"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11cmojcqc04a3e0@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4bJye.1269$Ae.943@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
> > is a component of
> > the atmosphere properly referred to as an
> > 'object'?
>
> i was referencing the atomic weight of the gas and you know it, now stop
> with the red herrings already and stay on topic.

As I stated, it gets to the heart of the matter... you treat
each component of the gas as an 'object'... they are not
available as 'objects', since they are mixed in suspension.
The atmosphere is continuously roiled by thermal effects...
the scenario you're describing is a closed system near
absolute zero... nothing like the Earth's atmosphere.

You still haven't told me why the whole world is wrong...
your vocabulary is improving, though.

> bottom line, a heavier
> object (or liquid, or gas) will settle below a lighter one at _any_ altitude
> and not just above a magical number as you stated earlier.

Then why does the atmosphere mix? Up to 100km,
amorphous!
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11cmt407a9m2d45@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:GrJye.1283$Ae.1226@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
>
> >> TRANSLATION --> "if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it"
>
>>*That's* what they teach at the NeoCon seminars...
>>witness the confusion between 9/11 and Saddam.

>
> as if you could hide it otherwise? lol

Hide the confusion between 9/11 and Saddam?
It's been proven... the more Fox you watch,
the more you believe this crap.

>
> >> TRANSLATION --> "i cannot prove its origin"
>
> > Why should I bother?
>
> TRANSLATION --> "youre right. i cannot prove its origin"

No really! Why should I bother to try and prove
anything to you? You'd just stonewall, even if
Jesus H. Christ and Dale Earnhardt came down
and told you the truth. I'm just here to let you
look stupider and stupider.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11cmt407a9m2d45@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:GrJye.1283$Ae.1226@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
>
> >> TRANSLATION --> "if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it"
>
>>*That's* what they teach at the NeoCon seminars...
>>witness the confusion between 9/11 and Saddam.

>
> as if you could hide it otherwise? lol

Hide the confusion between 9/11 and Saddam?
It's been proven... the more Fox you watch,
the more you believe this crap.

>
> >> TRANSLATION --> "i cannot prove its origin"
>
> > Why should I bother?
>
> TRANSLATION --> "youre right. i cannot prove its origin"

No really! Why should I bother to try and prove
anything to you? You'd just stonewall, even if
Jesus H. Christ and Dale Earnhardt came down
and told you the truth. I'm just here to let you
look stupider and stupider.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11cmt407a9m2d45@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:GrJye.1283$Ae.1226@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
>
> >> TRANSLATION --> "if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it"
>
>>*That's* what they teach at the NeoCon seminars...
>>witness the confusion between 9/11 and Saddam.

>
> as if you could hide it otherwise? lol

Hide the confusion between 9/11 and Saddam?
It's been proven... the more Fox you watch,
the more you believe this crap.

>
> >> TRANSLATION --> "i cannot prove its origin"
>
> > Why should I bother?
>
> TRANSLATION --> "youre right. i cannot prove its origin"

No really! Why should I bother to try and prove
anything to you? You'd just stonewall, even if
Jesus H. Christ and Dale Earnhardt came down
and told you the truth. I'm just here to let you
look stupider and stupider.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11cmt407a9m2d45@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:GrJye.1283$Ae.1226@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
>
> >> TRANSLATION --> "if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it"
>
>>*That's* what they teach at the NeoCon seminars...
>>witness the confusion between 9/11 and Saddam.

>
> as if you could hide it otherwise? lol

Hide the confusion between 9/11 and Saddam?
It's been proven... the more Fox you watch,
the more you believe this crap.

>
> >> TRANSLATION --> "i cannot prove its origin"
>
> > Why should I bother?
>
> TRANSLATION --> "youre right. i cannot prove its origin"

No really! Why should I bother to try and prove
anything to you? You'd just stonewall, even if
Jesus H. Christ and Dale Earnhardt came down
and told you the truth. I'm just here to let you
look stupider and stupider.
__
Steve
..

 

It's god, 90% of the dry weight of plants comes from the carbon
dioxide in the air, it follows that the things we see in plants and the
millions of acres of forest which cover the face of the earth, are made
of things that we can't see.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> As I stated, it gets to the heart of the matter... you treat
> each component of the gas as an 'object'... they are not
> available as 'objects', since they are mixed in suspension.
> The atmosphere is continuously roiled by thermal effects...
> the scenario you're describing is a closed system near
> absolute zero... nothing like the Earth's atmosphere.
>
> You still haven't told me why the whole world is wrong...
> your vocabulary is improving, though.
>
> Then why does the atmosphere mix? Up to 100km,
> amorphous!
> __
> Steve
> .

 

It's god, 90% of the dry weight of plants comes from the carbon
dioxide in the air, it follows that the things we see in plants and the
millions of acres of forest which cover the face of the earth, are made
of things that we can't see.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> As I stated, it gets to the heart of the matter... you treat
> each component of the gas as an 'object'... they are not
> available as 'objects', since they are mixed in suspension.
> The atmosphere is continuously roiled by thermal effects...
> the scenario you're describing is a closed system near
> absolute zero... nothing like the Earth's atmosphere.
>
> You still haven't told me why the whole world is wrong...
> your vocabulary is improving, though.
>
> Then why does the atmosphere mix? Up to 100km,
> amorphous!
> __
> Steve
> .

 

It's god, 90% of the dry weight of plants comes from the carbon
dioxide in the air, it follows that the things we see in plants and the
millions of acres of forest which cover the face of the earth, are made
of things that we can't see.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> As I stated, it gets to the heart of the matter... you treat
> each component of the gas as an 'object'... they are not
> available as 'objects', since they are mixed in suspension.
> The atmosphere is continuously roiled by thermal effects...
> the scenario you're describing is a closed system near
> absolute zero... nothing like the Earth's atmosphere.
>
> You still haven't told me why the whole world is wrong...
> your vocabulary is improving, though.
>
> Then why does the atmosphere mix? Up to 100km,
> amorphous!
> __
> Steve
> .

 

It's god, 90% of the dry weight of plants comes from the carbon
dioxide in the air, it follows that the things we see in plants and the
millions of acres of forest which cover the face of the earth, are made
of things that we can't see.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
> As I stated, it gets to the heart of the matter... you treat
> each component of the gas as an 'object'... they are not
> available as 'objects', since they are mixed in suspension.
> The atmosphere is continuously roiled by thermal effects...
> the scenario you're describing is a closed system near
> absolute zero... nothing like the Earth's atmosphere.
>
> You still haven't told me why the whole world is wrong...
> your vocabulary is improving, though.
>
> Then why does the atmosphere mix? Up to 100km,
> amorphous!
> __
> Steve
> .

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1h_ye.1397$Ae.373@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com. ..
> they are not
> available as 'objects', since they are mixed

making them even heavier. :-)



--
Nathan W. Collier
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com