Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Politics is pro-wrestling. We are the redneck audience.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jimmcginn

1
It's amusing how Jim wants to spam "You got nothing!" while being apparently incapable of supporting his own claims.
not even supporting. He's incapable of even stating what his claims are beyond the most basic "steam is a lie!"

He can't figure out what his claims would indicate for any type of systematic test, not even the most basic application of the ideal gas law.

Your education is not my responsibility.

It is when you're trying to explain your theory to us.  It most certainly is if you want it to be taken seriously, and yet you can't explain why it doesn't agree with observations a child could make.

I don't want to explain it to you.  Sorry.
2
:no: I first met him on Usenet at sci.anthropology.paleo nearly 20 years ago

Do I want to know what insanity he was spouting then? More of this "meteorologists are evil people lying about GCSE physics" or something that would make even Algis hesitate?
Apparently it was something called the "Capital Ape Hypothesis". I'm not sure of the details. It may or may not have included apes (other than H. sapiens sapiens) armed with 15" naval artillery.
Look for the Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis by Claudius Denk
So Claudius Denk is another of your aliases?

Ok, so are Capital Apes also Ecological Gatekeepers?

I could be neither or both.
3
:no: I first met him on Usenet at sci.anthropology.paleo nearly 20 years ago

Do I want to know what insanity he was spouting then? More of this "meteorologists are evil people lying about GCSE physics" or something that would make even Algis hesitate?

LOL  Don't get mad at me.  Why don't you google latent heat and see if you can find a meteorologist to explain it to you.

Latent heat is a loose term that has no precise definition, so nobody can ever refute it. 

Nobody can explain it.  There is no data.  Meteorologist use it to divert attention away from the incompetence in storm theory.

Since you believe in it you explain it.

It's not my responsibility to explain your imagination.

Get a clue.
4
:no: I first met him on Usenet at sci.anthropology.paleo nearly 20 years ago

Do I want to know what insanity he was spouting then? More of this "meteorologists are evil people lying about GCSE physics" or something that would make even Algis hesitate?
Apparently it was something called the "Capital Ape Hypothesis". I'm not sure of the details. It may or may not have included apes (other than H. sapiens sapiens) armed with 15" naval artillery.

Look for the Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis by Claudius Denk

5
This is the trouble with trying to engage in discourse with Jim. There's no back and forward; he just posts some crap and then abuses every responder while linking to the same repeated crap. I predict you'll soon tire of it.

None of you have anything interesting to say.

Sorry,
6
Really, because there was me thinking it was an explanation for the observation by physicists of the phenomenon whereby energy is put into a system when solids turn into liquids, and liquids turn into gases, at the same temperature.

Do you have a point?
7
:no: I first met him on Usenet at sci.anthropology.paleo nearly 20 years ago

Do I want to know what insanity he was spouting then? More of this "meteorologists are evil people lying about GCSE physics" or something that would make even Algis hesitate?

You got nothing!!!
8
This is the trouble with trying to engage in discourse with Jim. There's no back and forward; he just posts some crap and then abuses every responder while linking to the same repeated crap. I predict you'll soon tire of it.

This is a troll forum. 

I treat trolls like they deserve to be treated.

Trolls don't read and they don't think.  They just throw shit around.
11
It has been done. How do you think they created tables of latent heat if vaporisation and fusion?

I don't know.  Why don't you see if you can find any reproducible experimental procedures and data. 

What conclusion do you think you would/will come to in the (likely) event that you will find yourself unable to locate these purported experimental procedures and data?



He already has. I already have. I even did an evaporation experiment and reported on the results. 67.0 degree water was able to cool a 67.1 degree surface to 66.0 degrees.

Write it up.
I did write it down. It's literally the post you quoted. There was an observed drop in temperature as the water evaporated.

Yeah, so?  What do you think that proves? 

Why not start a new thread on the subject since it is off topic here.
It's a direct measurement of the heat used by the phase change.

So . . . what's your point?  This proves latent heat?  How so?
12
It's amusing how Jim wants to spam "You got nothing!" while being apparently incapable of supporting his own claims.
not even supporting. He's incapable of even stating what his claims are beyond the most basic "steam is a lie!"

He can't figure out what his claims would indicate for any type of systematic test, not even the most basic application of the ideal gas law.

Your education is not my responsibility.
13

I care. You seem to be saying that latent heat of fusion isn't a thing.
And you say it is.  Where is the evidence? 
Well wikipedia lists figures for latent heat of various phase changes for various substances. Given that I could observe it happening as a child, it seems trivially easy to prove or disprove.
Quote
You seem to be saying that latent heat of vaporization isn't a thing. I have observed both things for myself as have most 12 year olds who took physics.

Okay.  Show me your data.

Are you saying this? Or are you agreeing that latent heat is a thing? Because if you think its not a thing then it should be trivially easy to demonstrate.

It's never been demonstrated. 

I'm not interested in disproving your imagination.


Quote
You are a vague nitwit.
That word, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Do you know what data means?
Yes, yes I do. Go and look up Latent Heat tables. This stuff has bern measured. It is a standard part of physics. You claim it is not, the onus is on you to show that it is not. Buy a decent thermometer and a tub of napthalene, and show us it doesn't happen.

Why do you think you were unable to formulate an argumebt?

Much of science is design to placate the lowest common denominator of science consumer--many dumbasses just like yourself.

I just did formulate an argument. You're claiming latent heat doesn't exist. And yet you seem remarkably unwilling to repeat a trivially easy to do experiment that would show me to be wrong.

That's right.  I'm not going to make your argument for you.  Sorry.
You're the one claiming latent heat doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on you. Show that it doesn't exist.  We both agree it should be easy to do. Why haven't you done it as part of your "research" program?

It's not my job to explain your imagination.
We've explained our model, we are asking you to explain yours.

Where have you explained your model?
The temperature drop is explained by the heat of vaporization. It takes energy to move from liquid to gas.

Vague.  Speculative, 

I'm not interested.  Sorry.
Vague? It's the fundamental concept of what a gas is. A solid is a state of matter in which molecules are bound at a fixed distance and orientation. A liquid is one in which there is too much energy to maintain a fixed orientation, but the average distance between particles remains fixed. It takes energy to break those bonds, so the temperature drops. A gas is when the energy is high enough that those intermolecular forces aren't strong enough to hold molecules at fixed distances. Again, it takes energy to break those bonds.

Your point?
The point is that you apparently don't even understand what words mean.

Troll.
14
It has been done. How do you think they created tables of latent heat if vaporisation and fusion?

That's the thing, Dave.  I don't think anybody knows the answer to this question.  My guess would be that they did some calculations. 

You might consider doing some reading on the history of meteorology.  You won't find any data on "latent heat."  But maybe you'll learn something about the way meteorologists sidestep these issues.

Good luck.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Why the fuck would I read meteorology books about a fucking physics subject? You know, the people who actually research states of matter and how things go from one to another? The people who I just linked to measuring it in fucking nitrogen?

Those people? Would that not be a more sensible place to go to to find answers on the subject?

Excellent.  I genuinely hope you will be able to put together an argument that convinces me that I am wrong about the non-existence of latent heat. 

Best Wishes,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
This is the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "lala lala I can't hear you!" You asked for experimental evidence of the heat of vaporization, it was provided with instructions for how you can confirm. If you want to pretend it doesn't exist, the failure is in your lack of intellectual integrity,  not our evidence.

It's funny how you loons think it is my job to explain your imagination.

We are asking you to explain your own ideas, not ours.

I wouldn't ask you to explain ours, because you quite Obvioisly don't understand any of this.

You nitwits can't make arguments.  This is a troll forum. 


ah, so we are back to making insults. Ok, you are an inbecilic shit gibbon. Your model is nothing but unsupported a serrations, you have no way to explain observed phenomena, and you have displayed an astounding level of incompetence in even understand what relevant words mean

It would appear I can explain my model better than you can explain yours, assuming you vague nitwits have anything at all.
15

I care. You seem to be saying that latent heat of fusion isn't a thing.
And you say it is.  Where is the evidence? 
Well wikipedia lists figures for latent heat of various phase changes for various substances. Given that I could observe it happening as a child, it seems trivially easy to prove or disprove.
Quote
You seem to be saying that latent heat of vaporization isn't a thing. I have observed both things for myself as have most 12 year olds who took physics.

Okay.  Show me your data.

Are you saying this? Or are you agreeing that latent heat is a thing? Because if you think its not a thing then it should be trivially easy to demonstrate.

It's never been demonstrated. 

I'm not interested in disproving your imagination.


Quote
You are a vague nitwit.
That word, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Do you know what data means?
Yes, yes I do. Go and look up Latent Heat tables. This stuff has bern measured. It is a standard part of physics. You claim it is not, the onus is on you to show that it is not. Buy a decent thermometer and a tub of napthalene, and show us it doesn't happen.

Why do you think you were unable to formulate an argumebt?

Much of science is design to placate the lowest common denominator of science consumer--many dumbasses just like yourself.

I just did formulate an argument. You're claiming latent heat doesn't exist. And yet you seem remarkably unwilling to repeat a trivially easy to do experiment that would show me to be wrong.

That's right.  I'm not going to make your argument for you.  Sorry.
You're the one claiming latent heat doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on you. Show that it doesn't exist.  We both agree it should be easy to do. Why haven't you done it as part of your "research" program?

It's not my job to explain your imagination.
We've explained our model, we are asking you to explain yours.

Where have you explained your model?
The temperature drop is explained by the heat of vaporization. It takes energy to move from liquid to gas.

Vague.  Speculative, 

I'm not interested.  Sorry.
Vague? It's the fundamental concept of what a gas is. A solid is a state of matter in which molecules are bound at a fixed distance and orientation. A liquid is one in which there is too much energy to maintain a fixed orientation, but the average distance between particles remains fixed. It takes energy to break those bonds, so the temperature drops. A gas is when the energy is high enough that those intermolecular forces aren't strong enough to hold molecules at fixed distances. Again, it takes energy to break those bonds.

Your point?
16

I care. You seem to be saying that latent heat of fusion isn't a thing.
And you say it is.  Where is the evidence? 
Well wikipedia lists figures for latent heat of various phase changes for various substances. Given that I could observe it happening as a child, it seems trivially easy to prove or disprove.
Quote
You seem to be saying that latent heat of vaporization isn't a thing. I have observed both things for myself as have most 12 year olds who took physics.

Okay.  Show me your data.

Are you saying this? Or are you agreeing that latent heat is a thing? Because if you think its not a thing then it should be trivially easy to demonstrate.

It's never been demonstrated. 

I'm not interested in disproving your imagination.


Quote
You are a vague nitwit.
That word, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Do you know what data means?
Yes, yes I do. Go and look up Latent Heat tables. This stuff has bern measured. It is a standard part of physics. You claim it is not, the onus is on you to show that it is not. Buy a decent thermometer and a tub of napthalene, and show us it doesn't happen.

Why do you think you were unable to formulate an argumebt?

Much of science is design to placate the lowest common denominator of science consumer--many dumbasses just like yourself.

I just did formulate an argument. You're claiming latent heat doesn't exist. And yet you seem remarkably unwilling to repeat a trivially easy to do experiment that would show me to be wrong.

That's right.  I'm not going to make your argument for you.  Sorry.
You're the one claiming latent heat doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on you. Show that it doesn't exist.  We both agree it should be easy to do. Why haven't you done it as part of your "research" program?

It's not my job to explain your imagination.
We've explained our model, we are asking you to explain yours.

Where have you explained your model?
The temperature drop is explained by the heat of vaporization. It takes energy to move from liquid to gas.

Vague.  Speculative, 

I'm not interested.  Sorry.
Vague? It's the fundamental concept of what a gas is. A solid is a state of matter in which molecules are bound at a fixed distance and orientation. A liquid is one in which there is too much energy to maintain a fixed orientation, but the average distance between particles remains fixed. It takes energy to break those bonds, so the temperature drops. A gas is when the energy is high enough that those intermolecular forces aren't strong enough to hold molecules at fixed distances. Again, it takes energy to break those bonds.
17
Melting involves latent heat of fusion. You know, where you heat ice, and it turns into water at the same temperature.

We can get on to what I think water vapour in the atmosphere is at a later date. How about we address what happens when you boil water? Or indeed any other liquid. Surely your "theory" should apply to all liquids?

I'm not reading the whole thread. Link to the individual posts you think are relevant.


Sorry, no time.  Thanks for this interest though.

I will be making all of my books avaialble for free on Amazon through to the end of the tornado season.  I will be sure to let the rest of you know about it.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
18
Why not start a new thread on the subject since it is off topic here.
Just a helpful hint as you're new here, but you don't own topics, and if they go off on a tangent, then tough. If you're unhappy and think something's off topic then you can report it, and  it will very likely be ignored. Especially when the topic is Your Special Theory About The Physics Wot Is Yours, and the post is about physics relevant to the subject.



You got nothing!!!
19
It has been done. How do you think they created tables of latent heat if vaporisation and fusion?

That's the thing, Dave.  I don't think anybody knows the answer to this question.  My guess would be that they did some calculations. 

You might consider doing some reading on the history of meteorology.  You won't find any data on "latent heat."  But maybe you'll learn something about the way meteorologists sidestep these issues.

Good luck.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Why the fuck would I read meteorology books about a fucking physics subject? You know, the people who actually research states of matter and how things go from one to another? The people who I just linked to measuring it in fucking nitrogen?

Those people? Would that not be a more sensible place to go to to find answers on the subject?

Excellent.  I genuinely hope you will be able to put together an argument that convinces me that I am wrong about the non-existence of latent heat. 

Best Wishes,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
This is the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "lala lala I can't hear you!" You asked for experimental evidence of the heat of vaporization, it was provided with instructions for how you can confirm. If you want to pretend it doesn't exist, the failure is in your lack of intellectual integrity,  not our evidence.

It's funny how you loons think it is my job to explain your imagination.

We are asking you to explain your own ideas, not ours.

I wouldn't ask you to explain ours, because you quite Obvioisly don't understand any of this.



You got nothing!!!
20
He has endless time to argue online, but no time to do a simple experiment.
"argue"
Using the term very loosely.


You got nothing!!!
21
Take nobody's word for it".

I don't take your word for it.

Jim McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
I don't expect you to. Do the fucking experiment. See for yourself. You're the one claiming this doesn't exist. Show us that it doesn't.

And if you find that it does, provide a coherent explanation for what you see.


You got nothing!!!
22
It has been done. How do you think they created tables of latent heat if vaporisation and fusion?

That's the thing, Dave.  I don't think anybody knows the answer to this question.  My guess would be that they did some calculations. 

You might consider doing some reading on the history of meteorology.  You won't find any data on "latent heat."  But maybe you'll learn something about the way meteorologists sidestep these issues.

Good luck.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Why the fuck would I read meteorology books about a fucking physics subject? You know, the people who actually research states of matter and how things go from one to another? The people who I just linked to measuring it in fucking nitrogen?

Those people? Would that not be a more sensible place to go to to find answers on the subject?

Excellent.  I genuinely hope you will be able to put together an argument that convinces me that I am wrong about the non-existence of latent heat. 

Best Wishes,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
This is the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "lala lala I can't hear you!" You asked for experimental evidence of the heat of vaporization, it was provided with instructions for how you can confirm. If you want to pretend it doesn't exist, the failure is in your lack of intellectual integrity,  not our evidence.

It's funny how you loons think it is my job to explain your imagination.

We are asking you to explain your own ideas, not ours.

I wouldn't ask you to explain ours, because you quite Obvioisly don't understand any of this.

You nitwits can't make arguments.  This is a troll forum. 

23
Take nobody's word for it".

I don't take your word for it.

Jim McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
24

I care. You seem to be saying that latent heat of fusion isn't a thing.
And you say it is.  Where is the evidence? 
Well wikipedia lists figures for latent heat of various phase changes for various substances. Given that I could observe it happening as a child, it seems trivially easy to prove or disprove.
Quote
You seem to be saying that latent heat of vaporization isn't a thing. I have observed both things for myself as have most 12 year olds who took physics.

Okay.  Show me your data.

Are you saying this? Or are you agreeing that latent heat is a thing? Because if you think its not a thing then it should be trivially easy to demonstrate.

It's never been demonstrated. 

I'm not interested in disproving your imagination.


Quote
You are a vague nitwit.
That word, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Do you know what data means?
Yes, yes I do. Go and look up Latent Heat tables. This stuff has bern measured. It is a standard part of physics. You claim it is not, the onus is on you to show that it is not. Buy a decent thermometer and a tub of napthalene, and show us it doesn't happen.

Why do you think you were unable to formulate an argumebt?

Much of science is design to placate the lowest common denominator of science consumer--many dumbasses just like yourself.

I just did formulate an argument. You're claiming latent heat doesn't exist. And yet you seem remarkably unwilling to repeat a trivially easy to do experiment that would show me to be wrong.

That's right.  I'm not going to make your argument for you.  Sorry.
You're the one claiming latent heat doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on you. Show that it doesn't exist.  We both agree it should be easy to do. Why haven't you done it as part of your "research" program?

It's not my job to explain your imagination.
We've explained our model, we are asking you to explain yours.

Where have you explained your model?
The temperature drop is explained by the heat of vaporization. It takes energy to move from liquid to gas.

Vague.  Speculative, 

I'm not interested.  Sorry.
25
It has been done. How do you think they created tables of latent heat if vaporisation and fusion?

That's the thing, Dave.  I don't think anybody knows the answer to this question.  My guess would be that they did some calculations. 

You might consider doing some reading on the history of meteorology.  You won't find any data on "latent heat."  But maybe you'll learn something about the way meteorologists sidestep these issues.

Good luck.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Why the fuck would I read meteorology books about a fucking physics subject? You know, the people who actually research states of matter and how things go from one to another? The people who I just linked to measuring it in fucking nitrogen?

Those people? Would that not be a more sensible place to go to to find answers on the subject?

Excellent.  I genuinely hope you will be able to put together an argument that convinces me that I am wrong about the non-existence of latent heat. 

Best Wishes,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Repeat the experiment I have linked to and show that it doesn't exist yourself.

The motto of the Royal Society is "Nullis in verba"., " Take nobody's word for it". Do the experiment yourself. You've been told how to measure latent heat. You've been told how to see for yourself that it exists. What are you so afraid of?

No time.  Start a new thread on this and I will consider participating.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes