tmiddles wrote:Over and over again they claim the 2nd LTD means radiance from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a warmer one.
So what do you do?
hint: you present one repeatable example of something.
Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
tmiddles wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:Not exactly. It's determined by body temperature but your skin is cooler than your heart sure. Of course your body regulates your temperature as it metabolizes the food you've eaten. You are almost always in an environment cooler than you are so it's making up the difference.tmiddles wrote:keepit wrote:the skin gets down to the ambient temp...No skin is about 91F in a 70F room. ...
No, I'm not buying any of that metaphysics stuff. It's just a lot of arguing, fight, insanity. Your body's insulating properties isn't 100%, everything, even 'greenhouse' gasses. Heat leaks, which makes sense to me, we aren't meant to be motionless, and motion also generates heat, which would need to be removed. Really would make any difference what the walls are emitting, since it's weaker than what the warm body is shedding. Your body has mechanisms to increase, and decrease the amount of heat lost as well. Seriously doubt a single number represents this. I don't believe math developed for inanimate objects, applies the same way to living bodies.
I've said this all before, more than once. But guess, you are going to ask that question again. And know what? I'm tempted to go through all 7 of your threads on this silly issue, and compile a list of all the answers give to you. Since you ask the same question, I'll just include the answers for you. Every time you repeat the question, I'll just copy/paste the list of answers...
You're just goofing off. You have yet to explain why you don't consider human radiance in a room not repeatable. Blah blah blah
You are disproven in every textbook and here:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference
With this example you've just ignored everything I've said from the beginning Harvey. No one has responded with any answer to how the calculation should be done (if they think I did it wrong). And I'll remind you it's just an example from a college physics text book. It proves this board is the victim of fraud by ITN/IBD.
Edited on 12-09-2019 09:24
|Into the Night★★★★★
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:
Repetious lies and questions that have already been answered.
The Parrot Killer