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 fosborn_ » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:31 am

Would this be an example of a successful effort?
https://experiment.com/projects/tornadoes-casualties-and-climate-change?s=discover

Tornadoes, Casualties, and Climate Change

By Tyler Fricker

Endorsed by:
Tornadoes are fascinating and violent storms. Understanding their behavior and effects is an important undertaking that can save lives. Given Tyler’s foundation in climate change and storms, specifically tornadoes, this project has the potential to create results that have lasting impacts and add to the ongoing conversation of tornado climatology.
Kelsey Ellis
Assistant Professor
University of Tennessee
 

Tyler is currently my graduate student working on his PhD in Geography at Florida State University. He is proposing this important project that should go a long way toward understanding how many more deaths and injuries can be expected if tornadoes get stronger as the planet warms. 


James Elsner
Professor & Chair, Department of Geography
Florida State University


Looks like the endorsement needs to be from people with significant credentials to gain public trust.
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: 480
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:21 am

fosborn_ wrote:Would this be an example of a successful effort?
https://experiment.com/projects/tornadoes-casualties-and-climate-change?s=discover

Tornadoes, Casualties, and Climate Change

By Tyler Fricker

Endorsed by:
Tornadoes are fascinating and violent storms. Understanding their behavior and effects is an important undertaking that can save lives. Given Tyler’s foundation in climate change and storms, specifically tornadoes, this project has the potential to create results that have lasting impacts and add to the ongoing conversation of tornado climatology.
Kelsey Ellis
Assistant Professor
University of Tennessee
 

Tyler is currently my graduate student working on his PhD in Geography at Florida State University. He is proposing this important project that should go a long way toward understanding how many more deaths and injuries can be expected if tornadoes get stronger as the planet warms. 


James Elsner
Professor & Chair, Department of Geography
Florida State University


Looks like the endorsement needs to be from people with significant credentials to gain public trust.


This shows how inane academia has become. It starts with the propaganda-based assertion that the globe is warming. It then presupposes that a warming planet will cause more tornadoes and it will then, undoubtedly, arrive at a completely useless conclusion. The author will have no trouble getting published since anything that confirms the global warming premise is immediately fast-forwarded through peer review. (The reviewers will probably not even read it except to confirm that it is supportive of the global warming premise.) The author will be granted his Phd and a professorship. And the public that pays the bill for all of this will be none the wiser.

I would prefer that my endorsement to come from a real scientist.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:38 pm

I would prefer that my endorsement to come from a real scientist.


What's the qualification of such a person?
What kind of background, and working experience should they have to show competence?
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: 480
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:43 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
I would prefer that my endorsement to come from a real scientist.


What's the qualification of such a person?
What kind of background, and working experience should they have to show competence?


I guess I would just hope that they could confidently and succinctly explain why the convection model of storm theory is wrong, as described in the first post on this thread. So, any and all that feel they fit this description I encourage to send me their email and I will send them the link for an endorsement--including yourself Frank.

A brave new future of storm mitigation awaits.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:14 pm

:ugeek:
jimmcginn wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:
I would prefer that my endorsement to come from a real scientist.


What's the qualification of such a person?
What kind of background, and working experience should they have to show competence?


I guess I would just hope that they could confidently and succinctly explain why the convection model of storm theory is wrong, as described in the first post on this thread. So, any and all that feel they fit this description I encourage to send me their email and I will send them the link for an endorsement--including yourself Frank.


you invited me, but I don't qualify, to confidently and succinctly explain why the convection model is wrong. I found enough experimentation already that supports it. I know its not perfect, but its the bird in the hand, not the 2 in the bush.
If you ever do any of your own, or find anyone else who has, that shows chinks in the armor, I will be excited to read of it.


I'm excited your attempting this, its going to be an education, even if its turned down. :cry:

https://experiment.com/guide/design#review_criteria
Project Criteria

Our community team of scientists reviews every project proposal we receive. We review projects to make sure they pass a certain level of review criteria to ensure projects are appropriate for Experiment.

Every project must satisfy the following criteria:

1Your experiment seeks to answer a specific research question.
2The process and results can be shared openly and transparently.
3The researchers have the expertise needed to meet the goals.
In addition to the core criteria, there are additional considerations depending on where you'll be conducting the research.


I'm vary curious, have you formed this "Specific research question" ?
You have this mountain of reinvention to tackle, what is the first bite of the elephant look like? What is your specific research question? (is dry air lighter than humid air?) What is the most basic question you must start with? I'm overwhelmed already. :roll:
What specific apparatus will you use? If your weighing gases, what are the specs on the scales and most importantly the containers? They suggest 30 days completion, if you work like a farmer and put in 14 hour days, that is 420 man hours to run thousands of test for an accurate baseline and show all the deviations in data and explain why, and account for any change in conditions and limit the scope and therefore the variables of the testing ( lots of triage). I bet you spend a large portion of the man hours on documenting. Sounds like my military experience, working for pennies on the dollar. ;)


https://experiment.com/guide/design#review_criteria
Additional criteria for independent scientists

Independent scientists include citizen scientists, high school students, collaborative team projects, or anything else outside of academia or industry. Some extra considerations if you go down this route are:

You are encouraged to recruit public endorsements.It helps to have outside experts weigh in on why you are the right leader for this project, how your methods will deliver results, and the project's potential impact.
Proof of having the resources or capacity to carry out the experiment (e.g. a lab bench in case you require lab space).

Looks like you have to use the KISS method to keep the required resources to a minimum.
Also I'm worried, I have yet to read of anyone of a separate, autonomous persona, who meets your criteria to write an endorsement..
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: 480
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Cargo » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:42 pm

Moisture based plasma


Wait! What?

OT: https://www.space.com/23028-super-earth ... lanet.html

I will refrain from pointing out the bad parts of this Space Science article. But anyway..
Cargo
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:04 am

fosborn_ wrote::ugeek:
jimmcginn wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:
I would prefer that my endorsement to come from a real scientist.


What's the qualification of such a person?
What kind of background, and working experience should they have to show competence?


I guess I would just hope that they could confidently and succinctly explain why the convection model of storm theory is wrong, as described in the first post on this thread. So, any and all that feel they fit this description I encourage to send me their email and I will send them the link for an endorsement--including yourself Frank.


you invited me, but I don't qualify, to confidently and succinctly explain why the convection model is wrong. I found enough experimentation already that supports it.

Name one.

I know its not perfect, but its the bird in the hand, not the 2 in the bush.
If you ever do any of your own, or find anyone else who has, that shows chinks in the armor, I will be excited to read of it.

If you ever figure out why you believe what you can't explain be sure to let us know.


I'm excited your attempting this, its going to be an education, even if its turned down. :cry:


Calm down. You don't want to wet yourself.

https://experiment.com/guide/design#review_criteria
Project Criteria

Our community team of scientists reviews every project proposal we receive. We review projects to make sure they pass a certain level of review criteria to ensure projects are appropriate for Experiment.

Every project must satisfy the following criteria:

1Your experiment seeks to answer a specific research question.
2The process and results can be shared openly and transparently.
3The researchers have the expertise needed to meet the goals.
In addition to the core criteria, there are additional considerations depending on where you'll be conducting the research.


I'm vary curious, have you formed this "Specific research question" ?

Yes.

You have this mountain of reinvention to tackle, what is the first bite of the elephant look like? What is your specific research question? (is dry air lighter than humid air?) What is the most basic question you must start with? I'm overwhelmed already. :roll:
What specific apparatus will you use? If your weighing gases, what are the specs on the scales and most importantly the containers? They suggest 30 days completion, if you work like a farmer and put in 14 hour days, that is 420 man hours to run thousands of test for an accurate baseline and show all the deviations in data and explain why, and account for any change in conditions and limit the scope and therefore the variables of the testing ( lots of triage). I bet you spend a large portion of the man hours on documenting. Sounds like my military experience, working for pennies on the dollar. ;)


https://experiment.com/guide/design#review_criteria
Additional criteria for independent scientists

Independent scientists include citizen scientists, high school students, collaborative team projects, or anything else outside of academia or industry. Some extra considerations if you go down this route are:

You are encouraged to recruit public endorsements.It helps to have outside experts weigh in on why you are the right leader for this project, how your methods will deliver results, and the project's potential impact.
Proof of having the resources or capacity to carry out the experiment (e.g. a lab bench in case you require lab space).

Looks like you have to use the KISS method to keep the required resources to a minimum.
Also I'm worried, I have yet to read of anyone of a separate, autonomous persona, who meets your criteria to write an endorsement..

Yes.

Cheers,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:22 pm

Name one

I can, you can't name any.

-M. D. Drying of wet shoes.

-Artic temperature and humidity measurements -20 to -55 below zero, 1954
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1954)011%3C0214:ATFTDO%3E2.0.CO;2
Abstract
An investigation of ice fog in Alaska required a technique for the determination of the water content of the atmosphere at temperatures between −20 to −55C. No satisfactory method for direct field measurements at these low temperatures was available.

A field sampling-technique was developed which consisted of extracting the contained water by bubbling the air through absolute methanol, an aliquot of which was then titrated with Karl Fischer reagent. A visual end-point was applicable. The method permitted rapid titration, required simple apparatus, and measured the amount of moisture in the air directly to within 2 per cent of the absolute values.
A method of filtering the air in order to separate water vapor from precipitated water was also developed for sub-freezing temperatures.
Humidity observations were extended to levels above the surface by drawing a known volume of air into the bubbler through polyethylene tubing supported by captive balloons.
Results obtained with these techniques are included in a discussion of humidities determined at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, during the winter of 1952–1953.
Introduction
In the course of an investigation of ice fog in Alaska, a fild technique was needed for the determination of the water content of teh atmoshere at temperatures below freezing, particularly in the temperature range from -20 to -50 C.
Although the literature revealed that many methods of jumidity measurement have been developed or proposed [1] , no satgisfactory instrumental or chemical technique appeared to be available for field measuremnts at low temperatures.
Further study of the literature showed, however, that Karl Fischer reagent [2]. with use of methanol as the water extractant [3], was useful for laoratory titrimetric determinations of moisture associated with a wide variety of substances, including air. For colorless solutions, such as water in methanol, a visual end-point is applicable and the apparatus is realtively simple. With this information, it was proposed to adapt the Karl Fischer technique for use in the filed.
...Millipore filters were used to separate particulate water from the water vapor component of the atmoshere. This type of filter is a plastic, porous structure, and has a varly low resistance to flow of air.. It will retain particles down to 0.02u within 10u of the suface of the filter [4]. An important characteristic of this filter is that the amount of water vapor it will absorb or release appears to be negligible un the conditions encoutered in the field.

Measuring water vapor(h2o gas)in artic air after removing frozen precipitants.

Microdroplet evaporation..
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... .x/full#f4
MicroDrpEvap.png
MicroDrpEvap.png (36.91 KiB) Viewed 339 times
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: 480
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:38 pm

I don't know what to tell you, Frank. I don't know what you are seeing that I am not.

Maybe this is something that only believers can see.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:52 pm

Cargo wrote:
Moisture based plasma

Wait! What?
OT: https://www.space.com/23028-super-earth ... lanet.html
I will refrain from pointing out the bad parts of this Space Science article. But anyway..

It's great that you've learned to exercise restraint of the skeptical impulse. Let me provide you with more material with which you can more fully excercise your open-mindedness muscle:

I didn't read this Space Science article but I am sure the plasma in this article is very different from the plasma in my model. The plasma in my model is, actually, a combination of air and nanodroplets of H2O. Or, I should say, that is how it starts out; also, in my model these H2O nanodroplets are spinning very rapidly. The spinning is a consequence of wind shear. (Did you ever wonder why tornadoes are associated with wind shear in the lower troposphere? Well, keep reading.) Specifically the H2O based plasma of my model is a consequence of the high surface tension of H2O (in other words, it is a result of a 'hidden' electromagnetic force that is too subtle to be noticeable under normal conditions). Specifically, it is the result of the fact that the spinning causes H2O nanodroplets to elongate into polymers, maximizing their surface area and, thereby, maximizing their surface tension. (Again, as you continue reading this, surface tension is actually an electromagnetic force that is too subtle to be noticeable under normal conditions. Below I will provide you a link where you can see a more explicit example of these obscure electromagnetic forces that we generally refer to as H2O surface tension.)

Of paramount importance to my model is the assertion that the popular belief that H2O turns gaseous in the atmosphere is wrong (this being the reason for the experiment indicated up-thread). There are two reasons why this assumption has to be wrong in order for my model to work. Firstly, and most obviously, if H2O generally became gaseous we could not anticipate the existence of the microdroplets (and/or nanodroplets) that are the requisite starting conditions for the spinning, surface maximized, H2O polymers of my model (as described in the above paragraph). Secondly, if H2O did actually become gaseous in the atmosphere then moist air would be lighter than dry air (in accordance with Avogadro’s Law) and, therefore, it wouldn't tend to lay out into long flat surfaces that are necessary for the wind shear in my model. In other words, an essential prerequisite for the wind shear in my model is that moist air—under calm weather conditions—tends to settle into long flat surfaces, with drier air above. (This occurs at various locations in the troposphere. Most notably this occurs along the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere [this being where the mother of all vortices—the jet stream—forms].)

Considered over very long distances, we can envision this moist layer as a surface that reflects energy into a stream flow producing faster and faster winds. Also, along this extensive surface we might then envision nanodroplets of H2O being impacted with side-glancing impacts from the dry layer above. This will cause them to begin spinning and, as described above, the spinning will effectuate a plasma. This plasma may be only a few inches thick but it can potentially span many miles in length and breadth. We can then envision an ensuing positive feedback as the emergence of the plasma along this extensive surface makes the surface stronger, reflecting more energy into a stream flow, producing faster and faster winds. Eventually, the Bernoulli effect and the Coriolis effect conspires to cause a sheet of this plasma to role into a tube. The ensuing tube provides 360 degree isolation from atmospheric friction, allowing its contents to further accelerate as a result of any difference in pressure from the entrance of the tube to its exit. All the while, the tube conserves the wind shear that keeps polymers of H2O spinning.

And so, to reiterate, without long, flat surfaces forming naturally in the atmosphere the ability of drier air to gain momentum as it moves long distances over the surface of moist air (like wind blowing across a flat lake) there would not be enough contact between the nano-droplets along the surface of the slow moving moist air and the fast moving air molecules in the dry air above to cause the nano-droplets to start to spin and elongate into electromagnetically charged, spinning polymers that are necessary to effectuate a plasma.

Above I indicated that I would provide a demonstration to more explicitly demonstrate the electromagnetic forces hiding in water that are expressed when the surface area of H2O is maximized. The reason these electromagnetic forces are not apparent to us is because most of our experience is with still or flowing water and there is relatively little surface to demonstrate these hidden electromagnetic forces. But here is one exception that has to do with a mixture of corn starch and water that is generally used to demonstrate he concept of non-newtonian fluid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mYHGn_Pd5M

And so, the reason the non-newtonian fluid turns hard is because when pressure is applied the corn starch molecules get between the water molecules effectuating a huge surface. This activates the dormant electromagnetic forces in H2O. Likewise, with vortices the spinning activates the electromagnetic forces because the centrifugal forces effectuates a huge surface. But since the polymers of H2O are not connected to each other it produces a plasma effect and not a solid.

All in all, this explains something that heretofore science has failed to explain, the molecular composition of vortices in the atmosphere.

Another interesting thing to consider is that H2O surface tension is itself hydrophobic. This means that liquid water literally levitates or is repelled by it. (See link below.) This explains how and why vortices don't get clogged up by thick moist air and rain as they move moist air very rapidly (up to 300 mph) both laterally and vertically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbGz1njqhxU

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:09 pm

Mcginn;
Of paramount importance to my model is the assertion that the popular belief that H2O turns gaseous in the atmosphere is wrong (this being the reason for the experiment indicated up-thread).


Yes, that experiment done in arctic conditions with frozen precipitants removed from the air leaves only gaseous H2O that could be and was measured, in the sub zero temperatures.

Mcginn;
Firstly, and most obviously, if H2O generally became gaseous we could not anticipate the existence of the microdroplets (and/or nanodroplets) that are the requisite starting conditions for the spinning, surface maximized, H2O polymers of my model (as described in the above paragraph).


Gaseous H2O require aerosols to condense out of the air. So small droplets are anticipated. With out aerosols its the rarest conditions that have precipitants with out an aerosol particle or surface.
Which means you theory doesn't anticipate how aerosols can be the nucleus of droplets. of if your droplets can even exist without an aerosol nucleus.
Which also means you can't anticipate that surface tension weakens with reduced volume and increased curvature, as indicated in the micro droplet evaporation photo. This would indicate why its so difficult for nano droplets to keep form re evaporating so quickly.
Also see this Slow Mo Guys video, note as the reducing sizes of the cascading droplets, the quicker they collapse back into the water surface. https://youtu.be/ynk4vJa-VaQ?t=74

Mcginn
Secondly, if H2O did actually become gaseous in the atmosphere then moist air would be lighter than dry air (in accordance with Avogadro’s Law) and, therefore, it wouldn't tend to lay out into long flat surfaces that are necessary for the wind shear in my model.


This seems a misleading statement . If you think in terms of density and buoyancy , warm and cold air masses, dwarf the fraction of the lighter water vapor mixed in. So warm air convection will be the dominate factor over humidity.
Mcginn;
Also, along this extensive surface we might then envision nanodroplets of H2O being impacted with side-glancing impacts from the dry layer above.


Side glancing ? Your imaging an impossible stable or maybe linear condition in nature. Think in terms of unstable nonlinear , even fractal kind of interphase between air layers. Its impossible to imagine all these nano droplets behaving by lining up to get spun up. Even if invoking the magic of plasma, that is inherently unstable also.
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: 480
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:15 pm

fosborn_ wrote: . . . that experiment done in arctic conditions . . .

No. I was referring to the experiment I suggested upthread.

Firstly, and most obviously, if H2O generally became gaseous we could not anticipate the existence of the microdroplets (and/or nanodroplets) that are the requisite starting conditions for the spinning, surface maximized, H2O polymers of my model (as described in the above paragraph).
Your theory doesn't anticipate how aerosols can be the nucleus of droplets.

The notion that condensation requires a solid nucleus to get the process started is one of many urban myths associated with meteorology. (Haven't we been over this already?)
Also, along this extensive surface we might then envision nanodroplets of H2O being impacted with side-glancing impacts from the dry layer above.

Side glancing? You are imagining an impossible stable or maybe linear condition in nature.

Feel free to make a detailed argument to that effect. It seems very possible to me (but I've had about 5 years now to become familiar with it.)
Think in terms of unstable nonlinear, even fractal kind of interphase between air layers. Its impossible to imagine all these nano droplets behaving by lining up to get spun up.

Irrelevant. There are many notions in the history of science that were discovered before anybody imagined them.
Even if invoking the magic of plasma, that is inherently unstable also.

The 'plasma' of my model is novel, unfamiliar and, therefore, hard to accept. But that is the case for any scientific discovery.

Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift in 1912. It took geologists 50 years to warm up to the idea. Now, however, when you look at a map of the southern Atlantic ocean the congruence of the eastern and western shorelines jumps out at you.

When it came to deducing the molecular composition of atmospheric vortices and arriving at the conjecture that they contained wind shear generated, rapidly spinning polymers of H2O, I feel that I had a huge advantage that allowed me to avoid a common misassumption that traps others. I knew that the sheath of the tornado must involve some kind of molecular distinction. And I knew that this molecular distinction must involve it possessing structural resilience and, therefore, it must be a plasma or plasma like (even if I didn’t use that exact word at first). My underlying rationale had to do with my previous experience with evolutionary theory through which I developed some rather esoteric principles in regard to bringing some conceptual clarity to the question of what is or is not a lifeform, the foundation of which involved principles in regard to what is or is not an entity, what I referred to as principles of entitiness. There were basically three principles of entitiness: 1) an entity must be molecularly distinct from that which is not part of the entity; 2) an entity must have some kind of surface to act as a barrier to prevent the molecules that are not part of the entity from casually mixing with the molecules that are part of the entity, and 3) both 1 and 2 are relative and not absolute.

These principles prevented me from making the common error of casually assuming that the molecular composition of tornadoes was the same as that of air and/or moist air. I've encountered a number of other tornado theorists and it is very common for them to casually assume that a tornado is just fast spinning air. They don't take into account the fact that the sheath needed to possess the ability to resist itself from casually mixing with the surrounding air molecules. In other words, my principles of entitiness allowed me to realize that tornadoes could not persist as entities if the molecules that comprise the sheath of the tornado did not possess some kind of internal resilience greater than that of just air. Otherwise the molecules in the sheath would casually mix with those outside the sheath and the tornado would not have persistence.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:23 am

fosborn_ wrote:
. . . that experiment done in arctic conditions . . .


No. I was referring to the experiment I suggested upthread.
[/quote]

Okay, but all your visions of grandeur, will go unfulfilled until you can show there is no gaseous phase of h20 in the atmosphere, which I have provided in the arctic experiment, showing it does. And you have nothing, of this quality to counter it. A real scientist would admit his thinking is falsified, until he can come up with physical test to show otherwise. Not just imagine 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: 480
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:41 pm

Mcginn..
The notion that condensation requires a solid nucleus to get the process started is one of many urban myths associated with meteorology. (Haven't we been over this already?)
Al


Open Yale Courses
- Clouds and Precipitation (Cloud Chamber Experiment)

http://oyc.yale.edu/geology-and-geophys ... ecture-11#
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: 480
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:53 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:
. . . that experiment done in arctic conditions . . .

No. I was referring to the experiment I suggested upthread.


Okay, but all your visions of grandeur, will go unfulfilled until you can show there is no gaseous phase of h20 in the atmosphere, which I have provided in the arctic experiment, showing it does. And you have nothing, of this quality to counter it. A real scientist would admit his thinking is falsified, until he can come up with physical test to show otherwise. Not just imagine it.


Instead of continually making claims based on your imagination why don't you contact the authors of the paper and ask them how they (according to you) verified that their alleged H2O gas was genuinely gaseous. You probably won't get a response, but maybe that in itself will tell you what you need to know.

--------------------------------

Someday my theory will be accepted. This may not happen for a long, long time, possibly long after we are gone. At that time I anticipate getting the following argument directed at my discovery:
“McGinn's discovery of vortice plasma was not that big of a deal. He didn't do any experiments or make any original observations. In other words, he didn't discover any of the pieces of the puzzle. All he did was correctly interpret the pieces of the puzzle--something that would have happened anyway--and then he put the puzzle together. No big deal.”

My response to this is, yes, I agree. For example, the realization that convection was unworkable was obvious. All one had to do was notice the contradiction of the boiling point of water and the assumption that moist air must be gaseous at ambient temperatures (in conjunction with some understanding of Avogadro’s law). A high school kid could notice that. (I know because I was in high school when I first noticed it.)

Once one incorporated this it wasn’t much of a leap to start questioning other assumptions underlying meteorology’s model of storms. Eventually one might become cognizant of the fact, a fact that meteorologists do not deny, that the structure of tornadoes is unexplained. And it’s common knowledge that a plasma is like a gas but has properties similar to a solid, like the ability to maintain a form and a surface—structural properties. So the possibility that the structure of tornadoes can be explained by it being some kind of plasma also seemed obvious.

It is also a relatively straight forward leap of logic to arrive at the conclusion that, most likely, an atmospheric plasma must involve the participation of H2O. Because H2O is well known to have other poorly explained anomalous properties—upwards of 70—like high heat capacity, expansion upon freezing and (the one that may be most conspicuous of all) high surface tension. So, the supposition that H2O might have an additional undiscovered anomaly is not that big of a stretch.

Also, it is well known that tornadoes are associated with wind shear and, therefore, along the shared surface of two bodies of air that are moving in different directions we can anticipate molecules directly impacting each other. And since we know that H2O in the atmosphere is not gaseous but actually consists of microdroplets (and nano-droplets) we can envision side-glancing impacts that cause these nano-droplets to spin and elongate into a polymer. Combine this with a sophisticated understanding of hydrogen bonding and the fact that H bonding involves genuine electromagnetic forces--this being the hardest part of the puzzle--we eventually arrive at our understanding of vortice plasma. Obviously I left out a lot of detail here. But once the puzzle starts to come together the other pieces just kind of fall into place. It really is no big deal.

The ability to realize what does not work is the key to opening one's mind to figuring out what does work. Most people never make progress because they are unable to defeat the emotions associated with their own minds tendency to pretend to understand what actually doesn't make sense.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 346
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