evidence clouds do not exist

How come clouds block light if they are the "projections" you claim them to be?

Neither does metal but that doesn't stop aircraft from flying.
airplanes have a large surface area. droplets of water do not. completely irrelevant example.

brownian motion should mean clouds move chaotically: they do not, they move in steady patterns, keep shapes, and as has been pointed out may be predicted.

How come clouds block light if they are the "projections" you claim them to be?
how many times must i ask you to learn about the dual earth model of the sun before you are able to actually do so and therefore be able to actually understand what it is i am saying? stop ignoring me. if the sun model is not enough, SAY WHY RATHER THAN JUST IGNORING EVERY SINGLE WORD I SAY. I AM SICK OF BEING IGNORED BY THE LIKES OF YOU.
the projection is by space. do not think of it as the same kind of projected as a human-built projector, if anything the projection is mathematically. light moves the exact same way that it does when we see anything; it moves through space. the point is, the space in question carries the light to a vantage point about the earth. i yet again ask you to learn the dual earth model, i am sick of having to repeat myself to someone being willfully ignorant.

Neither does metal but that doesn't stop aircraft from flying.
airplanes have a large surface area. droplets of water do not. completely irrelevant example.

brownian motion should mean clouds move chaotically: they do not, they move in steady patterns, keep shapes, and as has been pointed out may be predicted.

How come clouds block light if they are the "projections" you claim them to be?
how many times must i ask you to learn about the dual earth model of the sun before you are able to actually do so and therefore be able to actually understand what it is i am saying? stop ignoring me. if the sun model is not enough, SAY WHY RATHER THAN JUST IGNORING EVERY SINGLE WORD I SAY. I AM SICK OF BEING IGNORED BY THE LIKES OF YOU.
the projection is by space. do not think of it as the same kind of projected as a human-built projector, if anything the projection is mathematically. light moves the exact same way that it does when we see anything; it moves through space. the point is, the space in question carries the light to a vantage point about the earth. i yet again ask you to learn the dual earth model, i am sick of having to repeat myself to someone being willfully ignorant.

You do not understand how light works. Plus, your dual earth thoery is flawed and is unceccesarily complex compared to a standard flat earth model.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 27, 2015, 07:54:17 AM

Neither does metal but that doesn't stop aircraft from flying.
airplanes have a large surface area. droplets of water do not. completely irrelevant example.

brownian motion should mean clouds move chaotically: they do not, they move in steady patterns, keep shapes, and as has been pointed out may be predicted.

How come clouds block light if they are the "projections" you claim them to be?
how many times must i ask you to learn about the dual earth model of the sun before you are able to actually do so and therefore be able to actually understand what it is i am saying? stop ignoring me. if the sun model is not enough, SAY WHY RATHER THAN JUST IGNORING EVERY SINGLE WORD I SAY. I AM SICK OF BEING IGNORED BY THE LIKES OF YOU.
the projection is by space. do not think of it as the same kind of projected as a human-built projector, if anything the projection is mathematically. light moves the exact same way that it does when we see anything; it moves through space. the point is, the space in question carries the light to a vantage point about the earth. i yet again ask you to learn the dual earth model, i am sick of having to repeat myself to someone being willfully ignorant.

You do not understand how light works. Plus, your dual earth thoery is flawed and is unceccesarily complex compared to a standard flat earth model.

you do not understand anything i have proposed if you think either of those points is true.

put it like this: you do not (strictly speaking) see an object, you see its interaction with light. if an object did not interact with light, it would not be visible. so, if those interactions are carried, then they would have all the same properties as the object itself when it comes to visibility, because they are the only way it interferes with light.
learn. about. dual. earth. theory. if you are going to persist in such ignorance, at least admit you have no idea what it is you're talking about.

particles in must don't touch each other.  If they did then it would not be mist, it would be under water.
they collide, that's enough.

Then why can't they fly by colliding with gasses in the atmosphere?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 27, 2015, 04:00:05 AM

particles in must don't touch each other.  If they did then it would not be mist, it would be under water.
they collide, that's enough.

Then why can't they fly by colliding with gasses in the atmosphere?

because liquid and gas are completely different, and a molecule of the gases in the atmosphere have nowhere near the density of one molecule of water. add into that how liquid water is a hell of a lot more dense than supposed air...
are your eally comparing the two?
different state, completely different make-up...

because liquid and gas are completely different, and a molecule of the gases in the atmosphere have nowhere near the density of one molecule of water. add into that how liquid water is a hell of a lot more dense than supposed air...
are your eally comparing the two?
different state, completely different make-up...

A molecule does not have density. A group of molecules does.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 27, 2015, 01:02:48 PM

because liquid and gas are completely different, and a molecule of the gases in the atmosphere have nowhere near the density of one molecule of water. add into that how liquid water is a hell of a lot more dense than supposed air...
are your eally comparing the two?
different state, completely different make-up...

A molecule does not have density. A group of molecules does.

a molecule does have density: it has mass and volume.

a molecule does have density: it has mass and volume.

Yes, but you can't say a gas molecule of water has a smaller density than a liquid one. You can only say that a volume of gas water has a smaller density than a volume of liquid water.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 27, 2015, 01:17:33 PM

a molecule does have density: it has mass and volume.

Yes, but you can't say a gas molecule of water has a smaller density than a liquid one. You can only say that a volume of gas water has a smaller density than a volume of liquid water.

i was not talking about a gas molecule of water. air is not made of water.
but certain, include volume if you wish, i believed my meaning was clear.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 27, 2015, 12:56:29 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 27, 2015, 04:00:05 AM

particles in must don't touch each other.  If they did then it would not be mist, it would be under water.
they collide, that's enough.

Then why can't they fly by colliding with gasses in the atmosphere?

because liquid and gas are completely different, and a molecule of the gases in the atmosphere have nowhere near the density of one molecule of water. add into that how liquid water is a hell of a lot more dense than supposed air...
are your eally comparing the two?
different state, completely different make-up...

A molecule of oxygen or nitrogen, which make up most of air, have a very similar mass and density to that of a molecule of water.

Also fine droplets of water have a very high surface area to volume ratio, which makes their mass v surface area very low, allowing Brownian motion to become significant.

Finally, if you don't think clouds are chaotic then you clearly haven't watched a time lapse video of a cloud or watched Brownian motion in action. At molecular scales clouds, like any gas, are highly chaotic, but over large scales will behave more uniformly dependant upon ambient conditions.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 27, 2015, 12:56:29 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 27, 2015, 04:00:05 AM

particles in must don't touch each other.  If they did then it would not be mist, it would be under water.
they collide, that's enough.

Then why can't they fly by colliding with gasses in the atmosphere?

because liquid and gas are completely different, and a molecule of the gases in the atmosphere have nowhere near the density of one molecule of water. add into that how liquid water is a hell of a lot more dense than supposed air...
are your eally comparing the two?
different state, completely different make-up...

Individual water molecules are actually lighter then individual O² and N² molecules making up most of the atmosphere.  Fine must like that found in a cloud is made up of tiny groups of water molecules that are light enough to float around.  The reason water is heavier then air is because water molecules are generally more densely packed then air molecules.

If you take all three molecules in gas form and compare their atomic weights, you will see that water vapour will indeed be the lightest. H_sO (16+1+1)=18 O₂(2x16)=32 and N_{2(15x2)=30. This is basic maths and chemistry.
You profess to know about states of matter so I won't bother with that, but, as I previously highlighted, ingas form, these molecules both outweigh water.
Hope this helps.}

You need to throw in a little co2 for good measure. You cant make natural clouds with out it . JROWESKEPTIC is one fucken crazzy mojo.

A molecule of oxygen or nitrogen, which make up most of air, have a very similar mass and density to that of a molecule of water.
nitrogen is lighter than oxygen, and water has oxygen and more: so water is heavier. even ignoring that, even if they all somehow had the same weight, water is liquid. air is gas. there canot be nearly as much air hitting the droplets of water as you require.

The reason water is heavier then air is because water molecules are generally more densely packed then air molecules.
exactly. well done. why do you make a special exception for clouds? they're still much more dnesely packed.

you will see that water vapour will indeed be the lightest
we are not dealing with water vapor. we are dealing with a liquid. how many times do i need to repeat this?!

You need to throw in a little co2 for good measure. You cant make natural clouds with out it . JROWESKEPTIC is one fucken crazzy mojo.

i have a working model. you do not.
you've even constructed some bs about aether being what's between the poles on a magnet, which doesn't explain anything.
when your model works, then you can talk.

A molecule of oxygen or nitrogen, which make up most of air, have a very similar mass and density to that of a molecule of water.
nitrogen is lighter than oxygen, and water has oxygen and more: so water is heavier. even ignoring that, even if they all somehow had the same weight, water is liquid. air is gas. there canot be nearly as much air hitting the droplets of water as you require.

For fecks sake JRowe.

Nitrogen in air exists as N2 = 14
Oxygen exists as O2 = 16
Water is H2O = 10

Water is the lightest. What can't you understand this basic arithmetic?

A molecule of oxygen or nitrogen, which make up most of air, have a very similar mass and density to that of a molecule of water.
nitrogen is lighter than oxygen, and water has oxygen and more: so water is heavier. even ignoring that, even if they all somehow had the same weight, water is liquid. air is gas. there canot be nearly as much air hitting the droplets of water as you require.

The reason water is heavier then air is because water molecules are generally more densely packed then air molecules.
exactly. well done. why do you make a special exception for clouds? they're still much more dnesely packed.

you will see that water vapour will indeed be the lightest
we are not dealing with water vapor. we are dealing with a liquid. how many times do i need to repeat this?!

The Ixygen and Nitrogen in the air are not in molecular form, they are bonded with themselves to form O² and N², both of which are heavier then H²O.  Also, when water is in a cloud it's not densely packed because it was recently a gas and in order to become a liquid it has to condense in something.  Usually updrafts in clouds keep the water aloft, and those updrafts happen for many reasons including the humid air beneath them which is lighter then the surrounding air because of the water in it.

Water is the lightest. What can't you understand this basic arithmetic?
why can't you understand the difference between a gas and a liquid?

Also, when water is in a cloud it's not densely packed because it was recently a gas and in order to become a liquid it has to condense in something
false. clouds and liquid, just lots of small droplets. seriously, this is very basic knowledge and i am tired of having to repeat it.

which is lighter then the surrounding air because of the water in it.
so now having water in makes air lighter? make up your mind.

Water is the lightest. What can't you understand this basic arithmetic?
why can't you understand the difference between a gas and a liquid?

What difference does it make? Water is H2O in gas or liquid state. I don't know what you are getting at.

Water molecules in liquid form are attracted to each other by hydrogen bonding. This explains water's relatively high boiling point. As energy is added, more and more molecules have enough energy to escape this bonding and leave the water as vapour. Take the energy away, ie cool the vapour, as happens when it reaches a high enough altitude, and provide a surface, and the water condenses again forming rain. You do know about hydrogen bonding and van de Waals bonding yes? Surely you couldn't be re-writing chemistry without studying it to a very high level? Surely.

Also, when water is in a cloud it's not densely packed because it was recently a gas and in order to become a liquid it has to condense in something
false. clouds and liquid, just lots of small droplets. seriously, this is very basic knowledge and i am tired of having to repeat it.

which is lighter then the surrounding air because of the water in it.
so now having water in makes air lighter? make up your mind.

I know that clouds are just tiny droplets, read my posts.  They are just so tiny that they can float around in the air.  This is very basic knowlage I am tired of having to repeat it.

Water makes air lighter when it's a gas.  If you don't believe me then boil some water and notice how the steam rises up.  Please learn the difference between a liquid and a gas.

Water is H2O in gas or liquid state. I don't know what you are getting at.
in a gas, the molecules are separate: they are lighter. as a liquid, they are joined together, and so far heavier. do you seriously need states explained to you?!

and the water condenses again forming rain.
exactly: liquid water falls

They are just so tiny that they can float around in the air.  This is very basic knowlage I am tired of having to repeat it.
then don't just assert it, justify it.

Please learn the difference between a liquid and a gas.
i've learnt it. you, apparently, have not. you think that a mass with the combined weight of many thousand molecules of water somehow exerts less force than lone, independent, chaotically moving individual molecules of a similar, if not lighter, weight. with water, gas rises, liquid falls. i have been saying this multiple times, you've only responded with assertion and a blatant circular argument.

Don't just assert that there's a circular argument. Justify it! Explain!

If clouds are projections on the sky, how come we can see them from above from mountains and airplanes?

Don't just assert that there's a circular argument.
if you don't understand why "water is too heavy to fly, so clouds cannot exist... but clouds do exist so water flies!" is a circular argument then there is no point in trying to educate you.

If clouds are projections on the sky, how come we can see them from above from mountains and airplanes?
familiarize yourself with dual earth theory. the projections we are speaking of are projected through space, like the image of the sun (as i've said several times). it's just a result of shifting the light waves, they'd be visible from any direction.

Don't just assert that there's a circular argument.
if you don't understand why "water is too heavy to fly, so clouds cannot exist... but clouds do exist so water flies!" is a circular argument then there is no point in trying to educate you.

If clouds are projections on the sky, how come we can see them from above from mountains and airplanes?
familiarize yourself with dual earth theory. the projections we are speaking of are projected through space, like the image of the sun (as i've said several times). it's just a result of shifting the light waves, they'd be visible from any direction.

What do you mean by "shifting the light waves"?
Are the clouds holograms?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 29, 2015, 09:12:51 AM

Don't just assert that there's a circular argument.
if you don't understand why "water is too heavy to fly, so clouds cannot exist... but clouds do exist so water flies!" is a circular argument then there is no point in trying to educate you.

If clouds are projections on the sky, how come we can see them from above from mountains and airplanes?
familiarize yourself with dual earth theory. the projections we are speaking of are projected through space, like the image of the sun (as i've said several times). it's just a result of shifting the light waves, they'd be visible from any direction.

What do you mean by "shifting the light waves"?
Are the clouds holograms?

learn about dual earth theory. it is a similar principle to the sun. how many times must i repeat myself?

there is no word that perfectly describes it: the idea does not exist in the round earth model.

I know about dual-earth theory. Unlike the Sun though, we can travel around clouds and see that they are three-dimensional. So they cannot be simple projections. A 3D projection - a hologram - is incredibly complicated to produce, needing a lot of computing power. How can the Sun achieve this?

Quote from: Weatherwax on May 29, 2015, 09:34:20 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 29, 2015, 09:12:51 AM

Don't just assert that there's a circular argument.
if you don't understand why "water is too heavy to fly, so clouds cannot exist... but clouds do exist so water flies!" is a circular argument then there is no point in trying to educate you.

If clouds are projections on the sky, how come we can see them from above from mountains and airplanes?
familiarize yourself with dual earth theory. the projections we are speaking of are projected through space, like the image of the sun (as i've said several times). it's just a result of shifting the light waves, they'd be visible from any direction.

What do you mean by "shifting the light waves"?
Are the clouds holograms?

learn about dual earth theory. it is a similar principle to the sun. how many times must i repeat myself?

there is no word that perfectly describes it: the idea does not exist in the round earth model.

Where is your ground breaking optical research that would win you a Nobel prize?

I know about dual-earth theory.
you clearly do not. there is no computing power needed. there is nothing special going on, just light moving through space: it is the space that is 'projected: that is, it flows to a position above the earth. why would it not be visible from all directions?  if you knew the dual earth model of the sun, you would know that. the sun does not achieve it, aether does.

Where is your ground breaking optical research that would win you a Nobel prize?
if you're not even going to read anything i post, why do you ask questions that clearly have no merit?