Energy source: evaporation - condensation (continuation)
| 28-01-2022 00:33 | |
tmiddles ★★★★★(3979) |
gfm7175 wrote:tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Of course it is, all the time. Are you under the impression the emissivity of an object cannot change? That means believing it's not possible for an object to change color, go from dull to shiny, ect. |
| 28-01-2022 00:36 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21599) |
keepit wrote: The emissivity of Earth is unknown. keepit wrote: Emissivity is not determined by material makeup. keepit wrote: Google is a biased indexing system. Google is not God. False authority fallacy. 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 |
| 28-01-2022 01:28 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
tmid, They do pretend, but why? |
| 28-01-2022 02:02 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
keepit wrote: Because it's not about understanding it's about not losing for them. They know they are wrong and can't win, so it's just an attempt to avoid admitting they are wrong. |
| 28-01-2022 03:09 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14414) |
tmiddles wrote:keepit wrote:tmid, They do pretend, but why?Because it's not about understanding it's about not losing for them. Too funny! tmiddles now has to snuggle up to keepit. The liar is turning to the stupidest present in search of a sympathetic ear. Would anybody care to hazard a guess as to how long it will be before tmiddles gives up in frustration, realizing that keepit is not someone of any cognitive capacity? Does tmiddles even know that keepit thinks that printing dollars somehow does not increase the number of dollars? Has tmiddles yet realized that keepit can only respond in irrelevant quips and questions and that he is unable to grasp the concept of "making a point"? @tmiddles, keepit might be the only one on this site who will believe your implication that science is somehow in danger of being wrong. tmiddles wrote: They know they are wrong and can't win, Not by any argument you've made, however I'd be happy to entertain your reasoning for why a rational adult should accept your as-yet unsupported premise that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing. Unfortunately, you still haven't been able to even get out of the starting gate.  tmiddles wrote:...so it's just an attempt to avoid admitting they are wrong. It's up to you to prove science wrong, although I am unduly honored by the way you equate me with science. Anyway, if you can provide a compelling, rational reason that a rational adult should believe your as-yet unsupported assumption that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing, I will happily embrace your assumption. Until you provide such reasoning, I will not be embracing your assumption.  If a steel ball is not rusting and its surface is not changing, its emissivity is not changing. |
| 28-01-2022 03:49 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
The emissivity is changing because the atmosphere is changing. |
| 28-01-2022 04:30 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:Is it possible for a steel ball to rust and have it's emissivity change? |
| 28-01-2022 04:38 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
keepit wrote: That does not change emissivity. 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 |
| 28-01-2022 04:38 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Is it possible for a steel ball to rust and have it's emissivity change? RQAA 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 |
| 28-01-2022 04:40 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Is it possible for a steel ball to rust and have it's emissivity change? Yes you did answer that. Right here: Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote: So: keepit wrote: Keepit, ITN is simply coocoo. He claims emissivity cannot change. Makes no sense but that's ITN for you. Edited on 28-01-2022 04:41 |
| 28-01-2022 04:46 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Is it possible for a steel ball to rust and have it's emissivity change? Word stuffing. Insult fallacies. Trolling. No argument presented. The atmosphere is not emissivity. 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 28-01-2022 04:47 |
| 28-01-2022 06:23 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
tmiddles wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Is it possible for a steel ball to rust Yes. tmiddles wrote: ... and have it's emissivity change? No. The emissivity of that kind of steel ball has not changed. The steel ball you had has been destroyed. Now you have an entirely different body of matter, one that has a different surface altogether and a different emissivity constant. So why do you believe that the earth's emissivity is changing? |
| 28-01-2022 10:12 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:. The steel ball you had has been destroyed. And does the rusty ball have a higher temp? |
| 28-01-2022 10:44 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:. The steel ball you had has been destroyed. RQAA 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 |
| 28-01-2022 12:40 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:...The steel ball you had has been destroyed. Now you have an entirely different body of matter, one that has a different surface altogether and a different emissivity constant.... Wow that makes this so tragic:  She seems like she is doing OK yet, when she reverses the jacket, thereby changing her emissivity, according to IBD's wackadoo rules of thermoduhnamics she is DESTROYED not the same girl at all folks. an altogether different body. |
| 28-01-2022 16:46 | |
gfm7175 ★★★★★(3314) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...The steel ball you had has been destroyed. Now you have an entirely different body of matter, one that has a different surface altogether and a different emissivity constant.... Her emissivity has not changed. tmiddles wrote: This is sig worthy, if I did sigs... tmiddles wrote: Nope. She's still there. tmiddles wrote: The same girl. tmiddles wrote: The same body. |
| 28-01-2022 18:46 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5197) |
She looks anorexic, probably not much of a body, bones poking out. |
| 29-01-2022 01:21 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
gfm7175 wrote:Wow! really?tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...The steel ball you had has been destroyed. Now you have an entirely different body of matter, one that has a different surface altogether and a different emissivity constant.... Hey did you know BMW has this care that can change color?  So GFM does the emissivity of the car change when it does that? |
| 29-01-2022 03:32 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Wow! really?tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...The steel ball you had has been destroyed. Now you have an entirely different body of matter, one that has a different surface altogether and a different emissivity constant.... Yes, really. Nothing changed with regard to the woman. The woman is still the woman. tmiddles wrote: Car A is not Car B is not Car C. Emissivity is a measured constant. |
| 29-01-2022 03:44 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
You have them by the privates Tmid.Its fun to watch them wriggle and try to rationalize the very good point you have made.So now one of the balls is destroyed because it got a bit rusty.Can I shoot it out of a cannon in to your face IBDm it wont hurt because its not there now.Its been destroyed.Humans have recently built roads and highways and that would change the way energy is coming and going but big whoop.Everything is fine.I am going down the coast today as I have my pushbike motor running good enough to do it.I am sure it is still there it was yesterday |
| 29-01-2022 06:37 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
duncan61 wrote:You have them by the privates Tmid.Its fun to watch them wriggle and try to rationalize the very good point you have made. I pegged you as being a totally dishonest ashsole a long time ago. Now, everyone else can see that your crap is deliberate. Let's have some fun. |
| 29-01-2022 06:59 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Wow! really?tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...The steel ball you had has been destroyed. Now you have an entirely different body of matter, one that has a different surface altogether and a different emissivity constant.... The emissivity of this car does not change when it changes color. 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 |
| 29-01-2022 08:01 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
duncan61 wrote: Building a road does not change heat. It is now obvious that you only want to throw insults, deny science, and deny mathematics. Your fundamentalist belief in the Church of Global Warming is obvious. 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 |
| 30-01-2022 00:34 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
gfm7175 wrote:Car A is not Car B is not Car C. Correct answer. When an object changes, it becomes different. It becomes a different object. Take car A and measure its emissivity. Great! Now you can apply black body science, and specifically Stefan-Boltzmann, to car A. Now change the paint on what was car A and you end up with a different car. You now have car B and there is no more car A. Measure the emissivity of car B. Great! Now you can apply black body science, and specifically Stefan-Boltzmann, to car B. So let's talk about word games. tmiddles uses weasel wording to maintain that different objects are also the same object, thus allowing him to shift goalposts as often as he wishes on the exact same topic. If you point out that, within the context of physics and particularly black body science, there is no more car A and now there is car B, he shifts semantics 180 degrees to a non-physics, colloquial context of it "obviously it is the same car" to appeal to dishonest morons like duncan and keepit. As you noticed, he hammers away at getting people to just say "the emissivity is changing" (Fallacy 29: the tmiddles Question of the Broken Record) because that is how he believes he can rewrite Stefan-Boltzmann. You know that he needs to somehow come up with "additional energy" and his only options are to violate the laws of thermodynamics or to rewrite Stefan-Boltzmann. If speaking within the context of physics models and black body science, emissivity is a defined constant, and nobody gets to just redefine any part of it ... not you, not me, not anybody. When an object becomes different, it is a different object. However, if speaking casually in colloquial, layman's terms then sure, an object can change and can have a different emissivity at Time(1) from what it had at Time(0). I therefore suggest to Into the Night that under Fallacy 10: Semantic Hijacking Fallacy or Word Redefinition Fallacy, there be added entry k) deliberate conflation of technical vs colloquial contexts. So we get to the main crux of the tmiddles Emissivity Fallacy, which is to simply presume that because an object can change emissivity in the colloquial sense, that the earth's emissivity is therefore changing in the physics sense. As it is more than obvious now, if tmiddles is asked why any rational adult should believe that the earth's emissivity is changing in the physics sense, he returns to hammering away at his deliberate colloquial conflation in an attempt to appeal to the stupidest and dishonest among us. Once again, just as any other warmizombie who is trying to magically produce "additional energy", tmiddles has only two options: 1) blatantly violate thermodynamics ... but that becomes patently obvious and instantly refuted, ... or 2) rewrite Stefan-Boltzmann, which can be done in ever so subtle ways such that laymen who are only familiar with colloquial wording are likely to never realize the egregious errors they are making. The result is the predictable Marxist playbook, tmiddles pretends to mock you for your recognition of two different objects in the physics sense ... and he does this in an entirely colloquial context. Word games. When tmiddles starts mocking you, you know that he has come to the realization of "Drats, I can't fool him" and mockery (appealing to as many stupid other people as he can) is his last desperate recourse. This is why Into the Night and I are the subjects of most of his attacks, i.e. he can't fool us, and why he always lumps us together as though we are the same person. tmiddles doesn't realize that he is actually trying to fool science and that he just isn't going to win on that front, ever. So, congratulations on getting tmiddles to mock you. It means you thrashed him and he is pouting like a baby, as you can note by his level of (im)maturity. |
| 30-01-2022 01:37 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
IBdaMann wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Car A is not Car B is not Car C. While correct, the paint color also does not necessarily even change emissivity. IBdaMann wrote: Dead right. This is a goalpost fallacy via a contextomy fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: He usually tries to rewrite Stefan-Boltzmann, then uses that rewrite to falsify the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics such as attempting to heat a warmer object with a colder one. IBdaMann wrote: Quite right. The theory of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, like any theory of science, stands on it's own. It will continue to do so until that theory is falsified, where that theory is utterly destroyed. IBdaMann wrote: I considered adding to the contextomy group, but in the end I agreed with your assessment. Fallacy 10k is now in the list. This fallacy is indeed based on a redefinition fallacy, goalpost fallacy, and contextomy fallacy, and false equivalence fallacy combined in this way. IBdaMann wrote: This also forms a false equivalence fallacy. It is 10k as you have suggested. Thank you. IBdaMann wrote: This is also known as an attempted proof by contrivance. Essentially 39o. IBdaMann wrote: He does this commonly, such as when he tried to say that heating a warmer object from a colder one by using radiance was actually possible. IBdaMann wrote: He also rewrote (and ignored in the process) Planck's law by assuming that all photons are equal. IBdaMann wrote: A classic routine for any fundamentalist in any religion. IBdaMann wrote: I've notice that anyone trying to remind people of the theories of science they are ignoring tend to be called 'socks' of one another. Using this logic, any parroting of any Democrat position automatically makes such a parrot a 'sock'. Of course, the Democrat party is a conspiracy. 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 30-01-2022 01:41 |
| 30-01-2022 01:45 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
HarveyH55 wrote: Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. Tmiddles, of course, is again completely failing to consider that the human body stays the same temperature. The body maintains it's own temperature irregardless of whether you are wearing white, black, blue, or any other color. Remember that he once tried to prove that you can make someone warmer by putting them in a cold room. 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 30-01-2022 01:47 |
| 30-01-2022 02:09 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
Into the Night wrote:HarveyH55 wrote: Hahahahaha yeah I remember that one. That was funny stuff. |
| 30-01-2022 02:17 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
IBdaMann wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Car A is not Car B is not Car C. Yup. You understand precisely why I said what I said. IBdaMann wrote: You got the tmiddles gameplan pegged. No wonder he never gets past the line of scrimmage! IBdaMann wrote: Thank you. I enjoy it when morons like him mock me. Like a good little Marxist, he also loves to project his own issues onto others (and that's when Into The Night is chomping at the bit to break out his bullhorn and shout "INVERSION FALLACY, MUTHAFUGGA!!!!!!!!!!!") |
| 30-01-2022 04:02 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
Into the Night wrote:While correct, the paint color also does not necessarily even change emissivity. Agreed. Changing a car's paint renders it a different object. Two different objects can have the same emissivity. Into the Night wrote:[tmiddles] usually tries to rewrite Stefan-Boltzmann, then uses that rewrite to falsify the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics such as attempting to heat a warmer object with a colder one. Yes. In the end, the laws of thermodynamics are what must be changed, and this change is the ultimate goal because Marxists loathe/deny the world as it is and seek to destroy science, economics and happiness in general. Marxism Mantra: We're not happy until you're not happy. Into the Night wrote:I considered adding to the contextomy group, but in the end I agreed with your assessment. Fallacy 10k is now in the list. This fallacy is indeed based on a redefinition fallacy, goalpost fallacy, and contextomy fallacy, and false equivalence fallacy combined in this way. Your list is looking rather comprehensive. Into the Night wrote:[tmiddles] does this commonly, such as when he tried to say that heating a warmer object from a colder one by using radiance was actually possible. ... and when asked to demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cold to warm, tmiddles hammers away at his "man in a cool room" contrivance and totally EVADES the question. Into the Night wrote:[tmiddles] also rewrote (and ignored in the process) Planck's law by assuming that all photons are equal. By merely being in a state of butchering/denying Stefan-Boltzmann, one is therefore necessarily in denial of Planck's law, since Stefan-Boltzmann is a mathematical conclusion (integral of) Planck's law, over all wavelengths. One cannot accept Planck's law yet somehow deny Stefan-Boltzmann without denying mathematics in general. Into the Night wrote:I've notice that anyone trying to remind people of the theories of science they are ignoring tend to be called 'socks' of one another. Yep. All people wielding science are going to be identically invulnerable foes, and thus are all lumped together in the minds of the scientifically illiterate. 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. This was the main weapon of the Russian minority party that called itself the Bolsheviks (meaning "Majority Party) that coined the term "Mensheviks" (meaning "Minority Party) as a slur to refer to basically all other Russians. The Bolshevik revolution was driven, in large part, because of its name alone. Our modern fake news engages in psychological warfare with the American people in the same way by uniting in solidarity in their efforts to present the lunatic fringe as the norm, and in portraying the American people as a whole as being just a handful of angry, greedy, evil, misogynistic, RACIST!, homophobic, transphobic, white supremacist haters of fairness ... and that YOU should not be like them. NAZI Germany only permitted propaganda that was first edited by Joseph Goebbles, to be released to the public ... and of course this made all Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Communists, etc... out to be demonic minorities. Marxists totally buy into this line of thinking and quickly proceed to delude themselves into being absolutely convinced that any differing viewpoint must be an extremist religious view. Since they are scientifically illiterate, they perceive any inconvenient science as an extremist religious view that must be wrong or, at a minimum, needs to be rewritten. If there are more than one person citing the same science, the Marxist delusion has no option but to presume that there can't be two separate people with the same "one-in-a-million" WACKY extremist religious view. They must actually be avatars of the same person, i.e. SOCK! Marxists also believe that those of differing views are simply playing the Bolshevik "pretend to be the majority" game and are trying to portray their WACKY extremist religious views (i.e. science) as though it is the majority opinion (they don't know how religion differs from science; they think that their religion is thettled thienth and they think actual science is a WACKY extremist religion). Yes, they are F'ed-up. So, all people wielding science against warmizombies and other Marxist nutcases should be prepared to be called a "SOCK! " under the belief that the call itself renders all differing arguments null and void. Summary: Marxist indoctrination plays heavily on the human psychological need to be in the norm and to be in the majority, i.e. to not be a cooky freak, lest one be mocked and ridiculed and shamed; Conversely, Marxism conditions indoctrinates to view those holding differing viewpoints as necessarily being in the cooky, freak minority. Since Marxism necessarily runs counter to science, economics and human nature, anyone wielding these will immediately be met with mockery for being in the cooky, freak minority ... which will prompt Marxists to believe that all of that differing view are, in fact, the same person and will get GasGuzzler banned from YAP as a sock of IBDaMann, for example. In the Marxist mindset, such an accusation is obviously as good as divine revelation. I would like to take the opportunity to once again reiterate my congratulations to GasGuzzler for earning his badge of honor and credibility in so short a time. |
| 30-01-2022 09:35 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
gfm7175 wrote:So if the emissivity of Earth changed it's not Earth anymore? hmmm : ) duncan61 wrote: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 Into the Night wrote: So the color of an object does not factor in to it's emissivity according to you? Really fascinating please do go on. Into the Night wrote:While correct, the paint color also does not necessarily even change emissivity.huh? I thought you said it didn't? 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? Edited on 30-01-2022 09:37 |
| 30-01-2022 10:11 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote: RQAA. No argument presented. 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 |
| 30-01-2022 10:29 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
tmiddles wrote:So if the emissivity of Earth changed it's not Earth anymore? hmmm : ) Did I call it, or did I call it? So, if the earth changes, you can't grasp how it is now a different planet, with that difference being measured from how it was to how it is now? I'd have to say that you are admitting to being rather stupid. 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? I'd have to say that you are admitting to being rather stupid. tmiddles wrote: 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. Too funny. You go on appealing to the hair-bained losers and I'll stick with math and science. So, have you finally figured out how you are going to demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cold to warm? Have you formulated an explanation of why a rational adult should believe your premise that the earth's emissivity is changing to any perceptible extent? tmiddles wrote:I've been learning about this and it seems... Whoaaaa, easy there Tiger. Who are you kidding? You haven't been learning anything. In fact, it would appear that you gave up all learning at some point in your high school freshman year because it was too much work. Oh, it's Duncan and keepit that you are fooling, yes? Well, actually they think they are fooling you. 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? You need to learn to read for comprehension. When a car changes color, say from yellow to navy blue, the yellow car does not change emissivity; the yellow car ceases to exist and a navy blue car comes into existence. As you have indicated that you aren't smart enough to grasp the easy stuff, I'll give you a pass for now. |
| 30-01-2022 11:26 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
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. tmiddles wrote:? |
| 30-01-2022 12:12 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
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 |
| 30-01-2022 12:15 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
duncan61 wrote: Well if you get a car cover.... I wonder if insurance companies know about this. so scary |
| 30-01-2022 12:22 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 10j...10k...17...20b2...20a1...20a5...20v...25f...39j...39o... RQAA. No argument presented. 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 |
| 30-01-2022 12:22 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
duncan61 wrote: No one says they are. Pay attention. 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 |
| 30-01-2022 12:28 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 1...16b...35b2... No argument presented. 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 30-01-2022 12:29 |
| 30-01-2022 13:27 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
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 @tmiddles, this is the best your audience will get. |
| 30-01-2022 13:32 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
tmiddles wrote:Don't care at all about semantic games. Playing semantic games is your only interest. tmiddles wrote:? Explain. |
Join the debate Energy source: evaporation - condensation (continuation):
Related content
| 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 |