Energy source: evaporation - condensation (continuation)

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Energy source: evaporation - condensation (continuation) > Page 4

Page 4 of 5

31-01-2022 06:54
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:..,. Playing semantic games is your only interest... OK but you skipped this IBD. Why don't you school me: A woman reverses her jacket from white to black. The initial emissivity of the white jacket is different than the second emissivity of the black jacket. If you'd like we can agree it's not the same woman. Isn't the black jacketed woman absorbing more radiance that the earlier version of her with the white side of the jacket facing out? Edited on 31-01-2022 06:55
31-01-2022 08:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	tmiddles wrote:OK but you skipped this IBD. Nope. I answered you directly and once again you apparently ignored me ... so don't ask me to repeat something that I already answered that you decided to ignore. Hint #1. All your scenarios involving living organisms are bogus. Hint #2. How would the earth's mantle change if the crust were to change somewhat, considering the mantle has its own heat source? tmiddles wrote:Why don't you school me: I have been schooling you. I school you several times per day ... and you ignore me ... and then you claim I wrote something other than what I wrote. You do this because you are dishonest and you are only here to preach. You find learning to be too much work. tmiddles wrote:If you'd like we can agree it's not the same woman. I appreciate the failed attempt at mockery, seeing it is your way of admitting you've been schooled even though you haven't actually learning anything.
31-01-2022 10:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:..,. Playing semantic games is your only interest... OK but you skipped this IBD. Why don't you school me: He did not skip anything. He has schooled you. So have I. So has GFM. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: A woman reverses her jacket from white to black. The initial emissivity of the white jacket is different than the second emissivity of the black jacket. If you'd like we can agree it's not the same woman. Isn't the black jacketed woman absorbing more radiance that the earlier version of her with the white side of the jacket facing out? RQAA. Mantras 20a1...20a4...20b2...20e2...10k... Stop asking the same question over and over like a moron. It has already been answered multiple times by multiple people. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-01-2022 11:07
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:OK but you skipped this IBD. ...All your scenarios involving living organisms are bogus.... Not the the woman wearing the coat. Simple question: Would she find that she was receiving more warmth from the sun with the black side of the jacker outward or the white side?
31-01-2022 17:22
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: A bit of wisdom I will share on this matter: The whole idea of Global Warming being a "matter of consensus" is just a disguise for standard Marxist propaganda which, above all else, plays on a particular aspect of social psychology and of human behavior. The false underlying assumption is that their side is the majority side. Humans tend to just obey what they believe "everybody else" is doing and to accept as "correct" those ideas that "everybody else" believes. You get a bit into this later on, but this tactic is quite common in general politics. -- For one example, it's playing out right now in the Canadian Trucker "gimme my freedom back, bitch!" Convoy. First, Turdeau lies, attempting to frame the longest convoy in the world (and all of the people gathering at the bypasses and along the sides of the road with signs/displays to cheer them on and show solidarity with them) as a "small fringe minority". Then, Turdeau lies again, attempting to continue his abusive relationship with the Canadian citizens, by proactively claiming victimhood status even though HE is the abuser in this situation. Here are some signs that one might be in an abusive relationship (there's some overlap here). How many of these apply with regard to our relationship with our own government (whether in Canada, the SODC, Australia, New Zealand, etc)? Are we in an abusive relationship with our own government? You decide: 1. Stop you from seeing friends and family. 2. Won't let you leave home without permission. 3. Tell you what to wear. 4. Monitor/control your communication (phone, emails, etc). 5. Monitor/control your finances (such as not letting you work). 6. Monitor/control what you read, watch, say. 7. Monitor/control your actions in general. 8. Punish you for breaking rules that keep changing. 9. Tell you it's for your own good. They know better. 10. Don't allow you to question decisions. 11. Tell you you're crazy and nobody agrees with you. 12. Call you names and shame you for being selfish. 13. Gaslight you, challenge your memory of events, make you doubt yourself. 14. Dismiss your opinions. 15. Play the victim if things go wrong. It's all YOUR fault.

31-01-2022 17:28
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Car A is not Car B is not Car C. So if the emissivity of Earth changed it's not Earth anymore? hmmm : ) Earth A is not Earth B is not Earth C. This has already been explained to you. --- You have yet to answer the question of why any rational adult should believe that Earth's emissivity is changing... ??? tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: You have them by the privates Tmid.Its fun to watch them wriggle... I didn't even do it, it's all automated with these guys. They have to NEVER admit they said something wrong or stupid so the insanity begins when the say something dead wrong. I've been learning about this and it seems it's a normal human limitation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance Projection. This is YOUR issue, not mine (or IBD's or ITN's). Wikipedia is dismissed on sight. You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference in discussion with me (I do not accept it as a valid source). tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The emissivity of this car does not change when it changes color. So the color of an object does not factor in to it's emissivity according to you? Really fascinating please do go on. Is this your bogus position of the day for ITN? tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:While correct, the paint color also does not necessarily even change emissivity. huh? I thought you said it didn't? tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Changing a car's paint renders it a different object. So every time the surface of anything changes according to you it's no longer the same object (the previous object being DESTROYED, your words). So if the surface of Earth changes at all, if someone cuts down just one tree or opens an umbrella, it's no longer the Earth? But really, we can just set that aside right? Since it's a semantic game. How about this: A woman reverses her jacket from white to black. The initial emissivity of the white jacket is different than the second emissivity of the black jacket. And who cares if you think it's no longer the same woman. Sound about right? Same tripe that's already been addressed ad nauseum. Edited on 31-01-2022 17:44
31-01-2022 17:38
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...So, if the earth changes, you can't grasp how there is no longer the previous earth, and that there is now only the new, different earth? ... Yeah sure no problem. Don't care at all about semantic games. Precision of language is not "semantic gameplaying". You are purposely conflating colloquial terminology with physics terminology, only fooling the duncans and keepits of this forum. You are NOT fooling anyone on this forum who knows a small bit about science and can think for themselves. You are NOT fooling anyone who is wise to your Marxist tactics. tmiddles wrote: But really, we can just set that aside right? Since it's a semantic game. Science is not a semantic game. I am NOT going to "set it aside". tmiddles wrote: tmiddles wrote: How about this: A woman reverses her jacket from white to black. The initial emissivity of the white jacket is different than the second emissivity of the black jacket. And who cares if you think it's no longer the same woman. Sound about right? ? Repetition of the same stupid BS... RQAA. Edited on 31-01-2022 17:45
31-01-2022 17:47
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	duncan61 wrote: My wife has a silver jeep patriot and I have a matt black jeep cherokee and they are both parked next to each other in the sun.Neither are destroyed Did anyone say that they were??? (HINT: Like a good lawyer, I am only asking questions that I already know the answer to)
31-01-2022 18:06
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:..,. Playing semantic games is your only interest... OK but you skipped this IBD. Why don't you school me: He already did. tmiddles wrote: A woman reverses her jacket from white to black. OBJECT #1: a white jacket. There is an emissivity value (a measured constant) with regard to this particular object. OBJECT #2: a black jacket. There is an emissivity value (a measured constant) with regard to this particular object. tmiddles wrote: The initial emissivity of the white jacket is different than the second emissivity of the black jacket. There is no "initial emissivity" and "second emissivity" (I do realize that your fundamentalism causes you to make use of this sort of language). As I said above, there is a specific emissivity value for the white jacket and there is a specific emissivity value for the black jacket. In both cases, the emissivity value is a measured constant. In both cases, emissivity is not a variable (ergo it does not change). Why should any rational adult believe that the Earth's emissivity is changing? tmiddles wrote: If you'd like we can agree it's not the same woman. Isn't the black jacketed woman absorbing more radiance that the earlier version of her with the white side of the jacket facing out? Leave the woman out of it. Let's just focus on the jackets themselves. Object A is not Object B is not Object C. Each object has an emissivity value (which is a measured constant, not a variable).
31-01-2022 18:11
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:OK but you skipped this IBD. ...All your scenarios involving living organisms are bogus.... Not the the woman wearing the coat. Your "woman wearing the coat" scenario involves living organisms. Ergo, your scenario is bogus. tmiddles wrote: Simple question: Would she find that she was receiving more warmth from the sun with the black side of the jacker outward or the white side? Simple question: Why should any rational adult believe that the Earth's emissivity is changing?
31-01-2022 18:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	gfm7175 wrote: duncan61 wrote:My wife has a silver jeep patriot and I have a matt black jeep cherokee and they are both parked next to each other in the sun.Neither are destroyed Did anyone say that they were??? (HINT: Like a good lawyer, I am only asking questions that I already know the answer to) Duncan knows this. Duncan is dishonest and, like most dishonest intellectual cowards, he is pretending to mock others as his way of trying to save face in light of his cognitive shortcomings having already been revealed. Duncan realizes that nobody is going to confuse his religious regurgitations for value-added contributions so he makes lame attempts to insult out of petty spite. Have you noticed how Duncan rails on warmizombies for their belief in Global Warming ... yet does not dare press tmiddles on any of the same issues ... so that tmiddles doesn't therefore begin pressing him in return on how earth's gravity causes Greenhouse Effect and not CO2? Notice how Duncan and tmiddles are so threatened by others on this site that they are willing to suppress their own religious views for the moment and to unite in solidarity of dishonesty. Too funny.
31-01-2022 19:29
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: duncan61 wrote:My wife has a silver jeep patriot and I have a matt black jeep cherokee and they are both parked next to each other in the sun.Neither are destroyed Did anyone say that they were??? (HINT: Like a good lawyer, I am only asking questions that I already know the answer to) Duncan knows this. Duncan is dishonest and, like most dishonest intellectual cowards, he is pretending to mock others as his way of trying to save face in light of his cognitive shortcomings having already been revealed. Duncan realizes that nobody is going to confuse his religious regurgitations for value-added contributions so he makes lame attempts to insult out of petty spite. Have you noticed how Duncan rails on warmizombies for their belief in Global Warming ... yet does not dare press tmiddles on any of the same issues ... so that tmiddles doesn't therefore begin pressing him in return on how earth's gravity causes Greenhouse Effect and not CO2? Notice how Duncan and tmiddles are so threatened by others on this site that they are willing to suppress their own religious views for the moment and to unite in solidarity of dishonesty. Too funny. Yes, I have definitely noticed those things.
31-01-2022 20:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:OK but you skipped this IBD. ...All your scenarios involving living organisms are bogus.... Not the the woman wearing the coat. Simple question: Would she find that she was receiving more warmth from the sun with the black side of the jacker outward or the white side? She is the same temperature. RQAA. This question has already been answered. Stop asking it over and over like a moron. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-01-2022 21:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Car A is not Car B is not Car C. So if the emissivity of Earth changed it's not Earth anymore? hmmm : ) Earth A is not Earth B is not Earth C. This has already been explained to you. --- You have yet to answer the question of why any rational adult should believe that Earth's emissivity is changing... ??? Correct. He is just assuming that it is, and treating a measured constant as a variable. As you know, the emissivity of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured, since it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. He is also ignoring that higher emissivity means not only a greater portion of energy can be absorbed (not all of it is converted to thermal energy), but a greater emissivity also means more thermal energy it converted to electromagnetic energy via the Stefan-Boltzmann law, cooling the radiating surface. As anyone that is familiar with cars on a hot day, a some darker cars will heat up faster than a some other cars. They cool off faster once the Sun goes down too. The interior of such car is not necessarily hotter than the interior of any other car. Regardless of the color of a car or interior, don't leave your dog in the car on a hot day. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: You have them by the privates Tmid.Its fun to watch them wriggle... I didn't even do it, it's all automated with these guys. They have to NEVER admit they said something wrong or stupid so the insanity begins when the say something dead wrong. I've been learning about this and it seems it's a normal human limitation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance Projection. This is YOUR issue, not mine (or IBD's or ITN's). Wikipedia is dismissed on sight. You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference in discussion with me (I do not accept it as a valid source). He cannot use it with me either. Wikipedia denies science and mathematics. Too many of it's articles are incomplete, badly written, biased, or just plain wrong. The 'references' these articles use have the same problems. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The emissivity of this car does not change when it changes color. So the color of an object does not factor in to it's emissivity according to you? Really fascinating please do go on. Is this your bogus position of the day for ITN? As you know, this question has already been answered. Color does NOT determine emissivity. While white paint may reflect most visible light, it may appear quite 'dark' for nonvisible light such as infrared or ultraviolet or certain frequencies of radio waves. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:While correct, the paint color also does not necessarily even change emissivity. huh? I thought you said it didn't? tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Changing a car's paint renders it a different object. So every time the surface of anything changes according to you it's no longer the same object (the previous object being DESTROYED, your words). So if the surface of Earth changes at all, if someone cuts down just one tree or opens an umbrella, it's no longer the Earth? But really, we can just set that aside right? Since it's a semantic game. How about this: A woman reverses her jacket from white to black. The initial emissivity of the white jacket is different than the second emissivity of the black jacket. And who cares if you think it's no longer the same woman. Sound about right? Same tripe that's already been addressed ad nauseum. Indeed it has. Each of these questions of his has already been answered several times. He's just being a moron asking them over and over. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-01-2022 21:12
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	To IBdaMann: I suggest that you add the question "Why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of Earth is changing?" to your list of Questions for tmiddles that Remain Unanswered. I only thought of this because I got thinking once again about the Official tmiddles Preemption Ordinance (for obvious reasons).

31-01-2022 21:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: duncan61 wrote:My wife has a silver jeep patriot and I have a matt black jeep cherokee and they are both parked next to each other in the sun.Neither are destroyed Did anyone say that they were??? (HINT: Like a good lawyer, I am only asking questions that I already know the answer to) Duncan knows this. Duncan is dishonest and, like most dishonest intellectual cowards, he is pretending to mock others as his way of trying to save face in light of his cognitive shortcomings having already been revealed. Duncan realizes that nobody is going to confuse his religious regurgitations for value-added contributions so he makes lame attempts to insult out of petty spite. Yup. This is exactly what he is doing. He has returned to the religious fold when one of his own got threatened by science and mathematics. IBdaMann wrote: Have you noticed how Duncan rails on warmizombies for their belief in Global Warming ... yet does not dare press tmiddles on any of the same issues ... so that tmiddles doesn't therefore begin pressing him in return on how earth's gravity causes Greenhouse Effect and not CO2? He still holds that CO2 warms the Earth. Remember he went out and bought a CO2 meter looking for evidence that it does. He still believes that CO2 contributes to warming the Earth, ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. All his measurements have done is convince him (partially) that the 'data' is invalid. IBdaMann wrote: Notice how Duncan and tmiddles are so threatened by others on this site that they are willing to suppress their own religious views for the moment and to unite in solidarity of dishonesty. Too funny. This is the very nature of religion. When one is threatened, the others will unite around them like this. A 'circle the wagons' kind of thing. It also happens to be the nature of self defense. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-01-2022 21:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	gfm7175 wrote: To IBdaMann: I suggest that you add the question "Why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of Earth is changing?" to your list of Questions for tmiddles that Remain Unanswered. I only thought of this because I got thinking once again about the Official tmiddles Preemption Ordinance (for obvious reasons). Already there in the Mantra list. It is various forms of Mantra 25, usually 25g, often combined with 25e. It is also covered in the Data Mine. I have already discussed my standards for accepting data in there. Whether IBD considers this an 'unanswered question' is up to him. It's actually been answered, though not by TMiddles. There is really no way for him to answer such a question without hitting Mantra 25. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 31-01-2022 21:22
31-01-2022 21:20
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: A woman reverses her jacket from white to black. OBJECT #1: a white jacket. There is an emissivity value (a measured constant) with regard to this particular object. OBJECT #2: a black jacket. There is an emissivity value (a measured constant) with regard to this particular object. And object 1 and object 2, as you have chosen to describe Linda at 2:02pm and 2:03pm, would absorb different amounts of sunlight correct?
31-01-2022 21:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: A woman reverses her jacket from white to black. OBJECT #1: a white jacket. There is an emissivity value (a measured constant) with regard to this particular object. OBJECT #2: a black jacket. There is an emissivity value (a measured constant) with regard to this particular object. And object 1 and object 2, as you have chosen to describe Linda at 2:02pm and 2:03pm, would absorb different amounts of sunlight correct? RQAA. Stop asking this question over and over like a moron. It's been answered. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-01-2022 21:23
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: A woman reverses her jacket from white to black. OBJECT #1: a white jacket. There is an emissivity value (a measured constant) with regard to this particular object. OBJECT #2: a black jacket. There is an emissivity value (a measured constant) with regard to this particular object. And object 1 and object 2, as you have chosen to describe Linda at 2:02pm and 2:03pm, would absorb different amounts of sunlight correct? Violation of the tmiddles ordinance.
31-01-2022 21:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: Awe don't give up gfm Here's the riddle: how can it be that someone in a black jacket has MORE energy from the sun turning into thermal energy than in a white jacket? I mean is there ADDITIONAL energy? Same sun and all.
31-01-2022 21:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Awe don't give up gfm Here's the riddle: how can it be that someone in a black jacket has MORE energy from the sun turning into thermal energy than in a white jacket? I mean is there ADDITIONAL energy? Same sun and all. RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over like a moron. It's been answered. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-01-2022 21:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	gfm7175 wrote:Your "woman wearing the coat" scenario involves living organisms. Ergo, your scenario is bogus. You gave the correct response. In physics, whenever a science model is being discussed or a law of nature is being analyzed, the principle in question must be isolated, not convoluted. Any demonstrations of the principle must isolate that principle to remove other factors from potentially causing the effect in question. On the other end of the complexity spectrum, life is exceedingly complex and allows nothing to be isolated because all living organisms are tightly integrated and interconnected systems. We cannot create life out of inanimate matter in any laboratory, and we still have not been able to define death in a scientific sense, only in a legal sense. There are people who get into legal trouble because they pronounced someone "dead" when others claim he was still "alive". Whether you believe God created life as it is today or you believe life evolved over a few billion years, life is mind-numbingly complicated and resides outside our full comprehension. Ergo, any scenario centered around a living organism cannot isolate any principle of science. Anyone who is dishonestly convoluting a science model or who is intentionally attempting to disrupt an otherwise honest discussion might insist on placing an unnecessary living organism at the center of the scenario in question. This is why tmiddles uses the avatar image that he does. It is his attempt to "clearly show" that thermal energy can flow from cold to warm, by presenting a convoluted scenario of a man's "core temperature" (whatever that is) being monitored in a cool room by an infrared camera ... because obviously that shows thermal energy flowing from cold to warm, right? This, in turn, shows that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong and cannot be used to make a mockery of Global Warming. Then we move on to drawing conclusions about a woman's core temperature based on the color of her jacket. Any attempts to debate the scenario will garner mockery concerning the woman being destroyed. I would like to point out that the standard Global Warming parlor trick does a great job of isolating the physics principle of heating CO2 via infrared lamps in an otherwise dark, sealed basement studio. The parlor trick fools the stupid who don't question why that particular principle is being isolated and not that of the full spectrum of sunlight in the complete outdoors atmosphere just like what they are being told is being demonstrated. tmiddles wrote:Simple question: Would she find that she was receiving more warmth from the sun ... Simple question: What is "warmth" in a physics context? Is it everything you ever wanted it to be, and more, all at the same time? [*find-livingorganismsinphysics]
31-01-2022 21:59
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Awe don't give up gfm I didn't... You just continue to act like a moron, asking the same questions over and over again, so I am now enforcing the tmiddles ordinance once again. tmiddles wrote: Here's the riddle: how can it be that someone in a black jacket has MORE energy from the sun turning into thermal energy than in a white jacket? I mean is there ADDITIONAL energy? Same sun and all. Continued egregious violation of the tmiddles ordinance, ergo your moronic post is summarily dismissed.
31-01-2022 22:04
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:Your "woman wearing the coat" scenario involves living organisms. Ergo, your scenario is bogus. You gave the correct response. In physics, whenever a science model is being discussed or a law of nature is being analyzed, the principle in question must be isolated, not convoluted. OK sure How about a dead woman floating in the void of space has a jacket on, and it's reversed from white to black. Doe the corpse reach a higher equilibrium temperature? Yes How? Is there additional energy?
31-01-2022 22:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	Awe don't give up tmiddles ... Here's the riddle: how can it be that someone in the same jacket is simply not acquiring MORE energy from the sun just because someone else sprays CO2 into the atmosphere? I mean is there NO ADDITIONAL energy? Same jacket and all.
31-01-2022 22:09
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Awe don't give up tmiddles ... Here's the riddle: how can it be that someone in the same jacket is simply not acquiring MORE energy from the sun just because someone else sprays CO2 into the atmosphere? I mean is there NO ADDITIONAL energy? Same jacket and all. How about this IBD: "In physics, whenever a science model is being discussed or a law of nature is being analyzed, the principle in question must be isolated, not convoluted." Let's isolate just the color of the surface of the jacket on a dead body floating in space. Sound good? ISOLATE just the color going from white to black. The orbital corpse would increase in temperature correct? How????
31-01-2022 22:12
keepit ★★★★★ (3070)	ibd, That person isn't acquiring more energy. The person is retaining more energy because energy is being dissipated more slowly. It's kind of like money - if you spend less per unit of time and receive the same amount per unit of time, your net worth will increase.
31-01-2022 22:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	tmiddles wrote:OK sure How about a dead woman floating in the void of space has a jacket on, and it's reversed from white to black. Doe the corpse reach a higher equilibrium temperature? It still depends, and you don't understand why. Remove all unnecessary organisms, alive or dead, from your scenarios, and replace "jackets" and "sheets" and "panels" with simply "higher/lower emissivity surface" ... ... and include the specific process involved that changed the surface ... ... be prepared to unambiguously define your terms ... ... and then ask your question.
31-01-2022 22:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:OK sure How about a dead woman floating in the void of space has a jacket on, and it's reversed from white to black. Doe the corpse reach a higher equilibrium temperature? It still depends, and you don't understand why. Remove all unnecessary organisms, alive or dead, from your scenarios, and replace "jackets" and "sheets" and "panels" with simply "higher/lower emissivity surface" ... ... and include the specific process involved that changed the surface ... ... be prepared to unambiguously define your terms ... ... and then ask your question. OK A rectangular solid similar in shape to a 4x8 sheet of plywood is floating in space around the sun. One side is black, one side is white. It is very slowly rotating so that 1/2 the time the white side of the sheet faces the sun, and half the time the black side does. You may define any terms you like. When the black side faces the sun more radiance is absorbed and the object reaches a higher mean temperature than when the white side is facing the sun. How can this be according to you?

31-01-2022 22:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Awe don't give up tmiddles ... Here's the riddle: how can it be that someone in the same jacket is simply not acquiring MORE energy from the sun just because someone else sprays CO2 into the atmosphere? I mean is there NO ADDITIONAL energy? Same jacket and all. How about this IBD: "In physics, whenever a science model is being discussed or a law of nature is being analyzed, the principle in question must be isolated, not convoluted." Let's isolate just the color of the surface of the jacket on a dead body floating in space. Sound good? ISOLATE just the color going from white to black. The orbital corpse would increase in temperature correct? How???? RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over like a moron. It's already been answered. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-01-2022 22:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	keepit wrote:...deleted Mantras 20a2...20a3...20a4...20b2...20e2... RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over like a moron. It's already been answered. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-01-2022 22:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:OK sure How about a dead woman floating in the void of space has a jacket on, and it's reversed from white to black. Doe the corpse reach a higher equilibrium temperature? It still depends, and you don't understand why. Remove all unnecessary organisms, alive or dead, from your scenarios, and replace "jackets" and "sheets" and "panels" with simply "higher/lower emissivity surface" ... ... and include the specific process involved that changed the surface ... ... be prepared to unambiguously define your terms ... ... and then ask your question. OK A rectangular solid similar in shape to a 4x8 sheet of plywood is floating in space around the sun. One side is black, one side is white. It is very slowly rotating so that 1/2 the time the white side of the sheet faces the sun, and half the time the black side does. You may define any terms you like. When the black side faces the sun more radiance is absorbed and the object reaches a higher mean temperature than when the white side is facing the sun. How can this be according to you? Mantras 20a4...20b3...20e2...20g...25a...25b...25f...29... RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over like a moron. It's already been answered. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-01-2022 23:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	tmiddles wrote:OK I will reword what you write into a physics context, and you specify anything you just cannot accept. tmiddles wrote:A rectangular solid similar in shape to a 4x8 sheet of plywood is floating in space around the sun. An organic 4'x8'xone-fourth" object of indeterminable emissivity is orbiting within the heliosphere. tmiddles wrote: One side is black, one side is white. It is very slowly rotating so that 1/2 the time the white side of the sheet faces the sun, and half the time the black side does. Contradiction. Either side is only facing the sun for a fleeting moment, and then is no longer facing the sun anymore as it slowly rotates to face away from the sun, further and further and further. It also appears that you don't realize that the visible colors "black" and "white" only pertain to the absorption of visible light, and determine nothing about an object's emissivity over all wavelengths. Perhaps you think that visible light is all there is. Perhaps you've never heard of "infrared," "ultraviolet," "HF," "LF," "gamma" or any others. I'm not holding out much hope that you are going to provide a well-expressed scenario that isolates the principle of your question such that it can be discussed in a physics context. You've had years to independently learn Stefan-Boltzmann and to learn about emissivity but apparently, you haven't been able to do so ... for what seem to be obvious reasons. Instead of erroneously falling back on "black" and "white" ... really, just go with one object/side is of "high emissivity" and the other is of "low emissivity." tmiddles wrote:You may define any terms you like. ... but you are the one who needs to do that, unless you're fine with me making it my scenario.
31-01-2022 23:04
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: No it's would not be a fleeting moment. A slowly spinning rectangle would have plenty of sun exposure on either side. There is a higher and a lower emissivity. That would cause a higher and a lower mean temp. The objects temperature would change depending on which side was currently receiving radiance from the sun. Would you like to explain your take on the thermodynamics?
31-01-2022 23:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	tmiddles wrote:No it's would not be a fleeting moment. We cannot proceed until you educate yourself on basic geometry. tmiddles wrote:There is a higher and a lower emissivity. Not until you specify such. tmiddles wrote: That would cause a higher and a lower mean temp. The objects temperature would change depending on which side was currently receiving radiance from the sun. Except that there will be times when the angle is such that the "higher emissivity" side is receiving less solar energy than other times when the "lower emissivity side" is receiving more solar energy. Your scenario is unnecessarily convoluted and becomes self-defeating. You're not very good at this. You should make for a more efficient use of your time and just jump to how you believe Greenhouse Effect works, in an entirely physics context, and I'll explain where your understanding is wrong. We could clear this up and set you straight in just a couple of posts.
31-01-2022 23:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: No it's would not be a fleeting moment. A slowly spinning rectangle would have plenty of sun exposure on either side. There is a higher and a lower emissivity. That would cause a higher and a lower mean temp. The objects temperature would change depending on which side was currently receiving radiance from the sun. Would you like to explain your take on the thermodynamics? There is no such thing as a 'mean temperature' (all temperatures a really very nice ). RQAA. The object's temperature would not change. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. Mantras 20a1...20b2...20b3...20f...20g...25b...25f...25l...31a...39o... The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-02-2022 03:04
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Except that there will be times when the angle is such that the "higher emissivity" side is receiving less solar energy than other times when the "lower emissivity side" is receiving more solar energy. OK good point IBD. Let's make it simpler: A sphere, exposed to the sun, has an emissivity of 0.1 and it's core has reached an equilibrium temperature of X degrees. Sound OK so far?
01-02-2022 03:04
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:There is a higher and a lower emissivity. Not until you specify such. Why is that necessary?
01-02-2022 04:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:There is a higher and a lower emissivity. Not until you specify such. Why is that necessary? If you are proposing a scenario, you have to specify everything about the scenario.

Page 4 of 5

Join the debate Energy source: evaporation - condensation (continuation):

Threads	Replies	Last post
WHEN IS OPEN SOURCE AI NOT OPEN SOURCE AI?	42	26-07-2023 02:56
GENERATING ENTANGLED QUBITS AND QUDITS WITH FULLY ON-CHIP PHOTONIC QUANTUM SOURCE	17	03-05-2023 23:06
The source of energy is evaporation-condensation	96	14-09-2022 18:30
The Savior Last Gift: Will Reveal The Secret Of Life, The Source Of All Creation With Worthy Beings	5	19-06-2021 02:49
The Ultimate Purpose Of Living Is Know Who You Are & The Source Of All Creation	7	13-06-2021 09:55