James McGinn
2016-02-20 04:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 8:12:40 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/19/16 8:41 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> The problem appears to be your lack of understanding of the following:
>
> Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
> gas. There is nothing to see.

I wonder what it is I'm not seeing.

Hmmmm.
Sergio
2016-02-20 05:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/19/2016 10:36 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 8:12:40 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/19/16 8:41 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>
>> The problem appears to be your lack of understanding of the following:
>>
>> Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
>> gas. There is nothing to see.
>
> I wonder what it is I'm not seeing.
>
> Hmmmm.
>

yup, does it not look like this, below ?


























































































.






















wait, you passed it.

it was one simulated molecule that had boiled off, a mono-something
something
































































































what is down here anyway ?


































.


















.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-20 04:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>

Logical arguments to someone with a delusional fixation is pointless as
all they do is ignore the facts.

> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.

Explained here:

http://www.regionalcenter.org/mental-health/delusional-disorder


--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
2016-02-20 05:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
> >
>
> Logical arguments to someone with a delusional fixation is pointless as
> all they do is ignore the facts.

You presented no facts, you evasive twit.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-20 07:14:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>> >
>>
>> Logical arguments to someone with a delusional fixation is pointless as
>> all they do is ignore the facts.
>
> You presented no facts, you evasive twit.

On the contrary, I have presented several:

Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.

Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
always the same.

You have a delusional fixation.


--
Jim Pennino
HVAC
2016-02-20 15:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@specsol.spam.sux.com
- show quoted text -
On the contrary, I have presented several:

Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.

Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
always the same.

You have a delusional fixation.
-------------

I suppose lightning may be classified as a plasma if you stretch the definition a bit.

But that ain't what Jimmy Mac was talking about.

I wonder why kooks and other mental defectives like jim McGuinn are attracted to science newsgroups?
James McGinn
2016-02-20 17:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
> ***@specsol.spam.sux.com
> - show quoted text -
> On the contrary, I have presented several:
>
> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.
>
> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
> always the same.
>
> You have a delusional fixation.
> -------------
>
> I suppose lightning may be classified as a plasma if you stretch the definition a bit.
>
> But that ain't what Jimmy Mac was talking about.
>
> I wonder why kooks and other mental defectives like jim McGuinn are attracted to science newsgroups?

Bumbling moron.
Sergio
2016-02-20 17:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/20/2016 11:10 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
>> ***@specsol.spam.sux.com - show quoted text - On the contrary, I
>> have presented several:
>>
>> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.
>>
>> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions
>> are commonly done in both high school and college courses; the
>> results are always the same.
>>
>> You have a delusional fixation. -------------
>>
>> I suppose lightning may be classified as a plasma if you stretch
>> the definition a bit.
>>
>> But that ain't what Jimmy Mac was talking about.
>>
>> I wonder why kooks and other mental defectives like jim McGuinn are
>> attracted to science newsgroups?
>
> Bumbling moron.
>

it is a valid question, why are you posting in sci.physics ?
James McGinn
2016-02-20 17:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
> ***@specsol.spam.sux.com
> - show quoted text -
> On the contrary, I have presented several:
>
> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.
>
> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
> always the same.

There is zero data indicating the existence of cold steam. That is but a mass delusion. All you retards have is anecdote. No data.


>
> You have a delusional fixation.
> -------------
>
> I suppose lightning may be classified as a plasma if you stretch the definition a bit.

Plasma is't a thing. It's a state of matter. Only simpletons use make arguments based on dictionary definitions.

Our atmosphere is a slight plasma. Moist air is a slightly stronger plasma. Wind shear produces a plasma that is stronger still.

Don't get your panties in a twist. A plasma is a plasma based on electromagnetic charges that exists between the molecules. It's no big deal.

Fire is a plasma.

Sheep have difficulty thinking outside the box. You are a sheep.

You are follower. You are not a scientist.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-20 19:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:28:20 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
>> ***@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> - show quoted text -
>> On the contrary, I have presented several:
>>
>> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.
>>
>> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
>> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
>> always the same.
>
> There is zero data indicating the existence of cold steam. That is but a mass delusion. All you retards have is anecdote. No data.

On the contrary, there is lots of data but you refuse to look at it.

That is a common defense mechanizm for the delusional.

>>
>> You have a delusional fixation.
>> -------------
>>
>> I suppose lightning may be classified as a plasma if you stretch the definition a bit.
>
> Plasma is't a thing. It's a state of matter. Only simpletons use make arguments based on dictionary definitions.

To be precise, a lightning strike can generate a plasma for a very short
period of time, but such does not generally occur in the atmosphere.

> Our atmosphere is a slight plasma. Moist air is a slightly stronger plasma. Wind shear produces a plasma that is stronger still.

As I thought, you don't understand what a plasma is.

> Don't get your panties in a twist. A plasma is a plasma based on electromagnetic charges that exists between the molecules. It's no big deal.
>
> Fire is a plasma.

Nope.

>
> Sheep have difficulty thinking outside the box. You are a sheep.

The delusional refuses to actually look at reality.

--
Jim Pennino
Sergio
2016-02-20 20:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/20/2016 11:39 AM, James McGinn wrote:

>
> Plasma is't a thing. It's a state of matter. Only simpletons use
> make arguments based on dictionary definitions.
>
> Our atmosphere is a slight plasma.

no

> Moist air is a slightly stronger
> plasma.

totally wrong.

Wind shear produces a plasma that is stronger still.

very wrong.


>
> Don't get your panties in a twist. A plasma is a plasma based on
> electromagnetic charges that exists between the molecules.

very wrong.


> It's no
> big deal.
>
> Fire is a plasma.

no, not at all. try again.


You do not know what plasma is.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-20 19:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
HVAC <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> ***@specsol.spam.sux.com
> - show quoted text -
> On the contrary, I have presented several:
>
> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.
>
> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
> always the same.
>
> You have a delusional fixation.
> -------------
>
> I suppose lightning may be classified as a plasma if you stretch the definition a bit.

A plasma may be formed for a short while in a large lightning stroke.

> But that ain't what Jimmy Mac was talking about.

He doesn't know what he is talking about.

There are only two kinds of plasma; ionized matter and biological fluids,
neither of which are generally in the atmosphere.

> I wonder why kooks and other mental defectives like jim McGuinn are attracted to science newsgroups?

Their delusions that they alone have stumbled onto some truth through
some flash of insight without any groundwork educataion drives them
to reveal that truth to the ignorant world.


--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
2016-02-20 19:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You physics groupies can't formulate a substantive argument. All you have is semantic triviality.

It makes no difference to my theory as to whether or not the word plasma is fully accurate.

Only fools fret about semantics.
Sam Wormley
2016-02-20 19:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/20/16 1:39 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> You physics groupies can't formulate a substantive argument.


From all the push back you are getting, James, you should start
to understand that you've got everything wrong.


The problem appears to be your lack of understanding of the following:

Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
gas. There is nothing to see.

> Water vapour (H2O molecules)

> Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
> water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
> can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
> from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
> vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
> is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
> It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
> lead to clouds.


--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
James McGinn
2016-02-20 17:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, > > You presented no facts, you evasive twit.
>
> On the contrary, I have presented several:
>
> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.

Not a fact.

>
> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
> always the same.

Irrelevant.

You are a simpleton.
Sergio
2016-02-20 17:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/20/2016 11:09 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, > > You presented
> no facts, you evasive twit.
>>
>> On the contrary, I have presented several:
>>
>> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.
>
> Not a fact.

plasma is ions, free ions do not travel far in the atmosphere before
combining and becoming molicule. Like 10^-3 mm at most.

everybody know that. Where have you been ?

>
>>
>> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions
>> are commonly done in both high school and college courses; the
>> results are always the same.
>
> Irrelevant.

not so, too bad you missed out in HS and in college.
James McGinn
2016-02-20 17:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> plasma is ions, free ions do not

You are slow on the uptake. The forces associated with ionic bonds and the forces associated with hydrogen bonds are both electromagnetic forces.

Sheep can't think outside the box.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-20 19:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>> plasma is ions, free ions do not
>
> You are slow on the uptake. The forces associated with ionic bonds and the forces associated with hydrogen bonds are both electromagnetic forces.

And ice cream has no bones.

> Sheep can't think outside the box.

Delusionals are funny.


--
Jim Pennino
Solving Tornadoes
2016-02-20 20:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:40:20 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> is a hydrogen bond and ionic bond ?

So, you nitwits only have a semantic dispute. Not a substantive dispute, Right?

Nitwits never stop being nitwits.
Sergio
2016-02-20 20:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/20/2016 2:09 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:40:20 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>> is a hydrogen bond and ionic bond ?
>


answer the question !
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-20 19:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, > > You presented no facts, you evasive twit.
>>
>> On the contrary, I have presented several:
>>
>> Plasma does not generally exist in the Earth's atmosphere.
>
> Not a fact.

Yes, it is a fact, but like all delusionals you refuse to look at simple facts.
>
>>
>> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
>> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
>> always the same.
>
> Irrelevant.

Quit relevant and precisely the point in question, but like all
delusionals you refuse to look at simple facts.

> You are a simpleton.

You are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
2016-02-20 17:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8,

> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
> always the same.

This shows how dumb you are. Let me clue you in but you have figure it out from there. Measuring air's density does not involve Avogadro's law. Measuring weight does.

You can't derive weight from density (using Avogadro) unless you know cluster/droplet size and volume. If you assume 18 for H2O you are an idiot.

Are you new to science?

Science involves facts, not imagination.
dm
2016-02-20 18:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> You can't derive weight from density (using Avogadro) unless you know cluster/droplet size and volume. If you assume 18 for H2O you are an idiot.

When I said the rabbit hole is deep in this one, I was not exaggerating. He does not understand (or is unwilling or unable to accept) that weight/mass/density are all related (I guess it takes math to establish the relationship and he does not trust math). Since weight on its own is almost a meaningless number when one is talking about fluids (unless one controls for volume), rational people refer to density. But he is not a rational person.

So trying to hold any sort of meaningful discussion with him on the subject is pretty pointless.
James McGinn
2016-02-20 18:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 10:22:40 AM UTC-8, dm wrote:
> > You can't derive weight from density (using Avogadro) unless you know cluster/droplet size and volume. If you assume 18 for H2O you are an idiot.
>
> When I said the rabbit hole is deep in this one, I was not exaggerating. He does not understand (or is unwilling or unable to accept) that weight/mass/density are all related (I guess it takes math to establish the relationship and he does not trust math). Since weight on its own is almost a meaningless number when one is talking about fluids (unless one controls for volume), rational people refer to density. But he is not a rational person.
>
> So trying to hold any sort of meaningful discussion with him on the subject is pretty pointless.

Pseudoscientists always have excuses as to why the rules of science don't apply to what they believe. You hear the same thing over and over again, "it is well undestood." "everybody knows this."

Note the poor math skills demonstrated by DM here. Any idiot knows the difference between density and weight. They are two different things. You CANNOT use them interchangeably.

Pseudoscientists always have excuses as to why the rules of science don't apply to what they believe.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-20 19:33:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8,
>
>> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
>> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
>> always the same.
>
> This shows how dumb you are. Let me clue you in but you have figure it out from there. Measuring air's density does not involve Avogadro's law. Measuring weight does.
>
> You can't derive weight from density (using Avogadro) unless you know cluster/droplet size and volume. If you assume 18 for H2O you are an idiot.
>
> Are you new to science?
>
> Science involves facts, not imagination.

And the fact is that experiments to measure the density of air under
various conditions are commonly done in both high school and college
courses; the results are always the same.

Measuring weight does not involve Avogadro, it involves a scale.


--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
2016-02-21 09:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:46:05 AM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8,
> >
> >> Experiments to measure the density of air under various conditions are
> >> commonly done in both high school and college courses; the results are
> >> always the same.
> >
> > This shows how dumb you are. Let me clue you in but you have figure it out from there. Measuring air's density does not involve Avogadro's law. Measuring weight does.
> >
> > You can't derive weight from density (using Avogadro) unless you know cluster/droplet size and volume. If you assume 18 for H2O you are an idiot.
> >
> > Are you new to science?
> >
> > Science involves facts, not imagination.
>
> And the fact is that experiments to measure the density of air under
> various conditions are commonly done in both high school and college
> courses; the results are always the same.

Yeah, so?

>
> Measuring weight does not involve Avogadro, it involves a scale.

Present the data. Or admit you are lieing.
Sergio
2016-02-29 13:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/21/2016 3:23 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:46:05 AM UTC-8,
> ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8,
>>>
>>>> Experiments to measure the density of air under various
>>>> conditions are commonly done in both high school and college
>>>> courses; the results are always the same.

>>> This shows how dumb you are. Let me clue you in but you have
>>> figure it out from there. Measuring air's density does not
>>> involve Avogadro's law. Measuring weight does.

>>> You can't derive weight from density (using Avogadro) unless you
>>> know cluster/droplet size and volume. If you assume 18 for H2O
>>> you are an idiot.

>>> Are you new to science?
>>>
>>> Science involves facts, not imagination.
>>
>> And the fact is that experiments to measure the density of air
>> under various conditions are commonly done in both high school and
>> college courses; the results are always the same.
>
> Yeah, so?

so go take a high school chemistry course, it would help you greatly.

>
>>
>> Measuring weight does not involve Avogadro, it involves a scale.
>
> Present the data. Or admit you are lieing.

one measure weight on a scale, like your bathroom scale.

you can go to wallmart, find the bathroom section, and look at a scale
there, even weigh yourself.

Then ask yourself, "how does the scale do that?"

Avogadro on the other hand is a very special number that moles use in
their work with atoms and molecules like H2O.

this is extremely obvious stuff, just wiki or Google it or have your
mom drop you off at the library.

your cluster or droplet thing is a bridge from liquid to gas, already
addressed in the literature in detail.

study up on "Avogadro" and "mole", you stale.
Solving Tornadoes
2016-02-29 20:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 5:58:27 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 2/21/2016 3:23 AM, James McGinn wrote:

> Avogadro on the other hand is a very special number that moles use in
> their work with atoms and molecules like H2O.

Go ahead. I'm ready. Knock yourself out.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-29 20:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Solving Tornadoes <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 5:58:27 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 2/21/2016 3:23 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>
>> Avogadro on the other hand is a very special number that moles use in
>> their work with atoms and molecules like H2O.
>
> Go ahead. I'm ready. Knock yourself out.

Ready for what, to provide some actual proof your theory is not bat shit
crazy?


--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
2016-02-20 06:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Explained here:

LOL. You simpletons can't formulate an argument. So now you are mad at me.

Hey. Don't blame me. I didn't make reality complex. And it's not my fault you are dumb.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-20 19:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> > I wonder what the problem is.
>>
>> Explained here:
>
> LOL. You simpletons can't formulate an argument. So now you are mad at me.

No one is mad at you; you are mad as in delusional.


--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
2016-02-21 09:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> >> > I wonder what the problem is.
> >>
> >> Explained here:
> >
> > LOL. You simpletons can't formulate an argument. So now you are mad at me.
>
> No one is mad at you; you are mad as in delusional.

Why, because I dispute what you can't substantiate?

Doesn't that make you delusional?
James McGinn
2016-02-29 03:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 1:25:15 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> > I wonder what the problem is.
> > >>
> > >> Explained here:
> > >
> > > LOL. You simpletons can't formulate an argument. So now you are mad at me.
> >
> > No one is mad at you; you are mad as in delusional.
>
> Why, because I dispute what you can't substantiate?
>
>
Doesn't that make you delusional?
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-29 04:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:01:07 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I wonder what the problem is.
>> >>
>> >> Explained here:
>> >
>> > LOL. You simpletons can't formulate an argument. So now you are mad at me.
>>
>> No one is mad at you; you are mad as in delusional.
>
> Why, because I dispute what you can't substantiate?

Nope, because you dispute hundreds of years of research by thousands
of people all of which come to a conclusion diametrically opposite
to your arm waving ravings.

> Doesn't that make you delusional?

I proposed several experiments that would show you being wrong, and you
arm waved them away with yet more nonsens.


--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
2016-02-29 05:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:01:08 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > Why, because I dispute what you can't substantiate?
>
> Nope, because you dispute hundreds of years of research by thousands
> of people all of which come to a conclusion diametrically opposite
> to your arm waving ravings.

I don't know what you are talking about, honestly.

> > Doesn't that make you delusional?
>
> I proposed several experiments that would show you being wrong, and you
> arm waved them away with yet more nonsens.

My recollection is that I addressed your suggestions.

Let us know if you figure out what your point is.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-29 05:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:01:08 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> > Why, because I dispute what you can't substantiate?
>>
>> Nope, because you dispute hundreds of years of research by thousands
>> of people all of which come to a conclusion diametrically opposite
>> to your arm waving ravings.
>
> I don't know what you are talking about, honestly.

Then you are badly delusional.

Everything you have posted is diametrically opposite to what has been
shown to be true with reproducible experiments by thousands of people
over hundreds of years.

Everything; the densities of air at various temperatures and moisture
contents, your ravings about convection, your ravings about plasma
in the lower atmosphere, your ravings about no gaseous H2O below the
boiling point, everything.

>> > Doesn't that make you delusional?
>>
>> I proposed several experiments that would show you being wrong, and you
>> arm waved them away with yet more nonsens.
>
> My recollection is that I addressed your suggestions.

Nope, you just posted yet more arm waving nonsense.

> Let us know if you figure out what your point is.

My point is either you are a megatroll or you have some very serious
delusions that should be addressed by a mental health professional.



--
Jim Pennino
Solving Tornadoes
2016-02-29 06:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Everything you have posted is diametrically opposite to what has been
> shown to be true with reproducible experiments by thousands of people
> over hundreds of years.

If that is what you believe then one can only wonder why you don't make an argument to that effect. Afterall, if what you are saying is true you should have no shortage of references sources. Right?

What do you think it indicates that you are not doing that?

> > Let us know if you figure out what your point is.
>
> My point is either you are a megatroll or you have some very serious
> delusions that should be addressed by a mental health professional.

I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.
Sergio
2016-02-29 16:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/29/2016 12:53 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-8,
> ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Everything you have posted is diametrically opposite to what has
>> been shown to be true with reproducible experiments by thousands of
>> people over hundreds of years.
>
> If that is what you believe then one can only wonder why you don't
> make an argument to that effect.

you may keep wondering.

others that wonder will research the topic.

there is no need to make an argument about commonly know things to a troll


> Afterall, if what you are saying is
> true you should have no shortage of references sources. Right?

yes, and you can go find them.

*we are not here to spoon feed you, pupa.*


>
> What do you think it indicates that you are not doing that?

no need,

go look it up yourself, wiki, google,

or have your mom drop you off at the library.


>
>>> Let us know if you figure out what your point is.
>>
>> My point is either you are a megatroll or you have some very
>> serious delusions that should be addressed by a mental health
>> professional.
>
> I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are
> right and so completely unable to say how or why.

so, your that is your difficulty James,

"so sure I am right and so completely unable to say how or why."

very frustrating, and a sign of mental illness, classic delusional
thinking.

you do a lot of physiological projecting James (wiki for it) another key
signature of mentally off, delusional, narcissistic retard
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-29 19:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Solving Tornadoes <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Everything you have posted is diametrically opposite to what has been
>> shown to be true with reproducible experiments by thousands of people
>> over hundreds of years.
>
> If that is what you believe then one can only wonder why you don't make
> an argument to that effect. Afterall, if what you are saying is true you
> should have no shortage of references sources. Right?

I have; you arm waved it all away with yet more delusional babble.

> What do you think it indicates that you are not doing that?

Your question is based on a delusional premise.

>> > Let us know if you figure out what your point is.

My point is you need professonal help.

>> My point is either you are a megatroll or you have some very serious
>> delusions that should be addressed by a mental health professional.
>
> I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are
> right and so completely unable to say how or why.

I have said why many, many times now but your delusions prevent you
from seeing it.


--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
2016-02-29 19:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> >> Everything you have posted is diametrically opposite to what has been
> >> shown to be true with reproducible experiments by thousands of people
> >> over hundreds of years.
> >
> > If that is what you believe then one can only wonder why you don't make
> > an argument to that effect. Afterall, if what you are saying is true you
> > should have no shortage of references sources. Right?
>
> I have; you arm waved it all away with yet more delusional babble.
>
> > What do you think it indicates that you are not doing that?
>
> Your question is based on a delusional premise.
>
> >> > Let us know if you figure out what your point is.
>
> My point is you need professonal help.
>
> >> My point is either you are a megatroll or you have some very serious
> >> delusions that should be addressed by a mental health professional.
> >
> > I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are
> > right and so completely unable to say how or why.
>
> I have said why many, many times now but your delusions prevent you
> from seeing it.

From seeing what? Keep in mind, the internet doesn't provide us access to your imagination.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-29 20:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> Everything you have posted is diametrically opposite to what has been
>> >> shown to be true with reproducible experiments by thousands of people
>> >> over hundreds of years.
>> >
>> > If that is what you believe then one can only wonder why you don't make
>> > an argument to that effect. Afterall, if what you are saying is true you
>> > should have no shortage of references sources. Right?
>>
>> I have; you arm waved it all away with yet more delusional babble.
>>
>> > What do you think it indicates that you are not doing that?
>>
>> Your question is based on a delusional premise.
>>
>> >> > Let us know if you figure out what your point is.
>>
>> My point is you need professonal help.
>>
>> >> My point is either you are a megatroll or you have some very serious
>> >> delusions that should be addressed by a mental health professional.
>> >
>> > I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are
>> > right and so completely unable to say how or why.
>>
>> I have said why many, many times now but your delusions prevent you
>> from seeing it.
>
> From seeing what?

That you are bat shit crazy, all your "theories" were proven wrong long
ago, and you are in dire need of professional help.


--
Jim Pennino
Solving Tornadoes
2016-02-29 20:23:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> I have said why many, many times now but your delusions prevent you
> from seeing it.

Why not just drop a link to your decisive dispute with my thinking so that our audience can see how intelligent you are and how dumb I am?

Go ahead, make my day.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-02-29 20:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Solving Tornadoes <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> I have said why many, many times now but your delusions prevent you
>> from seeing it.
>
> Why not just drop a link to your decisive dispute with my thinking so
> that our audience can see how intelligent you are and how dumb I am?

Where is your proof that your bat shit crazy theory is correct?

Neither I nor anyone else needs to dispute your thinking, it is up to you
to defend your thinking with proof.


--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
2018-04-29 20:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:46:08 PM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-8, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> >> I have said why many, many times now but your delusions prevent you
> >> from seeing it.
> >
> > Why not just drop a link to your decisive dispute with my thinking so
> > that our audience can see how intelligent you are and how dumb I am?
>
> Where is your proof that your bat shit crazy theory is correct?
>
> Neither I nor anyone else needs to dispute your thinking, it is up to you
> to defend your thinking with proof.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Believers can't dispute because belief feels like understanding. But it isn't. You clods think that the fact you can find others that support your misthinking makes it true.
HVAC
2016-02-29 14:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
My point is either you are a megatroll or you have some very serious
delusions that should be addressed by a mental health professional.
--
Jim Pennino
--------------

I'm gonna go with megatroll.

But I must say that he is really into it. Most trolls don't have his level of commitment. His YouTube videos alone are enough to get him committed for mental incompetence
noTthaTguY
2016-02-29 20:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
under what grounds ... self-amuzement?

> commitment. His YouTube videos alone are enough to get him committed for mental incompetence
James McGinn
2016-03-18 16:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
James McGinn
2016-04-22 17:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
James McGinn
2016-06-11 20:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
James McGinn
2016-09-01 18:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
James McGinn
2016-11-04 19:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
noTthaTguY
2016-11-09 00:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
you used to be tilted at 7/9 of no tilt;
would explain some thing

> > Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
Yuri Kreaton
2016-11-09 00:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/8/2016 6:21 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> you used to be tilted at 7/9 of no tilt;
> would explain some thing
>
>>> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
>

that video was deleted, and replaced by the correct one;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jTHNBKjMBU
James McGinn
2017-03-25 00:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
James McGinn
2017-05-12 17:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
James McGinn
2017-09-02 15:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
James McGinn
2017-10-19 02:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
James McGinn
2018-04-08 18:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
James McGinn
2018-06-08 14:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There are at least 5 of you. You each have a computer, internet access. You have a world of <cough> meteorological experimental evidence at your fingertips. Yet we have no arguments? Just whining.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I wonder what the problem is.
>
> Keep trying . . . I guess . . .
>
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
Loading...