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 Lloyd » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:06 am

Charles already proved that tornadoes are not due to surface tension of water.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:23 am

jimmcginn wrote:I believe jet streams are tubes of water based plasma that provide isolation from atmospheric friction and this is what enables the high wind speeds of the jet streams.

That's interesting. I still disagree that plasmas have surface tension. But you have identified an anomalous characteristic of the upper troposphere, namely that there are differential speeds, and that this needs explaining. Explicitly identifying the anomaly is the first and hardest step. But I wouldn't look to surface tension for the answer. Rather, I'd look just at ionization, since it very definitely results in a reduction of viscosity, enabling faster speeds. 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. 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.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1771
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Aug 12, 2016 9:29 am

jetstream5.jpg
jetstream5.jpg (19.16 KiB) Viewed 1832 times

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet.html
I think a nice graphic.
The line generally points to the location of the strongest wind. Jet streams are typically wider and not as distinct but a region where the wind increase toward a core of strongest wind....
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".
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: 477
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:07 pm

And here's another one...

Image

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).
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1771
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Aug 12, 2016 9:50 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
jetstream5.jpg

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet.html
I think a nice graphic.
The line generally points to the location of the strongest wind. Jet streams are typically wider and not as distinct but a region where the wind increase toward a core of strongest wind....
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".


Submission to Reader Comment Section of Ideas and Discoveries Magazine

Discover Something New
Ideas and Discoveries Magazine
http://www.ideasanddiscoveries.com/
My submission to Reader Comment Section:

(Post note: this submission was accepted and appears in the April issue.)

A river that has no banks is not a river, it is a flood. Might the same be
true for jet streams? If so, might this suggest an undiscovered plasma that
facilitates the structural integrity that, like the banks of a river, makes the
focused flow of jet streams possible? Your article on jet streams, entitled How
Sick is the Jet Stream? February 2015, goes a long way to opening people's
minds to the possibility that there is more to the atmosphere than just wind
and water. On my own website, solvingtornadoes.com, I attempt to breath some
life into these questions by drawing parallels between jet streams and
tornadoes, going so far as to suggest that the plainly observable cone or
vortex of a tornado is evidence that substantiates the existence of this
theoretical plasma. In my book entitled, Vortex Phase: The Discovery of the
Spin That Underlies the Twist, I take it a step further suggesting a simple
solution to large, violent tornadoes. Thank you for providing graphic evidence
that jet streams play a much greater role in our everyday lives than was
previously even imagined.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Aug 12, 2016 10:00 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:. . . the greater velocity of the jet stream is because of its lower viscosity,


Lower viscosity isn't a force. It can't cause velocity. So this is impossible.

CharlesChandler wrote:and if that's because of its electric charge,


Electric charge doesn't cause lower viscosity. Again, impossible.

CharlesChandler wrote: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).


Are you honestly trying to tell us that jet streams are powered by lightning? Seriously?
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Aug 12, 2016 10:43 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:I believe jet streams are tubes of water based plasma that provide isolation from atmospheric friction and this is what enables the high wind speeds of the jet streams.

That's interesting. I still disagree that plasmas have surface tension.


That plasmas have a surface (and, therefore, surface tension) is already a well established fact in the field of fluid dynamics.

CharlesChandler wrote: But you have identified an anomalous characteristic of the upper troposphere, namely that there are differential speeds, and that this needs explaining.


Yep.

CharlesChandler wrote: Explicitly identifying the anomaly is the first and hardest step. But I wouldn't look to surface tension for the answer. Rather, I'd look just at ionization, since it very definitely results in a reduction of viscosity,


By any measure, this is an outlandish claim. There is no such thing as ions causing low pressure.

CharlesChandler wrote: enabling faster speeds. 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.


Well, that's irrelevant since jet streams occur along the boundary between the moist troposphere and the dry stratosphere. This is where windshear causes the strong plasma that itself is based on H2O surface tension (this also explains why storms are wet, something that your model fails to explain).

CharlesChandler wrote: So the laminar flow in the jet stream proves that it's a low pressure that is pulling the flow.


Laminar flow proves there is a surface. And that proves there is a plasma. And the H2O based plasma tubes present a friction-free inner surface (in that surface tension is hydrophobic) thus moist air can be pulled through it allowing small difference in air pressure (differential air pressure) from the entrance to the exit of the tube to gradually accelerate the contents of the tube over hundreds or even thousands of miles, eventually resulting in high wind speeds.


CharlesChandler wrote: 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.


It doesn't matter that you frame it in mechanistic terms if you include plainly invalid mechanism.

We know the origin of the momentum in the jet streams is differential air pressure. And the momentum in the jet streams is the source of the low pressure energy associated with storms. So all of this stuff about ions or electricity causing low pressure which then causes high wind speeds is unnecessary. It's plainly manufactured and not organic.

A theorist should never create principles out of thin air. Because these imaginary principles will only serve as an excuse to not look further for the real cause/expanation.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:00 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:How is it you get from ionized air to vortex?

I don't understand the question. In the presence of a vortex, the air would be drawn toward it, ionized or not.

What causes the vortex? You have a circular argument.

I'm saying that because it's ionized, the vortex takes on a new property set that isn't possible in fluid dynamics, such as the tight radius on the ground.

That is an artifact of the plasma. And since they didn't know about H2O plasma they did not include it in the fluid dynamic models.


jimmcginn wrote:What is the relation to wind shear in real tornadoes?

Do you mean the wind shear between the layers above and below the cap layer? Or the classic curved hodographs?

I mean any and all.

jimmcginn wrote:Are you saying wind shear causes ionization of air?
Ci
No -- the ionization results from the same charge separation that produces lightning.

You have a circular argument.

jimmcginn wrote:Do you have evidence of this or is it just a conjecture?

There's plenty of evidence, which I'd be happy to discuss. But I seem to have come to unique conclusions as to the significance of it all. IMO, there is only one way to assimilate all of the data into one model, and that's with charged inflow that gets neutralized inside the vortex.

[quote="jimmcginn"][quote="CharlesChandler"]I agree that a tornado is a suction vortex. But in no sense does a suction vortex require plasma,

You need to have some kind of sealed system to contain the low pressure, it's not going to magically contain itself.



much less the plasma of a specific compound such as water -- vortexes occur in any fluid (liquid, gas, or plasma), ,

Vortices require a difference in viscosity otherwise you just have spinning air that cannot maintain coherence and, therefore, cannot be conduits of energy and flow. All you have is chaos.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Aug 13, 2016 8:39 am

Lloyd wrote:Charles already proved that tornadoes are not due to surface tension of water.


That's laughable. One of the most amateurish things a science theorist can do is to try to hide major causal processes in short sentences. Charles has tried to slip two plainly questionable notions into his theory by introducing them as short sentences and, essentially, hoping that by keeping these notions brief that nobody will notice that they are plainly speculative notions and not known truths:
1) that ionization or electricity causes low pressure and
2) that the ensuing low pressure causes high wind speeds.

These are nonsense notions that Charles knows (if only subconsciously) are fictional and his tactic is to keep his explanation brief and hope nobody notices. Many people (yourself it appears) are gullible and won't bother to ask Charles to explicate these claims.

My theory explains the origins of both high wind speed and the low pressure energy of storms, and it involves plasma which I have expanded upon explicitly.

Humans are gullible when it comes to assumptions. Bad science theory takes full advantage of this fact.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Aug 13, 2016 9:26 am

CC:
So the laminar flow in the jet stream proves that it's a low pressure that is pulling the flow.

JM:
Simply not true. High wind speeds in the context of laminar flow is what causes the low pressure due to the bernoulli effect. So you have it wrong. Laminar flow is not a result it is a cause. Water based plamsa (the strength of which is amplified along wind shear boundaries, as I explained) is what converts pressure differentials into the focused flow of jet streams. Laminar flow (in the context of plasma's with different viscosity) is what allows slight differences in air pressure to become focused in a stream.

CC:
And the channeling proves that inside the channel, the viscosity is lower.

JM:
inside the channel (inside the vortice) the friction is lower. You are using the concept of friction interchangeably with the concept of viscosity. Don't do this. You will only confuse yourself. Vortice tubes isolate their contents from the friction of the atmosphere. Accordingly the contents of the tube is able to gradually move faster and faster as a result of (relatively small) differences in pressure from one end of the tube (higher at the entrance) to the other (lower at the exist).

Plasmas (specifically a water based plasma, the viscosity of which is amplified along wind shear boundaries) is NOT the source of the energy of atmospheric flow. Differential air pressure is the source of the energy. Atmospheric vortices that emerge naturally, under wind shear conditions, convert and focus that energy producing jet streams and storms. Boundaries between moist bodies of air (which are heavier) and dry bodies of air (which are lighter) produce long, flat layers in the atmosphere. These long, flat layers tend to reflect energy into stream flow, and this is the origin of the high wind speeds that activate the water based plasma along the boundary to eventually produce the vortices.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Aug 13, 2016 9:37 am

jimmcginn wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:...the greater velocity of the jet stream is because of its lower viscosity,

Lower viscosity isn't a force. It can't cause velocity. So this is impossible.

Lower viscosity is the absence of a force, namely friction, that otherwise would have reduced the velocity. So yes, lower viscosity results in greater velocity.

jimmcginn wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:and if that's because of its electric charge,

Electric charge doesn't cause lower viscosity. Again, impossible.

Pure plasma is an "ideal gas" in that it is totally frictionless (i.e., zero viscosity). So yes, electric charge does lower the viscosity.

jimmcginn wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: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).

Are you honestly trying to tell us that jet streams are powered by lightning?

No, the charge separation process inside the storm produces lightning. The charges that do not get neutralized by lightning linger. And those lingering charged bodies of air have a lower viscosity, which enables them to flow faster.

jimmcginn wrote:That plasmas have a surface (and, therefore, surface tension) is already a well established fact in the field of fluid dynamics.

Can you provide some references for this?

jimmcginn wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: Explicitly identifying the anomaly is the first and hardest step. But I wouldn't look to surface tension for the answer. Rather, I'd look just at ionization, since it very definitely results in a reduction of viscosity,

By any measure, this is an outlandish claim. There is no such thing as ions causing low pressure.

No, I said that ions reduce the viscosity, not the pressure.

jimmcginn wrote:Well, that's irrelevant since jet streams occur along the boundary between the moist troposphere and the dry stratosphere. This is where windshear causes the strong plasma that itself is based on H2O surface tension (this also explains why storms are wet, something that your model fails to explain).

Ummm... how 'bout: storms are wet because water vapor condenses into ice crystals that are heavier than air, which then fall to the ground, frequently melting along the way?

jimmcginn wrote:So all of this stuff about ions or electricity causing low pressure which then causes high wind speeds is unnecessary. It's plainly manufactured and not organic.

That isn't what I said, so I wasn't the one who manufactured it.

[NB: I couldn't tell in the way your post was quoted which were the new questions and which were old ones quoted for reference, so if I missed one of your new questions, just ask it again.]

jimmcginn wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:What is the relation to wind shear in real tornadoes?

Do you mean the wind shear between the layers above and below the cap layer? Or the classic curved hodographs?

I mean any and all.

The difference in wind direction between the upper & lower tropospheres, which produces a smoothly curving hodograph, prevents the updraft from running over its own cold outflow.

jimmcginn wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:I agree that a tornado is a suction vortex. But in no sense does a suction vortex require plasma,

You need to have some kind of sealed system to contain the low pressure, it's not going to magically contain itself.

The centrifugal force prevents air from getting to the axis of the vortex -- that isn't magic.

jimmcginn wrote:Vortices require a difference in viscosity otherwise you just have spinning air that cannot maintain coherence and, therefore, cannot be conduits of energy and flow. All you have is chaos.

No, vortexes can occur in perfectly homogeneous fluids.

jimmcginn wrote:
Lloyd wrote:Charles already proved that tornadoes are not due to surface tension of water.

That's laughable. One of the most amateurish things a science theorist can do is to try to hide major causal processes in short sentences. Charles has tried to slip two plainly questionable notions into his theory by introducing them as short sentences and, essentially, hoping that by keeping these notions brief that nobody will notice that they are plainly speculative notions and not known truths:
1) that ionization or electricity causes low pressure and
2) that the ensuing low pressure causes high wind speeds.

These are nonsense notions that Charles knows (if only subconsciously) are fictional and his tactic is to keep his explanation brief and hope nobody notices. Many people (yourself it appears) are gullible and won't bother to ask Charles to explicate these claims.

My theory explains the origins of both high wind speed and the low pressure energy of storms, and it involves plasma which I have expanded upon explicitly.

Humans are gullible when it comes to assumptions. Bad science theory takes full advantage of this fact.

1) Try to refrain from personal insults -- they don't strengthen your points.
2) You're welcome to criticize me for things I actually said, but it's embarrassing when you criticize your own misreading of what I said. I didn't say that ionization causes low pressure, so I don't know where you got this, but you didn't get it from me.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1771
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Aug 13, 2016 12:53 pm

CC: ...the greater velocity of the jet stream is because of its lower viscosity,

JM: Lower viscosity isn't a force. It can't cause velocity. So this is impossible.

CC: Lower viscosity is the absence of a force, namely friction, that otherwise would have reduced the velocity. So yes, lower viscosity results in greater velocity.

JM: Absence of force is not force either. Mixing of gases (and/or plasmas) in the atmosphere is what causes friction. And lower viscosity gases mix more readily, causing higher (not lower) friction. So the reality of the situation is exactly the opposite of what you are assuming/claiming. Differential air pressure is the force. Reduction of friction is only possible if the respective gases (plasmas) can be isolated from each other. Only if there are differences in viscosity between them is it possible for this isolation to emerge and be maintained. (And with water this difference and resulting isolation is itself amplified by the increase in viscosity that results when increases in surface area [as a result of droplet spinning] further increases the surface tension right at the boundary.

CC: and if that's because of its electric charge,

JM: Electric charge doesn't cause lower viscosity. Again, impossible.

CC: Pure plasma is an "ideal gas" in that it is totally frictionless (i.e., zero viscosity). So yes, electric charge does lower the viscosity.

JM: A gas is the epistemological opposite of a plasma. An Ideal gas has no (zero) charges between the particles of which it is composed. A plasma has charges between the particles of which it is composed. This is why its viscosity is higher.

CC: A plasma has a surface and internal coherence. A gas has neither.

Plasma is the lubrication of atmospheric flow because it has a surface and, thereby, prevents (or greatly reduces) the mixing that is the cause of friction. You need to get this concept straight in your mind. Plasmas reduce friction because they reduce mixing. They reduce mixing because they are thicker (internally stronger) allowing energetic air molecules be reflected into a stream flow.

CC: 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).

JM: Are you honestly trying to tell us that jet streams are powered by lightning?

No, the charge separation process inside the storm produces lightning. The charges that do not get neutralized by lightning linger. And those lingering charged bodies of air have a lower viscosity, which enables them to flow faster.

JM: That plasmas have a surface (and, therefore, surface tension) is already a well established fact in the field of fluid dynamics.

Can you provide some references for this?

JM: Do you dispute it? Explain why if so.

Explicitly identifying the anomaly is the first and hardest step. But I wouldn't look to surface tension for the answer. Rather, I'd look just at ionization, since it very definitely results in a reduction of viscosity,

JM: By any measure, this is an outlandish claim. There is no such thing as ions causing low pressure.

No, I said that ions reduce the viscosity, not the pressure.

JM: Ions increase viscosity. Plasmas have higher viscosity than a gas. Ions turn a gas into a plasma

JM: Well, that's irrelevant since jet streams occur along the boundary between the moist troposphere and the dry stratosphere. This is where windshear causes the strong plasma that itself is based on H2O surface tension (this also explains why storms are wet, something that your model fails to explain).

Ummm... how 'bout: storms are wet because water vapor condenses into ice crystals that are heavier than air, which then fall to the ground, frequently melting along the way?

Nonsense. This fails to explain how heavier moist air gets so high in the troposphere. (The dumbest notion is all of meteorology is that H2O magically stays a gas a temperatures much lower than its boiling point. Don't be a sucker for this plainly irrational notion. Much of meteorology is pseudoscience.)

JM: So all of this stuff about ions or electricity causing low pressure which then causes high wind speeds is unnecessary. It's plainly manufactured and not organic.

That isn't what I said, so I wasn't the one who manufactured it.

JM: What you said is a matter of record. As I explained in previous post, you included two plainly irrational "skyhooks" in your model. (And you borrow a skyhook from meteorology by asserting that moist air is lighter when it can only be heavier than dry air.)

[NB: I couldn't tell in the way your post was quoted which were the new questions and which were old ones quoted for reference, so if I missed one of your new questions, just ask it again.]

JM: What is the relation to wind shear in real tornadoes?

Do you mean the wind shear between the layers above and below the cap layer? Or the classic curved hodographs?

JM: I mean any and all.

The difference in wind direction between the upper & lower tropospheres, which produces a smoothly curving hodograph, prevents the updraft from running over its own cold outflow.

JM: Boundaries (mislabelled as "CAP" by meteorologists) form naturally in the lower atmosphere. They are often erroneously referred to as "inversion layers".

I agree that a tornado is a suction vortex. But in no sense does a suction vortex require plasma,

JM: You need to have some kind of sealed system to contain the low pressure, it's not going to magically contain itself.

The centrifugal force prevents air from getting to the axis of the vortex -- that isn't magic.

JM: You haven't described the origins of the spinning. It's just another sky hook.

Vortices require a difference in viscosity otherwise you just have spinning air that cannot maintain coherence and, therefore, cannot be conduits of energy and flow. All you have is chaos and, therefore, friction.

No, vortexes can occur in perfectly homogeneous fluids.

JM: Plainly impossible. Friction will overwhelm. Vortices can't just appear on the scene. They can only form if the energy of the atmosphere is, somehow, being concentrated. You failed to provide any such mechanism for that.

Other Person: Charles already proved that tornadoes are not due to surface tension of water.

JM: That's laughable. One of the most amateurish things a science theorist can do is to try to hide major causal processes in short sentences. Charles has tried to slip two plainly questionable notions into his theory by introducing them as short sentences and, essentially, hoping that by keeping these notions brief that nobody will notice that they are plainly speculative notions and not known truths:
1) that ionization or electricity causes low pressure and
2) that the ensuing low pressure causes high wind speeds.

These are nonsense notions that Charles knows (if only subconsciously) are fictional and his tactic is to keep his explanation brief and hope nobody notices. Many people (yourself it appears) are gullible and won't bother to ask Charles to explicate these claims.

My theory explains the origins of both high wind speed and the low pressure energy of storms, and it involves plasma which I have expanded upon explicitly.

Humans are gullible when it comes to assumptions. Bad science theory takes full advantage of this fact.

CC: 1) Try to refrain from personal insults -- they don't strengthen your points.

JM: Don't wear your intellectual heart on your sleeve. It will stop you from advancing. Don't take it personally. Take it as advice that you need to have a better understanding of fluid dynamics.

You won't defend those notions because, on some subconscious level, you know they are nonsense. You won't defend what you stated because you know the more details you provide the more ridiculous your thinking will appear.

If you are a science theorist and you are defensive about looking ridiculous you will never advance. Because many of the things that are true about reality sound ridiculous when first proposed.

CC: 2) You're welcome to criticize me for things I actually said, but it's embarrassing when you criticize your own misreading of what I said. I didn't say that ionization causes low pressure, so I don't know where you got this, but you didn't get it from me.

JM: What you said is fundamentally nonsensical. Indefensible. Any way you stack it it will not make sense. You need to get a better understanding of fluid dynamics. And you need to be brutally honest with yourself about what you've explained and what you have only assumed. The worst thing that you can do (and you tried twice) is to turn an assumption into a principle.

Avoid using psychological tactics to produce the illusion of truth. Don't get into the habit of hiding behind vagueness. Be explicit and honest. That is the only chance you have to escape the influence of the dumbasses in meteorology who refuse to question or test anything.

Only if you are brutally honest with yourself will you have a chance to avoid fooling yourself into thinking that something you are assuming is truth.

Never turn an assumption into a principle. Never give your mind an excuse not to look for unknown causes. If you do you will never make progress.

The hardest part of being a science theorist is not fooling yourself.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Aug 13, 2016 3:37 pm

jimmcginn wrote:CC: A plasma has a surface and internal coherence.

I didn't say that -- you said that. I asked for references, because I don't believe this to be true. I said previously that surface tension is the result of covalent bonds within liquids, which doesn't apply to plasmas.

In your last post, you abandoned the use of the forum's quoting mechanism, making it difficult to tell who said what (when you didn't use initials, sometimes for things that the person never actually said). I think that a reasonable bare minimum that we can expect for people on this forum is that they clearly identify what they're quoting for reference versus what they're injecting into the conversation. Otherwise this is going to get way too confusing.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1771
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:36 pm

JM CC: A plasma has a surface and internal coherence.

CC:
I didn't say that -- you said that.

JM:
Right. My bad. Sorry. (No time.)

CC:
I asked for references, because I don't believe this to be true.

JM:
I know you don't believe it. But it is true. And I stand by it. To be honest I know it to be true without the slightest doubt. And I also know that you don't really understand fluid dynamics (or Chaos Theory).

You have no specific dispute, do you? Admit it.

CC:
I said previously that surface tension is the result of covalent bonds within liquids, which doesn't apply to plasmas.

JM:
That is an absurd claim. Plasmas share two qualities with solids: 1) The ability to maintain a form and 2) having a surface. This is standard fluid dynamics.

Is there some reason you don't want to discuss the principles of fluid dynamic?

Do you believe that silly notion that moist air is lighter than dry air?

Do you believe hurricanes are powered by latent heat (ie, hot towers)?
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:07 pm

jimmcginn wrote:Is there some reason you don't want to discuss the principles of fluid dynamic?

There is no foundation for a discussion here. All you have is bald assertions. When questioned, you don't supply derivations -- you just reissue bald assertions. This makes it a take-it-or-leave-it scenario. On the other hand, the principles of fluid dynamics that I'm using pre-date the obfuscation of the physical sciences in the 20th Century, have been confirmed in the laboratory countless times, have been utilized commercially to great effect, and which can be proven all of the way down to the atomic level, where macroscopic properties such as viscosity and latent heat can be attributed to the action of individual atoms and/or molecules. Of course, you're welcome to challenge any or all of that, but under the circumstances, the onus is on you to clearly identify what you're challenging and why, and you'll have to demonstrate the utility of the new concept. Bald assertions do not constitute a legitimate challenge. And to say that the principles of fluid dynamics are poorly understood is quite a stretch. In the 1970s, when Boeing was developing the 747, they did the whole thing entirely on a computer -- no wind tunnel tests. They even had test pilots "fly" the aircraft in a simulator to determine the human feel of the controls. And the aircraft went into production without any major changes to the design. They couldn't sell the first article, because they had to subject it to destructive testing to satisfy FAA that a priori engineering could produce a strong airframe. But they sold the second and subsequent articles. Now there are CFD programs available to the general public that are as good as the proprietary code that Boeing was using in the 1970s, and these programs are used to engineer everything from ceiling fans to submarine propellers and low hood-line automobiles. You're going to argue with all of that? Good luck. In reality, some aspects of the physical sciences are actually rock-solid. A lot of what comes out of NWS is BS, but that doesn't mean that the principles of fluid dynamics as a whole are pure guesswork or erroneous assumptions. With your approach, you'll run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1771
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest