LOL. You can't generate any specific predictions from your hypothesis so you just wallow in vagueness and misdirection.CharlesChandler wrote:There is no foundation for a discussion here. All you have is bald assertions. When questioned, you don't supply derivationsjimmcginn wrote:Is there some reason you don't want to discuss the principles of fluid dynamic?
LOL. Uh, we're not doing math here, pal.
-- you just reissue bald assertions. This makes it a take-it-or-leave-it scenario. On the other hand, the principles of fluid dynamics that I'm using pre-date the obfuscation of the physical sciences in the 20th Century, have been confirmed in the laboratory countless times, have been utilized commercially to great effect, and which can be proven all of the way down to the atomic level, where macroscopic properties such as viscosity and latent heat can be attributed to the action of individual atoms and/or molecules.
You have a conjecture that involves electricity doing things it's never been known to do. That is all you have. When asked for details you go around in circles, none of it adds up to anything. You present the incredibly weak argument that it must be electricity because you have eliminated everything else, but then it becomes apparent that you know little about fluid dynamics and absolutely nothing about H2O. You couldn't answer the simple questions so there was no reason to move on to the hard questions.
Of course, you're welcome to challenge any or all of that,
You haven't presented anything coherent. There's nothing to challenge.
but under the circumstances, the onus is on you to clearly identify what you're challenging and why,
I'm not interested in debating your imagination.
and you'll have to demonstrate the utility of the new concept. Bald assertions do not constitute a legitimate challenge. And to say that the principles of fluid dynamics are poorly understood is quite a stretch.
They are not poorly understood by me.
In the 1970s, when Boeing was developing the 747, they did the whole thing entirely on a computer -- no wind tunnel tests. They even had test pilots "fly" the aircraft in a simulator to determine the human feel of the controls. And the aircraft went into production without any major changes to the design. They couldn't sell the first article, because they had to subject it to destructive testing to satisfy FAA that a priori engineering could produce a strong airframe. But they sold the second and subsequent articles. Now there are CFD programs available to the general public that are as good as the proprietary code that Boeing was using in the 1970s, and these programs are used to engineer everything from ceiling fans to submarine propellers and low hood-line automobiles. You're going to argue with all of that?
What the F are you talking about?
Good luck. In reality, some aspects of the physical sciences are actually rock-solid. A lot of what comes out of NWS is BS, but that doesn't mean that the principles of fluid dynamics as a whole are pure guesswork or erroneous assumptions. With your approach, you'll run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
You don't have a viable hypothesis on tornadogenesis. You have a few vague conjectures the perceived validity of which evaporates when you attempt to provide details. So you employ the tactic that all pseudoscientists employ, when details are requested you sidestep the question and start talking about such things as 747s and NWS--anything to draw attention away from the fact that the mechanism of your hypothesis is but a vague conjecture.