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 Maol » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:18 pm

Guess whose face this will put a smile upon :D

Take care to note this particular (link) discussion is about "the surface of minuscule water drops surrounded by a hydrophobic substance such as oil" and "how they interact with their hydrophobic environment."

Water is surprisingly ordered on the nanoscale
May 24, 2017, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Researchers from AMOLF and Swiss EPFL have shown that the surface of minuscule water drops surrounded by a hydrophobic substance such as oil is surprisingly ordered. At room temperature, the surface water molecules of these droplets have much stronger interactions than at a normal water surface. This may shed new light on a variety of atmospheric, biological and even geological processes.

Nanometric-sized water drops are everywhere—in the air as droplets or aerosols, in industrially produced medications, and within rocks and oil fields. To understand the behavior of these drops, it is necessary to know how they interact with their hydrophobic environment. This interaction takes places at the curved droplet interface, a sub-nanometric region that surrounds the small pocket of water. Researchers from EPFL, in collaboration with the institute AMOLF in the Netherlands have discovered that molecules on the surface of the drops were much more ordered than expected. Their surprising results have been published in Nature Communications. They pave the way to a better understanding of atmospheric, biological and geological processes.

......... much more to read ......

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-surprisin ... e.html#jCp
Last edited by Maol on Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maol
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

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

Unread postby Maol » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:23 pm

Theoretical model reveals how droplets grow around tiny particles on a surface
January 11, 2017, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-theoretic ... s.html#jCp

....... which leads to ......

Researchers find new mechanism to explain the birth of cloud droplets
March 24, 2016, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-03-mechanism ... s.html#jCp

Each link leads to another on the subject. Chase them to your heart's content.
Maol
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:23 pm

The sheath of a tornado is a form of surface tension. It is a plasma of spinning, churning H2O molecules. It has structural strength and a surface—common characteristics of plasmas. But the origin of this strength doesn’t involve the forces associated with ionic bonds, as is the case with most plasmas. Instead this is a kind of plasma that involves the forces associated with hydrogen bonds. I thought of it as surface tension that is expressed in three dimensions—surface tension on steroids!

This conjecture about H2O being the basis for structural strength in tornadic vortices—which involved a potentially unique and yet unexplained form of agitation—was 100% dependent upon the validity of my own—unique and original—explanatory model of H2O surface tension. But at first I didn’t know that my understanding was unique or original.

It started after I had seen an explanation of H2O surface tension on a TV documentary. Up until I saw that documentary I was unaware how distinctively strong were the tensional forces along the surface of liquid water in comparison to the almost complete lack of tensional forces below the surface of liquid water.

Knowing that the forces that hold water molecules together are hydrogen bonds, I developed my own explanation: hydrogen bonds kind of have the opposite effect that our intuition tells us they should have. Specifically, broken bonds actually are associated with stronger hydrogen bonds, not weaker. You might think this last sentence is a mistatement. It isn’t. Allow me to explain.

I conjectured that hydrogen bonds must be distinctive from covalent or ionic bonds in that with hydrogen bonds the force that creates the bond must be deactivated by the bond itself. And so, whereas with a covalent bond or an ionic bond the force that brings them together remains, with hydrogen bonds the force that brings them together is deactivated--neutralized. Accordingly, the fewer bonds that an H2O molecule shares with other H2O molecules the stronger are these bonds. Conversely, the greater were the number of bonds an H2O molecule shared with other H2O molecules the weaker were these bonds—all the way down to having zero strength when fully bonded.

And so, in short, I envisioned an inverse relationship between the number of bonds each H2O molecule shared with other H2O molecules and magnitude of the polarity. And this last point was especially significant with respect to the fact that the magnitude of the polarity is what determined the strength of the bonds, which is confusing. More explicitly, in order to properly conceptualize the significance of this inverse relationship it is important to keep in mind that H2O molecules can share a hydrogen bond with up to four other H2O molecules. So, this reduction in polarity was fractional. Accordingly, if we arbitrarily designate the force of the polarity of a single H2O molecule as four, then each additional H bond would drop it down by one, producing a 25% reduction in polarity per completed H bond. And since polarity is what determined the strength of the bonds, the more bonds that an H2O molecule shares with up to four other H2O molecules the weaker would be these bonds.

This model seemed to solve the explanatory challenges of surface tension:

<insert graphic>
Title: Cross section of water droplet; below surface (arrow points below surface)
Caption: Below the surface where the comprehensive of hydrogen bonding is unrestricted (three dimensions) we find low polarity. There are a lot of bonds but they are all very weak, explaining the low viscosity (high fluidity) of the water below the surface of a droplet.

Along the surface where the comprehensiveness of H bonding is restricted to two dimensions we find
higher polarity, because there are fewer hydrogen bonds (more broken hydrogen bonds) and, therefore, less of the polarity is neutralized (more of the H2O molecules inherit polarity is active). This explains surface tension. In short, the increased tensional forces that exist along the surface of liquid water are not inspite of the fact that the H2O molecules there are less comprehensively bonded but because of it.

<insert graphic>
Title: Cross section of water droplet; surface (arrow points at surface)
Caption: Along the surface where the comprehensive of hydrogen bonding is restricted to two dimensions we find higher polarity. There are a fewer bonds but they are stronger, explaining the higher viscosity (lower fluidity--solidity) of the water along the surface of a droplet.

But most importantly as it applies to the larger question of the composition of vortices in the atmosphere, this understanding does, I contend, sets the stage for explaining how adding a third dimension to surface tension can multiply these unnoticeably small tensional forces to produce a dramatically noticeable form of surface tension. Unfortunately this explanation does not provide us any idea of the magnitude of the forces that are possible when the two dimensions of surface tension are expressed in three dimensions. With this issue in mind lets consider non-Newtonian fluids.

The most popular nonNewtonian fluid is a combination of H2O and corn starch.
<insert link to YouTube video>
You’ll notice that when little or not force is applied the mixture stays fluid. According to the understanding of surface tension that I was developing, this was because a slow or weak force is not enough to break or interrupt the relatively weak bonds that exist in the liquid water in the mixture. Polarity remains deactivated and there is no change in its viscosity—it remains highly fluid.

However, when a sudden force is applied grains of corn starch are forced up in-between some of the H bonds that exist between H2O molecules and breaks these bonds, reactivating polarity, producing more hard bonds in the immediate vicinity which initiates a cascade of more starch molecules being forced resulting in more breaking of H bonds. This results in the sudden emergence of structural hardness within the fluid mixture. And, as you can see, it becomes very hard indeed. This is surface tension expressed in three dimensions.

The most important concept that I want to emphasize here is that this—three dimensional activation of polarity--is what takes place when the very weak two dimensional form of surface tension is expressed in three dimensions. And so, as I envisioned it, the sheath of a vortice also contained this same phenomena, but it was different from nonNewtonian corn starch mixture in that there was no added ingredient like the corn starch to cause the breaking the H bonds. Instead there is a completely different phenomena involved with the breaking of bonds—wind shear.

Anybody that is familiar with tornadogenesis will be familiar with moist/dry wind shear. This involves two bodies of air, one moist and one dry, interacting with each other along a common boundary, moving in different or even opposite directions from one another. As I envisioned it, the result of this interaction is a unique form of agitation that produces an equally unique end product, a plasma—specifically, a plasma based on three dimensional H2O surface tension.

I suppose not everybody is familiar with a plasma, so let me explain that first. By appearance a plasma seems similar to a gas in that it is comprised of a conglomerate of fast moving particles interacting with each other. But a plasma is very different from a gas. A gas consists of molecules that are, essentially, trying to get away from each other. So, if you were to take away air pressure the molecules in a gas would all go off in different directions. In contrast, the molecules that are part of a plasma would continue to remain intact. In fact, without a continuous source of energy to push the particles apart the plasma would collapse in on itself and reform into a solid or a liquid.

Accordingly, all plasmas require a source of energy to push the respective particles apart. In most plasmas the energy is some kind of externally provided electromagnetic energy and the force that keeps them together involves the electromagnetic forces associated with ionic bonding.

This new H2O based plasma that I was envisioning for vortices is unique in that the externally provided energy is not electromagnetic but kinetic—wind shear. And the internal electromagnetic forces that keep them together is also unique in that it is not associated with ionic bonding but hydrogen bonding.

Accordingly, wind shear provides the source of the external energy that maintains energetic state—the agitation—of the plasma. More precisely, this plasma layer—the sheath of the vortice—encircled the flow and the interaction of the flow with the inner wall of the plasma sheath was the source of continuing wind shear that maintained the energetic state of the plasma.

With the inclusion of this theoretical H2O based plasma—what I was beginning to refer to as vortice plasma—the pieces of the puzzle of my larger model of atmospheric flow—a conglomeration of causes and effects—was beginning to come together in my mind. For example, the inclusion of moist/dry wind shear seemed to explain why the jet streams—being vortices—tend to be associated with the tropopause, which harbors an abundance of moist/dry wind shear. The fact that the main component of these vortices involved an H2O based plasma explained why these vortices sometimes grew down, into bodies of moist air—moist air being the raw material for vortice growth. This, it seemed, explained the storms in the lower altitudes. On a grander scale, all of this suggested the tropopause as the bulkhead that housed the greater tributary system of vortices from the equator to the poles—the hydrophobic properties of H2O surface tension providing a relatively friction free surface to facilitate pressure driven flow, with differential air pressure being the engine of general circulation (not convection).

But all of the above depended on the scientific validity of my vortice plasma, which itself depended on the scientific validity of my supposition that polarity—the source of the strength of hydrogen bonds—is deactivated by hydrogen bonds and, therefore, reactivated when bonds are broken. And so, since it was central to the perceived validity of my larger model and since I, essentially, had no recognized credibility in this particular discipline, a subdiscipline of physical chemistry, I began doing research to find more of a formal description of this mechanism. And I couldn’t find it.

The fact that I could not find this mechanism in the literature on H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding was both horrifying and exciting: either I had made a terrible mistake or a beautiful discovery.

After some trials and tribulations contacting experts in the field, writing a paper and attempting to carry on conversations with them about my purported discovery, confronting general ignorance of fundamental concepts like Coulombs law, misunderstanding of quantum mechanical factors underlying the electron cloud, and general grumpiness and insularity directed toward anybody that would bring skeptical attention to their precious but, apparently, fragile model of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding—at times feeling that they were maliciously toying with me—I eventually came to the realization that these experts were nothing but a bunch of consensus based dunces that didn’t have anything but a peripheral understanding of the model they describe as being, ‘well understood’. I also came to the realization that I had not made a terrible error but had, in fact, made a beautiful discovery.

They had made the terrible error. This happened some eighty years ago or so. And the net effect of everything that has happened in the paradigm subsequent to this initial flub has, effectively, further obfuscated the error.

Lets examine their error:

According to the prevailing paradigm, molecular polarity can be explained by two things: 1) an imbalance of electronegativity between a molecule’s atoms; and, 2) idiosyncratic or lopsided arrangement of said electronegativity imbalances.

According to this definition the H2O molecule is—and can only be—a polar molecule. There is no room in this definition for the possibility that the polarity of H2O can, under certain circumstances, be turned off or neutralized, as is being conjectured here. This is a problem! Our definition has boxed us in! How can we fix this definition so that it represents the true essence of H2O polarity?

Well, I think we can fix our definition by recognizing that electronegativity differences between covalently attached atoms is, ultimately, tangential to whether or not a molecule can be labeled a polar molecule. More precisely, the true, fundamental essence of this aspect of H2O polarity has to do with whether or not electron clouds in a molecule’s atoms are stretched. Only if (and only to the degree that) the electron clouds are stretched is there any kind of separation between the positive charges of the nucleus and negative charges of its associated electron cloud. And it is this—the separation of positive and negative charges—that actually allows H2O molecules to be a dipole that is capable of producing the forces associated with polarity.

Now here’s the problem. It appears—according to everything that has been stated and assumed up to this point—that hydrogen bonds cause the re-centering of the electron clouds in the atoms (or some of the atoms). And this appears to be the case for both of the 2 H2O molecules that are participating in a hydrogen bond, but in two different ways. The donor molecule (the one “donating” a hydrogen atom to the hydrogen bond) will have the electron cloud on its donating hydrogen atom re-centered—no stretch. And this all takes place simply as a consequence of the force that caused the stretching being directly counteracted.

<insert graphic>
Title: Polarity neutralizing effect of an H bond on the associated hydrogen atom.
Caption: The force that caused the stretching of the hydrogen atoms electron cloud is directly counteracted by a hydrogen bond.

At one and the same time, the other H2O molecule that is participating in this same hydrogen bond—the one that is nominally the “acceptor” of the hydrogen from the adjoining molecule, will have the stretch in the electron cloud of its acceptor atom, its oxygen atom, alleviated. This is consequence of the restoration of tetrahedral symmetry. In other words, in addition to neutralizing the stretching of electron cloud of the donator molecules hydrogen atom, this same hydrogen bond will alleviate (actually, cut in half) the tetrahedral assymetry that caused the stretching of the electron cloud on the acceptor molecule’s oxygen atom.

<insert graphic>
Title: Polarity neutralizing effect of an H bond on the associated oxygen atom.
Caption: The tetrahedral asymmetry that caused the stretching of the oxygen atom’s electron cloud is alleviated by a hydrogen bond.

And so, regardless of whether we are talking about hydrogen atoms or oxygen atoms, the net effect of hydrogen bonding is to counteract and alleviate the forces that caused the stretching of electron clouds. And since stretching of electron clouds is what causes polarity, this net effect includes the neutralization of a portion of the force—the H2O molecule’s polarity—that created the bond. (To be more precise, each hydrogen bond reduces 25% of each others maximum polarity. [*])
([*] This assumes EMF equivalence between the H2O molecules oxygen atom and its hydrogen atoms that may not be fully valid.)

According to this new model, most of the H2O that most normal people encounter on a day to day basis is highly bonded and, consequently, not very polar. Breaking of bonds activates polarity. Or, more concisely, breaking of hydrogen bonds removes forces that counteract and alleviate the H2O molecule’s inherit stretching of its own electron clouds.

Our revised definition is that a molecule is a polar molecule if 1) the electron clouds of its atoms are off-center relative to the atom’s proton/neutron cluster (a stretched electron cloud) and, 2) if atoms associated with these stretched electron clouds are themselves oriented asymmetrically (ie. bent angle of H2O molecule).

According to this new definition, a methane molecule would, still, not be considered a polar molecule because its covalently attached hydrogen bonds are oriented symmetrically (a perfect tetrahedron). And, so, even though the electron clouds on the methane molecule are somewhat stretched (slightly pulled in toward the carbon atom) it is not a polar molecule because the orientation of these four arms comprises a perfecty symmetrical tetrahedron.

This definition also allows for singular or not-fully-bonded H2O molecules (singular molecules of gaseous H2O) to be considered polar molecules since they, firstly, have three atoms (2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen) possessing negatively charged electron clouds that are stretched off-center from their respective proton/neutron clusters and, secondly, these covalently attached hydrogen atoms are oriented asymmetrically (lopsided). So, a singular H2O molecule is a polar molecule because it has both stretched electron clouds in its atoms (all three, 2H and 1O) and these atoms are asymmetrically oriented. But we should remember that this form of H2O—genuine gaseous H2O[*] is not part of our common experience. ([*] Note, moist air in earth’s atmosphere does not contain gaseous H2O. It contains nanodroplets of liquid H2O.)

According to this new definition, the form of H2O with which we are most familiar, highly bonded liquid and solid H2O, is considered nonpolar. Because, even though their covalently attached atoms are arranged asymmetrically, meeting the second of the two criteria, their negatively charged electron clouds are centered (not stretched) relative to their respective proton/neutron clusters—essentially their polarity has been turned off, neutralized by hydrogen bonding (as described above).

So, what was the mistake? What was the wrong turn that the current paradigm took some eighty years ago? Well, they jumped to the conclusion that electronegativity differences are central when, in actuality, they are peripheral. In other words, they were mistaken not to refer directly to the underlying cause of H2O polarity—whether or not the electron clouds on its atoms are stretched off-center from their associated nucleus. And so, essentially, they were defeated by their own dogmatic adherence to a notion that is tangential to polarity. The possibility that the underlying cause of H2O polarity would be—or possibly could be—counteracted with hydrogen bonding was not even on their radar screen.

Now that we have an accurate definition and explicit foundations of the ground rules of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding we can, hereafter, begin resolving the anomalies of H2O.

In the next post we will address the implications of Coulombs law.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:59 am

Response to:
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf
&
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpr ... tation.pdf
&
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physic ... ment-47508
&
https://principia-scientific.org/scient ... -is-wrong/
Scientific Proof the Greenhouse Gas Theory is wrong
One of the authors of this study, Karl Zeller, is a meteorologist. From the perspective of a meteorologists what is being said here may appear to be novel. But it is not novel. Meteorologists are just ignorant. And they pass this traditions of ignorance to climatologists, who are really just meteorologists.

All that is being said here is standard gas theory. Real scientists (not meteorologists or climatologist who practice pseudoscience) have known about all of this for a long time. None other than Doug Cotton has stated everything stated here numerous times, over and over and frickin over again.

I disproved the alarmist version of climate change a long time ago, as have many others both before and after my disproof. My disproof is generally ignored. The same will be the case for this as the novelty wears off.

Welcome to the club boys.

Climatology and meteorology are not beholden to empiricism. For example, the convection model of storm theory is not based on anything empirical–it has never been tested, measured or concisely defined (just like AGW). It is based on an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. Likewise, global warming is based on an analogy to a greenhouse.

The problem all along has been with the dimwitted meteorological paradigm.

Most people are incredulous that conversational sciences can possibly be as effective as I am suggesting here. I am guessing you are incredulous that you can be so easily fooled. You are wrong. And you can prove it to yourself by way of coming to grips with the fact that you never noticed that the empirical basis of the convection model of storm theory are nowhere to be found.

The only reason any of you noticed the shortcomings of climatology is because you are fiscally conservative and AGW engenders a large price tag.

I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found numerous fatal flaws and I found that meteorologists have long ago established a tradition of ignoring these fatal flaws.

My point is that you/we cannot defeat a conversational science based on empiricism because conversational sciences are based on allegories that appeal to the base sensations of the public. The only way to defeat a conversational science is to reveal it as such to the public. And the best way to reveal it to the public is to start with meteorology since this is the spring from which it sprang (or is it sprung?). The conversational tradition is the problem and its roots are in meteorology, not climatology.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:42 pm

There is no shortcoming.

Water vapor is lighter than nitrogen gas and oxygen gas.

It is because it has 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen.

Oxygen gas has two oxygens and nitrogen gas has two nitrogens.

This means both are almost twice as heavy as water vapor.

Water vapor is not clouds/condensation or steam. It is an invisible, very light gas.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:10 am

JeffreyW wrote:There is no shortcoming.


Well, when something nonsensical is accepted as fact that seems like a shortcoming to me.

JeffreyW wrote:Water vapor is lighter than nitrogen gas and oxygen gas.


In earth's atmosphere, air that contains nano and micro droplets of H2O is heavier than air that does not or not as much. Your error is to assume that moist air contains gaseous H2O, which is impossible due to the phase characteristics of H2O (consult an H2O phase diagram for details).

You are the victim of a group delusion. There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. Earth's atmosphere is too cool to support gaseous H2O and H2O's boiling temperature is much too high. (Consult an H2O phase diagram for details.)

You will find many people that believe H2O turns to gas in the atmosphere. But people believe all kinds of crazy things. And referencing the multiplicity of a lunatic belief is not a sound scientific argument. Loons will be loons. You have to ignore them and look to the empirical evidence.

People lie (or believe nonsense). Reproducible experimental evidence does not lie.

JeffreyW wrote:It is because it has 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen.


You are referring to the molecular weight, which is not applicable to water since it is not gaseous in the atmosphere. It exists as micro and nano droplets.

JeffreyW wrote:Oxygen gas has two oxygens and nitrogen gas has two nitrogens.


I'm the #1 expert in the world on water:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg

JeffreyW wrote:This means both are almost twice as heavy as water vapor.


N2 and O2 are gaseous in earth's atmosphere. H2O is in the liquid phase--at all times and all places. So your point is irrelevant. Parcels of air that contain H2O are heavier. It's simple math. Read this for more details:
Isaac Newton was a human being
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =8&t=16306

JeffreyW wrote:Water vapor is not clouds/condensation or steam. It is an invisible, very light gas.


The group delusion is that if it is invisible it is gaseous. Don't believe the loons. It has to do with the size of the nanodroplets. It is only when they get to a certain size that they start to deflect photons to become "visible".

There are millions upon millions of loons who base their understanding of the atmosphere on base, tactile sensations. Meteorologists and climatologists have made the situation worse by pandering to them for fiscal purposes. You have to take these facts into account when considering what is true or false in any of the atmospheric or environmental sciences--something that is not so important in cosmology since the subject matter is so distant.

Here is more evidence (thanks Maol) that contradicts the numerous loons that choose to believe H2O defies its known boiling temperature/pressure to become gaseous in the atmosphere:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 60#p123014

And there is always this:
Concerning the drying of wet shoes
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

BTW, I read some of the opening section of your book. I agree with you that you don't have to be a genius to make discoveries. I'm no genius and I've made a lot of discoveries in meteorology and the physical chemistry of H2O. You don't need genius you just have to not be a loon.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:41 pm

~
jimmcgin wrote:

(Consult an H2O phase diagram for details.)
...
I'm the #1 expert in the world on water


Have you ever studied phase diagrams, or just looked at the pictures ?
Do you know what a sublimation line is
?
seasmith
 
Posts: 2742
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

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

Unread postby MotionTheory » Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:25 pm

James - I watched your video a few months ago and re-watched part of it today. Our approaches somewhat similar in thinking about chemistry as geometry and structural arrangement. However you are using conventional chemistry mechanism/model, trying to deduce possibly various form of structured-water. Thus far, this half-outside-the-box and half-inside-the-box hybrid model seem bogged down by the very conventional thing you tried to throw out. Chemists and Atmospheric Scientists are probably much better than you (or I) at this game... yep, they win by expertise in this arena.

Before going up into cloud and tornadoes, perhaps first try to figure out something you can touch within an arm-length:

Fog layer with consistence from gray to glaring white looking. Fog layer with white-top dark bottom. Fog layer with white bottom and dark top. For the last one, you can actually see some sub 3km high cloud with white bottom and dark top. These fog are mostly hovering around cloud, so no need to solve the rise/convect or fall/precip/condense-further. Also, there is a super fine white/bright fog that won't condense/dew at night.

Is plasma an integral part in sustain these fogs? I don't think so.

I see convection is a consequence rather than the causal/driving factor. So as plasma, which is a consequential. Yes, it involves with mainly 2 form of lightning [cloud-2-g, c2c]. While blue jet, sprite, elve are accelerated plasma. Dark lightning could thinly stretch-called as plasma. Gamma burst is EM.

btw - maybe of some interest... today, I posted a rough/raw youtube video on Tornado Formation Criterias and Mechanic. I need it for making a video on fires with anomalies. https://youtu.be/o6xkXkITyDE
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:27 pm

seasmith wrote:~
jimmcgin wrote:

(Consult an H2O phase diagram for details.)
...
I'm the #1 expert in the world on water


Have you ever studied phase diagrams, or just looked at the pictures ?
Do you know what a sublimation line is
?


Well, if it is any consolation, I want you to know that I am somewhat envious of your ability to come to a firm conclusion despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:45 am

I don't particularly have a dog in this fight but it is probably necessary to separate the theory from any empirical measured evidence and as jimmcginn states there is no measurement to confirm that water sublimates one molecule at a time.

However, to point out that just because you cant see a molecule therefore it must be gas is a woeful misunderstanding of optics. It is far more likely that water is prevalent throughout the atmosphere as a liquid, than it is that it suddenly phases from single molecules to >500,000 molecules just coincidently into the tiny range of the electromagnetic spectrum that our eyes are sensitive to.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1256
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:20 pm

MotionTheory wrote:James - I watched your video a few months ago and re-watched part of it today. Our approaches are somewhat similar in thinking about chemistry as geometry and structural arrangement.

I think my methods are standard. The problem is that meteorology and climatology don't follow standard methods.
MotionTheory wrote:However you are using conventional chemistry mechanism/model, trying to deduce possibly various form of structured-water.

I don't know what you mean by this. As I see it they just used faulty reasoning (group think) to arrive at certain false principles/assumptions. I just used standard logic and reasoning to reject their group-think nonsense to arrive at the correct principles/assumptions.
MotionTheory wrote:Thus far, this half-outside-the-box and half-inside-the-box hybrid model seems bogged down by the very conventional thing you tried to throw out.

I'm rejecting the superstition based pseudoscience of meteorology and climatology. And my methods involve standard logic and reasoning. Honestly. That is all I'm doing. How is my thinking bogged down? Be specific.
MotionTheory wrote:Chemists and Atmospheric Scientists are probably much better than you (or I) at this game... yep, they win by expertise in this.

You suffer from the delusion of hero worship. I'm only concerned with what is true or false. They get some things right. Unfortunately, some of their fundamental principles are blatant nonsense. And these errors reverberate in much of the rest of their thinking. Group-think is dumb-think because with group-think the models have to be dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the group. I reject this convention. I refuse to dumb-down my model to appeal to a wider audience.
MotionTheory wrote:Before going up into cloud and tornadoes, perhaps first try to figure out something you can touch within an arm-length:
Fog layer with consistence from gray to glaring white looking. Fog layer with white-top dark bottom. Fog layer with white bottom and dark top. For the last one, you can actually see some sub 3km high cloud with white bottom and dark top. These fog are mostly hovering around cloud, so no need to solve the rise/convect or fall/precip/condense-further.

You seem confused, convoluted on this subject.

Being very small, the molecules in the atmosphere, including the numerous micro and nano droplets of (collectively heavier) H2O, are much more effected by electric charges (ie. static electricity) and energy (air molecules have velocity [they move 700 to 1100 mph in the atmosphere]) of the other molecules in the atmosphere than they are by gravity. Strangely, meteorologists would have us believe that gravity has the main effect on the movement of molecules in the atmosphere. They are so desperate to have the public believe this nonsense that they claim H2O magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure because without this dumbed down notion their model is obvious nonsense. (Read the first paragraph in the first post on this thread for context.)

The truth is 1) gravity has very little effect on the movement of molecules in the atmosphere; 2) all of the H2O in the atmosphere is liquid microdroplets, (there is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere); and 3) vortices powered by pressure differentials are the engine of atmospheric flow.
MotionTheory wrote:Also, there is a super fine white/bright fog that won't condense/dew at night.
Is plasma an integral part in sustain these fogs? I don't think so.

I have no problem considering it having *slight* plasmodic qualities. But, for the most part, I would agree that clouds are not a good example of plasma in the atmosphere. But this is (mostly) irrelevant to my main point.
MotionTheory wrote:I see convection as a consequence rather than the causal/driving factor.

I have no idea what you mean by this and my suspicion is that you don't either.
MotionTheory wrote:So as plasma, which is a consequential. Yes, it involves with mainly 2 form of lightning [cloud-2-g, c2c]. While blue jet, sprite, elve are accelerated plasma. Dark lightning could thinly stretch-called as plasma. Gamma burst is EM.

Apples and oranges. You are referring to ionic plasmas, which are very hot since ionic bonds are very strong. I am referring to a room temperature kind of plasma (and/or a slight plasmodic effect that can take place in the atmosphere). Most pertinently, I am referring to a strong plasma that forms the sheath of tornadoes. This strong plasma involves hydrogen bonds (not ionic bonds) breaking and reforming and the energetic input is kinetic energy, spinning--centrifugal force--not high temperature.
MotionTheory wrote:btw - maybe of some interest... today, I posted a rough/raw youtube video on Tornado Formation Criterias and Mechanic. I need it for making a video on fires with anomalies. https://youtu.be/o6xkXkITyDE

Yes, this is of great interest to me. The part that is interesting is that you have made the conceptual breakthrough of realizing that the sheath of the tornado must have structure--genuine structure. In other words, the sheath of the tornado must have the ability to isolate the low-pressure, fast moving air contained within from the higher pressure, slower moving air outside the sheath. Only if the sheath has the structural ability to maintain this isolation is it possible for a tornado to be a tornado. This realization is the conceptual breakthrough that differentiates you and me from the numerous "experts" (ie. Charles Chandler) that maintain the absurd supposition that a tornado is just spinning air.

The realization that the sheath of a tornado must have structure brings with it a puzzle of a problem. Or, more specifically, this realization brings with it the realization that one of the pieces of the puzzle is missing and in need of discovery.

The realization that a discovery is necessary is the prize. This realization is the payoff for employing standard methods and not taking the pseudoscientific shortcuts that have brought meteorologists to create silly solutions--like H2O that magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure.

Nobody disputes that H2O is instrumental in storms. But the reason it is instrumental has nothing to do with simple analogy to a pot boiling on a stove, as meteorologists would have us believe. It has to do with the structural capabilities that are evident in H2O surface tension and the fact that when the surface area of H2O is increased these structural properties further emerge.

As for your video, you get a big thumbs up from me!
youtu.be/o6xkXkITyDE

As I see it, you are just using standard reasoning and logic to arrive at the conclusion that the sheath of the tornado must have structural capabilities. Obviously I agree.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:34 pm

Aardwolf wrote:I don't particularly have a dog in this fight but it is probably necessary to separate the theory from any empirical measured evidence and as jimmcginn states there is no measurement to confirm that water sublimates one molecule at a time.

However, to point out that just because you cant see a molecule therefore it must be gas is a woeful misunderstanding of optics. It is far more likely that water is prevalent throughout the atmosphere as a liquid, than it is that it suddenly phases from single molecules to >500,000 molecules just coincidently into the tiny range of the electromagnetic spectrum that our eyes are sensitive to.


Thanks Ardwolf,

Even though I have experience it a number of times now, I am still amazed at the stubbornness of people on this issue. Before I started telling people about this, I assumed that they would be mildly perplexed but once they were informed that there is zero empirical evidence confirming its existence that they would maybe be slightly resistant but would eventually accept it--especially considering the abundance of evidence that delineates the phase characterisitics of H2O.

I recently read back through this thread and reread your efforts to get this point across. Thanks again.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:57 pm

jimmcginn wrote:
seasmith wrote:~
jimmcgin wrote:

(Consult an H2O phase diagram for details.)
...
I'm the #1 expert in the world on water


Have you ever studied phase diagrams, or just looked at the pictures ?
Do you know what a sublimation line is
?


Well, if it is any consolation, I want you to know that I am somewhat envious of your ability to come to a firm conclusion despite all of the evidence to the contrary.


Conclusion ??
`
seasmith
 
Posts: 2742
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

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

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:12 pm

seasmith wrote:~
jimmcgin wrote:

(Consult an H2O phase diagram for details.)
...
I'm the #1 expert in the world on water


Have you ever studied phase diagrams, or just looked at the pictures ?
Do you know what a sublimation line is
?


Phase Diagrams made simple:

Gas, liquid and solid are standard terms. When pressure decreases and/or heat increases, the molecules of a liquid or solid substance may disassociate (evaporation/sublimation) and form what is called gas. Conversely when those conditions are reversed, so also is the organization of those molecules. [Extreme conditions may form what are called supercritical fluids, a different thread].

I have previously provided images of combinations of H2O molecules which, given the asymmetric polarity of the water molecule, might be conducive to a ‘stable’ aggregation of H20 molecules. For example dimers through hexamers, which would then be favorable configurations to join with similar stable H2O oligamers. These *organized* molecular associations (i.e. clusters and nano-droplets) can become a ‘vapor’ or mist.
The presence of an electric field can very greatly accelerate these processes.

It has also been pointed out previously for Mcginn, instances when he has become a bit lost in semantics, and perhaps a deficient understanding of what is commonly termed “bonding”; but apparently you can’t talk common sense to “the #1 expert in the world on water”.
Oh well.
`
seasmith
 
Posts: 2742
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:20 am

seasmith wrote:
seasmith wrote:~
jimmcgin wrote:

(Consult an H2O phase diagram for details.)
...
I'm the #1 expert in the world on water


Have you ever studied phase diagrams, or just looked at the pictures ?
Do you know what a sublimation line is
?


Phase Diagrams made simple:

Gas, liquid and solid are standard terms. When pressure decreases and/or heat increases, the molecules of a liquid or solid substance may disassociate (evaporation/sublimation) and form what is called gas. Conversely when those conditions are reversed, so also is the organization of those molecules. [Extreme conditions may form what are called supercritical fluids, a different thread].

I have previously provided images of combinations of H2O molecules which, given the asymmetric polarity of the water molecule, might be conducive to a ‘stable’ aggregation of H20 molecules. For example dimers through hexamers, which would then be favorable configurations to join with similar stable H2O oligamers. These *organized* molecular associations (i.e. clusters and nano-droplets) can become a ‘vapor’ or mist.
The presence of an electric field can very greatly accelerate these processes.

It has also been pointed out previously for Mcginn, instances when he has become a bit lost in semantics, and perhaps a deficient understanding of what is commonly termed “bonding”; but apparently you can’t talk common sense to “the #1 expert in the world on water”.
Oh well.
`


Hmm. I think I get your point. You are saying that if we act like children and close our eyes the monster goes away.

So, . . . I agree that if we gloss over the details we can continue to pretend that H2O magically turns to gaseous at temperatures far below/above the temperatures/pressures indicated in the phase diagram.

I have decided not to abide with this convention. But if it makes you feel any better I want you to know that I fully support your right to believe whatever you choose to believe.

Most people when presented with a choice between what is easiest to believe and what is true will always choose the former. I always choose the latter.

I'm funny that way.

Read this:
It's Not What You Know That Will Hurt You . . .
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =8&t=16318

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 455
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 4 guests