Isaac Newton was a human being

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

jimmcginn
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread post by jimmcginn » Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:35 pm

webolife wrote:I'm not continuing this battle with you any longer.
I presented some challenges to your water vapor assumptions, asked questions, suggested alternative explanations, and all you have done is attack me. Why? Well, never mind, you clearly have an agenda you do not wish be contradicted. I'm done here.
Uh, IMO, I express myself concisely and explicitly so that if I am wrong I can/will be contradicted. In contrast, you keep your thinking obscure so that it can never be contradicted. There is a big difference between believing and understanding. Most people lack the intellectual courage to ever know this difference. They just believe because that is all they know how to do.

jimmcginn
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread post by jimmcginn » Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:29 am

Chan Rasjid wrote:Hello,

I think you misread the article; Newton got it "right" - moist air lighter.

I make a guess that moist air is heavier. The gas laws, Avogadro's law - whatever - may not apply. Water vapor H2O in air is not a gas, but water droplets. Real gas and the gas laws apply only to real gas due to the kinetic theory where the molecules knock each other, etc..The water droplets being a suspension of liquid in gas will not cause any displacement of gases - the same volume of moist air and dry air has the same amount of air. So the moist air has additional matter - H2O! thereby heavier - Newton Is wrong!

Why clouds form? There are many things unknown. Water vapor - liquid droplets moves upward defying gravity for whatever reasons. Gaseous air neither moves upwards nor downwards according to kinetic theory - they just knock around! but due to gravity will not escaped into outer space. Water droplets has an "unknown physics" - they go upwards to form clouds until it's time for them to come back down. It may be the "electric universe" effect that make smaller water droplets following some ethereal lines of forces and they point opposite in direction to gravity - but reserved only for water droplets!

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Moist air is heavier than dry air. It's that simple. Thus the up-movement of moist air that is witnessed in storms must have a cause that is different from convection. I have hypothesized that this missing cause of up-moving moist air has to do with different types of plasma in the atmosphere, the most extreme of which is observable as, and is the basis of, vortices. This simultaneously explains why vortices are associated with storms and vice versa. And it gives us a clue as to the high correlation between the jet stream being in the vicinity and the occurrence of storms, along the lines that the jet stream is itself a vortice that exists along the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere, where we can expect vortice-causing wind shear to be maximized.

The contents of vortices are isolated from the friction of the atmosphere. The ensuing conservation of energy is realized in very high wind speeds of the jet streams. Feeding on a resource--moist air--that is much more plentiful at lower altitudes than it is at the top of the troposphere, vortices of the jet stream tend to grow down into bodies of moist air at lower altitudes. The result is to transport moist air up through the tube at very high speeds--what we see as a storm. This explains how heavier moist air gets higher in the atmosphere. No convection is necessary. (And since convection is unnecessary there is no reason to pretend that moist air is lighter than dry air when all reason indicates that it can only be heavier.)

It is the surface tension of H2O that allows vortices to exist in that they are comprised of spinning microdroplets. The spinning maximizes the surface area of H2O and when you maximize the surface area of H2O you maximize its surface tension. The ensuing high surface tension of spinning H2O microdroplets is what enables the existence of vortices. This is why vortices are associated with wind-shear boundaries between bodies of air one of which is dry (and usually cold) and the other of which is moist (and usually warm). And this also explains why tornadoes are associated with places in which boundaries between moist air and dry air extend all the way to the ground, as takes place just east of the Rockies, in "Tornado Alley", USA.

Meteorology's notion of storms being caused by convection is pseudo-science that appeals to people's desire for simple explanations.

Static electricity explains how heavier microdroplets are pulled off the surface of a body of water. Thus, evaporation involves microdroplets being pulled up by static electricity. It doesn't involve H2O being magically turned into a gas at temperatures well below the known boiling point of H2O. However, this only explains how moist air is created at the lower altitudes. As I explained above, vortices in storms do the heavy lifting in earth's atmosphere.

Meteorology failed to understand storms so they built a religion around the notions of convection and latent heat of moist air in earth's atmosphere. Their explanations are so pathetic that you will not find a meteorologist who will actually debate the subject with knowledgeable opponents (like me).

Unfortunately, much of science is controlled by people whose only inclination is to fulfill the hunger for simple explanations that the vast majority of the public desires.

James Mcginn
Solving Tornadoes

Search for my books on Amazon:
Amazon McGinn Tornadoes

jimmcginn
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread post by jimmcginn » Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:32 am

flyingcloud wrote:When stating X number of water molecules, you must consider displacement of X amount of Nitrogen / Oxygen molecules then do the math.

X amount of water molecules can't still be compared to a single Nitrogen or Oxygen molecule.
I did the math. Moist air is heavier. Facts are facts.

jimmcginn
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread post by jimmcginn » Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:42 am

Chan Rasjid wrote:
flyingcloud wrote:When stating X number of water molecules, you must consider displacement of X amount of Nitrogen / Oxygen molecules then do the math.

X amount of water molecules can't still be compared to a single Nitrogen or Oxygen molecule.
I think you are right.

Avogadro's law :
"a law stating that equal volumes of gases at the same temperature and pressure contain equal numbers of molecules."

We have to take water vapor as a gas - but why? Or just a particle for kinetic theory of gas?

It is a strange law. Different molecules have different properties, mass, sizes, etc...yet same volumes always have same number particles.

Has this law being derived from first principle?

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
There is no problem with the law. There is only a human problem with people that think the known boiling temperature of H2O can be ignored. IOW, there is no presumptive 'ab initio' for water vapor being gaseous at ambient temperature. This is just pseudoscience. Pseudoscientists tend to ignore inconvenient facts. This is a good thing because it makes it easy for real scientists like myself to make discoveries.

Gaseous H2O plays no role in weather. H2O surface tension is the reason weather is associated with H2O

jimmcginn
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread post by jimmcginn » Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:51 am

webolife wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:
webolife wrote:Of course Newton was human. I actually disagree with the common application of his first law [inertia]!
However Newton's conclusion about and modern measurement of water vapor density agree.
Air containing water vapor is in fact less dense than dry air. McGinn's protestations that water vapor is microdroplets of liquid water does not change the observed kinetic energy of water vapor.
You aren't even beginning to make sense here.
What I'm saying is that water vapor behaves as a gas, whether or not we accept McGinn's premise that unboiled water vapor is still in the liquid state. As such it exhibits a density which is lower than the average density of dry air.
While counterintuitive for some, it is not really controversial that higher humidity correlates to less dense air under the same conditions of temperature and pressure.

Did you have a question about this?
You don't have an argument. You are just restating a popular belief. Beliefs--no matter how popular--don't dictate reality. All the facts indicate moist air is heavier than dry air. Thus the reason moist air moves rapidly upward in storms has nothing to do with convection. It's that simple.

Science involves facts, not beliefs.

jimmcginn
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread post by jimmcginn » Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:55 am

webolife wrote:I'm not continuing this battle with you any longer.
I presented some challenges to your water vapor assumptions, asked questions, suggested alternative explanations, and all you have done is attack me. Why? Well, never mind, you clearly have an agenda you do not wish be contradicted. I'm done here.
Just like Richard Saykally (a professor of physical chemistry at UC Berkeley) you presented no challenges. You just stated popular beliefs. There is more to making a scientific argument than just restating popular beliefs.

jimmcginn
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread post by jimmcginn » Sun Jun 19, 2016 11:12 am

webolife wrote:I'm sorry. Could you explain where I misrepresented your thoughts? It seems to me that the crux of your objection to the inverse proportionality of density/humidity is that water vapor is actually liquid droplets that don't conform to Avogadro's principle, so their presence in a given volume of air somehow increases the density of that volume. If this is not a correct summary, what did I miss?
In contrast to what you deceptively claim, my claim is that the liquid microdroplets *do* conform to Avogadro's law.
webolife wrote: You apparently took the same aggressive tactic against Rich S, as you referenced. The interesting thing to me is that you present your own model, based on some questionable assumptions about the nature of water droplets in a vapor, then defend it with the same lack of consideration that you are criticizing in others. Is this a blind spot for you? Is it possible for you to have a civil dialogue about your ideas with others who are questioning you?
Like yourself, Saykally was deceptive. He had no substantive dispute with my model/hypothesis. Like yourself, he failed to acknowledge this and fell back on political tactics. Pseudoscientists always rely on politics when facts fail them. The general model of water that Saykally and many others maintain is pseudoscience that dictates what questions can or cannot be asked. The new model presented in my paper is an embarassment to Saykally and his cohorts because it shows that they have been barking up the wrong tree for quite some time now.

H2O polarity is a variable and H bonds are the mechanism thereof. This is perfectly explicated in my paper. Saykally cannot dispute it (Soper and Nilsson can't either). He can only draw attention away from it and hope to save face through that tactic.

Science involves facts. Not beliefs.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes


I'm asking several clarifying and or challenge questions; would you like to try to answer some of those so I can understand your thoughts better?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests