Discussion:
How Consensus is Ruining Science
(too old to reply)
James McGinn
2017-10-01 16:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Just like your overwhelmingly elusive definition of 'cold steam'...
Do you deny that you have claimed that steam can exist at temperatures cooler and pressures higher than those indicated in the H2O phase diagram?
Answer the question you lying son of a butch.
I don't understand your question, as presented. Steam, as per Webster, is "the invisible vapor into which water is converted when heated to the boiling point".
I *did* say that the gaseous form of water can exist in the atmosphere below the boiling point of water at STP, for example.
"... son of a butch"?
Where's that 'cold steam' definition, you cowardly son of a bitch?
You just defined it yourself. So you don't need me to define it for you.

Now here is the question that matters. Here is the question you have been evading over and over again. Do you have any empirical (non-anecdotal) evidence that the H2O that is in clear, moist air at ambient temperatures and at STP is gaseous?

The correct and honest answer to this question is, no, you do not. You are a bird brain and a consensus bozo. like all of the rest of you birds of a feather you flock together you idiots have come to the conclusion that the reason clear moist air is invisible is because it contains gaseous H2O. Wrong!

This proves that you idiots don't actually understand the scientific thinking process.

No real scientist would ever allow a consensus of dunces to dictate a scientific truth.

You bozos are evidence of how consensus is ruining science.

James McGinn
There is no debate in mainstream science
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16834
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-01 21:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Just like your overwhelmingly elusive definition of 'cold steam'...
Do you deny that you have claimed that steam can exist at temperatures cooler and pressures higher than those indicated in the H2O phase diagram?
Answer the question you lying son of a butch.
I don't understand your question, as presented. Steam, as per Webster, is "the invisible vapor into which water is converted when heated to the boiling point".
I *did* say that the gaseous form of water can exist in the atmosphere below the boiling point of water at STP, for example.
"... son of a butch"?
Where's that 'cold steam' definition, you cowardly son of a bitch?
You just defined it yourself. So you don't need me to define it for you.
I did no such thing. I gave you the standard definition of 'steam', as defined by Webster. No mention of 'cold steam' was referenced, and clearly *you* are speaking of something else entirely.
Post by James McGinn
Now here is the question that matters. Here is the question you have been evading over and over again. Do you have any empirical (non-anecdotal) evidence that the H2O that is in clear, moist air at ambient temperatures and at STP is gaseous?
Are you serious? Crack a textbook, you dimwit, and read it for yourself.
Post by James McGinn
The correct and honest answer to this question is, no, you do not. You are a bird brain and a consensus bozo. like all of the rest of you birds of a feather you flock together you idiots have come to the conclusion that the reason clear moist air is invisible is because it contains gaseous H2O. Wrong!
This proves that you idiots don't actually understand the scientific thinking process.
This only prove that if you were just a tiny bit stupider you would need watering twice a week!
Post by James McGinn
No real scientist would ever allow a consensus of dunces to dictate a scientific truth.
True enough, and none do. Real scientists rely on observations and experiments to support their theories. Hundreds of years worth of observations and experiments. Read a freakin' textbook!
Post by James McGinn
There is no debate in mainstream science
Also true enough. Unfortunately for you, your crank theories are definitely *not* mainstream science and are *not* supported by either observations or experiments, and are therefore relegated to the trash bin.
Claudius Denk
2017-10-02 04:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Just like your overwhelmingly elusive definition of 'cold steam'...
Do you deny that you have claimed that steam can exist at temperatures cooler and pressures higher than those indicated in the H2O phase diagram?
Answer the question you lying son of a butch.
I don't understand your question, as presented. Steam, as per Webster, is "the invisible vapor into which water is converted when heated to the boiling point".
I *did* say that the gaseous form of water can exist in the atmosphere below the boiling point of water at STP, for example.
"... son of a butch"?
Where's that 'cold steam' definition, you cowardly son of a bitch?
You just defined it yourself. So you don't need me to define it for you.
I did no such thing.
Yes, you did. Then you snipped it to hide the evidence.




I gave you the standard definition of 'steam', as defined by Webster. No mention of 'cold steam' was referenced, and clearly *you* are speaking of something else entirely.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Now here is the question that matters. Here is the question you have been evading over and over again. Do you have any empirical (non-anecdotal) evidence that the H2O that is in clear, moist air at ambient temperatures and at STP is gaseous?
Are you serious? Crack a textbook, you dimwit, and read it for yourself.
Post by James McGinn
The correct and honest answer to this question is, no, you do not. You are a bird brain and a consensus bozo. like all of the rest of you birds of a feather you flock together you idiots have come to the conclusion that the reason clear moist air is invisible is because it contains gaseous H2O. Wrong!
This proves that you idiots don't actually understand the scientific thinking process.
This only prove that if you were just a tiny bit stupider you would need watering twice a week!
Post by James McGinn
No real scientist would ever allow a consensus of dunces to dictate a scientific truth.
True enough, and none do. Real scientists rely on observations and experiments to support their theories. Hundreds of years worth of observations and experiments. Read a freakin' textbook!
Post by James McGinn
There is no debate in mainstream science
Also true enough. Unfortunately for you, your crank theories are definitely *not* mainstream science and are *not* supported by either observations or experiments, and are therefore relegated to the trash bin.
You got nothing!!!
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-02 04:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
You got nothing!!!
Standard dumbfuck answer...
Claudius Denk
2017-10-02 05:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
You got nothing!!!
Standard dumbfuck answer...
So, if 'cold steam' really did exist don't you think somebody would have detected it by now?
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-02 05:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
You got nothing!!!
Standard dumbfuck answer...
So, if 'cold steam' really did exist don't you think somebody would have detected it by now?
How would I know, since you, Jim, have refused to provide a definition of 'cold steam'? It certainly can't be the same definition as 'steam', since that is produced by boiling water, and is therefore not usually cold... although at 75,000 ft altitude water boils at about 24° F, which is pretty cold... I suppose in that case it *would* be cold steam...
James McGinn
2017-10-02 05:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
You got nothing!!!
Standard dumbfuck answer...
So, if 'cold steam' really did exist don't you think somebody would have detected it by now?
How would I know, since you, Jim, have refused to provide a definition of 'cold steam'? It certainly can't be the same definition as 'steam', since that is produced by boiling water, and is therefore not usually cold... although at 75,000 ft altitude water boils at about 24° F, which is pretty cold... I suppose in that case it *would* be cold steam...
You got nothing!!!
Serg io
2017-10-02 19:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
You got nothing!!!
Standard dumbfuck answer...
So, if 'cold steam' really did exist don't you think somebody would have detected it by now?
How would I know, since you, Jim, have refused to provide a definition of 'cold steam'? It certainly can't be the same definition as 'steam', since that is produced by boiling water, and is therefore not usually cold... although at 75,000 ft altitude water boils at about 24° F, which is pretty cold... I suppose in that case it *would* be cold steam...
so, McGinn is back with same old bullshit, and nothing useful to
contribute, only verbal abuse.

No wonder he is fowl, he lives in a world of science fiction, poop,
lies, and cannot get out.

Time to Hit the Reset button, Jim. "Electroshock Therapy", McGinn, that
is your only answer.
James McGinn
2017-10-02 19:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serg io
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
You got nothing!!!
Standard dumbfuck answer...
So, if 'cold steam' really did exist don't you think somebody would have detected it by now?
How would I know, since you, Jim, have refused to provide a definition of 'cold steam'? It certainly can't be the same definition as 'steam', since that is produced by boiling water, and is therefore not usually cold... although at 75,000 ft altitude water boils at about 24° F, which is pretty cold... I suppose in that case it *would* be cold steam...
so, McGinn is back with same old bullshit, and nothing useful to
contribute, only verbal abuse.
No wonder he is fowl, he lives in a world of science fiction, poop,
lies, and cannot get out.
Time to Hit the Reset button, Jim. "Electroshock Therapy", McGinn, that
is your only answer.
LOL. You two retards couldn't put together an argument to save your lives.
Claudius Denk
2017-10-05 03:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
You got nothing!!!
Standard dumbfuck answer...
So, if 'cold steam' really did exist don't you think somebody would have detected it by now?
How would I know, since you, Jim, have refused to provide a definition of 'cold steam'?
You've already admitted you understand it. Now you just look desperate.
James McGinn
2017-10-02 05:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
You got nothing!!!
Standard dumbfuck answer...
It's true. You got nothing. You tried to name-drop Saykally but that just drew attention to the fact that you don't really understand any of this.
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-02 05:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
You got nothing!!!
Standard dumbfuck answer...
It's true. You got nothing. You tried to name-drop Saykally but that just drew attention to the fact that you don't really understand any of this.
Watered twice a week...
James McGinn
2017-10-02 05:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
You got nothing!!!
Standard dumbfuck answer...
It's true. You got nothing. You tried to name-drop Saykally but that just drew attention to the fact that you don't really understand any of t
James McGinn
2017-10-02 06:24:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
You got nothing!!!
Standard dumbfuck answer...
You don't have an argument. All you can do is quote somebody else who also doesn't have an argument, but has authority. You are too stupid to think so you look to somebody else as an argument to avoid thinking.

IOW, you got nothing!!!
James McGinn
2017-10-02 17:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
I *did* say that the gaseous form of water can exist in the atmosphere below the boiling point of water at STP, for example.
"... son of a butch"?
Where's that 'cold steam' definition, you cowardly son of a bitch?
You just defined it yourself. So you don't need me to define it for you.
I did no such thing.
Yes you did you lying son of a bitch.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
There is no debate in mainstream science
Also true enough. Unfortunately for you, your theories are definitely *not* mainstream science
That's right. The mainstream is comprised of brain-dead science groupies that don't think. Only retards believe based on what everybody else believes. I am not a retard. You are.

If you are not smart you have no choice but to go along with the mainstream.

I have a choice. You can only believe.
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-02 18:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
I *did* say that the gaseous form of water can exist in the atmosphere below the boiling point of water at STP, for example.
"... son of a butch"?
Where's that 'cold steam' definition, you cowardly son of a bitch?
You just defined it yourself. So you don't need me to define it for you.
I did no such thing.
Yes you did you lying son of a bitch.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
There is no debate in mainstream science
Also true enough. Unfortunately for you, your theories are definitely *not* mainstream science
That's right. The mainstream is comprised of brain-dead science groupies that don't think. Only retards believe based on what everybody else believes. I am not a retard. You are.
If you are not smart you have no choice but to go along with the mainstream.
I have a choice. You can only believe.
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
James McGinn
2017-10-02 19:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
You are so desperate you've resigned yourself to out of context quotes. You are just a moron without an argument or even a point.

Leave science to scientists, you fool.
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-02 19:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
You are so desperate you've resigned yourself to out of context quotes. You are just a moron without an argument or even a point.
Leave science to scientists, you fool.
And *you* are so desperate that you deny the basic tenets of science, proving that you're no scientist, but just a pretender, a common liar. The quote is not out of context, it is exactly what science demands.

I *do* leave science to scientists... too bad that *you* don't!
James McGinn
2017-10-02 19:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
You are so desperate you've resigned yourself to out of context quotes. You are just a moron without an argument or even a point.
Leave science to scientists, you fool.
And *you* are so desperate that you deny the basic tenets of science,
LOL. I didn't know science had basic tenets.

If not for stupid, vague, and out of context arguments you wouldn't have any arguments at all.

Find another hobby, moron.
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-02 22:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
You are so desperate you've resigned yourself to out of context quotes. You are just a moron without an argument or even a point.
Leave science to scientists, you fool.
And *you* are so desperate that you deny the basic tenets of science,
LOL. I didn't know science had basic tenets.
Of course you don't know, you know practically nothing about science...
James McGinn
2017-10-03 02:06:43 UTC
Permalink
tenets of science,
Post by James McGinn
LOL. I didn't know science had basic tenets.
Of course you don't know, you know practically nothing about science...

LOL.

You are dumb.
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-03 02:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
tenets of science,
Post by James McGinn
LOL. I didn't know science had basic tenets.
Of course you don't know, you know practically nothing about science...
LOL.
You are dumb.
Yet another snappy retort from the biggest dumbfuck in all of sci.physics...
James McGinn
2017-10-03 05:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
tenets of science,
Post by James McGinn
LOL. I didn't know science had basic tenets.
Of course you don't know, you know practically nothing about science...
LOL.
You are dumb.
Yet another snappy retort from the biggest dumbfuck in all of sci.physics...
You got nothing!!!
James McGinn
2017-10-05 01:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
You are so desperate you've resigned yourself to out of context quotes. You are just a moron without an argument or even a point.
Leave science to scientists, you fool.
And *you* are so desperate that you deny the basic tenets of science,
LOL. I didn't know science had basic tenets.
Of course you don't know, you know practically nothing about science...
James McGinn
2017-10-05 01:51:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
You are so desperate you've resigned yourself to out of context quotes. You are just a moron without an argument or even a point.
Leave science to scientists, you fool.
And *you* are so desperate that you deny the basic tenets of science,
LOL. I didn't know science had basic tenets.
Of course you don't know, you know practically nothing about science...
So, let me get this straight. You morons (in this case I mean this inclusive of that Berkeley fraud professor, Saykally) believe that anything that is generally accepted doesn't have to be tested or verified through empirical testing and anything new, no matter how well it is supported by empirical testing, can be ignored until the generally accepted (and never tested) notion is proven wrong.

This is how religion works, you moron. Not science!!!

And so, your "tenets" of science are for retards and con artists. In this instance, Saykally is the con artist and you are . . . well, let's just say you are special. (As in special Olympics.)
Edward Prochak
2017-10-04 16:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
LOL. I didn't know science had basic tenets.
JM admits he doesn't know how science works.
The fact that he doesn't know science has
been obvious for years now to more readers here.

Enjoy,
ed
Serg io
2017-10-04 16:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Prochak
Post by James McGinn
LOL. I didn't know science had basic tenets.
JM admits he doesn't know how science works.
The fact that he doesn't know science has
been obvious for years now to more readers here.
Enjoy,
ed
we need to remove James mahGinn from Sci.Physics for his demonstrated
incompetence.
benj
2017-10-04 18:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serg io
Post by Edward Prochak
Post by James McGinn
LOL. I didn't know science had basic tenets.
JM admits he doesn't know how science works.
The fact that he doesn't know science has
been obvious for years now to more readers here.
Enjoy,
ed
we need to remove James mahGinn from Sci.Physics for his demonstrated
incompetence.
Oh my! How "establishment science" of you to be calling not only for
censorship in a free and open forum, but removal of any new ideas not
pre-approved by you.

So, have you ably demonstrated that each and every idea of McFly is
wrong? And even if you have, you simply cannot demonstrate that any
FUTURE ideas he may have will also be wrong.

This is what free speech is all about and how it advances civilization.
Burning people at the stake for expressing unapproved doctrine did not
advance civilization before and will not do so now.

Proper form is to demonstrate that the theories of nutjobs are nuts, not
to charge them with heresy. That is for religion not science.
Serg io
2017-10-04 19:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by Serg io
Post by Edward Prochak
LOL.  I didn't know science had basic tenets.
JM admits he doesn't know how science works.
The fact that he doesn't know science has
been obvious for years now to more readers here.
Enjoy,
   ed
we need to remove James mahGinn from Sci.Physics for his demonstrated
incompetence.
Oh my! How "establishment science" of you to be calling not only for
censorship in a free and open forum, but removal of any new ideas not
pre-approved by you.
So, have you ably demonstrated that each and every idea of McFly is
wrong? And even if you have, you simply cannot demonstrate that any
FUTURE ideas he may have will also be wrong.
This is what free speech is all about and how it advances civilization.
Burning people at the stake for expressing unapproved doctrine did not
advance civilization before and will not do so now.
Proper form is to demonstrate that the theories of nutjobs are nuts, not
to charge them with heresy. That is for religion not science.
....you are right, I'm just down as Senator McCain passed a bill
cutting off RT from US media, {Russian Television} because they might
influance someone, like Hillary's PBS network does. And because the FBI
is investigating Russians (or Russian sounding names) who may have
posted what some could consider 'Fake News'. Facebook admits helping
Hillary while they had over what they think are "Russian ads". Google
and Tweeter are both searching their big data to burn Russians for
daring to express ideas. no foreign ideas here,

I now understand that McFly's posts, such as they are, greatly help
underscore the need and reasons for a good solid education in the
sciences. And your point about his future ideas is true, especially if
he continues in his science fiction areas. (lots of movie money in that!)

mahGinn can remove the "incompetence" feelings by posting a single
equation that involves either density or partial pressure, or specific
heat, or humidity, latent heat, or algebra, calculus, or physics, or
math, including addition, and explain what it means. Like Lawyers
speaking latin phrases, impressive, now worth $500/hr.

SO, agree not needed to remove McFly, but perhaps create a McFly bubble.
James McGinn
2017-10-05 00:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by Serg io
Post by Edward Prochak
Post by James McGinn
LOL. I didn't know science had basic tenets.
JM admits he doesn't know how science works.
The fact that he doesn't know science has
been obvious for years now to more readers here.
Enjoy,
ed
we need to remove James mahGinn from Sci.Physics for his demonstrated
incompetence.
Oh my! How "establishment science" of you to be calling not only for
censorship in a free and open forum, but removal of any new ideas not
pre-approved by you.
So, have you ably demonstrated that each and every idea of McFly is
wrong? And even if you have, you simply cannot demonstrate that any
FUTURE ideas he may have will also be wrong.
This is what free speech is all about and how it advances civilization.
Burning people at the stake for expressing unapproved doctrine did not
advance civilization before and will not do so now.
Proper form is to demonstrate that the theories of nutjobs are nuts, not
to charge them with heresy. That is for religion not science.
Well, benj. Do you agree with Bodkin and Pnal that the people that make the phase diagrams for H2O (sometimes called 'steam tables') mistakenly missed a phase of gaseous H2O that exists at ambient temperatures (let's say 40 Celsius)?

I mean, think about it, these guys are trying to tell us that thousands of scientists over hundreds years knew about this form of gaseous H2O ('cold steam') but never bothered to write it down in any way.

Does this make sense?
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-05 00:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
I mean, think about it, these guys are trying to tell us that thousands of scientists over hundreds years knew about this form of gaseous H2O ('cold steam') but never bothered to write it down in any way.
Oh, so *now* you are finally giving us your definition of 'cold steam', which you say is the gaseous form of water in the atmosphere at temperatures below the boiling point of water! Why the hell didn't you just say so when I first asked you for your definition? WHY?

If Benj bothers to answer you, I would bet that he would not agree with you. No one with half a brain would agree with you. Tens of thousands of scientists around the world do not agree with you... because you are wrong. Benj may be misguided here and there, but he is clearly not stupid...
Yuri Kreato n
2017-10-05 01:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
I mean, think about it, these guys are trying to tell us that thousands of scientists over hundreds years knew about this form of gaseous H2O ('cold steam') but never bothered to write it down in any way.
sure, jimmy boy.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Oh, so *now* you are finally giving us your definition of 'cold steam', which you say is the gaseous form of water in the atmosphere at temperatures below the boiling point of water! Why the hell didn't you just say so when I first asked you for your definition? WHY?
If Benj bothers to answer you, I would bet that he would not agree with you. No one with half a brain would agree with you. Tens of thousands of scientists around the world do not agree with you... because you are wrong. Benj may be misguided here and there, but he is clearly not stupid...
"if you listen to McGinn/Denk, you will get stupider."
Lofty Goat
2017-10-05 02:00:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 17:37:15 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
... people that make the phase diagrams for H2O (sometimes called
'steam tables') mistakenly missed a phase of gaseous H2O that exists
at ambient temperature....
You've got to be joking. Have you never in your life heard the term
"vapor pressure"? I don't even know who first came up with the idea, or
when, but it was already common in scientific literature 200 years ago.

Two hundred damn' years.

BTW, who calls phase diagrams "steam tables"? No one but you, that's
who. Steam isn't even *relevant* to phase diagrams, which concern
themselves with solids, liquids and gasses, i.e. *vapor*.

Yes, vapor. Not droplets, vapor.

Despite the name "steam engine", referring to a heat engine using water
vapor, vapor mind you, as the working fluid, the universally accepted
definition of steam is an aerosol of water: airborne droplets.

It occurs when water is heated to the point where it forms vapor, then
that vapor comes into contact with cooler air, losing some of its heat,
and forming [drumroll] droplets. Yup, tiny spheres of liquid water.

Think about it. Invest in a kettle, see it happen. Learn a little.

I go off for a week, barely have time to dip back into this NG, and what
do I find? The only constant in a chaotic world: you being obtuse about
thermodynamics. A safe harbor of ignorance in a scary, rational world.

Why do you do it? There's no percentage in it, is there?

I'm curious, honestly, in the sense that one is curious about circus
geeks. Why? Were you wrong once, and so averse to admitting a mistake
that you struck off onto an unceasing vendetta against reason?

Inquiring minds gots to know.

But later. Sleep beats insanity any day.

Zzzzz-z-z-z--z--z--z....
--
Goat
James McGinn
2017-10-05 02:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lofty Goat
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 17:37:15 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
Yes, vapor. Not droplets, vapor.
Vapor has liquid droplets of H2O in it. It doesn't contain gas, you simpleton.
Post by Lofty Goat
Despite the name "steam engine", referring to a heat engine using water
vapor, vapor mind you, as the working fluid,
Steam engine are powered by steam (gaseous H2O), not vapor, you idiot.
Post by Lofty Goat
the universally accepted
definition of steam is an aerosol of water: airborne droplets.
According to who? You and your dog?
Post by Lofty Goat
It occurs when water is heated to the point where it forms vapor,
Evaporation and sublimation produce vapor. Heating speeds it up. But it happens constantly anyways. I learned this in kindergarten.

Did you ever go to school?




then
Post by Lofty Goat
that vapor comes into contact with cooler air, losing some of its heat,
and forming [drumroll] droplets. Yup, tiny spheres of liquid water.
Vapor is liquid. So the droplets just get bigger
Post by Lofty Goat
Think about it. Invest in a kettle, see it happen. Learn a little.
Retard.
Post by Lofty Goat
I go off for a week, barely have time to dip back into this NG, and what
do I find? The only constant in a chaotic world: you being obtuse about
thermodynamics. A safe harbor of ignorance in a scary, rational world.
You are a moron that has the discovery channel. Find a new hobby.
Post by Lofty Goat
Why do you do it? There's no percentage in it, is there?
I'm curious, honestly, in the sense that one is curious about circus
geeks. Why? Were you wrong once, and so averse to admitting a mistake
that you struck off onto an unceasing vendetta against reason?
You have the mind of a twelve year old.
Post by Lofty Goat
Inquiring minds gots to know.
But later. Sleep beats insanity any day.
Zzzzz-z-z-z--z--z--z....
--
Goat
James McGinn
2017-10-05 14:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lofty Goat
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 17:37:15 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
... people that make the phase diagrams for H2O (sometimes called
'steam tables') mistakenly missed a phase of gaseous H2O that exists
at ambient temperature....
You've got to be joking. Have you never in your life heard the term
"vapor pressure"?
Yes. I'm an expert on the subject. What is your question?
Post by Lofty Goat
I don't even know who first came up with the idea, or
when, but it was already common in scientific literature 200 years ago.
Two hundred damn' years.
Yeah, so. Do you have a relevant point? If not please don't shit on my thread. Start your own thread.
Post by Lofty Goat
BTW, who calls phase diagrams "steam tables"?
Fuck you, retard. Go find another hobby. Science is for smart people.


No one but you, that's
Post by Lofty Goat
who. Steam isn't even *relevant* to phase diagrams, which concern
themselves with solids, liquids and gasses, i.e. *vapor*.
Yes, vapor. Not droplets, vapor.
Despite the name "steam engine", referring to a heat engine using water
vapor, vapor mind you, as the working fluid, the universally accepted
definition of steam is an aerosol of water: airborne droplets.
LOL. You are a retard. It's impossible for steam to persist at temperatures below its boiling point, you idiot. Prove me wrong, dumbass.
Post by Lofty Goat
It occurs when water is heated to the point where it forms vapor, then
that vapor comes into contact with cooler air, losing some of its heat,
and forming [drumroll] droplets. Yup, tiny spheres of liquid water.
Vapor is tiny spheres of liquid H2O, you fucking retard.
Post by Lofty Goat
Think about it. Invest in a kettle, see it happen. Learn a little.
I go off for a week, barely have time to dip back into this NG, and what
do I find? The only constant in a chaotic world: you being obtuse about
thermodynamics.
LOL. You are a simpleton who can only pretend to be smart.



A safe harbor of ignorance in a scary, rational world.
Post by Lofty Goat
Why do you do it? There's no percentage in it, is there?
I'm curious, honestly, in the sense that one is curious about circus
geeks. Why? Were you wrong once, and so averse to admitting a mistake
that you struck off onto an unceasing vendetta against reason?
You got nothing!!!
Post by Lofty Goat
Inquiring minds gots to know.
But later. Sleep beats insanity any day.
Zzzzz-z-z-z--z--z--z....
--
Goat
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-05 18:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Vapor is tiny spheres of liquid H2O, you fucking retard.
No, that is incorrect, or rather, that *can* be incorrect, for there are several definitions of 'vapor'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
"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.[4] 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."

https://antithrlies.com/2015/03/20/science-lesson-what-are-vapor-aerosol-particles-liquids-and-such/
"Vapor (in the normal sense of the term) refers to the gas phase of something that is “normally” a liquid. So the bits of H2O that evaporate into the air are “water vapor” (not to be confused with fog — keep reading)."

http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-vapor-and-gas/
"It is also of paramount importance to note that vapour is a result of the two types of vaporization of a liquid which are boiling and evaporation, the transition from liquid phase to ‘gas phase’. Evaporation occurs at the surface of the liquid when its temperature is below the boiling temperature at a given pressure. Boiling occurs below the surface of the liquid.
James McGinn
2017-10-06 03:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Vapor is tiny spheres of liquid H2O, you fucking retard.
No, that is incorrect, or rather, that *can* be incorrect, for there are several definitions of 'vapor'.
Yeah, because you snipped the context, you evasive jackass. Our meanings were perfectly clear in context. Go away.
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-06 03:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Vapor is tiny spheres of liquid H2O, you fucking retard.
No, that is incorrect, or rather, that *can* be incorrect, for there are several definitions of 'vapor'.
Yeah, because you snipped the context, you evasive jackass. Our meanings were perfectly clear in context. Go away.
No, those definitions are in full context... which *you* snipped... they clearly are talking about water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.

You Lose. Again. As always.
James McGinn
2017-10-06 04:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Vapor is tiny spheres of liquid H2O, you fucking retard.
No, that is incorrect, or rather, that *can* be incorrect, for there are several definitions of 'vapor'.
Yeah, because you snipped the context, you evasive jackass. Our meanings were perfectly clear in context. Go away.
No, those definitions are in full context... which *you* snipped... they clearly are talking about water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.
You Lose. Again. As always.
You got nothing!!!
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-06 04:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Vapor is tiny spheres of liquid H2O, you fucking retard.
No, that is incorrect, or rather, that *can* be incorrect, for there are several definitions of 'vapor'.
Yeah, because you snipped the context, you evasive jackass. Our meanings were perfectly clear in context. Go away.
No, those definitions are in full context... which *you* snipped... they clearly are talking about water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.
You Lose. Again. As always.
You got nothing!!!

Claudius Denk
2017-10-07 16:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Vapor is tiny spheres of liquid H2O, you fucking retard.
No, that is incorrect, or rather, that *can* be incorrect, for there are several definitions of 'vapor'.
Yeah, because you snipped the context, you evasive jackass. Our meanings were perfectly clear in context. Go away.
No, those definitions are in full context... which *you* snipped... they clearly are talking about water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.
You Lose. Again. As always.
You lie aggregiously because you know your fellow believers won't care.

Science has become a religion.
reber G=emc^2
2017-10-07 17:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Vapor is tiny spheres of liquid H2O, you fucking retard.
No, that is incorrect, or rather, that *can* be incorrect, for there are several definitions of 'vapor'.
Yeah, because you snipped the context, you evasive jackass. Our meanings were perfectly clear in context. Go away.
No, those definitions are in full context... which *you* snipped... they clearly are talking about water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.
You Lose. Again. As always.
You lie aggregiously because you know your fellow believers won't care.
Science has become a religion.
My G=EMC^2 fits with both religion and science.Thus I get letters from popes and Nobel scientists.I like that.TreBert
hanson
2017-10-07 19:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Liar "reber G=emc^2" <***@gmail.com> aka
<http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-loud-retarded-pig> and
<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>, who
My G=EMC^2 fits with both religion and science since it
is short for "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism".
Thus I got 2 form letters from 2 popes and from NO Nobel
scientists.I like that, but TreBert just lied again as seen in
<http://tinyurl.com/Bert-s-Selfintroductn-Oct2017>
wherein Glazier shows his prime life-time achievement
which states:
*** "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
*** an IQ of 122", and "I know how everything works."
*** "I feel very safe when I lie. I will lie till I die". Trebert
*** "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
*** ___** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **___.
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-07 19:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Vapor is tiny spheres of liquid H2O, you fucking retard.
No, that is incorrect, or rather, that *can* be incorrect, for there are several definitions of 'vapor'.
Yeah, because you snipped the context, you evasive jackass. Our meanings were perfectly clear in context. Go away.
No, those definitions are in full context... which *you* snipped... they clearly are talking about water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.
You Lose. Again. As always.
You lie aggregiously because you know your fellow believers won't care.
Science has become a religion.
YOUR own 'special' science has become a religion, but only for you...
Claudius Denk
2017-10-07 16:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Vapor is tiny spheres of liquid H2O, you fucking retard.
No, that is incorrect, or rather, that *can* be incorrect,
LOL. More evidence that consensus scientists believe that semantic ambiguity is an invitation to subjective interpretation.

Believers thought processes strive to confirm
Lofty Goat
2017-10-08 17:08:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 07:10:31 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
<snip most of the crap> It's impossible for steam to persist at
temperatures below its boiling point, you idiot. <snip more crap>
One example of incoherence: You have the definitions of steam and vapor
reversed. In common parlance they're interchangeable, but in science
words mean specific things.

Try this: Listen to "Adiabatic" on Prolapse's album "Ghosts of Dead
Aeroplanes". It's a good tune. While you're enjoying it, look up the
word "adiabatic". In its definition you'll find many other words you
also don't understand. Look them up as well.

Approach this process with an open mind, and remember what you've read.

After you've looked up a few hundred such words, and begun to grasp the
interconnections between the concepts they describe, you'll have learned
a little thermodynamics. Not a lot, but maybe enough....

Perhaps enough to discuss the subject coherently.

BTW, boiling point has nothing to do with anything. It's dependent on
ambient pressure. Didn't you read that in an earlier post, mine and
others' as well? Boiling point is irrelevant to this matter.

Oh, and steam will remain steam as long as the partial pressure of water
vapor equals or exceeds its vapor pressure at that temperature, and when
it doesn't steam will turn back into vapor.

Any eighth-grader who didn't fail science class knows every bit of this.
Can you understand eighth-grade science?
--
Goat
James McGinn
2017-10-08 17:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lofty Goat
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 07:10:31 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
<snip most of the crap> It's impossible for steam to persist at
temperatures below its boiling point, you idiot. <snip more crap>
One example of incoherence: You have the definitions of steam and vapor
reversed.
R U on drugs? Seriously.

Maybe switch to decaf.
Post by Lofty Goat
In common parlance they're interchangeable, but in science
words mean specific things.
Obviously.
Post by Lofty Goat
Try this: Listen to "Adiabatic" on Prolapse's album "Ghosts of Dead
Aeroplanes". It's a good tune. While you're enjoying it, look up the
word "adiabatic". In its definition you'll find many other words you
also don't understand. Look them up as well.
Approach this process with an open mind, and remember what you've read.
You don't have a point, do you?
Post by Lofty Goat
After you've looked up a few hundred such words, and begun to grasp the
interconnections between the concepts they describe, you'll have learned
a little thermodynamics. Not a lot, but maybe enough....
I'm an expert on thermodynamics. Let me know if you ever formulate your thoughts into a coherent question and I will provide you the correct answer.

In the meantime, get an education.
Post by Lofty Goat
Perhaps enough to discuss the subject coherently.
LOL. You got nothing!!!
Post by Lofty Goat
BTW, boiling point has nothing to do with anything.
Can I quote you on this?
Post by Lofty Goat
It's dependent on
ambient pressure. Didn't you read that in an earlier post, mine and
others' as well?
I'm the one that explained this to you church ladies.
Post by Lofty Goat
Boiling point is irrelevant to this matter.
Take note of the retarded logic. You are an imbecile.
Post by Lofty Goat
Oh, and steam will remain steam as long as the partial pressure of water
vapor equals or exceeds its vapor pressure at that temperature, and when
it doesn't steam will turn back into vapor.
Any eighth-grader who didn't fail science class knows every bit of this.
Can you understand eighth-grade science?
Retard.
Lofty Goat
2017-10-09 03:52:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 10:42:04 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
<snip crap> I'm an expert on thermodynamics. <snip more crap>
Obviously not. You know a lot of words. There's a vast difference
between the two. Try learning something, and I'll check back with you
in a year and see what sort of progress you've made.
--
RLW
Claudius Denk
2017-10-09 05:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lofty Goat
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 10:42:04 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
<snip crap> I'm an expert on thermodynamics. <snip more crap>
Obviously not.
Really? No offense, but why in the world would you expect anybody to take your word on anything?

R U intimidated by my expertise in thermodynamics? Don't be. I am happy to help you gain the expertise you need so that you to may someday pass on this expertise to the next generation.

I am not selfish with my knowledge. Go ahead, ask away.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-09 05:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
R U intimidated by my expertise in thermodynamics?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Are you Freakin' kidding us 'Claudius'?????

James McGinn
AKA Claudius Denk
Solving Tornadoes
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-09 05:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Don't you mean...

James McGinn
AKA Claudius Denk
Solving Tornadoes

See the signature on the original post, here...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics/HiRSy--pvxo
Lofty Goat
2017-10-14 02:39:54 UTC
Permalink
... R U intimidated by my expertise in thermodynamics? Don't be....
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
This is just too funny. It's pitiful, but it's still funny.

I'm bad with names, can neither read nor recognize faces (It's an odd
way to grow up.) but am pretty good at sorting out both voices and
discursive styles. I once inadvertently outed a poster who was
nym-shifting for benign reasons before I learned to be more careful....

But now and then someone who peoples his own fan-club does something
like this. Pitiful. Funny. Yeah, both.

By the way, "R U intimidated...?" [horse laugh] No, not by much.

So let's do this. Instead of waiting a year I'll give you one more go
at it:

None less than Richard Feynman, a personal idol of mine, in his
published lectures on computation, propounds the idea that the second
law of thermodynamics is more than just the result of probability, but
rather that is has a sound basis in physics due to the energy-cost of
information, which he defines in his customary useful manner.

He and others have gone on to use this as an explanation for a minimum
energy-cost of non-reversible computation, others still, seemingly
building upon some of the ideas in Kantor's "Information Mechanics"
(without necessarily always acknowledging them) propose this as the
fundamental basis of the "arrow of time".

While some of this is pretty plausible, there are points in this chain
of reasoning, places when notion A leads to notion B, where I detect a
faint whiff of bullshit.

As a thermodynamics expert, could you clear that up for me? TIA.
--
R L Watkins / Lofty Goat
James McGinn
2017-10-14 04:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lofty Goat
... R U intimidated by my expertise in thermodynamics? Don't be....
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
This is just too funny. It's pitiful, but it's still funny.
I'm bad with names, can neither read nor recognize faces (It's an odd
way to grow up.) but am pretty good at sorting out both voices and
discursive styles. I once inadvertently outed a poster who was
nym-shifting for benign reasons before I learned to be more careful....
But now and then someone who peoples his own fan-club does something
like this. Pitiful. Funny. Yeah, both.
By the way, "R U intimidated...?" [horse laugh] No, not by much.
So let's do this. Instead of waiting a year I'll give you one more go
None less than Richard Feynman, a personal idol of mine, in his
published lectures on computation, propounds the idea that the second
law of thermodynamics is more than just the result of probability, but
rather that is has a sound basis in physics due to the energy-cost of
information, which he defines in his customary useful manner.
He and others have gone on to use this as an explanation for a minimum
energy-cost of non-reversible computation, others still, seemingly
building upon some of the ideas in Kantor's "Information Mechanics"
(without necessarily always acknowledging them) propose this as the
fundamental basis of the "arrow of time".
While some of this is pretty plausible, there are points in this chain
of reasoning, places when notion A leads to notion B, where I detect a
faint whiff of bullshit.
As a thermodynamics expert, could you clear that up for me? TIA.
--
R L Watkins / Lofty Goat
Piss off retard.
benj
2017-10-14 20:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Post by Lofty Goat
... R U intimidated by my expertise in thermodynamics? Don't be....
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
This is just too funny. It's pitiful, but it's still funny.
I'm bad with names, can neither read nor recognize faces (It's an odd
way to grow up.) but am pretty good at sorting out both voices and
discursive styles. I once inadvertently outed a poster who was
nym-shifting for benign reasons before I learned to be more careful....
But now and then someone who peoples his own fan-club does something
like this. Pitiful. Funny. Yeah, both.
By the way, "R U intimidated...?" [horse laugh] No, not by much.
So let's do this. Instead of waiting a year I'll give you one more go
None less than Richard Feynman, a personal idol of mine, in his
published lectures on computation, propounds the idea that the second
law of thermodynamics is more than just the result of probability, but
rather that is has a sound basis in physics due to the energy-cost of
information, which he defines in his customary useful manner.
He and others have gone on to use this as an explanation for a minimum
energy-cost of non-reversible computation, others still, seemingly
building upon some of the ideas in Kantor's "Information Mechanics"
(without necessarily always acknowledging them) propose this as the
fundamental basis of the "arrow of time".
While some of this is pretty plausible, there are points in this chain
of reasoning, places when notion A leads to notion B, where I detect a
faint whiff of bullshit.
As a thermodynamics expert, could you clear that up for me? TIA.
--
R L Watkins / Lofty Goat
Piss off retard.
Uh oh! Looks like that long awaited modern explanation of cold steam is
going to have to wait!
Serg io
2017-10-15 04:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by James McGinn
... R U intimidated by my expertise in thermodynamics?  Don't be....
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
This is just too funny.  It's pitiful, but it's still funny.
I'm bad with names, can neither read nor recognize faces (It's an odd
way to grow up.) but am pretty good at sorting out both voices and
discursive styles.  I once inadvertently outed a poster who was
nym-shifting for benign reasons before I learned to be more careful....
But now and then someone who peoples his own fan-club does something
like this.  Pitiful.  Funny.  Yeah, both.
By the way, "R U intimidated...?"  [horse laugh]  No, not by much.
So let's do this.  Instead of waiting a year I'll give you one more go
None less than Richard Feynman, a personal idol of mine, in his
published lectures on computation, propounds the idea that the second
law of thermodynamics is more than just the result of probability, but
rather that is has a sound basis in physics due to the energy-cost of
information, which he defines in his customary useful manner.
He and others have gone on to use this as an explanation for a minimum
energy-cost of non-reversible computation, others still, seemingly
building upon some of the ideas in Kantor's "Information Mechanics"
(without necessarily always acknowledging them) propose this as the
fundamental basis of the "arrow of time".
While some of this is pretty plausible, there are points in this chain
of reasoning, places when notion A leads to notion B, where I detect a
faint whiff of bullshit.
As a thermodynamics expert, could you clear that up for me?  TIA.
--
R L Watkins / Lofty Goat
Piss off retard.
Uh oh! Looks like that long awaited modern explanation of cold steam is
going to have to wait!
no need, [cold steam is fog] this holloweenie, watch the fog makers,
they are all making cold steam.

McGinn, is fog "cold steam" or not ? yes or no.. Answer NOW !!
Serg io
2017-10-17 13:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by James McGinn
... R U intimidated by my expertise in thermodynamics?  Don't be....
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
This is just too funny.  It's pitiful, but it's still funny.
I'm bad with names, can neither read nor recognize faces (It's an odd
way to grow up.) but am pretty good at sorting out both voices and
discursive styles.  I once inadvertently outed a poster who was
nym-shifting for benign reasons before I learned to be more careful....
But now and then someone who peoples his own fan-club does something
like this.  Pitiful.  Funny.  Yeah, both.
By the way, "R U intimidated...?"  [horse laugh]  No, not by much.
So let's do this.  Instead of waiting a year I'll give you one more go
None less than Richard Feynman, a personal idol of mine, in his
published lectures on computation, propounds the idea that the second
law of thermodynamics is more than just the result of probability, but
rather that is has a sound basis in physics due to the energy-cost of
information, which he defines in his customary useful manner.
He and others have gone on to use this as an explanation for a minimum
energy-cost of non-reversible computation, others still, seemingly
building upon some of the ideas in Kantor's "Information Mechanics"
(without necessarily always acknowledging them) propose this as the
fundamental basis of the "arrow of time".
While some of this is pretty plausible, there are points in this chain
of reasoning, places when notion A leads to notion B, where I detect a
faint whiff of bullshit.
As a thermodynamics expert, could you clear that up for me?  TIA.
--
R L Watkins / Lofty Goat
Piss off retard.
Uh oh! Looks like that long awaited modern explanation of cold steam
is going to have to wait!
no need, [cold steam is fog]   this holloweenie, watch the fog makers,
they are all making cold steam.
McGinn, is fog "cold steam" or not ?   yes or no..  Answer NOW !!
no answer from JMCDST, none.

McGinn never had any answers.

only a macguffin.

(gotcha Mcginn, "cold steam = fog", or do you deny that ?)



McGinn IS a fog denier.
James McGinn
2017-10-17 16:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serg io
Post by benj
Post by James McGinn
... R U intimidated by my expertise in thermodynamics?  Don't be....
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
This is just too funny.  It's pitiful, but it's still funny.
I'm bad with names, can neither read nor recognize faces (It's an odd
way to grow up.) but am pretty good at sorting out both voices and
discursive styles.  I once inadvertently outed a poster who was
nym-shifting for benign reasons before I learned to be more careful....
But now and then someone who peoples his own fan-club does something
like this.  Pitiful.  Funny.  Yeah, both.
By the way, "R U intimidated...?"  [horse laugh]  No, not by much.
So let's do this.  Instead of waiting a year I'll give you one more go
None less than Richard Feynman, a personal idol of mine, in his
published lectures on computation, propounds the idea that the second
law of thermodynamics is more than just the result of probability, but
rather that is has a sound basis in physics due to the energy-cost of
information, which he defines in his customary useful manner.
He and others have gone on to use this as an explanation for a minimum
energy-cost of non-reversible computation, others still, seemingly
building upon some of the ideas in Kantor's "Information Mechanics"
(without necessarily always acknowledging them) propose this as the
fundamental basis of the "arrow of time".
While some of this is pretty plausible, there are points in this chain
of reasoning, places when notion A leads to notion B, where I detect a
faint whiff of bullshit.
As a thermodynamics expert, could you clear that up for me?  TIA.
--
R L Watkins / Lofty Goat
Piss off retard.
Uh oh! Looks like that long awaited modern explanation of cold steam
is going to have to wait!
no need, [cold steam is fog]   this holloweenie, watch the fog makers,
they are all making cold steam.
McGinn, is fog "cold steam" or not ?   yes or no..  Answer NOW !!
no answer from JMC
What was the question?
James McGinn
2018-03-09 16:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Post by Serg io
Post by benj
Post by James McGinn
... R U intimidated by my expertise in thermodynamics?  Don't be....
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
This is just too funny.  It's pitiful, but it's still funny.
I'm bad with names, can neither read nor recognize faces (It's an odd
way to grow up.) but am pretty good at sorting out both voices and
discursive styles.  I once inadvertently outed a poster who was
nym-shifting for benign reasons before I learned to be more careful....
But now and then someone who peoples his own fan-club does something
like this.  Pitiful.  Funny.  Yeah, both.
By the way, "R U intimidated...?"  [horse laugh]  No, not by much.
So let's do this.  Instead of waiting a year I'll give you one more go
None less than Richard Feynman, a personal idol of mine, in his
published lectures on computation, propounds the idea that the second
law of thermodynamics is more than just the result of probability, but
rather that is has a sound basis in physics due to the energy-cost of
information, which he defines in his customary useful manner.
He and others have gone on to use this as an explanation for a minimum
energy-cost of non-reversible computation, others still, seemingly
building upon some of the ideas in Kantor's "Information Mechanics"
(without necessarily always acknowledging them) propose this as the
fundamental basis of the "arrow of time".
While some of this is pretty plausible, there are points in this chain
of reasoning, places when notion A leads to notion B, where I detect a
faint whiff of bullshit.
As a thermodynamics expert, could you clear that up for me?  TIA.
--
R L Watkins / Lofty Goat
Piss off retard.
Uh oh! Looks like that long awaited modern explanation of cold steam
is going to have to wait!
no need, [cold steam is fog]   this holloweenie, watch the fog makers,
they are all making cold steam.
McGinn, is fog "cold steam" or not ?   yes or no..  Answer NOW !!
no answer from JMC
What was the question?
Lofty Goat
2017-10-15 01:41:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:47:25 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Post by Lofty Goat
... R U intimidated by my expertise in thermodynamics? Don't be....
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
This is just too funny. It's pitiful, but it's still funny.
I'm bad with names, can neither read nor recognize faces (It's an odd
way to grow up.) but am pretty good at sorting out both voices and
discursive styles. I once inadvertently outed a poster who was
nym-shifting for benign reasons before I learned to be more careful....
But now and then someone who peoples his own fan-club does something
like this. Pitiful. Funny. Yeah, both.
By the way, "R U intimidated...?" [horse laugh] No, not by much.
So let's do this. Instead of waiting a year I'll give you one more go
None less than Richard Feynman, a personal idol of mine, in his
published lectures on computation, propounds the idea that the second
law of thermodynamics is more than just the result of probability, but
rather that is has a sound basis in physics due to the energy-cost of
information, which he defines in his customary useful manner.
He and others have gone on to use this as an explanation for a minimum
energy-cost of non-reversible computation, others still, seemingly
building upon some of the ideas in Kantor's "Information Mechanics"
(without necessarily always acknowledging them) propose this as the
fundamental basis of the "arrow of time".
While some of this is pretty plausible, there are points in this chain
of reasoning, places when notion A leads to notion B, where I detect a
faint whiff of bullshit.
As a thermodynamics expert, could you clear that up for me? TIA.
--
R L Watkins / Lofty Goat
Piss off retard.
But wait...!

You aren't going to clear up for me that business about physics
providing a more reliable basis for the second law of thermodynamics [1]
than does statistics? Not even that small part of that big picture?

And to think I held out such hope.

And you don't know what vapor pressure, or partial pressure, or
equilibrium are? And you can't read a phase diagram?

And you can't figure out how to set up separate posting profiles in your
newsreader for your various nyms?

And you can't come up with an original insult, instead recycling the one
I offered Hanson [2] a few days ago?

Your mind is probably as good as anyone else's, but your use of it is
gravely disappointing. I spent much of this day learning to fly an
airplane. What did you learn? It's a big world; better get started.

But it's naptime. After a few hundred of them, I may be in the mood to
check in with you (pl.) again. Meanwhile, it's Morpheus' turn.

[1] As an expert, you will recall the three laws of thermodynamics:
1: You can't win.
2: You can't break even.
3: You can't get out of the game.
Your posting history is living proof of the first two, and strongly
suggestive of the third.

[2] If your true goal is to troll, you could learn a lot from Hanson.
He's better at it than you are, and far, far grumpier.
--
Goat
benj
2017-10-14 20:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lofty Goat
... R U intimidated by my expertise in thermodynamics? Don't be....
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
This is just too funny. It's pitiful, but it's still funny.
I'm bad with names, can neither read nor recognize faces (It's an odd
way to grow up.) but am pretty good at sorting out both voices and
discursive styles. I once inadvertently outed a poster who was
nym-shifting for benign reasons before I learned to be more careful....
But now and then someone who peoples his own fan-club does something
like this. Pitiful. Funny. Yeah, both.
By the way, "R U intimidated...?" [horse laugh] No, not by much.
So let's do this. Instead of waiting a year I'll give you one more go
None less than Richard Feynman, a personal idol of mine, in his
published lectures on computation, propounds the idea that the second
law of thermodynamics is more than just the result of probability, but
rather that is has a sound basis in physics due to the energy-cost of
information, which he defines in his customary useful manner.
He and others have gone on to use this as an explanation for a minimum
energy-cost of non-reversible computation, others still, seemingly
building upon some of the ideas in Kantor's "Information Mechanics"
(without necessarily always acknowledging them) propose this as the
fundamental basis of the "arrow of time".
While some of this is pretty plausible, there are points in this chain
of reasoning, places when notion A leads to notion B, where I detect a
faint whiff of bullshit.
As a thermodynamics expert, could you clear that up for me? TIA.
Obviously Goat, you are an expert in Thermodynamics in that you have
made the connection that information flow is entropy flow. Few do this,
still trying to limp along with steam engine thermodynamics and can't
make the leap into the electronic age.

I'm pretty sure that McFly as a thermodynamics expert can quickly
explain your difficulties with Feynman's incorporation of modern
concepts especially Kantor's "Information Mechanics" into the advanced
theory of cold steam...
Lofty Goat
2017-10-15 16:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Obviously Goat, you are an expert in Thermodynamics....
No Ben, I'm not an expert in anything.

I just like learning stuff, and if the stuff I learn gives me useful
answers to real problems, or if it fits together with other stuff to
make a clearer picture of the world I inhabit, then I like it even more.
I like science, was studying to be a marine architect when I had to drop
out of high-school; later on IT / CS made itself my life's work.

Have to keep the lights on and keep people fed. That works well enough.

But expert? No. I'm just another jerk taking pride in his work, as the
song says, and having a good time reading what other smart folks - And I
am one of those; I like to think and am good at it. - have to say
concerning interesting subjects about which they know more than I do.

Because of that, mostly I just read.

But I lit into McGinn / Denk because he puts so damn' much effort into
insulting people who themselves put effort into understanding things.
Still, in the long term, why bother with him and his ilk?

The guy is a stupid pigfucker. QED.
--
RLW
James McGinn
2017-10-16 17:38:35 UTC
Permalink
But expert? No. I'm just another jerk taking pride in his work, as the
song says, and having a good time reading what other smart folks - And I
am one of those; I like to think and am good at it. - have to say

You are just the typical consensus jerk. You don't present arguments you just whine. And your primary argumentive tactic is to bore your audience with irrelevant rhetoric.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Consensus is for dopes.
benj
2017-10-16 22:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lofty Goat
Obviously Goat, you are an expert in Thermodynamics....
No Ben, I'm not an expert in anything.
I just like learning stuff, and if the stuff I learn gives me useful
answers to real problems, or if it fits together with other stuff to
make a clearer picture of the world I inhabit, then I like it even more.
I like science, was studying to be a marine architect when I had to drop
out of high-school; later on IT / CS made itself my life's work.
Have to keep the lights on and keep people fed. That works well enough.
But expert? No. I'm just another jerk taking pride in his work, as the
song says, and having a good time reading what other smart folks - And I
am one of those; I like to think and am good at it. - have to say
concerning interesting subjects about which they know more than I do.
Because of that, mostly I just read.
But I lit into McGinn / Denk because he puts so damn' much effort into
insulting people who themselves put effort into understanding things.
Still, in the long term, why bother with him and his ilk?
The guy is a stupid pigfucker. QED.
Heh. Just wait until he finds a big patch of "cold steam" and then
you'll look bad! :-)
Claudius Denk
2017-10-09 05:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lofty Goat
Post by James McGinn
I'm an expert on thermodynamics.
You know a lot of words.
It's regrettable that you are unable to formulate an argument. Have you considered the possibility that you are just fucking wrong?

James McGinn
H Bonds Neutralize H2O Polarity
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16798
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-09 05:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Lofty Goat
Post by James McGinn
I'm an expert on thermodynamics.
You know a lot of words.
It's regrettable that you are unable to formulate an argument. Have you considered the possibility that you are just fucking wrong?
James McGinn
H Bonds Neutralize H2O Polarity
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16798
Oops, got that sig wrong, guys...

James McGinn
AKA Claudius Denk
Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2017-10-09 05:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Lofty Goat
Post by James McGinn
I'm an expert on thermodynamics.
You know a lot of words.
It's regrettable that you are unable to formulate an argument. Have you considered the possibility that you are just fucking wrong?
James McGinn
H Bonds Neutralize H2O Polarity
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16798
Oops, got that sig wrong, guys...
James McGinn
AKA Claudius Denk
Solving Tornadoes
It's regrettable that your inability to formulate an argument has brought you to this paranoid state of mind in which you are so obsessed with typographical errors. What underlies your inability to formulate an argument, IYO?
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-09 06:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Typographical error, Jim?

What a liar! Amazing...
James McGinn
2017-10-09 06:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lofty Goat
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 10:42:04 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
<snip crap> I'm an expert on thermodynamics. <snip more crap>
Obviously not. You know a lot of words.
You got nothing!!!
Post by Lofty Goat
There's a vast difference between the two.
Meaningless.
Post by Lofty Goat
Try learning something, and I'll check back with you
in a year and see what sort of progress you've made.
You are a pathetic sore loser.
James McGinn
2017-10-04 13:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
You are so desperate you've resigned yourself to out of context quotes. You are just a moron without an argument or even a point.
Leave science to scientists, you fool.
And *you* are so desperate that you deny the basic tenets of science, proving that you're no scientist, but just a pretender, a common liar. The quote is not out of context, it is exactly what science demands.
I *do* leave science to scientists... too bad that *you* don't!
It is too bad you don't endeavor to explain to us why you believe something for which you have absolutely zero evidence.
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-04 15:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Same statement right back atcha'...
Claudius Denk
2017-10-05 03:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
I *did* say that the gaseous form of water can exist in the atmosphere below the boiling point of water at STP, for example.
"... son of a butch"?
Where's that 'cold steam' definition, you cowardly son of a bitch?
You just defined it yourself. So you don't need me to define it for you.
I did no such thing.
Yes you did you lying son of a bitch.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
There is no debate in mainstream science
Also true enough. Unfortunately for you, your theories are definitely *not* mainstream science
That's right. The mainstream is comprised of brain-dead science groupies that don't think. Only retards believe based on what everybody else believes. I am not a retard. You are.
If you are not smart you have no choice but to go along with the mainstream.
I have a choice. You can only believe.
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
LOL. So, McGinn has to prove Saykally wrong or Saykally won't hear McGinn's argument.

Can you believe that arrogance.
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-05 03:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
LOL. So, McGinn has to prove Saykally wrong or Saykally won't hear McGinn's argument.
Can you believe that arrogance.
Exactly.

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

Dr. Saykally represents the entire scientific community, not just himself. It is not *his* theory that the gaseous form of water exists in the atmosphere at temperatures below the boiling point of water, or that humid air is lighter than dry air, these are standard mainstream physics tenets, the result of hundreds of years of experiments and observations, and continue to this day being proven daily in school laboratories everywhere. AFAICT, *you* are the only person around who claims otherwise. It is *you* who is arguing that the mainstream model is incorrect, you and you alone, so naturally it is up to you to propose an experimental test to support your position.

However, since you are dumber than a big bag of hammers, it is *you* who presents as arrogant, assuming that it should be mainstream science who needs to defend itself. Wrong, you monstrous dumbfuck, you've got it completely backward... as usual.
James McGinn
2017-10-05 05:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Exactly.

There is no excuse for this, IMO.


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

Dr. Saykally represents the entire scientific community, not just himself.

I agree. And that is the saddest thing of all. Much of science has been marginalized. Critical thinking has gone by the wayside.

It is not *his* theory that the gaseous form of water exists in the atmosphere at temperatures below the boiling point of water, or that humid air is lighter than dry air, these are standard mainstream physics tenets,

There is no such thing as a tenet, dumbass. And fuck you with your phone standards.



the result of hundreds of years of experiments and observations, and continue to this day being proven daily in school laboratories everywhere.

Too bad they didn't publish, huh?

AFAICT, *you* are the only person around who claims otherwise.

Yeah, just me . . .and all of the evidence.


It is *you* who is arguing that the mainstream model is incorrect, you and you alone, so naturally it is up to you to propose an experimental test to support your position.

LOL. Okay. I propose we measure H2O phase change. Oh. It had already been measured.

However, since you are dumber than a big bag of hammers, it is *you* who presents as arrogant, assuming that it should be mainstream science who needs to defend itself. Wrong, you monstrous dumbfuck, you've got it completely backward... as usual.

You are the lowest common denominator.
Claudius Denk
2017-10-07 16:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Dr. Saykally represents the entire scientific community, not just himself. It is not *his* theory that the gaseous form of water exists in the atmosphere at temperatures below the boiling point of water, or that humid air is lighter than dry air, these are standard mainstream physics tenets,
Physics tenets? Did you just make this up?

the result of hundreds of years of experiments and observations, and continue to this day being proven daily in school laboratories everywhere.

Yet you can't find anything. Hmm.

What do you think that indicates?

AFAICT, *you* are the only person around who claims otherwise.

And you are one of many that supports what you can't explain.

What do you think that indicates.

It is *you* who is arguing that the mainstream model is incorrect, you and you alone, so naturally it is up to you to propose an experimental test to support your position.

Steam tables.
p***@gmail.com
2017-10-07 19:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Dr. Saykally represents the entire scientific community, not just himself. It is not *his* theory that the gaseous form of water exists in the atmosphere at temperatures below the boiling point of water, or that humid air is lighter than dry air, these are standard mainstream physics tenets,
Physics tenets? Did you just make this up?
So much for your grammar skills...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenet

"Definition of tenet

:a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially :one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession."

Here the phrase is used in an article...

https://www.livescience.com/18567-wacky-physics-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle.html

"One of the most often quoted, yet least understood, tenets of physics is the uncertainty principle."

So, yes, tenets is a perfectly viable word.
Post by Claudius Denk
the result of hundreds of years of experiments and observations, and continue to this day being proven daily in school laboratories everywhere.
Yet you can't find anything. Hmm.
What do you think that indicates?
This indicates that you have no Google skills, or are simply stump-stupid.
Post by Claudius Denk
AFAICT, *you* are the only person around who claims otherwise.
And you are one of many that supports what you can't explain.
Well, you have never provided any kind of support for your own wacky 'theories'.
Post by Claudius Denk
What do you think that indicates.
Clearly, that indicates that you have no observation, experiments or data to share.
Post by Claudius Denk
It is *you* who is arguing that the mainstream model is incorrect, you and you alone, so naturally it is up to you to propose an experimental test to support your position.
Steam tables.
Steam tables are related to steam as produced by boiling water. Steam tables do not address evaporation and/or sublimation.
James McGinn
2017-10-02 05:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Now here is the question that matters. Here is the question you have been evading over and over again. Do you have any empirical (non-anecdotal) evidence that the H2O that is in clear, moist air at ambient temperatures and at STP is gaseous?
Answer the question you evasive son of a bitch.
James McGinn
2018-03-13 06:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Just like your overwhelmingly elusive definition of 'cold steam'...
Do you deny that you have claimed that steam can exist at temperatures cooler and pressures higher than those indicated in the H2O phase diagram?
Answer the question you lying son of a butch.
I don't understand your question, as presented. Steam, as per Webster, is "the invisible vapor into which water is converted when heated to the boiling point".
I *did* say that the gaseous form of water can exist in the atmosphere below the boiling point of water at STP, for example.
"... son of a butch"?
Where's that 'cold steam' definition, you cowardly son of a bitch?
You just defined it yourself. So you don't need me to define it for you.
Now here is the question that matters. Here is the question you have been evading over and over again. Do you have any empirical (non-anecdotal) evidence that the H2O that is in clear, moist air at ambient temperatures and at STP is gaseous?
The correct and honest answer to this question is, no, you do not. You are a bird brain and a consensus bozo. like all of the rest of you birds of a feather you flock together you idiots have come to the conclusion that the reason clear moist air is invisible is because it contains gaseous H2O. Wrong!
This proves that you idiots don't actually understand the scientific thinking process.
No real scientist would ever allow a consensus of dunces to dictate a scientific truth.
You bozos are evidence of how consensus is ruining science.
James McGinn
There is no debate in mainstream science
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16834
James McGinn
2018-03-30 21:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Just like your overwhelmingly elusive definition of 'cold steam'...
Do you deny that you have claimed that steam can exist at temperatures cooler and pressures higher than those indicated in the H2O phase diagram?
Answer the question you lying son of a butch.
I don't understand your question, as presented. Steam, as per Webster, is "the invisible vapor into which water is converted when heated to the boiling point".
I *did* say that the gaseous form of water can exist in the atmosphere below the boiling point of water at STP, for example.
"... son of a butch"?
Where's that 'cold steam' definition, you cowardly son of a bitch?
You just defined it yourself. So you don't need me to define it for you.
Now here is the question that matters. Here is the question you have been evading over and over again. Do you have any empirical (non-anecdotal) evidence that the H2O that is in clear, moist air at ambient temperatures and at STP is gaseous?
The correct and honest answer to this question is, no, you do not. You are a bird brain and a consensus bozo. like all of the rest of you birds of a feather you flock together you idiots have come to the conclusion that the reason clear moist air is invisible is because it contains gaseous H2O. Wrong!
This proves that you idiots don't actually understand the scientific thinking process.
No real scientist would ever allow a consensus of dunces to dictate a scientific truth.
You bozos are evidence of how consensus is ruining science.
James McGinn
There is no debate in mainstream science
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16834
Quadibloc
2018-04-02 08:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Now here is the question that matters. Here is the question you have been
evading over and over again. Do you have any empirical (non-anecdotal) evidence
that the H2O that is in clear, moist air at ambient temperatures and at STP is
gaseous?
Well, there is empirical evidence that the air itself is gaseous.

The water content of air could hardly be solid; if it was, I would remember
bumping into it.

But, as you correctly point out, liquid water only changes into a gas when it is
heated! So have we found a new kind of water, "cold steam"?

There is a way to sort this out.

If you have some sugar, and you want to turn it into a liquid, you would have to heat it to a high temperature. Higher than the temperature of a cup of coffee.

So there you are!

Being dissolved made the sugar stop being solid, but instead behave as a part of
the liquid it was dissolved in. That's why you don't feel it gritting between
your teeth when you drink the coffee with sugar in it.

The water vapor in air isn't gaseous because it has been raised to a temperature
where water becomes a gas... it's gaseous because this water has been *dissolved
in air*, so it's the air with water content that is a gas. Not the water by
itself, but the air plus the water together.

John Savard
James McGinn
2018-04-02 17:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Now here is the question that matters. Here is the question you have
been evading over and over again. Do you have any empirical (non-
anecdotal) evidence that the H2O that is in clear, moist air at
ambient temperatures and at STP is gaseous?
Water vapor is gaseous because H2O has been *dissolved
in air*.
Describe the chemistry by how N2 and/or O2 is able to overcome the relatively huge forces associated with H2O boiling temperature/pressure.
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-02 20:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Now here is the question that matters. Here is the question you have
been evading over and over again. Do you have any empirical (non-
anecdotal) evidence that the H2O that is in clear, moist air at
ambient temperatures and at STP is gaseous?
Water vapor is gaseous because H2O has been *dissolved
in air*.
Describe the chemistry by how N2 and/or O2 is able to overcome the relatively huge forces associated with H2O boiling temperature/pressure.
Why, can't you find this info on your own? It is easy to find...
Sergio
2018-04-02 20:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Now here is the question that matters. Here is the question you have
been evading over and over again. Do you have any empirical (non-
anecdotal) evidence that the H2O that is in clear, moist air at
ambient temperatures and at STP is gaseous?
Water vapor is gaseous because H2O has been *dissolved
in air*.
Describe the chemistry by how N2 and/or O2 is able to overcome the relatively huge forces associated with H2O boiling temperature/pressure.
Why, can't you find this info on your own? It is easy to find...
yea, McGinn,
do your own damn homework,

we are tired of spoon-feeding you.
James McGinn
2018-04-02 20:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Now here is the question that matters. Here is the question you have
been evading over and over again. Do you have any empirical (non-
anecdotal) evidence that the H2O that is in clear, moist air at
ambient temperatures and at STP is gaseous?
Water vapor is gaseous because H2O has been *dissolved
in air*.
Describe the chemistry by how N2 and/or O2 is able to overcome the relatively huge forces associated with H2O boiling temperature/pressure.
Why, can't you find this info on your own? It is easy to find...
You got nothing!!!

Loading...