The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

[jimmcginn]

One great thing about the internet is that it has a perfect memory. And, I guess, that fact and Cut-N-Paste means that we get a second chance (and a third, fourth . . . etc.). So, here is my second shot at answering the questions and addressing the issues in the parts of this thread (Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms) that are relevant to my theory of tornadogenesis. (Note: I have taken extensive liberties to improve readability in what follows):

The hardest part about being a science theorist is that one has to constantly be on lookout for one's own tendency to believe you understand what you really just believe.

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 30#p114750
by jimmcginn » Thu Aug 11, 2016 (revised by James McGinn >> Jan 25, 2017):

CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016
I still disagree that plasmas have surface tension.

James McGinn >> Jan 25, 2017
Just to be clear, liquid water, H2O, has surface tension. More relevantly, microdroplets--millions of tons of which (Wallace Thornhill) are suspended in the atmosphere as a conseqence of static electricity (provided by the solar wind)--have a surface and, therefore, have surface tension. Most relevantly of all as it regards my model, along wind shear boundaries spinning microdroplets occurring in large quantities--billions to trillions--have maximized surface area/tension. This is the basis of the plasma of my model. In addition to being more structurally resilient (* see below) this plasma is, of course, more viscous (thicker) that the surrounding gases.
(*) Being more "structurally resilient" is shorthand for being able to maintain a form and having a surface that can resist perturbation--as with any and all plasmas.

CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:23 am
You have identified an anomalous characteristic of the upper troposphere, namely that there are differential speeds, and that this needs explaining.

James McGinn >> Jan 25, 2017
You mean the high winds speeds and concentrated energy of the jet streams. Obviously the convection model of storm theory doesn't/can't explain/predict it. (Meteorologists are in hiding in regard to the fact that their model fails to explain these anomalous high wind speeds.)

CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:23 am
Explicitly identifying the anomaly (the differential wind speeds of the upper troposphere) is the first and hardest step.

James McGinn >> Jan 25, 2017
I disagree. That is the easy step. It's just simple observation. Understanding what could cause that and finding the right words to explain it to others is a much, much harder challenge because it puts one in the position of having to educate people on things that they think they already know. And, unfortunately, meteorology's cartoonishly simple model of the atmosphere still holds a lot of sway in people's minds.

CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:23 am
But I wouldn't look to surface tension for the answer. Rather, I'd look just at ionization, . . .

James McGinn >> Jan 25, 2017
Ionization of what? How? And why dismiss a whole category based on a whim?

Are you saying that this observation (the differential wind speeds of the upper troposphere) calls out for an electrical explanation? I see no reason to focus exclusively on electricity. On a general note, I don't think electricity explains or predicts the structural elements that are so plainly evident in our atmosphere. Of course that doesn't prove our model wrong, at most it proves it incomplete. I'm just saying that the H2O surface tension based plasma of my model does a much better job reconciling this observational evidence in that it is intrisically and organically structural.

CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:23 am
. . . since it very definitely results in a reduction of viscosity, enabling faster speeds.

James McGinn >> Jan 25, 2017
Reduction in viscosity of what? How does it enable faster speeds? And of what? I can see how the heat associated with a lightning strike might momentarily heat air, but the notion that ionization reduces viscosity seems vague and wildly speculative.

CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016
In fluid dynamics, we'd call the jet stream an instance of "inflow channeling", which is a response to a low pressure. where some of the fluid has a lower viscosity than the rest, and thus it burrows its way through the higher-viscosity fluid. BTW, this kind of flow cannot be motivated by a high pressure pushing the fluid, because a high pressure jet forced into a higher viscosity fluid results in a turbulent flow.

James McGinn >> Jan 25, 2017
I can't make much sense of this explanation. Sorry. Maybe you are still working out the details, but my instinct is that you are chasing a red herring with these notions about "ionization" and "inflow channeling."

Nevertheless I certainly agree with the spirit of what you are saying in regards to there being some means of maintaining isolation of a stream flow so that it can avoid turbulence and maintain coherence as a stream flow.

by fosborn_ » Fri Aug 12, 2016
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet.html
One way of visualizing this is to consider a river. The river's current is generally the strongest in the center with decreasing strength as one approaches the river's bank. It can be said that jet streams are "rivers of air".

James McGinn >> Jan 25, 2017
Good point. Also consider that a river that has no banks is not a river, it is a flood. The same is true of jet streams. This suggests an undiscovered plasma that facilitates the structural integrity that, like the banks of a river, makes the focused flow of jet streams possible. Also, the plainly observable cone or vortex of a tornado is evidence that substantiates the existence of this theoretical plasma.

CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016
So the laminar flow in the jet stream proves that it's a low pressure that is pulling the flow. And the channeling proves that inside the channel, the viscosity is lower. That doesn't identify the reason(s) for the lower viscosity, but at least at this point the question is framed in fully mechanistic terms.

James McGinn >> Jan 25, 2017
I wouldn't use those exact words, but I know what you are getting at. Only a pulling or suction can produce lamimar flow. But I think there is a huge realization in this that you are missing or evading: laminar flow (as in aerodynamics) necessitates some kind of surface and some degree of structural resilience. Gases don't have a surface or structural resilience. Plasmas do. Therefore the observation of laminar flow proves that plasmas must exist. In other words, structural resilience must, somehow, exist amongsth the components of the atmosphere or laminar flow couldn't possibly take place.

CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016
And the channeling proves that inside the channel, the viscosity is lower.

James McGinn >> Jan 25, 2017
Air moving at high speeds through a conduit (of plasma) will have lower pressure due to the Bernouli effect. But lower viscosity? Sorry, that just doesn't make sense. I wonder if maybe you are just mixing metaphors or something.

CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016
That doesn't identify the reason(s) for the lower viscosity, but at least at this point the question is framed in fully mechanistic terms.

James McGinn >> Jan 25, 2017
I don't know about that. I think my model does a better job of describing the channelling in that it recognizes that a channel can't contain a flow unless it has a sheath (like banks of a river) comprised of a substance with a higher degee of structural resilience than that which it contains. (A container must be made of a substance that is stronger than the substance it contains.) In contrast, your theory/hypothesis seems vague on what causes and maintains the channel.

However, this whole discussion brings to the surface a more important issue: to what degree are plasmas and laminar flow intracausal in the atmosphere? Does lamimar flow cause/facilitate plasma to emerge? Or does plasma cause/facilitate the emergence of laminar flow? The answer I arrived at is both--positive feedback. And the chicken and egg aspect to how this all gets started is resolved by the fact that moist air tends to form into long flat boundaries both in the lower troposphere ('inversion' layers) and also along the top of the troposphere (thus why jet streams occur there). Pressure differentials then produce a gradient of flow allowing one body of air to begin to slide on top of the other--producing wind shear.

This supposition that plasmas and laminar flow are intracausal (positive feedback) is an extremely important concept because it helps us understand why direct evidence of either plasma or laminar flow is so fleeting: it will be most evident only under high energy wind shear conditions--conditions that are usually obscured by clouds. IOW, since one of the componets of atmospheric flow is energy only under high energy conditions will plasma emerge, and it will quickly disapate when energy leaves, making this plasma elusive. (But, I would argue, it [plasma] is plainly visible in many tornadoes. And its effects--including strange observations like blades of grass embedded in telephone poles--are evident in the highly concentrated destruction they can produce on the ground.

There are also a lot of observational inconsistencies and explanatory shortcomings associated with your model, from what I can tell. It begs a lot of questions (too many, in my opinion):

1) Why are storms and tornadoes so wet? In other words, how does your electromagnetic model explain/predict the inclusion of H2O? Its role is not clear. Is it just along for the ride? Does it facilitate anything? Is it, in some way, causal (as is certainly the case with my model)? Or is it just coincidental that storms are wet? And, even, how does your model explain how H2O gets up so high in the troposphere? (Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you realize that moist air is heavier than dry air and, therefore, cannot convect up to the heights at the top of the troposphere. In my model, storms are the mechanism that pull heavier moist air from the lower part of the troposphere to the upper troposphere.)

My best guess would be that you are assuming moist air to be instrumental to electric conductivity in the atmosphere and, well, I just don't think that is the case. Specifically, I don't think moist air is a much better conductor than dry air. In my model H2O is intrinsic, so none of this is an issue.

2) Why are thunderstorms and tornadoes associated with moist/dry wind shear? Your model seems to not predict/explain this body of observational evidence. Is the correlation just a coincidence? Does one cause the other or are both causal?

In my model moist/dry wind shear is pivotal to the origins of the plasma. So this isn't an issue.

3) If your model claims to explain the existence of vortices it is not clear how it does that, IMO. For example, how does your model explain the concentrated energy of catastrophic tornadoes as they maintain coherence, producing focussed destruction on the ground, over many miles/hours. How does ionization produce that magnitude of pre-existing (conserved) low pressure, tubular, energy? How does it explain the spinning? If it does claim to explain these things it is not clear how it does that, IMO. And if it does not claim to explain these then that is a major explanatory shortcoming, IMO.

The energy conservation properties of vortices, afforded by the spinning microdroplets of this theoretical H2O plasma, is the superstar of my scenario.

4) Along these lines, another problem is that your model does not explain why U.S. tornadoes tend to track from the southwest to the north east, following the same general path as the jet stream. Is this too just a coincidence?

In my model, tornadoes are offshoots of jet streams.

5) Lastly, the fast moving jets streams themselves (that continually snake through the tropopause) seem to not be explained by this model from what I can tell.

The worst mistake you can make as a science theorist is to allow your own explanation to seduce you into thinking that you understand it better than you actually do. And the reason it is such a fatal error is because you will then, unavoidably, use that as an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts with your model or ignore evidence that your model fails to explain. (And once you've started doing this you have lost the war.) Don't allow yourself to be so seduced. Always endeavor to find and explicate all contradictory evidence and always explicate why your model should be excused from expaining what it appears to fail to explain. [When you hide, you lose. And there are lots of ways to hide. It's easy. Meteorologists have been hiding for almost 200 years now.])

In my model, jet streams are the manifestation of conserved energy in earth's atmosphere. They are the repository from which the energy of storms is siphoned. Offshoots of the jet streams, vortices deliver the low pressure energy of storms as a consequence of their growth into the resources thereof, a significant component of which, moist air, exists in relative abundance.

The theoretical H2O surface tension based plasma of my model is itself a collective implication of 1) H2O's surface tension, 2) extensive moist/dry wind shear conditions (the prerequisite of which--long, flat, boundaries between moist air [troposphere] and dry air [stratosphere] occur in abundance at the top of the troposphere), and 3) resulting spinning of microdroplets (the spinning sustained by the wind shear of the flow itself) that maximizes the surface area of microdroplets along these moist/dry wind shear boundaries. Occurring in the billions or trillions, collectively these spinning microdroplets effectuate a plasma like substance--it being the basis of the structural integrity plainly observable as the sheath of the cone (or vortice) of a tornado and less plainly observable as the sheath of the cone (or vortice) of jet streams.

Being, essentially, a conduit of H2O surface tension (surface maximized spinning microdroplets) it possesses other characteristics of H2O surface tension. One of these being hydrophobic properties--a tendency to repel liquid H2O. And it is these hydrophobic properties that, essentially, allow it to present a friction-free inner surface to faciliate the rapid movement of moist air. In conjunction with the fact that this conduit isolates its contents from the friction of other gases in the atmosphere, this slick inner surface enables a constant increase in wind speed (the upper limit [zero friction] of which being the speed of sound). Conceptually, from a more abstract perspective, my theory aspires to fulfill the vision of Edward D. Lorenz who concluded, in 1967, that there appears to be "missing lubrication," in the atmosphere. Another way to say this is that friction and the effects thereof that his models predicted were larely missing from earth's actual atmosphere. I think Lorenz would like to have known about the slick inner surface of these theoretical conduits of H2O surface tension (surface maximized spinning microdroplets). For more on this see:
Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmosphere
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16430&sid=928a7a87 ... 2c#p115011

Here is an observation that your model doesn't/cannot reconcile but that my model does/can: the phenomena whereby a whole stream or pond is sucked up into a vortice, carried for miles and dumped all at one location, causing fish, frogs and other creatures to fall out of the sky, in an area no bigger than a football field. Winds alone—no matter how strong—could not do this. Tornadoes must act like the hose of a vacuum cleaner, I reasoned. They are genuinely structural. They had to be. There was no other way to explain that kind of directed low pressure. It requires a tubular structure. Or, to be more specific, it requires a tubular structure made from a substance that has greater structural resilience than the gases through which it flows and flow through it. Plasma seemed an obvious choice--the only choice.
For more detail on this see the following:
Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 82#p117060

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[kevin]

"Tube structure"
https://marilynkaydennis.files.wordpres ... g-1561.jpg
Hanns glaser
Kevin

[MosaicDave]

James McGinn:

One thing I keep wondering about regarding your theories:

Suppose you've got one of your microdroplets here, and another one a little distance away. I'm not sure what "a little distance" would mean in, for example, picometers or nanometers, but let's just pretend it's something like a few, maybe five or ten, "microdrop diameters". (Thus far I haven't seen anywhere where you've ventured to predict the actual range of diameters of your proposed microdroplets.)

But anyway: So each of these microdroplets would tend towards a spherical shape, on account of surface tension. (Well first I wonder if you agree with this so far; surface tension not being an actual force, but rather a secondary / derived result of certain other forces like hydrogen bonding, sort of like how "centrifugal force" isn't a "real" force.)

Now, are you suggesting that, in addition to surface tension drawing each microdroplet into a sphere, surface tension also attracts these two drops towards each other?

--dave

[jimmcginn]

(Thus far I haven't seen anywhere where you've ventured to predict the actual range of diameters of your proposed microdroplets.)

Right. And I'm not being evasive. I honestly don't know. I don't think anybody does.

But anyway: So each of these microdroplets would tend towards a spherical shape, on account of surface tension. (Well first I wonder if you agree with this so far; surface tension not being an actual force, but rather a secondary / derived result of certain other forces like hydrogen bonding, sort of like how "centrifugal force" isn't a "real" force.)
Now, are you suggesting that, in addition to surface tension drawing each microdroplet into a sphere, surface tension also attracts these two drops towards each other?
--dave

This is a good question. My answer is, as always, complicated. So that I don't have to repeat myself maybe, if you don't mind, I can get some feedback from you in regards to what you have read and whether or not you understand it or disagree with it.

I stated the following here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 97#p117249
"Well, as I explained above, I believe all of non-frozen water in the atmosphere is liquid--microdroplets. None of it is steam. And, therefore, its dipole force is all (or mostly) neutralized (exception--surface tension--to follow) by the H2O molecules therein having formed H bonds with each other."
So, let me ask, do you understand this statement? Agree? Disagree?

And I stated the following here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 82#p117062
"Specifically, surface tension involves H bonds along the surface of liquid water being strong H bonds and those below the surface being weak H bonds. It was a small step from there to arrive at the realization that a two dimensional surface would inhibit the completion of some bonds. So it seemed to fit. Broken H bonds, being a reverse switch, were inhibited from neutralizing the other H bond(s) along the surface, producing the observed tensional/structural forces. This explained surface tension."
So, again, let me ask, do you understand this statement? Agree? Disagree?

And I stated the following here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 82#p117063
"The only time H2O is at full polarity is when it is steam (gaseous H2O). When it is liquid its polarity is zero or close to zero. And, in between these two, is solid water; with half polarity being the force that provides the strength of the bond."
Again. Understand? Agree? Disagree?

I hope you don't think I am being evasive or snarky to ask you these questions. I am hoping you understand and agree with these statement because then its a lot simpler for me to answer.

Whatever the case, it is a good question. And I think I have a pretty good answer. But it is hard for me to answer until I know whether or not we are on the same page in regard to what surface tension actually is.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[john666]

jimmcginn, what do you think is the role of the North's Pole Electromagnetic Field on the weather systems of Eurasia and North America?

[jimmcginn]

jimmcginn, what do you think is the role of the North's Pole Electromagnetic Field on the weather systems of Eurasia and North America?

If there is any effect at all I'm not aware of it.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[jimmcginn]

Humans are delusional about H2O. And this delusion results in the following: 1) humans generally believe that H2O is simple and obvious and, 2) humans believe that our understanding of H2O is comprehensive and accurate, both in science and in general. The reality is that neither of these are true. Neither of these is remotely true. H2O is extremely complex and poorly understood by science. Currently there exists over 70 anomalies of H2O. That is 70 different observations about H2O (under various conditions) that are inconsistent with or completely unpredicted by theory. However, human delusion runs so deep that the meaning of anomaly has been altered in the context of H2O to essentially serve as an excuse for why theories of H2O fail to explain what is actually observed.

One consequence of this collective delusion about H2O is that any discoveries that purport to resolve these delusions will go ignored. For example, I made a theoretical breakthrough that allows us to understand the underlying basis of H2O's anomalies, namely that H2O polarity is not constant but is variable and H bonds are themselves the mechanism underlying this variability. Unfortunately for me, the delusion that H2O is simple, obvious, and well understood runs so deep in human collective consciousness that this breakthrough has been and continues to go unrecognized.

Read this this if you are interested in understanding what is the greatest, unrecognized breakthrough in our understanding of nature:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060

[CharlesChandler]

If the greater velocity of the jet stream is because of its lower viscosity, and if that's because of its electric charge, then the next question is: how does it get charged? If the jet stream occurs at the boundary between cool & warm air masses, that's where the thunderstorms occur. And where there are thunderstorms, there are electric charges. Specifically, the tops of the storms are positively charged. And positively charged air has a lower viscosity, because the repulsion of like charges prevents the particle collision that instantiate friction within the fluid (i.e., viscosity).

This, by the way, solves another mystery in meteorology, this time concerning the inflow bands of hurricanes. All other factors being the same, the low pressure in the eye of the hurricane would accelerate air inwards, in an axisymmetric flow field (i.e., the air should be moving inwards at the same rate from all directions). What actually happens is that channels get established, which needs explaining, because fluid dynamics doesn't predict this.

On closer scrutiny, the problem doesn't get easier to explain with fluid dynamics -- it becomes catastrophically worse. Those feeder bands are host to thunderstorms.



The randomization of flow in those storms should slow down the flow of air in those feeder bands, not speed it up. Also, the cold outflow from thunderstorms removes convective potential from the warm, moist air that drives updrafts. So the downdrafts from storms in the feeder bands should choke off the convective potential of the hurricane. Instead, it strengthens it.

This can only be evidence of some other factor that can allow air to flow faster in the feeder bands, in spite of the randomization due to thunderstorms. This can only be due to the enhanced velocity of ionized air manufactured by the storms.

[jimmcginn]

If the greater velocity of the jet stream is because of its lower viscosity,

You really aren't making sense with this statement. Differences in viscosity don't cause a flow to either accelerate or decelerate. So, at best, this statement is a non-sequitor.

Gases have high friction because gases lack the the structural capability to maintain a coherent flow. H2O based plasma is what forms the sheath of jet streams and tornadoes and it is this sheath that provides the isolation of the flow from friction. This is how acceleration occurs. Its nonsense to say that high velocity is caused by reduced viscosity.

Your model assumes acceleration. My model explains it.

and if that's because of its electric charge, then the next question is: how does it get charged?

Electric charge is not involved. The engine of jet streams (and storms) is differential air pressure (kinetic, not electric). And the mechanics involves decreases in friction associated with high energy wind shear boundaries, vortices being the conduits thereof. Moisture based plasma that emerges on wind shear boundaries is a consequence of the fact that when microdroplets spin they maximize the electromagnet properties of H2O surface tension.

You can't understand storms until after you understand the origins of H2O plasma that is the basis of the structural capabilities that are plainly observable in jet streams and tornadoes. You are stubbornly stuck on this notion that electricity is involved and its just a silly thing to believe. You will never make progress if you start with this assumption because it is fundamentally erroneous.

The prevalence of H2O in storms is a huge clue that you are missing. Your theory fails to explain it except to assume the absurd notion that moist air is lighter than dry air, along with the equally absurd notion that the power of storms is the result of convection.

If you start with poor assumptions you have zero chance of making any progress.

If the jet stream occurs at the boundary between cool & warm air masses,

Jet streams form at the boundary between dry air and moist air.

that's where the thunderstorms occur. And where there are thunderstorms, there are electric charges. Specifically, the tops of the storms are positively charged. And positively charged air has a lower viscosity, because the repulsion of like charges prevents the particle collision that instantiate friction within the fluid (i.e., viscosity).

Contrived. Jetstreams require structure in order to maintain isolation from the friction of the atmosphere. Unless and until you can explain the origins of this structure--plainly witnessable in a tornado--you will be wasting your time. In the least you need to start to recognize the nonsensicality of your assertion that reduced viscosity equates to increased velocity. This is a nonsequitor. It's not just bad science its bad english usage.

This, by the way, solves another mystery in meteorology, this time concerning the inflow bands of hurricanes. All other factors being the same, the low pressure in the eye of the hurricane would accelerate air inwards, in an axisymmetric flow field (i.e., the air should be moving inwards at the same rate from all directions). What actually happens is that channels get established, which needs explaining, because fluid dynamics doesn't predict this.

On closer scrutiny, the problem doesn't get easier to explain with fluid dynamics -- it becomes catastrophically worse. Those feeder bands are host to thunderstorms.

You have the cart in front of the horse. You can't understand storms unless you first understand the surface tension of H2O that underlies the structure of vortices--these being the conduits of atmospheric flows (the means of avoiding the friction of gases). Convection is a false prophet. The reason storms are wet is because H2O is instrumental in the emergence of the vortices that are the conduits of the energy of storms.

Get the fundamentals right first. Your notion that reduced viscosity results in increased velocity is nonsensical.

[CharlesChandler]

Your notion that reduced viscosity results in increased velocity is nonsensical.

In fluid dynamics, viscosity is defined as the resistance to flow, meaning that it is inversely related to velocity. One of the ways of measuring it is to run a fluid through a standard tube. The stuff that moves faster has a lower viscosity. Anything that lowers the viscosity therefore increases the velocity, and that's by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscometer

[kevin]

The missing link....
Is not recognising the aether.
How it is operating at 720 degree spins.
The atmosphere is reacting to this....
The wind is not blowin...
Dylan was wrong.

The answers my friends is blowin in the aether.
kevin

[jimmcginn]

Your notion that reduced viscosity results in increased velocity is nonsensical.

In fluid dynamics, viscosity is defined as the resistance to flow, meaning that it is inversely related to velocity. One of the ways of measuring it is to run a fluid through a standard tube. The stuff that moves faster has a lower viscosity. Anything that lowers the viscosity therefore increases the velocity, and that's by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscometer

Think very carefully about what the words you wrote actually mean. Do you really want to be telling us that a reduction in viscosity causes acceleration? Think about it. Can you show us the principle(s) that supports this? Can you show us some relevant math? (Or even just an equation?) You say, "Anything that lowers the viscosity therefore increases the velocity." I say that this is plainly and undeniably a nonsense statement. It was nonsense when you said it a year ago and it is nonsense now. It is a completely meaningless assertion.

Lastly, there is a big difference between a definition and a scientific principle. When you argue from definition you are essentially admitting you don't have a scientific argument. And I think that holds true in this instance.

[CharlesChandler]

Your notion that reduced viscosity results in increased velocity is nonsensical.

In fluid dynamics, viscosity is defined as the resistance to flow, meaning that it is inversely related to velocity. One of the ways of measuring it is to run a fluid through a standard tube. The stuff that moves faster has a lower viscosity. Anything that lowers the viscosity therefore increases the velocity, and that's by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscometer

Think very carefully about what the words you wrote actually mean. Do you really want to be telling us that a reduction in viscosity causes acceleration? Think about it. Can you show us the principle(s) that supports this? Can you show us some relevant math? (Or even just an equation?) You say, "Anything that lowers the viscosity therefore increases the velocity." I say that this is plainly and undeniably a nonsense statement. It was nonsense when you said it a year ago and it is nonsense now. It is a completely meaningless assertion.

Lastly, there is a big difference between a definition and a scientific principle. When you argue from definition you are essentially admitting you don't have a scientific argument. And I think that holds true in this instance.

OK, I'll word my statements very carefully, to see if it's possible to get past this semantic issue.

Viscosity is resistance to flow. So it decelerates a fluid. Of course, an absence of viscosity does not accelerate a fluid. A lack of a decelerating force does not constitute an accelerating force. Likewise, an absence of electrical resistance does not cause an electric current to flow. I = V / R, or amps = volts over ohms. The prime mover is the volts, but the result is modulated by the amount of resistance to the current. So dropping the electrical resistance might enable an electric current, but it does not cause an electric current. Similarly, dropping the viscosity might enable a fluid to flow, but it does not cause the fluid to flow. The prime mover is differences in pressure. So the flow is the hydrostatic potential over the viscosity.

So it all comes down to the difference between "enabling" versus "causing". Mess those up, and the whole thing becomes meaningless.

[jimmcginn]

Your notion that reduced viscosity results in increased velocity is nonsensical.

In fluid dynamics, viscosity is defined as the resistance to flow, meaning that it is inversely related to velocity. One of the ways of measuring it is to run a fluid through a standard tube. The stuff that moves faster has a lower viscosity. Anything that lowers the viscosity therefore increases the velocity, and that's by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscometer

Think very carefully about what the words you wrote actually mean. Do you really want to be telling us that a reduction in viscosity causes acceleration? Think about it. Can you show us the principle(s) that supports this? Can you show us some relevant math? (Or even just an equation?) You say, "Anything that lowers the viscosity therefore increases the velocity." I say that this is plainly and undeniably a nonsense statement. It was nonsense when you said it a year ago and it is nonsense now. It is a completely meaningless assertion.

Lastly, there is a big difference between a definition and a scientific principle. When you argue from definition you are essentially admitting you don't have a scientific argument. And I think that holds true in this instance.

OK, I'll word my statements very carefully, to see if it's possible to get past this semantic issue.

I don't see it as a semantic issue. I see it as a fundamental mischaracterization of physical reality

Viscosity is resistance to flow. So it decelerates a fluid. Of course, an absence of viscosity does not accelerate a fluid. A lack of a decelerating force does not constitute an accelerating force. Likewise, an absence of electrical resistance does not cause an electric current to flow. I = V / R, or amps = volts over ohms. The prime mover is the volts, but the result is modulated by the amount of resistance to the current. So dropping the electrical resistance might enable an electric current, but it does not cause an electric current. Similarly, dropping the viscosity might enable a fluid to flow, but it does not cause the fluid to flow. The prime mover is differences in pressure. So the flow is the hydrostatic potential over the viscosity.

So it all comes down to the difference between "enabling" versus "causing". Mess those up, and the whole thing becomes meaningless.

Differences in viscosity cannot accelerate or decelerate air flow. But they can channel it and focus it.

We both agree that the prime mover is differences in pressure. You seem obsessed with the notion of viscosity when the term you actually intend (or should be intending) is simply friction. A steam flow cannot be maintained in a gas because gases have no structure to keep the energy of the stream flow from spreading into the surrounding gases. This concept is simply air friction.

Since stream flows are maintained (jet streams and tornadoes being irrefutable evidence that stream flows do exist in the atmosphere) and therefore structural capabilities must exist. This brings us rapidly to the correct conclusion that some kind of plasma is involved, as I've described previously. Why you think electricity is involved is a complete mystery to me. It's the surface tension of H2O being maximized along wind shear boundaries that is causing the difference in viscosity as an increase in plasma strength. This only occurs along moist/dry wind shear boundaries and is the reason moist/dry wind shear is such a big predictor of tornadic activity.

[jimmcginn]

Dear Reader,

I need your help. I need an endorser for a crowd sourced experiment that will revolutionize our understanding of storms. In order to get it approved my project needs at least one endorser. Since I am an independent scientists I don't have anybody to be my endorser. Can you send me your email address by way of sending me an email? I will then be able to put your email address into the endorsement application request form on the experiment.com website. They will then send you the endorsement application and it will be self explanatory from that point on. (Your email address will not be made public.) Thanks in advance.

Here is my email: jimmcginn9@gmail.com ( jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com)

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes