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

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:36 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Yes, we all forget how infallible accepted science is.

Nobody is saying that accepted science is infallible, certainly not just because it's accepted. If you know anything at all about my work, you know that I am perfectly willing to go against accepted theories, in meteorology, geophysics, astrophysics, and in other disciplines as well. As a result, I'm considered a crackpot on the mainstream forums in all of those disciplines. But some aspects of accepted science are pretty solid, and a good theorist has to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. More to the point, it's useful when discussing the issues to clearly identify where you diverge from the consensus, and for what reasons. Challenge the consensus if you want, but if you don't know what you're challenging, and have a demonstrable reason for diverging, the reason is then just that you feel like arguing with somebody, validated only by the fact that the consensus can be wrong. But that doesn't make you right.

One can only imagine how you envision the consensus. Academia is mostly concerned with the politics of keeping the flow of funding flowing. Scientific theories (models) are just a means to that end. And that often means that scientific institutions adopt a model and employ all kinds of political tactics to evade scrutiny of their model. It can also mean that they will dumb down their model so that it appeals to the lowest common denominator of the voting public.

For example. The following is an attempt by professional meteorologists to admonish journalists for using the phrase "clash of air masses," in regard to journalists' attempts to explain the origins of tornadoes to the public: 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/. ... 13-00252.1 
Tornadoes in the Central United States and the "Clash of Air Masses" 
by DAVID M. SCHULTZ, YVETTE P. RICHARDSON, PAUL M. MARKOWSKI, CHARLES A. DOSWELL III 

Therein you will find statements that purportedly delineates the current state of knowledge about what causes storms and tornadoes (edited slightly to improve readability): 

". . . storms occurred when warm humid air near the surface lay under drier air aloft with temperature decreasing rapidly with height [originating from higher terrain to the west or southwest], providing energy for the storms through the production of instability. Large changes in wind with height ("wind shear") over both shallow (lowest 1 km) and deep (lowest 6 km) layers--combined with the instability and high humidity near the surface--created a situation favorable for tornadoes to form." 

And: 

". . . all convective storms are initiated when air parcels with convective available potential energy (CAPE) reach their level of free convection (LFC), with one of the most common mechanisms for storm initiation being ascent associated with airmass boundaries . . . " 

Is any of this genuinely explanatory? Aren’t these statements actually just observations repackaged to sound sciencey? To me it seems there is a lot of circular reasoning and tautological rhetoric in all of this: updrafts are caused by up-moving air; instability is the result of air being unstable; winds get higher with height. Ultimately one might argue that these statements achieve nothing other than to add another layer of abstraction between the reader and the realization that, frankly, meteorology doesn't understand storms or tornadoes? 

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes 
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:31 am

fosborn_ wrote:No this one..
CharlesChandler »..I don't know of anyone who is saying that water lofts itself high into the atmosphere. If it is, in fact, gaseous immediately on evaporating from a body of water, it IS lighter than the molecular nitrogen & oxygen in the air -- the atomic mass of H2O is 18, versus 28 for N2, and 32 for O2.So H2O has 62% the average mass of the N2/O2 mix in the air. But its terminal velocity will be effectively 0,so it isn't going to snake its way past the N2 & O2 to loft itself up into the atmosphere. And it isn't going to make the air itself much lighter. The total water vapor at 100% relative humidity is less than 1% of the air by volume.
Happy to address if Charles confirms this is his explanation for fog. Let’s see, but until then, by his own words, he offered no explanation.

fosborn_ wrote:So Mosaic Daves inverted bottles support this explanation, sense the inverted bottle trapped the lighter vapor. with an issue of electrostatics minimize by his indoor environment which Mcginn didn't dispute if, it is reproducible in another lab.
so seems just right for fog conditions, it doesn't have to travel far to condense, warming the immediate air arround the droplet or aerosol it coalesced with'
Mosaic Daves experiment supports any theory because it only provides a result. Water raises up. So what. Also with respect to Mosaic Dave, I doubt he has the necessary laboratory equipment to isolate the experiment from the electromagnetic affects of a planet.

fosborn_ wrote:And this one..
CharlesChandler wrote.. Then thewater vapor can condense, releasing latent heat, when generates the updraft in the storm. Then the smaller water particles are hoisted to the top of the storm, while larger particles can fall out due to their higher terminal velocity. Then the water vapor can condense, releasing latent heat, when generates the updraft in the storm. Then the smaller water particles are hoisted to the top of the storm, while larger particles can fall out due to their higher terminal velocity.

So updraft isn't even a necessary component but still think the excess heat is going to do something to the immediate surrounding air. it doesn't even need to float up, simply condense in situ, and re evaporate.
Ok, so if you’re going to continue with a potential straw man argument I’ll respond on that basis for now, pending Charles confirmation that this is also an explanation for fog. This paragraph extensively talks about updraft so you can’t just choose to exclude it, however, once the water has condensed into fog droplets that are now 784 times denser than the surrounding air, why don’t they fall? Particularly the ones just millimetres from the ground.

fosborn_ wrote:So you have all the pieces, If there is vapor then it obeys the gas laws. It takes energy to evaporate and losses energy to condense.
We haven’t established there is vapour but there is definitely liquid in fog. Why doesn’t if fall to the ground if updraft "isn't even a necessary component? What mechanism specifically suspends droplets containing millions of molecules of now very dense water? Where's the energy to fight gravity?

fosborn_ wrote: Thanks for your offering wolfie, but don't be shy, explain why you consider it relevant. I showed you mine. Your turn..
It explains that water can be manipulated by electromagnetic means. It’s also relatively easy to diamagnetically suspend water.

fosborn_ wrote: Mosaic Dave demonstrates its not electrostatic, pick something else..
No it doesn’t. He also didn’t have any fog in the bottles.

fosborn_ wrote: I don't see any relevance, its your baby. Put up or be silent..
If you choose not to try that’s up to you. Ignorance is bliss as they say. Also individuals tend to shy away from situations that create cognitive dissonance so I understand.

Obviously the mercury will produce the same result, as anyone who has worked with mercury will no doubt testify. Now, who wants to argue it’s because mercury saturated air is lighter than dry air?

fosborn_ wrote:O by the way, the reason I have the high ground to pick Mcginns notions apart.. I'm a paying customer, I bought his books and read them. Have you?
No (as if that’s relevant). But, going out on a limb now, I’m pretty certain he’s never said or stated evaporation doesn’t exist. And when I say evaporation, I have to use that term because it’s the only one we have, I mean that a pool or a body of water will eventually disperse into the atmosphere. Exactly how it does that is questionable, but none of the papers you provided explicitly demonstrated that it was evaporation by individual molecules. That process, whatever you like to believe, is currently un-knowable.

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Yes, we all forget how infallible accepted science is.

Nobody is saying that accepted science is infallible, certainly not just because it's accepted. If you know anything at all about my work, you know that I am perfectly willing to go against accepted theories, in meteorology, geophysics, astrophysics, and in other disciplines as well. As a result, I'm considered a crackpot on the mainstream forums in all of those disciplines. But some aspects of accepted science are pretty solid, and a good theorist has to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. More to the point, it's useful when discussing the issues to clearly identify where you diverge from the consensus, and for what reasons.Challenge the consensus if you want, but if you don't know what you're challenging, and have a demonstrable reason for diverging, the reason is then just that you feel like arguing with somebody, validated only by the fact that the consensus can be wrong. But that doesn't make you right.
my highlights
Blindly following the consensus doesn’t make you right either but at least I am aware of the limitations of science, and when dubious theory masquerades as fact.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:21 am

For those still in denial about the ability of electricity to manipulate water;

http://www.sciencealert.com/watch-a-tiny-water-droplet-orbit-a-knitting-needle
This experiment was performed back in 2012 by astronaut Don Pettit on board the International Space Station (ISS) as part of NASA's Science off the Sphere series. And although the set-up may look a lot like a strangely shaped planetary system, the physics here is a little different, because it's the effect of static electric forces, rather than gravitational pull, that's keeping the droplets in orbit.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:43 am

Aardwolf wrote:Obviously the mercury will produce the same result, as anyone who has worked with mercury will no doubt testify. Now, who wants to argue it’s because mercury saturated air is lighter than dry air?

Have no clue what your talking about. Mercury experiences partial pressure too. What do you prove?

Aardwolf wrote:however, once the water has condensed into fog droplets that are now 784 times denser than the surrounding air, why don’t they fall? Particularly the ones just millimetres from the ground.

LOL>. you say fog never has droplets wetting the surfaces? wow, that's news to me. Its is falling a lot, it is condensing into bigger drops and falls. news flash. what doesn't is re evaporating and condensing, from what other heat source is generating in the first place. If I'm applying the model correctly.

fosborn_ wrote:
Thanks for your offering wolfie, but don't be shy, explain why you consider it relevant. I showed you mine. Your turn.

[/quote]
Aardwolf wroteIt explains that water can be manipulated by electromagnetic means. It’s also relatively easy to diamagnetically suspend water.

Lol... whatever, methanol saturated atmosphere at 4 kv, that's a common environment. If you say its relevant it must be. Your the self proclaimed anti consensus authority, rightly dividing good theory from bad..

The phrase, If I'm applying the model correctly. FYI, is something I should have emphasized a lot. I'm using this thread to see if I can learn how to apply it to different challenges. And see if there can be alternate explanations, that can actually work.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:05 am

Fhkkj
Last edited by fosborn_ on Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:29 am

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Obviously the mercury will produce the same result, as anyone who has worked with mercury will no doubt testify. Now, who wants to argue it’s because mercury saturated air is lighter than dry air?

Have no clue what your talking about. Mercury experiences partial pressure too. What do you prove?
Mosaic Dave’s conclusion from the experiment you are relying on was;
Mosaic Dave wrote:So it seems that humid air is less dense than dry air after all.
Ergo, mercury saturated air, which will rise, must also be less dense than dry air. Is that your position?

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:however, once the water has condensed into fog droplets that are now 784 times denser than the surrounding air, why don’t they fall? Particularly the ones just millimetres from the ground.

LOL>. you say fog never has droplets wetting the surfaces? wow, that's news to me. Its is falling a lot, it is condensing into bigger drops and falls. news flash. what doesn't is re evaporating and condensing, from what other heat source is generating in the first place. If I'm applying the model correctly.
There will collisions with the ground no doubt but there is no evidence the water is falling. If it was the whole mass would do so, after all, updraft isn’t necessary and for clouds it is required throughout the whole column to sustain them. So, how does the whole mass stay suspended? And, try to be specific now, what mechanism of heat is able to continually provide the energy to combat relatively vast, heavier and denser water droplets, against their momentum and gravitational pull? Just saying the word "heat" doesn't really help. You might as well say magic.

Don't forget to consider when calculating this "heat" the fact that 99.9% of the air is vacuum anyway, so, at any given time below each droplet only 0.01% of the volume of air immediately below it has any other molecules in it.

fosborn_ wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:
Thanks for your offering wolfie, but don't be shy, explain why you consider it relevant. I showed you mine. Your turn.

Aardwolf wroteIt explains that water can be manipulated by electromagnetic means. It’s also relatively easy to diamagnetically suspend water.

Lol... whatever, methanol saturated atmosphere at 4 kv, that's a common environment. If you say its relevant it must be. Your the self proclaimed anti consensus authority, rightly dividing good theory from bad..
Whether it’s common or not is irrelevant. The question is water can be manipulated electromagnetically. It can, in spite of your incredulousness. And it was an experiment not a theory so yes, I am happy to divide good relevant experiments from bad irrelevant experiments. The experiments I have indicated support the OP’s theory, the experiments provided by yourself to support your theory, not so much.

fosborn_ wrote: The phrase, If I'm applying the model correctly. FYI, is something I should have emphasized a lot. I'm using this thread to see if I can learn how to apply it to different challenges. And see if there can be alternate explanations, that can actually work.
Maybe you can provide alternative explanations for these then, if, as you believe, electric is bunk;

http://www.sciencealert.com/watch-a-tiny-water-droplet-orbit-a-knitting-needle
http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:39 am

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:For those still in denial about the ability of electricity to manipulate water;

http://www.sciencealert.com/watch-a-tiny-water-droplet-orbit-a-knitting-needle
This experiment was performed back in 2012 by astronaut Don Pettit on board the International Space Station (ISS) as part of NASA's Science off the Sphere series. And although the set-up may look a lot like a strangely shaped planetary system, the physics here is a little different, because it's the effect of static electric forces, rather than gravitational pull, that's keeping the droplets in orbit.


Wow this a great example for planitary orbits, So if we charge knitting needles above water, water shold be drawn front a surface and condence? !!
Let's all try it!
Why not, if the droplets are small enough so gravity doesn't counteract and you could isolate from the earth's electromagnetic field effectively.

However, more to the point, is the water reacting to static electric or not? You seemed to think that wasn't possible before. And I believe it's in air not ethanol, is that common enough for you?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:49 am

ArdwolfMaybe you can provide alternative explanations for these then, if, as you believe, electric is bunk;

So that your better informed. That is a lie about my attitude about the electrical effects in nature. I'm open to anything that shows it can apply but in a natural environment and the conditions this thread covers.
The weightless water drop is awsome. So I will charge up a Nitting needle above water and see if it will condence
The key phrase is natural environment.other wise your no better shape than you put my papers in.
And I believe it's in air not ethanol, is that common enough for you?
.
Ethanol. It stuck out like a sore thumb.
You seemed to think that wasn't possible before.

Not in the vagueness Mcginn uses. But glad to clarify that for the less observant.
Last edited by fosborn_ on Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:00 am, edited 3 times in total.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:50 am

Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:For those still in denial about the ability of electricity to manipulate water;

http://www.sciencealert.com/watch-a-tiny-water-droplet-orbit-a-knitting-needle
This experiment was performed back in 2012 by astronaut Don Pettit on board the International Space Station (ISS) as part of NASA's Science off the Sphere series. And although the set-up may look a lot like a strangely shaped planetary system, the physics here is a little different, because it's the effect of static electric forces, rather than gravitational pull, that's keeping the droplets in orbit.


Wow this a great example for planitary orbits, So if we charge knitting needles above water, water shold be drawn front a surface and condence? !!
Let's all try it!
Why not, if the droplets are small enough so gravity doesn't counteract and you could isolate from the earth's electromagnetic field effectively.

However, more to the point, is the water reacting to static electric or not? You seemed to think that wasn't possible before. And I believe it's in air not ethanol, is that common enough for you?
Funny enough it's already been done. Not with water, as I guess it would be more difficult to set up, but the effect of static electricity on the particles is self evident.

http://rockitscience.com/fogandstatictrailer/
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:01 am

fosborn_ wrote:
ArdwolfMaybe you can provide alternative explanations for these then, if, as you believe, electric is bunk;

So that your better informed. That is a lie about my attitude about the electrical effects in nature.
I can only go by what you post, and you appear quite flippant and dismissive about the experiments I have shown in support of the theory. Those are symptoms of a mind already made up no matter what evidence is provided.

fosborn_ wrote:I'm open to anything that shows it can apply but in a natural environment and the conditions this thread covers.
The weightless water drop is awsome. So I will charge up a Nitting needle above water and see if it will condence
Yet clearly setting up this straw man will not prove or disprove anything.

fosborn_ wrote:
And I believe it's in air not ethanol, is that common enough for you?
.
Ethanol. It stuck out like a sore thumb.
Irrelevant to the conclusions unless you think that ethanol gives special properties to electricity.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:20 am

fosborn_ wrote:The key phrase is natural environment.other wise your no better shape than you put my papers in.
Nonsense, you need to isolate experiments to understand the effects otherwise you don't really know what's happening. Obviously that's difficult on earth when you're trying to isolate gravity and clearly this problem has been hid behind to support gravity rules theories. My point is that at a certain macro scale gravity (whatever that is) is dominant but below that in the micro scale and below, the weakness of gravity is supplanted by electrical fields. When you remove gravity, as per the ISS experiment, electrical fields take over. The atmosphere clearly doesn't behave when you apply gravity theories using molecular weight so all manor of explanation is required. To me it's very clear the atmosphere is charge/field dominated at that scale.

fosborn_ wrote:
You seemed to think that wasn't possible before.

Not in the vagueness Mcginn uses. But glad to clarify that for the less observant.
So do you think static can manipulate water or not? Talk about McGinn being vague...
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby MosaicDave » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:40 am

Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:So Mosaic Daves inverted bottles support this explanation, sense the inverted bottle trapped the lighter vapor. with an issue of electrostatics minimize by his indoor environment which Mcginn didn't dispute if, it is reproducible in another lab.
so seems just right for fog conditions, it doesn't have to travel far to condense, warming the immediate air arround the droplet or aerosol it coalesced with'
Mosaic Daves experiment supports any theory because it only provides a result. Water raises up. So what. Also with respect to Mosaic Dave, I doubt he has the necessary laboratory equipment to isolate the experiment from the electromagnetic affects of a planet.

Your statement only indicates that you, like McGinn, lack an elementary understanding of electrostatics.

Here are some things you can read about if you would like to better comprehend the subject matter:

-- the "Faraday Cage";

-- the electric force, F=qE;

-- the Millikan oil drop experiment;

-- Michael Faraday's "ice bucket experiment".

It's easy to isolate a local environment from even a strong ambient electric field, and you don't need exotic "laboratory equipment". Actually it's even easier, and takes much less time, as compared to authoring endless polemics on an Internet forum.

But instead, this thread and the others like it will probably go on and on, maybe even for years, because that way at least the foundations of McGinn's invalid conception won't be seriously threatened, and he can remain comfortably attached to his Idea.

--dc
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:15 am

Ardwolf wrote..It's easy to isolate a local environment from even a strong ambient electric field, and you don't need exotic "laboratory equipment". Actually it's even easier, and takes much less time, as compare.

Ardwolf wrote..Mosaic Daves experiment supports any theory because it only provides a result. Water raises up. So what. Also with respect to Mosaic Dave, I doubt he has the necessary laboratory equipment to isolate the experiment from the electromagnetic affects of a planet.

I think you disrespect. Please reconcile.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:54 am

MosaicDave wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:So Mosaic Daves inverted bottles support this explanation, sense the inverted bottle trapped the lighter vapor. with an issue of electrostatics minimize by his indoor environment which Mcginn didn't dispute if, it is reproducible in another lab.
so seems just right for fog conditions, it doesn't have to travel far to condense, warming the immediate air arround the droplet or aerosol it coalesced with'
Mosaic Daves experiment supports any theory because it only provides a result. Water raises up. So what. Also with respect to Mosaic Dave, I doubt he has the necessary laboratory equipment to isolate the experiment from the electromagnetic affects of a planet.

Your statement only indicates that you, like McGinn, lack an elementary understanding of electrostatics.
Was your experiment shielded in that way because all I could find was this;
MosaicDave wrote:You could repeat the whole process, just enclosing the whole works in a contiguous envelope of aluminum window screening from the hardware store. This would form a "Faraday cage", and completely exclude any static electric field. So it would work just the same, and according to the same principles, as a tinfoil hat.
Which to me doesn't sound like you were really trying to isolate static fields, or even make a serious attempt to. Your mind seems like it's already made up which doesn't bode well for objective experiments.

Also, if I am wrong and you did attempt to isolate static can you explain;
1) Where the water was sourced to ensure it was electrically neutral to the bottles and laboratory environment;
2) After drying the glass bottles you were able to ensure these were also remained electrically neutral to the water and the laboratory environment;
3) How the air filters ensured that incoming air was also electrically neutral to the water, bottles and laboratory environment;
4) How you were able to ensure the air at the top of the room was electrically neutral to the air at the bottom of the room. Ideally before and during the experiment.
5) Were you able to ensure that the water used in the experiment was free of hygroelectricity. Before and after the experiment.

MosaicDave wrote:Here are some things you can read about if you would like to better comprehend the subject matter:

-- the "Faraday Cage";

-- the electric force, F=qE;

-- the Millikan oil drop experiment;

-- Michael Faraday's "ice bucket experiment".

It's easy to isolate a local environment from even a strong ambient electric field, and you don't need exotic "laboratory equipment". Actually it's even easier, and takes much less time, as compared to authoring endless polemics on an Internet forum.
None of that is relevant as far as I can see.

MosaicDave wrote:But instead, this thread and the others like it will probably go on and on, maybe even for years, because that way at least the foundations of McGinn's invalid conception won't be seriously threatened, and he can remain comfortably attached to his Idea.
Not just McGinn. Wal Thornhil has a similar idea. But I guess you just think he's a crackpot and safely ignored.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-weather/
Wal Thornhill wrote:So it is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the ‘Biefield-Brown Effect,’ where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometres above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:03 am

fosborn_ wrote:
Ardwolf wrote..It's easy to isolate a local environment from even a strong ambient electric field, and you don't need exotic "laboratory equipment". Actually it's even easier, and takes much less time, as compare.

Ardwolf wrote..Mosaic Daves experiment supports any theory because it only provides a result. Water raises up. So what. Also with respect to Mosaic Dave, I doubt he has the necessary laboratory equipment to isolate the experiment from the electromagnetic affects of a planet.

I think you disrespect. Please reconcile.
No. I'm pretty sure that experiment was not isolated from the electromagnetic affects of this planet, nor, do I believe, it's even possible to do so. We'll see.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests