Reading Ability of Children Plummets Compared to Pre-COVID
The reading ability of children has plummeted compared to pre-COVID times thanks to lockdown policies that led to the closure of schools, according to a new study.
“A study by researchers from TU Dortmund has found that German children in the fourth grade of primary school are far less capable of reading than their predecessors who passed through the grade pre-pandemic,” reports Breitbart.
A standard reading test taken by fourth graders from 2021 was compared to results using the same test from 2016.
The number of children who had a reading level rated “good” to “very good” has dropped by 7 per cent while over a quarter of students who took the test in 2021 now have problems with reading comprehension.
“If you express it in years of learning, the children are missing an average of half a year of learning,” said Dr. Ulrich Ludewig, who helped to lead the study. “If the change in the composition of the student body is taken into account, the gap while slightly smaller, the significant decline in mean reading ability remains.”
With reading being a crucial aspect of every subject, the impact also had a knock on effect in other areas of learning.
The study once again highlights the devastating impact that COVID lockdowns had on children and the morally vacant position of those who supported them.
UNICEF previously warned that pandemic school closures led to a “nearly insurmountable scale of loss to children’s schooling” and that “intensive support” is needed to get kids back on track.
As we previously highlighted, for many children, the damage could be permanent.
Speech therapist Jaclyn Theek says that mask wearing during the pandemic has caused a 364 percent increase in patient referrals of babies and toddlers.
“They’re not making any word attempts and not communicating at all with their family,” she said, adding that symptoms of autism are also skyrocketing.
See more here: summit.news
Bold emphasis added
Header image: Reading Eggs
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Mark Tapley
| #
The illegal lockdowns (that everyone should have disregarded) from the fake virus are just the most recent attack on American education. The military has been testing general literacy, comprehension and I.Q. since WW1. Since the end of WW2 these scores have fallen precipitously. In the mid 1800’s the U.S. had the most literate population in the world. Today lots of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. The City of Chicago is reported to have an illiteracy rate of 85%! This is in the country that spends more per capita on education than any other. No wonder the U.S. is consistently at the bottom of industrialized countries.
Since the federal government got involved things have continued to get worse, as it naturally would. The last thing the elite want is an enlightened public that would hold the politicians accountable. The government wants the herd to be merely domesticated livestock looking to the state for security. It is clearly evident from the large number of simps that not only endorsed the fake virus mandates but even lined up for the blood toxin injections, that the public schools have been highly successful at indoctrinating the sheep with all the establishment agenda.
New York Teacher of The Year, John Taylor Gatto in his book “The Underground History of Amer. Education” exposes the truth about “public education.” How it originated and how it serves the elite’s purpose of maintaining every material advantage for the them and their children while destroying creativity, analytic capability and individuality in students as was it’s intended purpose, for the goal of creating obedient cogs in a socialist system. This was the aim of America’s “father of Education” Rockefeller front man John Dewey.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mark,
This is a topic with which I am in total agreement with you. And while I have somewhat recently written comments about John Dewey, I cannot remember writing an essay in which he appears. However, I just used PSI’s search engine relative to John Dewey and found a great 2016 PSI article (https://principia-scientific.com/new-book-origin-rocks-mineral-deposits/) which mentions his name. I just quickly scanned it as I am prone to do so I am now not even certain of 2016. So for now I will just urge you and others to take a look at this article. Which I would predict that you have not read about the central topic of this article.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry:
John Dewey was the hit man for Amer. education just as Fauci is for the germ theory Big Pharma fake virus machine. Dewey was the point man from the Rockefeller’s Univ. of Chicago used to begin the long process of destroying American education that later appeared in programs such as look say reading and new math that academically crippled many young people permanently. We are now beginning to see the complete destruction of education with the Jew Frankfurt school tactics of the incredibly destructive CRT, gender fluidity and the almost unbelievable Drag queen story time. It is interesting to note that sometimes the elite even fall victim to their own scams. Nelson Rockefeller was illiterate even though he was put in as Gov. of N.Y.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mark and PSI Readers,
As I carefully read the linked article I finally see the article was written in two parts. One by the PSI Staff and the other, the forward to John N Elliston’s 2016 book The Origin of Rocks and Mineral Deposits. As I read this 1916 article it became obvious that I had never read this article. For I know I never read Elliston’s book’s subtitle: “Using Current Physical Chemistry Of Small Particle Systems.” To save you and hopefully other readers effort and time, I will copy and paste the forward portion by Thomas W. Healy, AO, FRACI, FAA, FTSE, Emeritus Professor of Physical Chemistry.
““We think when our equilibrium is disturbed”. This truism is attributed to the great Columbia University educator, Professor John Dewey.
John Elliston is a scientist who has never shirked the responsibility all scientists should have of challenging the established ideas, theories and paradigms in our various fields of scientific endeavour. This work is interdisciplinary, based as much on colloid science as on his careful geological observations and meticulous review of the literature in both disciplines. The principles of colloid and surface chemistry are impeccably well represented in the text of this book.
These principles applied to natural particle systems will no doubt disturb the equilibrium of many geologists. If in doing so, John Elliston is able to have scholars follow the structure of the thinking he has outlined in this book, he will have done them and our science a great service. By contrasting Elliston’s views on the central issues in mineral and rock formingprocesses with those in accepted texts, serious scholars will need to re-evaluate their own explicit or perhaps implicit acceptance of the dogmas of traditional earth science.
There is nothing wrong with dogma! There is something quite wrong however, if we = are unwilling to let a fellow scholar challenge our earnestly held beliefs. We need to be secure in our own ability to learn and explore new ideas because in the final analysis the rocks will speak for themselves. Their unmistakable testimony is quite clear from the prolific illustrations in this book.
My introduction to the ideas John Elliston has laid out in this book came when he asked me to explain the then current understanding of how particles aggregated in aqueous, usually concentrated, colloidal dispersions. That role has been and continues to be a labour of love for me. I was able to see the results of all the theories of surface science displayed in the rocks around me. Rock textures and structures reflect colloidal stability, ion and molecule adsorption, and rheology. These are near and dear to my heart as a colloid and surface chemist.
The colloid science that John Elliston uses in this book is all standard textbook stuff. It has been presented in Australian, American, English, Japanese, and European Universities where I have had the privilege of teaching over the last 40 years. Colloid science is experiencing a rebirth; we are now ‘nanotechnologists’ immersed in a nanometric scale world. We are advised to explore the world of ‘nanomachines’, ‘nanostructures’ and the like. I give a lecture each year on “Muds, Slimes, Sludge, and other Uninteresting Materials”. I am thinking of adding the prefix ‘nano’ to ‘Materials’! It may achieve a promotion!
The truth is that the energy stored in surfaces, when specific surface area is large, is a formidable driving force. Electrostatic potential differences of a few millivolts, for example decaying over the length of say the diameters of three or four water molecules (about 10 Ångströms or one nanometre) yields a field strength of millions of volts per centimetre. This is the standard stuff of Colloid Science. The author, John Elliston, built up and led one of the most innovative and successful exploration teams in the history of mineral exploration. It’s success was substantially due to Elliston’s insistence on attention to proper observation and recording of the evidence in the rocks, which led to the development of revolutionary new concepts of magma formation and mineralising processes.
We need scientists like John Elliston; we need books like this one. Colloid chemists will love it; I believe geologists will learn to love it. Those of us who are not geologists envy you. Your world of mineral, rock and ore forming processes is so exciting. You have a great responsibility to expose the young minds in your care to these ideas. To tell them not to think about new ideas is to condemn your science to oblivion.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James McGinn,
“The truth is that the energy stored in surfaces, when specific surface area is large, is a formidable driving force. Electrostatic potential differences of a few millivolts, for example decaying over the length of say the diameters of three or four water molecules (about 10 Ångströms or one nanometre) yields a field strength of millions of volts per centimetre.”
This ‘sounds’ like your ‘thing’. Have you read any part of Elliston’s book? I obviously haven’t but now consider I need to. Will wait for your answer before I buy his book for I consider I will likely need your commentary to help me understand what he has written. I do claim to understand the surface and colloidal properties of matter, but clearly have no understanding of these extreme voltages which I know exist because I have observed a lot of lighting during my lifetime.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Where are you? I if you don’t reply soon I might forget what I want to discuss with you about your theory. Vortexes and Jet Streams: Conservation of Angular Momentum plus gravity.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Jerry,
I had to do some research since I didn’t know what a colloidal was. Then, when I saw the definition, I couldn’t figure out what it has to do with what I’m doing.
James McGinn
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry:
Have been reading your comments on water vapor. I don;’t know if this is applicable but I have noticed in agricultural fogging applications that if water is put under high pressure and pumped through a very tiny orifice nozzle it atomizes (disappears) immediately as it cools (evaporates) in the ambient air. However if the temperature drops too much the water vapor condenses and the whole area becomes cloudy. Is this an example of the colloidal effect.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Herb,
James, in case you haven’t read, Herb wrote: ““Science is about skepticism where beliefs are determined by evidence and reason.” And I asked: Which is critically necessary: evidence or reason??? Herb, I have not found that you have answered my question.
Both of you, if I remember correctly, deny that the Earth’s atmosphere contains water molecules (vapor). I have finally remembered that Richard Feynman, in Lecture 32—Radiation Damping, Light Scattering, The Feynman Lectures On Physics had asked his students; “Why do we ever see the clouds? Where do the clouds come from? Everybody knows it is the condensation of water vapor. But, of course, the water vapor is already in the atmosphere before it condenses, so why don’t we see it then? After it condenses it is perfectly obvious. It wasn’t there, now it is there. So the mystery of where the clouds come from is not really such a childish mystery as “Where does water come from, Daddy?,” but has to be explained.”
I take this story one step further. While we all have observed clouds to form; we all have also observed, unless blind, clouds disappear. James, can you explain how your nano droplets of water can condense (group tother to form larger cloud droplets which we still can not see individually with our naked eyes. How would you fundamentally explain how (why) this reverse process occurs.
For Feynman, in this first lecture stated his (Science’s) most fundamental explanation: “If in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hyoitgesis (atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that ‘all things are made of atoms—little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.’ In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
For your information: a cloud is a colloid (colloidal suspension). Do tornados occur in a cloudless atmosphere? I need your help and I believe you may need my help. We need to work together!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Both of you, if I remember correctly, deny that the Earth’s atmosphere contains water molecules (vapor).
We’re just saying its never gaseous, Jerry.
I have finally remembered that Richard Feynman, in Lecture 32—Radiation Damping, Light Scattering, The Feynman Lectures On Physics had asked his students; “Why do we ever see the clouds? Where do the clouds come from? Everybody knows it is the condensation of water vapor. But, of course, the water vapor is already in the atmosphere before it condenses, so why don’t we see it then?
This has been explained to you no less than 5 times, Jerry.
After it condenses it is perfectly obvious. It wasn’t there, now it is there. So the mystery of where the clouds come from is not really such a childish mystery as “Where does water come from, Daddy?,” but has to be explained.”
I take this story one step further. While we all have observed clouds to form; we all have also observed, unless blind, clouds disappear. James, can you explain how your nano droplets of water can condense (group together to form larger cloud droplets which we still can not see individually with our naked eyes. How would you fundamentally explain how (why) this reverse process occurs.
Droplets are constantly dividing into smaller droplets as a result of bombarded by air molecules (at a rate over 1,000 times per second). At one and the same time (and at the same rate) they are constantly recombining to form larger droplets. These processes achieve dynamic equillibrium dependent on temperature/pressure. At higher temperatures/pressures the droplets remain smaller and look and feel like dry air.
For Feynman, in this first lecture stated his (Science’s) most fundamental explanation:
Feynman (like many others) was a victim of the delusion that clear moist air contains gaseous H2O. This delusion is what caused him to arrive at the poor conclusion that condensation nuclei was necessary to initiate the process of condensation. Unfortunately many dull-witted, fan boys of Feynman blindly followed his lead on this which has resulted in the widespread delusion that condensation nuclei can initiate a rain storm.
“If in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words?
Here is my answer:
Don’t maintain unshakeable beliefs base on what you can’t see.
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn
| #
Colloid
A homogeneous noncrystalline substance consisting of large molecules or ultramicroscopic particles of one substance dispersed through a second substance. Colloids include gels, sols, and emulsions; the particles do not settle, and cannot be separated out by ordinary filtering or centrifuging like those in a suspension.
Since the water in ambient moist air is (always) in the form of droplets I do not think it meets the definition of being colloidal in that it is not dispersed uniformly.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Are you forgetting that a day or two ago, you wrote that you had no knowledge of colloids??? And now you just wrote: “Feynman (like many others) was a victim of the delusion that clear moist air contains gaseous H2O. This delusion is what caused him to arrive at the poor conclusion that condensation nuclei was necessary to initiate the process of condensation. Unfortunately many dull-witted, fan boys of Feynman blindly followed his lead on this which has resulted in the widespread delusion that condensation nuclei can initiate a rain storm.”
James, your historical ignorance is spilling over by what YOU have just written. Too bad because it seems you are one of the few here at PSI writing about this unique, very directional, attraction between water molecules explained to chemists by Linus Pauling. Whom you claim made a terrible mistake which you have never clearly defined (described).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
So, you want to extrapolate from a process that is involved with the formation of sedimentary rock to arrive at all encompassing (and not evident) conclusions about the nature of H2O in the atmosphere? Really? Why?
You have wrong instincts. When you find yourself thinking outside the box you become desperate to find your way back in.
Pauling’s model makes the grave error of seeing the lopsidedness in the arrangement of the H2O molecule’s hydrogen atoms relative to its oxygen atom as the cause of it’s polarity. I see the net arrangement of it’s electrical gradients relative to nuclei as the cause of it’s polarity. The former fails to recognize the influence of the electrical gradients from adjacent H2O molecules–molecule’s that are attached by way of hydrogen bonds–on the net arrangement of electrical gradients to nuclei that underlies the magnitude of an H2O molecule’s polarity. The latter, my model, embraces the influence of the electrical gradients of adjacent, hydrogen bonded, H2O molecules.
All in all, my model shines where Pauling’s model fails:
1) My model correctly recognizes that the magnitude of H2O polarity is variable; hydrogen bonding being the mechanism thereof.
2) My model correctly recognizes that H2O molecules are a solvent of each other’s polarity (as a consequence of hydrogen bonding).
3) My model correctly recognizes and inverse relationship between the connectedness of H2O molecules to one another and the strength of this connectedness. (And this recognition is essential to being able to recognize the emergence of structural properties of H2O that can arise from shear conditions [including wind shear in the atmosphere]).
As a consequence of all of the above, my correct model predicts/explains the “anomalies” of H2O, essentially rendering them no longer anomalous whereas Pauling’s wrong model desperately resorts to dismissing them as “anomalous,” slyly pretending they are not significant.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
“So, you want to extrapolate from a process that is involved with the formation of sedimentary rock to arrive at all encompassing (and not evident) conclusions about the nature of H2O in the atmosphere?” No!!! You are right that the formation of sedimentary rock has nothing to do with the nature of H2O in the atmosphere. However your nano particles of water in atmosphere are clearly the colloidal particles of a colloidal system.
I have found a 1943 textbook titled “Outlines of Physical Chemistry” and it has a 42 page chapter about COLLOIDS. And most of these 42 pages are about experimental results of experiments dealing the various properties of different colloidal systems and the understanding of colloids which was developed from these experimental results.
A short comment from page 13 is: “When a material is subdivided into exceedingly small units (but larger than molecules) and spread through a liquid or other medium, the surface area is increased enormously and the electrical charges and the combination with solvent become dominating factors and introduce new phenomena which may be of CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE.”
Nano particles and the condensation nuclei appear to be the same defined particles which certainly seem to fit the definition of a Colloidal Particle. And according to this textbook, it seems colloidal systems have been studied by experiments and instrument invented just to studied the behavior of these tiny particles between size of tiny molecules, which we cannot directly see, and the much larger rain droplets, which we can directly see with our naked eyes.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
. . . your nano particles of water in atmosphere are clearly the colloidal particles of a colloidal system.
James:
Okay. I think I get your point now. (I guess I misinterpreted your intentions regarding the assertion of it being colloidal. I had thought you were asserting that, therefore, the H2O in the atmosphere had to be gaseous. Thanks for the clarification.)
Jerry:
I have found a 1943 textbook titled “Outlines of Physical Chemistry” and it has a 42 page chapter about COLLOIDS. And most of these 42 pages are about experimental results of experiments dealing the various properties of different colloidal systems and the understanding of colloids which was developed from these experimental results.
James:
Aha. Interesting.
Jerry:
A short comment from page 13 is: “When a material is subdivided into exceedingly small units (but larger than molecules) and spread through a liquid or other medium, the surface area is increased enormously and the electrical charges and the combination with solvent become dominating factors and introduce new phenomena which may be of CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE.”
James:
This is an excellent observation. Both involve water. And both involve situational factors that amplify the surface area of water to produce structural capabilities.
Also, I assert that we can see a very dramatic substantiation of this phenomema in Non-Newtonian Fluids. One of which being a mixture of corn starch and water:
https://youtu.be/2mYHGn_Pd5M
As you can see in this video, when the substance is struck by a hammer it instantly becomes hard then instantly returns to being fluid.
Also, be aware that it is not just the smallness of the nanodroplets that amplifies the surface area and ensuing surface tension. Another factor is how miss-shapen (non-round) are the nanodroplets. And the most miss-shapen a nanodroplet can get is to be strung out into a polymer, as I theorize happens on moist/dry wind shear boundaries. Specifically, the windshear causes the nanodroplets to spin which causes them to elongate into polymers. And then if we can imagine this happening in the trillions we can envision it becoming a plasma that encircles the flow and conserves the wind shear therein, allowing for the emergence of stable entities, vortices. (Be aware, I am perfectly aware that this sounds like crazy talk to most people. [Remember Feynman’s words: “Nauture’s imagination is much greater than that of man.”])
Jerry:
Nano particles and the condensation nuclei appear to be the same defined particles which certainly seem to fit the definition of a Colloidal Particle. And according to this textbook, it seems colloidal systems have been studied by experiments and instrument invented just to studied the behavior of these tiny particles between size of tiny molecules, which we cannot directly see, and the much larger rain droplets, which we can directly see with our naked eyes.
James:
In water the introduction of surface interrupts/reduces the ability of H2O to solve (be a solvent of) its own polarity. In non-Newtonian fluids (see link above) this interruption is very brief. However, when it involve spinning on wind shear boundaries the interruption is much more stable as a result of the conservation of angular momentum that is associated with spinning. This explains how/why atmospheric vortices are able to persist.
Thanks Jerry, this was very helpful
James McGinn
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry and James,
Gas molecules have no electric charge which can suspend the charged water droplets in a colloid. You would need positive charged gas molecules to react with the negative charge of the water and hold it in place. There are no liquid-gas or solid-gas colloids as gas molecules are too dispersed to act as a unified entity.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Gas molecules have no electric charge which can suspend the charged water droplets in a colloid. You would need positive charged gas molecules to react with the negative charge of the water and hold it in place
James:
I am very sure you are precisely wrong on this point, Herb. I grew up in southern California. On dry windy days we could drag our feet on the indoor carpet and generate a static charge. (I suspect just about everybody has experienced this.) If the origin off these charges didn’t come from the atmosphere then this phenomena would not only be evident on dry, windy days.
Beyond that I can’t fathom why anybody would ever assume that the gases in earth’s atmosphere cannot possess a (static) charge. We have two sources (plainly evident) for these electric charges 1) the solar wind and 2) thermionics (a consequence of earth’s magma) which is associated with earth’s magnetic field. And then there is lightning (and sprites). This alone refutes your assertion.
Our (human’s) understanding of the atmosphere is already ensconced in so much myth and superstition that it will take hundreds of years to untangle it. Let’s be careful not to add to the mess.
Herb:
There are no liquid-gas or solid-gas colloids as gas molecules are too dispersed to act as a unified entity.
James:
This is a meaningless claim. Whether or not it qualifies as a colloid is irrelevant. That’s just semantics. The facts are clear. There is no doubt that the atmosphere contains significant static charges. And there is no doubt that H2O nanodroplets are attracted to static electricity. This perfectly explains how heavier (more dense) nanodroplets can be (are) suspended in the atmosphere. And, therefore, we no longer have any need for the (dimwitted) superstition that H2O must be gaseous and must, therefore, magically defy it’s known boiling temperature/pressure to be suspended in earth’s atmosphere.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
“On dry windy days”. Two factors: dry and wind. The key factor is dry (very low concentration of water molecules. I have lived where the atmosphere can be very cold, hence very dry because the vapor pressure of very cold ice is very low (small). Hence the issue is not temperature but dry. For, while you did not state, I expect the dry wind in California is also hot and dry.
One cannot question observations like these.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The ionosphere is in the upper atmosphere (not the troposphere where there is water) and is a result of x-rays from the sun stripping electrons from gas atoms. It is different than solar winds.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
You may well be right about the origin of the electric charges in the atmosphere. I forget where I picked up this notion that the solar wind was electrifying the atmosphere. (Maybe it was from somebody over in electric universe.) But it does seem reasonable to me that a large, glowing, ball of plasma (the sun) would exit electrons. Maybe this notion is wrong? I don’t know. Maybe the actually source is x-rays striking the ionosphere, as you seem to be suggesting (did I get this right?). And maybe sprites are instrumental in how this electricity makes it from the ionosphere to the troposphere. And, then, maybe all of this is wrong and the actual source of the electricity in the troposphere is the banging together of spinning polymers of H2O in the sheaths of vortices (as I conjectured in one of my podcasts:
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Do-Vortices-Generate-Lightning-e1e57ae
)
Whatever the case, I’m still perplexed by your claim above where you seem to be suggesting that the atmosphere cannot contain static charges–or, maybe I am misinterpreting you on this point also. Can you clarify?
James McGinn
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The gas molecules in the atmosphere are not charged. You have said that you don’t believe that hydrogen-oxygen bonds in water break to form hydroxyl and hydrogen ions. If this relatively weak bond doesn’t break how can the double and triple bonds in oxygen and nitrogen molecules break and form ions? (When a lightning bolt hits the Earth it is able to break the bond in both oxygen molecules and part of the nitrogen bond forming NO molecules which act as fertilizer.)
Water has a charges that allow for it to carry objects with charges, like chlorine ions, free electrons, and other particles. When it rains the negative charges in the water are brought to the Earth giving the clouds a positive charge just as when your feet moving in the carpet it gives you a negative charge. When you get near a “ground” a spark neutralizes the charges just as lightning between clouds or coming from the Earth cause the charges to neutralizes.
Because gas molecules do not ionize (except from lightning) or carry a charge they act as insulation hindering the flow of electricity. This allows the build up of static electricity in the atmosphere until it becomes strong enough to break the insulation..
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The gas molecules in the atmosphere are not charged. You have said that you don’t believe that hydrogen-oxygen bonds in water break to form hydroxyl and hydrogen ions.
James:
Right. In fact I think it is plainly absurd. Preposterous. (It’s the kind of absurdity we hear coming from a non-physicist, like Gerald Pollack.)
Herb;
If this relatively weak bond doesn’t break how can the double and triple bonds in oxygen and nitrogen molecules break and form ions?
James:
I thought it was common knowledge that this only happened at the top of the atmosphere (the ionosphere, I suppose) as a result of hot temperatures and/or high energy particles coming in with the solar wind.
Herb:
(When a lightning bolt hits the Earth it is able to break the bond in both oxygen molecules and part of the nitrogen bond forming NO molecules which act as fertilizer.)
James:
Okay, I guess this makes sense. But it hardly seems relevant to whether or not there are static charges in the troposphere, IMO.
Herb:
Water has a charges that allow for it to carry objects with charges, like chlorine ions, free electrons, and other particles. When it rains the negative charges in the water are brought to the Earth giving the clouds a positive charge just as when your feet moving in the carpet it gives you a negative charge. When you get near a “ground” a spark neutralizes the charges just as lightning between clouds or coming from the Earth cause the charges to neutralizes.
James:
I don’t see how this is relevant/significant. And I certainly don’t see how this adds up to a reason to dismiss the notion that the atmosphere is capable of maintaining a static charge . . . so . . . ?
Herb:
Because gas molecules do not ionize (except from lightning) or carry a charge they act as insulation hindering the flow of electricity. This allows the build up of static electricity in the atmosphere until it becomes strong enough to break the insulation.
James:
Well, I don’t know about this. Your explanation seem somewhat over-thought. Whatever the case, it does not seem you dispute my main point that the atmosphere is quite capable of holding a static charge.
James McGinn
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, James, and especially PSI Readers,
Especially PSI Readers because Herb and James have just had a great SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION!!! A discussion which is clarifying issues that some, who claim to be all knowing scientists, have never had about the VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC the Herb and James are discussing. Please read this discussion!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Every One,
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5dylh2aOiw)
Hope this works.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Until you accept the disassociation of water into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions you will never understand water and your theories will be fatally flawed.
Parts of aircraft (like landing gear) are made of hardened steel that will not bend or break. If these parts are cleaned with an acidic cleaner (with iron acidic means a pH of under 12) a hydrogen ion will enter the steel matrix, pick up electrons, and become hydrogen gas. When enough of this occurs the steel will shatter like glass. It is called hydrogen embrittlement (look it up) and if you were to clean these parts with pure distilled water the same results would occur. How can this happen if the water itself is not producing hydrogen ions?
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Yesterday I showed a mechanical engineer friend this discussion James, You, and I were have here at PSI. And I told him we three had been having discussion like this for years in which you and James did not generally agree with my SCIENCE. And he asked about you because he did not agree with what you had written. And I told him that sometimes you really do know good SCIENCE just like now and bring things to my attention just like now which I never knew but do believe what you write. You know and I know and I believe many PSI readers are aware the water solution have quantitative property termed pH. James, do you know this is what Herb is referring to???
Our discussion here is getting better and better. The I of PSI stands for international for in the history of SCIENCE have contributed to the growth of our present SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE which has been used TECHNOLOGISTS to make many useful things.
Thank you Herb for not letting my criticism which I do write about your sometimes wrong ideas. Because a good SCIENTIST never knows if his/her ideas are correct, she/he only knows what ideas have been proven to be absolutely wrong by simple reproducible observations (which sometimes are the quantitative results of quantitative instruments (like a pH meter) made by TECHNOLOGISTS). Good work Herb.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
How can this happen if the water itself is not producing hydrogen ions?
James:
So, your argument is one that reeks of desperation. Explain the logic of how you extrapolate from metallurgy to arrive at all encompassing conclusions about weather.
I honestly don’t get why you would bother with such an obviously contrived argument.
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
PROGRESS!!! You might say I collect old science-engineering books because these scholars are scholars like I can accept you are. For no one should ignore the existence of this IDEA of hydrogen bonding which explains why (how) it is that ice (solid water) floats on liquid water.
The first edition of Outlines of Physical Chemistry was published in 1913 by the late Frederick H. Getman. I have haven’t checked the used book market to see if there is a copy of this book available, but if one is I can assure you (based on my experience) it will be very inexpensive (less than $10). And I will check out “a mixture of corn starch and water” because I believe it might be one of the colloidal systems referred to in the book.
Will check it out, but right now I too excited by OUR PROGRESS because I know you have really studied the violent weather system of tornado and therefore know much, much more than me about them. So I know I can learn from your experiences like the video.
But the next dangerous step is to get you to admit that there are water molecules in the atmosphere for the latent heats of condensation to liquid and of the freezing of the liquid water to ice is necessary to power the atmospheric heat engines which power the atmospheric circulations.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
PROGRESS!!!
James:
Barely. It took you five years to get to step one (of twenty). At this rate you will be 180 years old before you free yourself from the overall superstition. You think you are at the end. I know you are just getting started and will continually revert back to the comfort of your superstitions. (As you have done many times before, and even now in this thread.)
Jerry:
You might say I collect old science-engineering books because these scholars are scholars like I can accept you are.
Jerry:
You are using these books as a crutch to temporarily escape the influence of your superstitions. This is giving you false confidence. You do not understand hydrogen bonding of water innately. You do not, for example, fully comprehend what it means when I say that H2O molecules, by way of hydrogen bonding, are solvents of up to one quarter (25%) each other’s polarity. specifically, you still have not defeated the instinct to surrender to the delusion that H2O is simple and well understood. It took me years to overcome this instinct. You are just getting started.
Jerry:
For no one should ignore the existence of this IDEA of hydrogen bonding which explains why (how) it is that ice (solid water) floats on liquid water.
James:
There isn’t the slightest chance you understand the interrelationship of H bonding to ice. The current model–which involves the sudden appearance of lattice structure–is blatant superstition that was introduced to us by a couple of British bozos, named Bernal and Fowler (look them up) way back in the 1920’s. They possessed zero comprehension of the fact that the liquid phase of water is a consequence of the fact that at ambient temperature (between 0C and 100C) H2O is fully (or, almost fully) a solvent of it’s own polarity and that at lower temperatures it is less able to remain as such (see below for exceptions to the rule).
The big clue that this model (I call it the Bernal and Fowler model) is mistaken/wrong is evident in the fact that their model leaves us completely unable to explain the exceptions to the rule associated with superchilled water. Specifically, if their model was correct then it would very gracefully lead us to fully comprehend the exception to ice (the exception to the rule) that is associated with the observation of superchilled water.
(BTW, another clue that the lattice ice notion is mistaken is that it predicts a gradual increase in viscosity that eventually results in hard ice. IOW, this model completely fails to predict the discreteness of the transition from very low viscosity water to ice.) This observation alone tells us that their model is worthless/misleading.
Jerry:
The first edition of Outlines of Physical Chemistry was published in 1913 by the late Frederick H. Getman. I have haven’t checked the used book market to see if there is a copy of this book available, but if one is I can assure you (based on my experience) it will be very inexpensive (less than $10). And I will check out “a mixture of corn starch and water” because I believe it might be one of the colloidal systems referred to in the book.
Will check it out, but right now I too excited by OUR PROGRESS because I know you have really studied the violent weather system of tornado and therefore know much, much more than me about them. So I know I can learn from your experiences like the video.
James:
Sorry, what video?
Jerry:
But the next dangerous step is to get you to admit that there are water molecules in the atmosphere
James
You’d have a better chance of getting me to accept in the existence of the tooth fairy than you would of me accepting the existence of a magical, undetected, ability of H2O to defy it’s known boiling temperature/pressure.
Jerry:
for the latent heats of condensation to liquid and of the freezing of the liquid water to ice is necessary to power the atmospheric heat engines which power the atmospheric circulations.
James:
There is zero empirical evidence of “latent heat of condensation.” It is blatant superstition; obvious nonsense. (You should be embarrassed.)
Specifically, if it was possible to convince me that gaseous H2O could (magically) exist at ambient temperatures then you would have a much easier time convincing me that condensation produces “latent heat.” But the reality is that I am too smart to accept either of these obviously stupid notions. There is no magical phase transition associated with condensaton. Condensation in the atmosphere is just smaller (less visible) droplets droplets combining into larger (more visible) droplets. And the only thermal drama associated with this transition is that larger droplets have relatively greater heat capacity than does the same amount of water when it is in smaller droplets.
Lastly, you seem to now think that you’ve made some big breakthrough. You haven’t. You are barely getting started and you have a long way to go.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
According to your reasoning: “Condensation in the atmosphere is just smaller (less visible) droplets droplets combining into larger (more visible) droplets. And the only thermal drama associated with this transition is that larger droplets have relatively greater heat capacity than does the same amount of water when it is in smaller droplets.” What is your energy source which powers ‘atmospheric circulation??? Especially, the extreme winds of a tornado? Another question: would the average Brownian speed of your nano particles be less than that of single water molecule in the same atmospheric parcel. (Brownian movement was then proved to be a necessary accompaniment of all colloidal systems). “What Video?” Right now I cannot remember: certainly does not seem to be one mentioned here.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
According to your reasoning: “Condensation in the atmosphere is just smaller (less visible) droplets droplets combining into larger (more visible) droplets. And the only thermal drama associated with this transition is that larger droplets have relatively greater heat capacity than does the same amount of water when it is in smaller droplets.”
James:
Yes.
Jerry:
What is your energy source which powers ‘atmospheric circulation??? Especially, the extreme winds of a tornado?
James:
This is exactly the right question. What follows is a bit dated, but I mostly still stand by what is stated here:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16430
James McGinn
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Another question: would the average Brownian speed of your nano particles be less than that of single water molecule in the same atmospheric parcel. (Brownian movement was then proved to be a necessary accompaniment of all colloidal systems). “What Video?” Right now I cannot remember: certainly does not seem to be one mentioned here.
James:
Maybe it was this video:
https://youtu.be/2MUoFF121kQ
Thanks Jerry,
James McGinn
.Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
As I began to read your words to which you sent me by your references, I finally saw something, as I read your references to Plasma’s, which I cannot remember you as having defined even though they appear to be critical factors of your reasonings which you expect a reader to accept. This something is the common localized thunderstorm; which I cannot remember you ever writing the word–thunderstorm. Of course, lighting is what conventional meteorologists and I believe cause thunder we hear.
To be sure I went back to your reference and did a word search for ‘thunder’ and there were 3, each part of the word “thunderbolts”. So James, how is it you never mentioned “thunderstorms” as you explained the energy causes of atmospheric circulation???
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
. . . references to Plasma’s, which I cannot remember you as having defined even though they appear to be critical factors of your reasonings which you expect a reader to accept.
James:
This is a tough one. Maybe this will help:
Sympathy to those who are incredulous of the Spinning Nanodroplets of Vortice Plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Sympathy-to-those-who-are-incredulous-of-the-Spinning-Nanodroplets-of-Vortice-Plasma-e1ba4r3
James McGinn
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
When are you going to admit to the existence of many short lived, localized thunderstorm towers which quickly rise to the top of the troposphere, and sometimes beyond into the tropopause, as many of us has actually experienced (observed). It might surprise but I believe many PSI readers, who do not comment much, are not idiots as you seem to consider I am. It is time for you to accept the reality of the common thunderstorm towers. I am ‘slow’ but I sometimes get where I am trying to go.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
When are you going to admit to the existence of many short lived, localized thunderstorm towers
James:
It’s like you are asking me to admit that when I look around the earth appears flat.
I don’t see a tower (nor does anybody). I see tall clouds and uplift. I do not see any obvious indication of what causes the uplift. Moreover, I contend, nobody sees anything more than I see.
You need to admit that there is no obvious indication of convection/buoyancy. Moreover, you need to admit that the belief that moist air contains genuinely gaseous H2O (at the ambient temperatures that occur in the atmosphere) is plainly and obviously contradicted by the H2O phase diagram. Moist air is heavier. Convection just poorly considered superstition.
Likewise, when the sun passes over my head I do not see evidence that the earth is the center of the universe.
Jerry:
which quickly rise to the top of the troposphere, and sometimes beyond into the tropopause,
James :
My theory explains why:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Jerry:
as many of us has actually experienced (observed).
James:
Thunderstorms happen just about everywhere, Jerry.
Jerry:
It might surprise but I believe many PSI readers, who do not comment much, are not idiots as you seem to consider I am.
James:
In general people don’t comment about what they don’t think about. And the current paradigm is all about rewarding people to do just that–not think.
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James and Jerry,
The cause of the uplift and turbulence in the clouds is the release of energy as water loses the energy it has absorbed during evaporation when it condenses into larger droplets.This energy causes the air to expand.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
“James: It’s like you are asking me to admit that when I look around the earth appears flat. I don’t see a tower (nor does anybody). I see tall clouds and uplift. I do not see any obvious indication of what causes the uplift. Moreover, I contend, nobody sees anything more than I see.”
Newton calculated the distance of the earth’s surface (oceans) is 20+ km further from the Earth’s center than the Arctic Ocean is at the North Pole because of the centrifugal effect due to the rotating Earth. I cannot remember you ever referring to this historical fact. 20+km is many times the height of the Earth’s tallest Mountain above sea-level.
When you wrote “I see tall clouds and uplift.” You see tall clouds (which might be described as cloud towers but one can never see ‘uplift’, you only see the result of uplift. One has to imagine the cause of buoyancy which is there needs to be a more dense fluid to slide under a less dense fluid which in the case of the atmosphere requires a temperature difference between adjacent volumes of atmosphere. Which commonly (always?) exists at the boundary of the sunlit earth surface and the shaded earth surface. Clouds cast shadows!!! That what I see. And during the nighttime see that denser air masses slide down the earth surface which is inclined because of gravity just as water continually flows down the Earth’s surfaces which are inclined (not level).
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
“James: It’s like you are asking me to admit that when I look around the earth appears flat. I don’t see a tower (nor does anybody). I see tall clouds and uplift. I do not see any obvious indication of what causes the uplift. Moreover, I contend, nobody sees anything more than I see.”
Newton calculated the distance of the earth’s surface (oceans) is 20+ km further from the Earth’s center than the Arctic Ocean is at the North Pole because of the centrifugal effect due to the rotating Earth. I cannot remember you ever referring to this historical fact. 20+km is many times the height of the Earth’s tallest Mountain above sea-level.
When you wrote “I see tall clouds and uplift.” You see tall clouds (which might be described as cloud towers but one can never see ‘uplift’, you only see the result of uplift. One has to imagine the cause of buoyancy which is there needs to be a more dense fluid to slide under a less dense fluid which in the case of the atmosphere requires a temperature difference between adjacent volumes of atmosphere. Which commonly (always?) exists at the boundary of the sunlit earth surface and the shaded earth surface. Clouds cast shadows!!! That what I see. And during the nighttime see that denser air masses slide down the earth surface which is inclined because of gravity just as water continually flows down the Earth’s surfaces which are inclined (not level).
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
My model explains any and all uplift in storms and at one and the same time it explains how the jet stream is able to maintain it’s momentum:
How The Jetstream Maintains Its Momentum
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn
| #
Understanding Water is a Prerequisite to Understanding Storms
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Understanding-Water-is-a-Prerequisite-to-Understanding-Storms-eou2cg
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Some tidbits: “starch in aqueous solutions of zinc chloride for use in dry batteries”. “Great advances in colloid chemistry come with the invention of the ultramicroscope in 1903 by Sieentopt and Zsignondy. With this instrument the motions of the colloid particles became visible, and Brownian movement was then proved to be a necessary accompaniment of all colloidal systems.” “It iis necessary to view the particles by reflected [scattered] light rather than by transmitted light because the colloidal [nano]particles are smaller than the wavelength of visible light.”!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
There is a copy, like mine 691pages) available by Frederick H. Getman (1943) at Abe’s used books but its cost (including shipping in USA) for about $25 (so I was wrong about the cost.
There is a 7th Ed (1948) addition available for $10 but because of the later date I do not know if it is identical to my1943 copy.
If you send me a shipping address I could copy the chapter and send it to you.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Some tidbits: “starch in aqueous solutions of zinc chloride for use in dry batteries”. “Great advances in colloid chemistry come with the invention of the ultramicroscope in 1903 by Sieentopt and Zsignondy. With this instrument the motions of the colloid particles became visible, and Brownian movement was then proved to be a necessary accompaniment of all colloidal systems.” “It iis necessary to view the particles by reflected [scattered] light rather than by transmitted light because the colloidal [nano]particles are smaller than the wavelength of visible light.”!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
A way to tell a solution from a clear colloidal suspension is that in a solution the refraction will increase while in a suspension the particle prevent the formation of a crystal structure and refractions deceases.
The gases in the air do not carry charges and lightning occurs when a charge difference becomes great enough to ionize the oxygen molecule (producing ozone) allowing it to conduct the electricity.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
By definition there is no such thing as “a clear colloidal suspension.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Yes Jerry there are. They’re called micro emulsions. Buy yourself a bottle of PINESOLVE. It is clear. When you said water it becomes cloudy as it converts from water in pine oil emulsion to a pine oil in water emulsion. Jello is clear and it is a water in solid colloid.
Herb
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry:
The fake vaccines have lots of colloidal solutions in the clear mixture, including nano particles, graphene oxide, the poisonous poly ethylene glycol and several others according to different researchers. Most of your science regarding the issue of colloidal mixture, I think is of little consequence as far as practical application. Metallurgists have long known how to temper all kinds of metal for a wide range of applications without ever concerning themselves with colloidal properties.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
It happens that I had a large bottle of Pine-Sol. So I added a drop to a much larger volume of water and a colloid immediately formed. Which colloidal particles scattered white light.
Then I added a drop of water (dripping from a faucet) into to a much greater volume of Pine-Sol. The drop dispersed at. the bottom of a white cup so I could see that the water drop dispersed in the bottom of the cup like a precipitate. Which precipitate dissolved after a little swirling. Upon adding several more water drops, I concluded that water had a limited solubility in Pine-Sol. But I saw that the little that did dissolve was changing the surface tension of the water-Pine-Sol solution as the falling drop formed an air bubble which floated to the surface and was stable there for some time. This system deserved more experimentation.
However, I am aware of very common natural colloidal system which desires more attention. It is RAW MILK. Which upon setting naturally separates into SKIM MILK (a another colloidal system) and CREAM (which is opaque and therefore another possible colloidal system).
However, RAW MILK can be homogenized (a physical process) so this colloidal system does not separate. Which I consider might teach us something about the lack of precipitation from some clouds, if we ponder a bit about homogenized milk..
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mark,
“The fake vaccines have lots of colloidal solutions in the clear mixture,” After reading this several times I finally saw what is, by definition, wrong with your statement. Two things: first a colloidal system is not a solution, it is a mixture of tiny particles in a solution; second this mixture is not clear.
Louis Elzevir, the publisher of Galileo’s ‘Two New Sciences’ in his preface wrote: “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” So, do you see the confusion your statement creates???
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Some meteorological data measured during last night at the Salem OR airport.
27 06:56 SW 3 8.00 Fair CLR 49 47 93% NA NA 29.70 1005.7
27 05:56 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 49 48 97% NA NA 29.71 1005.9
27 04:56 SE 3 10.00 Fair CLR 49 47 58 49 93% NA NA 29.71 1005.9
27 03:56 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 50 47 89% NA NA 29.71 1005.9
27 02:56 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 51 48 89% NA NA 29.71 1006.0
27 01:56 S 3 10.00 Fair CLR 52 49 89% NA NA 29.72 1006.3
27 00:56 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 57 50 78% NA NA 29.72 1006.3
26 23:56 NW 6 10.00 Fair CLR 57 50 78% NA NA 29.72 1006.5
26 22:56 NW 6 10.00 Fair CLR 57 50 67 57 78% NA NA 29.73 1006.7
26 21:56 NW 7 10.00 A Few Clouds FEW120 57 50 78% NA NA 29.74 1006.9
26 20:56 N 7 10.00 Fair CLR 60 51 72% NA NA 29.75 1007.3
26 19:56 N 7 10.00 Fair CLR 62 51 67% NA NA 29.76 1007.5
26 18:56 N 9 10.00 Fair CLR 63 51 65% NA NA 29.77 1008.1
Air temperature decrease 18:56 to 21,56 (63F to 57F). Constant Air Temperature (57F) 21.56 to 00.56) probably due to the thin high clouds at 12000ft which were only seen the first hour.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
james mcginn
| #
Meteorology is just as phoney as climate science:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Parents,
I just saw the obvious fact you should read this article about your children’s education which is now on page 4.
“The only source of knowledge is experience.” (Albert Einstein)
MY elementary school had a big swing and a big titter-totter; I cannot remember if it had a big merry-go-round. But I know that the closed country elementary school, less than a mile from my farm home, had big merry-go-round. So as a first grader I had already swung on a swing and learned to pump the swing up and to keep it swinging with slighter effort. I had learned that it took two to balance on the titter-totter and with a little effort keep keep my partner and I going up and down. And while two can play on a merry-go-round it is better to have more pushers than one to rotate it faster so the one riding on its could feel the centrifugal effect which increased the faster it was rotated and could feel this effect increase as we moved from the center of rotation to the edge of the rotation.
Hence, playing on these three play instruments, I learned by experience knowledge I could not really learn in the classroom. So, parents be sure take your children to a play ground having these three play instruments so they can learn intuitively (without realizing they are learning some very important fundamental physical facts).
LEARNING CAN BE FUN!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry:
The activities you mentioned involve interactions in the real world. Kids today are directed by the media, school systems and entertainment to disengage with reality and submerge themselves in a virtual world. This is so they will be easier to control. China is already implementing this in the cities as the” total surveillance, total control system.” The last thing the Zionists want are independent self sufficient individuals that think for themselves. In todays gynocentric nanny state germ phobic indoctrination centers called public schools, the activities you describe would be considered dangerous and unorganized. Besides, these exercises do nothing to address the issue of systemic racism and endemic discrimination inflicted on people of color by the traditional curriculum of reading, writing and math. The new Frankfurt School modeled program believes in the axiom of “No child left behind” as we move on with new “Hope and Change.” Utilizing the the most effective programs for stimulating young minds such as gender fluidity, Drag Queen Story Time and Critical Race Theory. Some have had a negative perception of America’s academic record in view of the fact that some areas such as Chicago have an illiteracy rate of 85%. It must be emphasized however that literacy is only one small component of a truly educated person. It is much more important that children raised in a system of oppressive patriarchy understand the need for white guilt.
I’ll have to think about the colloidal solution system business awhile. And I thought it was a clear mixture.
Best regards, Mark
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mark,
You seem to ignore the critical role that parents should play in the upbringing and education of their children. Maybe it was too subtle for you to notice. One cannot blame others for their problems.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry:
You’re missing the whole point of “public education.” Which is to get parents OUT of the process. That is why they are starting kids in formal government indoctrination centers, even before kindergarten. The British literary figure (and friend of the Royal family) George Bernard Shaw ran test schools to determine what was the best way to shape the new generation. He reported that if confined for 8 hrs. per day in gov. schools, the influence of the parents could be overcome. Lenin said it only took 4 hrs. Read “The Underground History of Amer. Education” by John Taylor Gatto.”
You are correct as far as who to blame. The fact that what used to be free individuals in a Republic of Sovereign States, jealous of their natural rights, has become a herd of domesticated suplicating sheep on the Zionist plantation being herded down the road to Agenda 21 is their own fault:
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mark,
Your point seems to criticize without offering possible solutions. I know there are parents with good children whose children (like my grandsons) who are learning in public schools That is why I offered my experiences as a teacher and as a scientist to parents.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry:
I never said there were not any good people opposing our descent into global totalitarianism by a syndicate of centralized international criminals. I am only saying it is too little too late. Even by the time the French political scientist De Tocqueville came and studied Amer. in the 1840’s, he concluded that the biggest danger to our republic was that the people would become little more than domestic animals to be shepherded by the government.
So called “public education” following the original plan as laid out by socialist and Rockefeller front man John Dewey (as called for in Marx communist manifesto) is just one of many fronts used to destroy the western economies and society, along with the banking cartel, huge central gov. bureaucracy, permanent war and contrived conflicts, excessive military spending, endemic corruption and money laundering scams including the fake virus and phony climate change. Public education is a key component of the demoralization and destabilization of the country as can be seen by the ongoing progress of the Zionist agenda. What can be said of a bunch of cucks that are no more astute than medieval serfs but believe everything the Jew media tell them and even line up like a bunch of asses to get a fake test to tell them they need a fake vaccine? The best way to change a country, is to change the people. The criminal syndicate has accomplished that and more. A few miscreants here and there is of no consequence as long as the herd continues to move in the right direction. If you were to ask most of the parents (do they have parents) in Chicago and everywhere else in this country as to how the public schools are doing, most of them will say everything is going well. That should tell you where we are headed.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/yn8uUXSHZ9ld/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/r3PpRxVQfqg/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
(https://data.argusleader.com/tornado-archive/). look at South Dakota west of Missouri River.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Understanding the uplift and low pressure of a storm is the key to working out the mechanics of the atmosphere. Meteorology offers us a vague, dumbed-down notion: convection. The slightest scrutiny reveals it as a meaningless word salad of pretend causes and pretend effects. The net effect of this pretentious rhetoric is to create cognitive dissonance that brings believers to misidentify their deep confusion as deep understanding. Their delusion is so deep that if they were to be put on the spot and forced to explain the details of what they claim they could not formulate even half of a sentence. Convection is just a word that can mean anything to anybody but that will never mean any one thing to everybody. It is just rhetorical candy for millions and millions of believer.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Herb,
Both of you refuse to accept that atmosphere contains any water molecules (vapor0. Without which there can be no latent heat due to water’s phase transition from the gas phase to the liquid phase.
I’m curious how either of you will respond to the following”. “Ice particles could be formed in the atmosphere by the freezing of existing water droplet or the the sublimation [wrong term] of vapor direct into the solid state but the evidence points conclusively to the former process as the only one of importance in natural meteorological processes. While there is no evidence that the air is ever significantly supersaturated with respect to water without the formation of cloud, the occurrence of supersaturation with respect to ice without the formation of ice particles is normal. Down to temperatures of neg. 10C clouds, unless contaminated by falling ice crystals from above, are regularly and perhaps invariably clouds of water droplets alone although at this temperature the air, saturated with repeat to water, has a relative humidity of 110 per cent with respect to ice. At lower temperatures clouds are liable to contain ice, while below neg 20C pure water clouds are exceptional and the problem is to discover why the droplets freeze.” (pp 59, ‘Weather & Climate’, R.C. Sutcliffe, 1966)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The thermometer does not measure kinetic energy but the momentum of the molecules striking it. Since both the velocity (energy) of molecules and their density (mass) change with increasing altitude the thermometer does not give an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas. To get that you must use the universal gas law (The barometer is equally inaccurate at determining the pressure (weight per unit area) where a increase in volume (decrease in density) is due to an increase in kinetic energy of molecules. (The number of molecules and their weight (gravity times mass) will remain constant as long as the temperature is above the boiling point of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, as will be the gas constant.)
The temperature recorded by the thermometer is inaccurate, which is shown by the molecules in the atmosphere. If a molecule can lose energy it will convert to a more stable form. The ozone, nitrogen-oxygen molecules, and oxygen atoms in the atmosphere exist because the energy field around them does not allow them to lose energy.
The troposphere is where liquid water exists and absorbs heat. This causes the kinetic energy of molecules (as determined by the UGL) to increase at a steady rate. Above the troposphere the kinetic energy increases at an exponential rate.
Jerry, it takes 540 calories to convert a gram of 100 C water to a gram of 100 C steam. When the steam comes out of a tea kettle it cools and becomes visible droplets. These droplets then disappear. Where is the needed energy coming from to convert these water droplets into a vapor?
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “The thermometer does not measure kinetic energy but the momentum of the molecules striking it. Since both the velocity (energy) of molecules and their density (mass) change with increasing altitude the thermometer does not give an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas.” Kinetic energy is proportional proportional to mass times the velocity squared. Momentum is proportional to mass times the velocity. What you do not define is of what is the mass. The mass is of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules which compose the great majority of the atmospheric molecules whose masses do not change with increasing altitude!!! Water molecules are a very minor component of the Earth’s atmosphere so it is not a factor because what a thermometer is measuring is the temperature of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules.
Hence, whether kinetic energy, or momentum, the thermometer is accurately measuring the average velocity of the many, many nitrogen and oxygen molecules just as it measures the average velocity of water molecules in liquid water which freezing (melting) temperature and boiling temperature (a function of the atmospheric pressure (mainly the result of the atmosphere’s nitrogen and oxygen molecules) to calibrate a thermometer’s temperature scale.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The mass of oxygen and nitrogen molecules does not change with altitude. Correct but the number or total mass does change as the density in the atmosphere decreases. In a liquid the number of molecules transferring energy to the thermometer is close to constant so the reading of the thermometer gives an accurate comparison of the kinetic energy of different liquids. This is not true of a gas where an increase in the kinetic energy of the molecules results in an increase in volume and causes fewer molecules (less mass) to collide with the thermometer and transfer energy.
You seem to believe that the thermometer is equipped with a counting device and calculator so that it can count the number of molecules transferring energy to it and divide the total energy by that number thus giving an accurate reading of the kinetic energy of the molecules at different densities. Where exactly are these devices?
You are saying that no matter how many hammers you have beating on a piece of metal, if the hammers are moving at the same speed, it is no different than if one hammer is being used.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “In a liquid the number of molecules transferring energy to the thermometer is close to constant so the reading of the thermometer gives an accurate comparison of the kinetic energy of different liquids.”
When one measures the accurate temperature of a liquid with a solid thermometer there can beno energy being transferred (exchanged)? For the necessary assumption is that the temperature of the solid surface in contact with the liquid’s surface must be the same. So there can only be an exchange of energy between the two surfaces if the temperatures are different. You seem to be forgetting the necessary equilibrium condition that is necessary to measure an accurate temperature of any matter (gas, liquid, or solid).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I can’t believe that you just said that you can’t measure the temperature of a liquid with a thermometer.
A thermometer is designed to have one section (the bulb) submerged into a liquid where energy flows either from the liquid into the bulb (and the liquid it contains) or from the bulb and its liquid to the liquid being measured. This flow cause the liquid in the bulb to expand or contract changing the amount of liquid in the body of the thermometer and its exchange of energy with the second medium (usually air). When the change of level of the liquid in the thermometer stabilizes and equalization of energy occurs the temperature is established.
What the hell have you been smoking to say there can be no energy transferred between the liquid and the thermometer.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just wrote: “When the change of level of the liquid in the thermometer stabilizes and equalization of energy occurs the temperature is established.” “beno” should be “be no”. Otherwise, I have stated the same thing you just wrote.
And please quote my words from which you conclude “that you [I] just said that you can’t measure the temperature of a liquid with a thermometer.” Of course, I know that the “bulb;” of the thermometer needs to be placed in the liquid. Otherwise how can the surface of the glass be in contact with the surface of the liquid. One could place the entire the thermometer in the liquid as it is in the in the air, a gas. And when the liquid in the thermometer stem stops moving, one can read on the stem’s graduations what the temperature of both the air and the thermometer is.
Now, can you admit that the temperature of the air can be measured???
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
“When one measures the accurate temperature between a liquid and a solid thermometer there can be no energy transferred (exchanged)?”
This says there is no energy flow through the thermometer from one medium to the other medium which is precisely what a thermometer is designed to read. If you leave the thermometer in the liquid its reading will continue to change as the energy between the two mediums equalizes. Are you saying that the only accurate temperature reading is when the temperature of the liquid, thermometer and air are all equal?
At STP for every molecule of air absorbing/transmitting energy with the thermometer there are a thousand water molecules absorbing/transmitting energy with the thermometer’s bulb. How can the molecules in the air and in the liquid have the same kinetic energy? Air molecules have more mass (N2 28, O2 32) than water molecules (H2O 18) which means when the kinetic energy of the air and water molecules are qual the velocity of the air molecules must be less than the velocity of the water molecules. Since the transfer of energy is by momentum (mV) when the the kinetic energy of the air molecules are equal to the kinetic energy of water molecules the water is transferring velocity/energy to the air.
When you submerge the entire thermometer (not just the bulb) in either water or gas all the liquid in the thermometer is equalizing with one medium. You are not measuring flow of energy but the expansion property of the liquid in the thermometer.
You cannot measure the kinetic energy of a molecule in a gas with a thermometer because as the energy of the gas molecules increase the number of molecule (mass) striking the thermometer decreases (unlike in a liquid where there is less expansion). Both components of kinetic energy (mass and velocity) are changing. When one increases the other decreases and since one factor (velocity) is squared the product of the two variables changes in an exponential fashion. To determine the kinetic energy of a gas molecule you must know what portion of the thermometer’s reading is due to the increasing velocity of molecules and what portion is due to less mass transferring velocity/energy and to do this you must use the universal gas law.
So the temperature (kinetic energy of the molecules) of the air cannot be measured it must be calculated.
Still waiting for the source of energy converting condensed steam droplets back into a vapor.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You forgot to tell me where the energy is coming from to turn the condensed droplets from a tea kettle back into a vapor. Waiting for your answer.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446
The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.
by jimmcginn » Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:09 pm
The Roof Leaks at the Top
Discussion between James McGinn (genius) and Edwin Berry (meteorologist)
James McGinn:
Edwin,
Climatology has certain traditions that it adopted from its parent discipline, meteorology. One of those traditions is that their theoretical aspects are based on conversation and not empiricism. Or, I guess we could say, the connection to empiricism is suggestive and not literal.
In empirical sciences the experimental evidence comes first and the narrative follows. In conversational sciences the narrative comes first and its significance is interpreted by “experts.” No empiricism necessarily follows. And any empiricism that is externally applied is summarily dismissed if it disagrees with the “expert” opinion.
In short, with conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority. The public is naïve, gullible, and generally unaware of this. Exposing climatology as empirically inept won’t solve the problem since the conversational tradition is rooted in meteorology and not climatology:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php … 10&t=16329
Edwin Berry:
James,
You write, “conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority.” Your view is a diversion from the truth. It is a political attempt to diffuse the fact that the alarmist version of climate change is wrong. Nice try.
Those who base meteorology and climatology on consensus and authority are substituting politics for science. You are merely describing how the alarmists turn science into politics but that does not change the truth about the science.
The sciences of meteorology and climatology derive from physics, chemistry, and geology, and they are based on evidence. My post proves the alarmist version of climate change violates physics. Therefore, the alarmist version of climate change is scientifically wrong.
James McGinn:
Edwin:
You write: “Your view is a diversion from the truth. It is a political attempt to diffuse the fact that the alarmist version of climate change is wrong. Nice try.”
I am on your side. I disproved the alarmist version of climate change a long time ago, as have many others both before and after me. My disproof is generally ignored. The same will be the case for yours as the novelty wears off. Welcome to the club.
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.
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 is nowhere to be found.
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.
Starting from jet streams, vortices grow (upstream) along wind shear boundaries in the troposphere (mostly along the top of the troposphere) channeling low pressure energy, targeting moist air at lower altitude, deliver this low pressure energy to various locations on the surface of our planet, causing uplift of this moist air and what we witness as storms. This–vortice activity–is what underlies storms, not convection.
Convection of moist air does occur but its role in this theory is much more subtle than is its role under the convection model of storm theory. And, in stark contrast to the convection model, moist air has negative buoyancy (moist air is heavier than dry air). Negative buoyancy of moist air is instrumental in the formation of long, flat moist/dry wind shear boundaries that are essential for the formation of a water-based plasma that forms the sheath of vortices–a plasma that literally spins up on wind shear boundaries.
Vortices are the pressure relief valves of the atmosphere. In other words, vortices are the means by which relative thermal equilibrium is achieved on the surface of our planet:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB … 10&t=17125
Edwin Berry:
James,
In my view, you do not understand what you think you understand about meteorology. Somewhere, years ago perhaps, you got off on the wrong track.
So, while your comments are welcome, I am much too busy to make the necessary extensive replies it would take to show you why your views on meteorology are completely wrong. I suggest you study some good textbooks on meteorology and atmospheric physics.
James McGinn:
Edwin,
Ivar Giaver states:
Global warming has become a new religion, because you can’t discuss it. And that’s not right. So, science comes in many forms: 1) real science; 2) pathological science, where one fools oneself; 3) fraudulent science, which is rare; ; 4) Junk science; 5) pseudoscience.
JMcG:
Just like global warming, meteorology’s theory on storms and atmospheric flow is a religion. Because you can’t discuss it. And that’s not right. As you have demonstrated vividly in this thread, you (Ed Berry) cannot/will not discuss it.
So, it certainly is not #1, real science. I don’t think you are being deliberately fraudulent. So that leaves 2) Pathological science, 4) Junk science, and 5) pseudoscience. I suppose we can let our audience decide which of these three is most applicable.
There are three blatantly non-scientific notions associated with meteorology’s “convection model” of storms and atmospheric flow: 1) Convection, 2) Dry layer capping, and 3) Latent heat. All of these are based on notions that involve half-baked observations, cartoonishly silly analogies, and blatant speculation.
Convection: Based on an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. It is poorly defined, immeasurable, untested and untestable. It was proposed as a conjecture by Espy, pre civil war, and was accepted by consensus despite never having been tested empirically. It’s underlying theory is wrought with unverified assumptions, like the notion that H2O magically turns gaseous at temperatures far below what has ever been detected in a laboratory.
Dry layer capping: Based on observation of dry layers above flat moist layers. It explanation involves the blatantly stupid assertion that dry layers of gaseous air have structural capabilities. (Meteorologists are especially strict about maintaining the vagueness of this explanation.)
Latent heat: Based on the observation that evaporation produces cooling and the (not unreasonable) assertion that uplift of moist air and resulting condensation produce warming at higher altitudes. But–strangely–this notion is also harnessed to explain the cold gusty winds of storms and lateral flow (“advection). And so, in a desperate bid to explain the energy of storms, meteorologists dramatized latent heat as a kind of magic wand that they then wield to explain all of the remaining drama of storms.
Nothing about Meteorology’s theory on storms doesn’t maintain some degree of blatantly obvious stupidity–thus the reason none of these pretentious believers–virtually all meteorologists–will discuss it.
What is, in my opinion, an even more glaring shortcoming of this convection model of storm theory is what it fails to explain: 1) the spinning motion witnessed in storms, 2) the lateral flow associated with jet streams, and 3) vortices.
Since the climate dopes have employed the same pseudoscientific methods that have been long championed by meteorologists, it is blatantly hypocritical for Ed Berry to be dumping on climate scientists who are doing nothing but following the example that Ed and all meteorologists have established a long time ago.
Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB … 10&t=16613
Edwin:
James,
You have done a lot of hand waving about your theory of storms. But you have not produced any evidence to show how accepted meteorology is incorrect. Evidence means data. Yet, you have accused me and all credible meteorologists of being hypocritical.
So, to back up your claims, can you show examples where the following meteorological textbooks have made errors that conflict with data?
Hess: Introduction to Meteorology
Fleagle and Businger: An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics
Haltiner and Martin: Dynamic and Physical Meteorology
Mason: The Physics of Clouds
Salby: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate
Khvorostyanov and Curry: Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds
Please be specific by referring to equations, paragraphs, and pages that disagree with your claims. When you have proven your competence, we and other visitors on this site can have a scientific discussion of your personal theories that contradict data and are therefore wrong.
Surely, if you are competent, this task will be easy for you.
James McGinn:
This is the tactic all religions employ when confronted with skeptics. “Here is a bible. Prove to me that this is not the word of God.” Sorry, but in science the burden of proof is on those that make extraordinary claims. I do not maintain that water turns gaseous at temperatures far below its known boiling temperature. You do. I do not maintain that dry air acts as a flat shield to contain upwelling moist air from below. You do. I do not maintain that latent heat somehow (magic I presume) causes the gusty winds of storms. You do.
Of course you have zero chance of substantiating any of this. But that is not my problem. You believe it. Not me. Defend what you believe. Or admit what is plainly obvious–you have not given these notions any critical thought since they were introduced to you as an undergraduate.
Edwin Berry:
James,
Your reply above to my request demonstrates that you are a fraud. You claim, without proof, that I “believe” certain things that you disagree with. Likely, you are unable to understand any parts of the standard meteorological books I listed. I gave you the opportunity and you failed. You did not find anything in the six textbooks I listed to demonstrate your claims.
You are a simply another moronic blowhard climate alarmist from San Jose, California, who does not understand science or meteorology or climate. Bye.
James McGinn:
Edwin,
I’m sorry that you found this inquiry offensive. I was only trying to understand why it is that if you accept the Meteorology’s convection model of storms based on nothing but consensus you do not extend the same courtesy to climatology.
James McGinn / Genius
President of Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You wrote: “In empirical sciences the experimental evidence comes first and the narrative follows.” I agree. I just read your entire discussion and I did not find one empirical measurement. I have never read that you have reviewed the measured meteorological factors that existed shortly before the funnel cloud appeared. They must have been measured and might help one better explain what happens next in your mechanism which you propose. In fact I have never read what I consider to be a detailed molecular explanation that you have written.
Have a good day, Jerry
I
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
So, Jerry, if we pretend that H2O defies it’s known boiling temperature then we can pretend that moist air is lighter than drier air and then we can pretend that this lighter moist air causes the uplift in storms and then we can pretend that it converts back to liquid as it condenses with height and then we can pretend that it releases “latent heat” as it condenses and then we can pretend that this latent heat produces the gusty, cold winds and resulting low pressure of storms.
Just one question, Jerry. What happens if we stop pretending?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=688
Willis Eschenbach’s atmospheric heat engine confusion
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/29/ … nt-3442462
All of meteorology maintains this notion that there is some kind of “heat-engine” in the sky. IMO (and, yes, I am an expert) it is a notion for which there is some confirmational evidence. Specifically energetic flow in the atmosphere–especially around storms–has the appearance of being focused or funneled in a manner that is consistent with structure of some kind. And it is this observed evidence of structure that brings people (like Willis) to (out of desperation) arrive at this notion that there is a “heat-engine” in the sky.
So, if we start from the assumptions that there really is no such thing as a heat engine in the sky we have to acknowledge that there is evidence of some kind of structural entity or process. But what is it?
There is no heat engine in the sky. (Sorry Willis, thermodynamics is the wrong paradigm.) Coming in many different sizes and all interconnected, vortices are the closest thing to an engine in the sky. Vortices are the source of the structure and the flow that appears structural. And the source of the structure itself is the surface tension properties of H2O being amplified by wind shear.
My advice to all of your is to stop chasing your own tails and stop wasting time with your failed paradigm and get onboard with my advanced understanding that will inevitably replace the poorly considered ‘heat-engine” model.
Don’t waste your time with bad thinking. There are engines in the atmosphere. But they have nothing to do with heat or thermodynamics. It has to do with flow and the ability of H2O to facilitate, isolate, and focus this flow over long distances.
The Momentum of the Jetstream is Maintained by Vortices
https://youtu.be/N36vjLK8Ggc
James McGinn / Genius
Reply