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 » Sun Aug 14, 2016 9:20 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
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

LOL. Uh, we're not doing math here, pal.

-- 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.

You have a conjecture that involves electricity doing things it's never been known to do. That is all you have. When asked for details you go around in circles, none of it adds up to anything. You present the incredibly weak argument that it must be electricity because you have eliminated everything else, but then it becomes apparent that you know little about fluid dynamics and absolutely nothing about H2O. You couldn't answer the simple questions so there was no reason to move on to the hard questions.


Of course, you're welcome to challenge any or all of that,

You haven't presented anything coherent. There's nothing to challenge.


but under the circumstances, the onus is on you to clearly identify what you're challenging and why,

I'm not interested in debating your imagination.


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.

They are not poorly understood by me.


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?

What the F are you talking about?


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.


LOL. You can't generate any specific predictions from your hypothesis so you just wallow in vagueness and misdirection.

You don't have a viable hypothesis on tornadogenesis. You have a few vague conjectures the perceived validity of which evaporates when you attempt to provide details. So you employ the tactic that all pseudoscientists employ, when details are requested you sidestep the question and start talking about such things as 747s and NWS--anything to draw attention away from the fact that the mechanism of your hypothesis is but a vague conjecture.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:05 am

Please learn how to properly use the forum's quoting mechanism, such that it's clear what you're quoting for reference, versus what you're saying yourself.
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: 1770
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 » Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:38 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:Please learn how to properly use the forum's quoting mechanism, such that it's clear what you're quoting for reference, versus what you're saying yourself.


How do you expect to advance in tornadogenesis if you can't even be honest with yourself about how limited is your understanding of the fundamentals of fluid dynamics? You didn't even know that plasmas have a surface. And you appear to consider H2O with the same unthinking, dullwittedness that meteorologists consider it. You have zero understanding of H2O surface tension.

To be a successful science theorist you have to be EXTREMELY honest and explicit about what you DON'T understand. You have to genuinely want to know what you don't know. And you have to genuinely want anything you believe to be fully vetted. That is not you. You are not like that. You introduce a vague notion then you want to sidestep the details. You are more concerned about other people believing what you believe than you are about being 100% sure that your own thinking is correct.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Aug 14, 2016 2:01 pm

jimmcginn wrote:You have zero understanding of H2O surface tension [in plasmas].

That's correct. My "understanding" is that surface tension comes from covalent bonds within liquids. In plasmas, those covalent bonds have been broken, and therefore are no longer a factor. So what would cause surface tension in plasmas? Evangelism?
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: 1770
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 » Sun Aug 14, 2016 3:27 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:You have zero understanding of H2O surface tension [in plasmas].

That's correct.

Thank you for being honest, explicit, and non-defensive.
CharlesChandler wrote: My "understanding" is that surface tension comes from covalent bonds within liquids.


The nature of the bonds (C, I, or H) is irrelevant. Water, for example, has no covalent bonds between water molecules. So it is the tension associated with H bonds that is involved with liquid water's surface tension. But water is even more peculiar. I will explain. But first we have to clear up some confusion with respect to how you are interpreting what I am saying. I said plasmas have a surface. I didn't say plasmas have surface tension (actually, all things that have a surface have surface tension, so there is no reason to say that).

I DID say that WATER has surface tension. And I said it for a reason. Water's surface tension is peculiar.

For most substances the tensional forces along the surface are about the same as the tensional forces internally. In water something very different and (almost completely) unique is going on. In water the tensional forces along the surface are amplified. (I was assuming you understood this. My bad.) So, when I refer to water's surface tension I am referring to something very unique in nature.

As with many details associated with contemporary science, the exact reasons for H2O having the amplified surface tension are obscure by politics and pseudoscience and is otherwise very complicated. (See my paper on H bonding for details.) For the time being just take my word on it, H2O has amplified surface tension. And this is very unique.

Now here is my assertion, in H2O when you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension. And along wind shear boundaries (including the most significant wind shear boundary in our atmosphere, the tropopause) microdropets in the moist layer begin to spin as a result of impacts from the dry layer. The spinning maximizes the surface area, that maximizes the surface tension. And this maximized surface tension is what underlies the strong plasma that is evident in tornado vortices (and jet streams vortices).

CharlesChandler wrote: In plasmas, those covalent bonds have been broken, and therefore are no longer a factor. So what would cause surface tension in plasmas? Evangelism?


In ALL plasmas the bonds (C,I or H) have been broken. But the particles haven't broken free from the influence of each other. And that is the difference. So, in a plasma the particles are trying to get back together again, but every time they almost do so in-flowing energy (heat, EME, or wind shear) prevents them from getting back together. So a plasma involves a state of suspended animation with the particles being pushed apart by external energy and trying to get back together again.

Lastly, the reason we say plasma's have a surface is because anything that has internal coherence (attraction betweeen its respective particles) has a surface. And even though the surface of a plasma is much weaker than that of a solid it is still more resilient than that of a gas which has no internal coherence (and, therefore, no ability to create a surface at all).

The plasma that emerges on wind shear boundaries isn't strong enough or coherent enough to contain a gas that has positive pressure. But in conjuction with the centrifugal force of spinning to create a tube, it is strong enough to direct a stream flow of gas that is under negative pressure. And it is strong enough to isolate the stream flow from the friction, this allows the stream flow to conserve energy and get faster and faster (due to the slight acceleration of differential air pressure), allowing us to understand the origins of the high wind speeds associated with tornadoes and the jet streams.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Aug 14, 2016 3:56 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:You have zero understanding of H2O surface tension [in plasmas].

That's correct. My "understanding" is that surface tension comes from covalent bonds within liquids. In plasmas, those covalent bonds have been broken, and therefore are no longer a factor. So what would cause surface tension in plasmas? Evangelism?


He didn't get it. Sorry I got sucked in( tornadic pun) get it?
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: 476
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Aug 14, 2016 7:25 pm

jimmcginn wrote:I said plasmas have a surface. I didn't say plasmas have surface tension (actually, all things that have a surface have surface tension, so there is no reason to say that).

So do plasmas have surface tension, or not? This is a pivotal point in your theory of tornadogenesis (so to say) and I shouldn't have to guess at what you're saying.

jimmcginn wrote:Now here is my assertion, in H2O when you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension. And along wind shear boundaries (including the most significant wind shear boundary in our atmosphere, the tropopause) microdropets in the moist layer begin to spin as a result of impacts from the dry layer. The spinning maximizes the surface area, that maximizes the surface tension. And this maximized surface tension is what underlies the strong plasma that is evident in tornado vortices (and jet streams vortices).

Microdroplets are liquids. They have surface tension. And yes, if they're spinning, the centrifugal force will make them non-spherical, which will increase the surface area. But I don't see what this has to do with plasmas, or any aggregate body force at the scale of a tornado or a jet stream. The microdroplets behave as discrete particles in the larger body of air. Their surface tension only affects them -- it does not affect their interaction (or lack thereof) with neighboring particles. Or does it? If so, how?

jimmcginn wrote:In ALL plasmas the bonds (C,I or H) have been broken. But the particles haven't broken free from the influence of each other. And that is the difference. So, in a plasma the particles are trying to get back together again, but every time they almost do so in-flowing energy (heat, EME, or wind shear) prevents them from getting back together. So a plasma involves a state of suspended animation with the particles being pushed apart by external energy and trying to get back together again.

How do the particles in a plasma influence each other? And what does this have to do with surface tension within liquids also in the vicinity?

jimmcginn wrote:The plasma that emerges on wind shear boundaries isn't strong enough or coherent enough to contain a gas that has positive pressure. But in conjuction with the centrifugal force of spinning to create a tube, it is strong enough to direct a stream flow of gas that is under negative pressure. And it is strong enough to isolate the stream flow from the friction, this allows the stream flow to conserve energy and get faster and faster (due to the slight acceleration of differential air pressure), allowing us to understand the origins of the high wind speeds associated with tornadoes and the jet streams.

A vortex 1 mile high, with a diameter of 100 feet, and rotating at 100 mph, only loses 1,000 watts to friction within the air itself. That same vortex expends 1,000,000 watts fighting skin friction on the ground. So "isolating the stream flow from friction" [with the surrounding air] wouldn't conserve much energy, since not much is being lost.
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: 1770
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 » Sun Aug 14, 2016 7:43 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. But you have identified an anomalous characteristic of the upper troposphere, namely that there are differential speeds, and that this needs explaining.


Right, I did offer an explanation:
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.

Where is your explanation?

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, enabling faster speeds.


So your response is one word: "ionization." That's it, right? And that one word supposedy explains why how jet streams maintain their focuse flow? And that one word supposedly explains why they get wind speeds of hundred of hour. One word!

CharlesChandler wrote: 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.


So, ionized gases burrow. And for some reason they burrow from west to east. And for some reason they just happen to burrow from higher pressure to lower pressure. And this all because of ionization and ensuing lower viscosity. Is that what you are saying? Really? Do you really expect anybody to take this seriously?

CharlesChandler wrote: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.


Surreal. Laminar flow proves no such thing. This is nonsense.

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.


This is all so contrived as to be incomprehensible. It will fool newbies. (And it would appear you've fooled yourself.) But it isn't going to prove anything to anybody that actually understand fluid dynamics.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Aug 14, 2016 9:24 pm

jimmcginn wrote:I said plasmas have a surface. I didn't say plasmas have surface tension (actually, all things that have a surface have surface tension, so there is no reason to say that).


So do plasmas have surface tension, or not?

JM:
I just explained that. Read it again. Read it slowly. It is very clear.

This is a pivotal point in your theory of tornadogenesis (so to say) and I shouldn't have to guess at what you're saying.

JM:
Then stop putting words in my mouth. I shouldn't have to explain what I didn't say. I said plasmas have a surface. I also said water has anomalously high surface tension. These are two distinct concepts. Don't mix my words and throw them back at me. Read what I wrote. Read it carefully. And, yes, it is pivotal. In fact it is the most pivotal notion in my whole theory. So please make an effort to interpret what I am saying and don't mischaracterize it.

jimmcginn wrote:Now here is my assertion, in H2O when you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension. And along wind shear boundaries (including the most significant wind shear boundary in our atmosphere, the tropopause) microdropets in the moist layer begin to spin as a result of impacts from the dry layer. The spinning maximizes the surface area and that maximizes the surface tension. And this maximized surface tension is what underlies the strong plasma that is evident in tornado vortices (and jet streams vortices).


Microdroplets are liquids. They have surface tension.

JM:
Right. And remember, water has anomalously high surface tension. And, theoretically, the inclusion of water droplets in air causes it to be a stronger plasma because the surface tension of the water droplet is additive to tensional forces that give a plasma its strength and resilience

And yes, if they're spinning, the centrifugal force will make them non-spherical, which will increase the surface area.

JM:
Right, in fact if the spinning is strong enough the water droplet will elongate into a polymer (thread). (And increased tensional forces that exist between the H2O molecules in the thread will help maintain the thread's integrity.)

But I don't see what this has to do with plasmas,

JM:
Uh, the difference between a plasma and a gas is that there are tensional forces that exist between the particles of a plasma and there are none in a gas. The stronger the tensional forces the stronger the plasma. It's that simple.

or any aggregate body force at the scale of a tornado or a jet stream.

JM:
A plasma is a plasma. Why do you think scale matters?

The microdroplets behave as discrete particles in the larger body of air.

JM:
Are you claiming that microdroplets don't have surface tension? Why would you make such an outlandish claim?

Their surface tension only affects them -- it does not affect their interaction (or lack thereof) with neighboring particles. Or does it? If so, how?

JM:
Of course it does. Why wouldn't it? All of chemistry has to do with positive and negative charges. This is no different. Why would you assume otherwise?

jimmcginn wrote:In ALL plasmas the bonds (C,I or H) have been broken. But the particles haven't broken free from the influence of each other. And that is the difference. So, in a plasma the particles are trying to get back together again, but every time they almost do so in-flowing energy (heat, EME, or wind shear) prevents them from getting back together. So a plasma involves a state of suspended animation with the particles being pushed apart by external energy and trying to get back together again.

rom
How do the particles in a plasma influence each other? And what does this have to do with surface tension within liquids also in the vicinity?

JM:
I already answered this question (above). Utimately what it comes down to is this: Microdroplet spinning provides a mechanism--wind shear--by which the plasmodic strength can be turned up under high flow conditions. (But it is heavily dependent on pre-existing boundary conditions [moist/dry boundaries]). Since energy produce the spinning) is instrumental in the emergence of the plasma from which these vortice tubes are manifested this helps us understand why vortices are associated with high wind speeds. There is a kind of positive feedback aspect to it all. High wind speed provide for stronger plasmas. Stronger plasmas provide for better isolation from friction. Better isolation from friction facilitates higher wind speeds.

jimmcginn wrote:The plasma that emerges on wind shear boundaries isn't strong enough or coherent enough to contain a gas that has positive pressure. But in conjuction with the centrifugal force of spinning to create a tube, it is strong enough to direct a stream flow of gas that is under negative pressure. And it is strong enough to isolate the stream flow from the friction, this allows the stream flow to conserve energy and get faster and faster (due to the slight acceleration of differential air pressure), allowing us to understand the origins of the high wind speeds associated with tornadoes and the jet streams.


A vortex 1 mile high, with a diameter of 100 feet, and rotating at 100 mph, only loses 1,000 watts to friction within the air itself. That same vortex expends 1,000,000 watts fighting skin friction on the ground. So "isolating the stream flow from friction" [with the surrounding air] wouldn't conserve much energy, since not much is being lost.

JM:
The plasma of the vortice is the mechanism that isolates the stream flow within from friction outside. The isolation happens inside the plasma tube. Specifically, the tube isolates its contents from friction with the outside air. Right? So the fact it is not being lost is proof that it is being conserved. So I think your observation does not dispute my hypothesis but confirms it.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:33 am

Once again you haven't bothered to make it clear who is saying what. I guess that you're doing that just to taunt me, aside from the general theme of obfuscation and misdirection in your work. I don't know what you plan to gain by picking fights with people like this. If this were the Olympics, one of us would get a medal. If this were pay-per-view, one or both of us would get paid. But this is neither. So I wish you luck, and it's time to say "ciao".
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: 1770
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 » Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:36 pm

fosborn_ wrote:https://weather.com/storms/severe/video/long-rope-funnel-cloud-in-nebraska?pl=pl-severe-tornado-forecasts

think this link will work better
LongRopeFunnelCloud.png


These are much more common and observable than most anybody realizes.

On a clear day when there are fluffy, white clouds you can oftentimes see these. But you have to concentrate and steady our vision. Often these vortices can be seen in the context of donut shaped clouds, with the vortic going through the center of the vortice. (I caught some of these on my iphone, but they are not as distinct as the one in this picture.

Most people think of vortices as being vertical, as in a tornado. But the truth is that the vast majority of vortices are lateral. That is because the vast majority of boundary layers are lateral and vorttices track along boundary layers.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:20 pm

Often these vortices can be seen in the context of donut shaped clouds, with the vortice going through the center of the vortice.

I meant to say, "through the center of the donut."
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Aug 23, 2016 4:42 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:Once again you haven't bothered to make it clear who is saying what. I guess that you're doing that just to taunt me, aside from the general theme of obfuscation and misdirection in your work. I don't know what you plan to gain by picking fights with people like this. If this were the Olympics, one of us would get a medal. If this were pay-per-view, one or both of us would get paid. But this is neither. So I wish you luck, and it's time to say "ciao".


Well, Charles, I really don't appreciate the rhetorical tactics. At a number of points through this conversation I asked you questions about standard convection theory and "latent heat" theory and you sidestepped them--just like a meteorologist. And then I asked you about how you explain the origin of high wind speeds and instead of just admitting that your theory is not fully worked out (I am assuming) you played it off as if your one sentence explanations made sense when it is obvious to any reasonable person that there are, at best, a lot of details missing.

Being on the cutting edge of any scientific discipline is a difficult thing because you not only have to deal with what has yet to be discovered but you also have to deal with the assumptions that are taken for granted by the (brain-dead) believers in the current paradigm. And they use a lot of rhetorical tactics, including the self-righteous indignation that you employed here. (In my experience, self-righteous indignation is the hallmark that somebody is having difficulty being honest with themselves about what they really don't understand.)

You have parts and pieces of a better understanding. For example, you mention laminar flow. Laminar flow is, IMO, a very important part of the explanation of the origins of high wind speeds. Specifically, laminar flow plus isolation from friction (as we see in a tube [vortice]) plus constant acceleration (as we see can explain as an artifact of differential air pressure over long distances) can explain the high wind speeds we see in the jet streams. (It's both pushed and pulled.)



Strangely, however, you seem to not have grasped the notion that to have laminar flow you have to have a smooth surface. It's incomprehensible to me how something so obvious is beyond you. And this shortcoming is compounded by the fact that you, somehow, failed to recognize that plasmas have a surface. So you have pieces of the puzzle. And it's too bad that you allow your own stubborness stop you from making progress.

Instinctually humans want to be right. But as a scientist you have to put that aside, you have to genuinely want to be proven wrong. Because if you are proven wrong then you have a chance of finding what is right. Most people never have that chance because they let their ego get involved and then they clam up and start sulking. Don't do that. Don't sulk. Don't clam up. Don't wear your intellectual heart on your sleeve. Don't fear having you theory he shown to be wrong. Be explicit and hope that where it is wrong somebody will show you how and why. Only then do you have any chance of making progress in this obscure discipline.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Aug 28, 2016 6:35 am

Charles:
. . . 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.

James:
Who cares. You don’t have a point. Nor do you have dispute with any of the points I raised. You are painting with a wide brush and are otherwise scattered. In my experience that is a sign that you are trying to pretend that you understand more than you actually do.

For example, do you concur with the notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O? Yes? No? Do you dispute my assertion that this notion is nonsense? Yes? No? Undoubtedly we will never know because, like all science pretenders, you are determined to ride the fence, play it safe. And that is too bad. Science isn’t about looking or even being right. It’s about being specific so that if you are wrong you can realize you are wrong when you are wrong. Because realizing you are wrong when you are wrong is the hardest part of any scientific endeavor. More than anything else, science is about defeating your minds desire to take the easy path and just believe.

You sidestep the issue because you really don’t care about the truth of the matter as much as you care about the perception that you are competent--just like meteorologists. And that is all the evidence I need to label you as another of the many pretenders in this general discipline.

Charles:
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.

James:
I have no interest in debating your imagination.

Charles:
And to say that the principles of fluid dynamics are poorly understood is quite a stretch.

James:
Good, because I never said any such thing. I said they were poorly understood by you.

Charles:
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?

James:
I would only argue that this demonstrates that you don’t have a point.

Charles:
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.


James:
Relevance?

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:03 am

James:
You have zero understanding of H2O surface tension [in plasmas].

Charles:
That's correct. My "understanding" is that surface tension comes from covalent bonds within liquids.

James:
This isn't an "understanding." It is a belief. And it is wrong. All things that have tensional forces have a surface and all surfaces are the result of any and all tensional forces therein, not just covalent bonds.

Charles:
In plasmas, those covalent bonds have been broken, and therefore are no longer a factor. So what would cause surface tension in plasmas? Evangelism?

James:
So, by your "understanding" a plasma and a gas are the same thing. Right? If not, what do you think distinguishes a plasma from a gas? Why do you think scientists use different words to label plasma from gas and vice versa? Evangelism?
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest