Kent's Death-Rage <kdthrge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote a retraction:
>
> Kurt Lochner pointed out the obvious, again, for:
> >
> >Kent's Death-Rage <kdthrge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote another spittle-flecked
rant:
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner noted the absense of any significant response from:
> > > >
> > > >Kent's Death-Rage <kdthrge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> continued whining impotently:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Apr 19, 10:38 am, Kurt Lochner restored:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Kent's Death-Rage <kdthrge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> continued whining
impotently:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kent's Death-Rage <kdthrge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> was still whining
impotently at:
-------------->
> > > > > > > >Therefore if one has 2 liters of N2, and 3 liters of CO2,
at common
> > > > > > > >temperature and pressure, and mixes them, one will have 5
liters of
> > > > > > > >gas mixture at the same temperature and pressure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That would be entirely incorrect..
> > > > >
> > > > >Your rendition or copy and paste is correct.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and I was already aware of that, from years of study..
> > > >
> > > > >It exactly sup****ts whatI said.
> > > >
> > > > That would be incorrect..
> > > >
> > > > >You need to get off of your [..]
> > > >
> > > > You first..
> > > >
> > > > >5 liters of gas with 2 liters N2 and 3 liters CO2,
> > > >
> > > > Nope, get back to me when you learn what a 'mole' is,
> > > > in regards to gases and partial pressures..
> > > >
> > > > >So now you are trying to prove yourself insane?
> > > >
> > > > Nope, just proving that you don't even know the correct
> > > > units to use with your inane babblings..
> > > >
> > > > --Which is precisely why you're utterly wrong, every time..
> > >
> > >Science at it's finest. Establishment of the scientific method
> >
> > It would be nice if you would learn to use the proper units of
> > measure when you refer to the gas law, but it's self-evident
> > that you're only a 'google scholar' in that regard..
> >
> > >The fields of knowledge which exists in books and in academic
> > >academies where the free exchange of knowledge breeds the
> > >continuation of exploration of nature and mathematics [..]
> >
> > I do not presume to tell you how to frame a house, so return
> > that by not telling me how "science" is conducted, as I've
> > spent a great deal of time and money to learn how to do
> > the mathematics and physics properly..
> >
> > I'd also be willing to sit down and visit with you, bring the
> > proper textbooks and show you how you're straining at gnats
> > and swallowing elephants, as regards the global warming
> > hypothesis..
>
>I will retract those statements. I don't know who you are and
>I don't care.
That's not my problem, Kent..
>You must have a much fuller life than the characterizations
>I made,
That would be entirely the case..
>being angry about your refusal or inablity to recognize and
>discuss my rational statements about physics and chemistry.
You haven't made any 'rational statements' about physical chemistry..
In fact, you stated several blunders, as far as the actual
units of measures are concerned, which I at first found to
be amusing, in peculiar sort of way. That said, later I saw
that you simply mis-stated the facts to suit your attempts to
springboard into irrational discourses regarding what little
you actually comprehend of the physical sciences that come into
play with the global warming hypothesis.
From there, you launch into emotional tirades about the politics
that you imagine are involved with that, which sounds more like
the regurgitation of right-wing extremist jargon than anything
else..
>You are wrong about your insistence that I do not have the
>proper units.
That would be incorrect, as you don't know how the units of
measure involved are used to arrive at unitless measures, and
then you compound that error by attacking those who disagree
with your petty tirades and failed political ideology..
>But you have the right to your scientific beliefs.
It isn't a 'belief' as you've dishonestly tried to mischaracterize
my efforts to correct your shoddy estimations of the problems
involved in the global warming hypothesis. I've suggested some
web-pages and educational resources, were you actually interested
in finding out more about science. But, you actually aren't
interested at all, because it's your beliefs that would have
to change, and I don't see that happening any time soon enough
to actually make difference in your life..
>So leave me the hell alone, because I will always know the
>simple math which I know.
Okay, so don't pretend to know how to do science, and in
return, I won't pretend to tell you how to frame a house..
Is that simple enough for you this time?
>You should admit that I am right about the very simple concept
>of partial pressures, and how these can be figured using the
>inverse relation****p of P/V.
But, since that is so wrong as to be laughed at in any forum
involved with actual science, I simply do not have to..
>I'll let you go.
Fine..
Quit babbling your distorted pseudo-science and failed
political beliefs, and I'll never bother with your petty
emotionally charged screeds again..
--Retraction accepted, you may now pull your head out..
|
