Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 9 of 9<<<789
23-09-2020 19:57
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote: Does 'global warming' have heat? Or a temperature?

Great question!

What would a violation of physics have? Pete Rogers is all about his Atmospheric Thermal Enhacement being the result of gravity performing negative work. It sounds exactly like a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, ergo ... it is unheat ... or the undead version of heat.

... of course I could be mistaken. It might be an untemperature, in which case I would have unegg on my face.

All planetary bodies with atmospheres above 10kPa are subject to ATE. It is the nature of the Laws of Fluid Dynamics
23-09-2020 20:09
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Better yet, why not stick your head in the flame just to be sure you don't confuse heat with temperature.

Better yet, why don't you tell us the difference between heat and temperature so that we can begin to take you seriously.

You are trying to pass the buck, which is against the rules of epistemology and - very much to the contrary - is the very method by which the scumbag politician misdirects the bystander to get himself out of a hole.
Assuming you are an honest man - and by no means a scumbag poilitician - please either explain your position fully and cogently within the context of the discussion or go ahead and stick your head in the heat so you can prove the relevance of your point and write up your experience. Upon successful completion of either you will have every reason to proceed, but first things first if you please - and no more wriggling.

You are quite the angry little man, eh?
Tell you what. I'm short on time but I'll tell you this real quick...
It is a bit chilly this morning, so I put a hat on to reduce the heat, thereby keeping me warmer.

I am not in the slightest angry; what would be the point of that? I now understand that you have the extraordinary ability to reduce heat by putting a hat on. How do you manage that, I know of no other who possesses such talent - do tell.
23-09-2020 20:18
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
keepit wrote:
Why don't you guys just look it up in a physics dictionary and quit arguing?

It seems to me that he does not accept the entries. According to the physics dictionaries, and Fluid Dynamics, the compression of an adiabatic Gas body causes enhancement of its temperature. He is arguing against that.
23-09-2020 20:27
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:

The temperature of the flame;

Flames have no temperature.



If flames have volume then they have temperature.

Flames have no volume and they have no temperature. They are not mass.
James___ wrote:
It's the large amount of energy flowing between highly charged ions that are heat. Aren't you tired of discussing the basics ITN?

Flames are not heat.

How come they are hot then? I mean, having no heat and all - according to you.
23-09-2020 20:35
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1827)
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Better yet, why not stick your head in the flame just to be sure you don't confuse heat with temperature.

Better yet, why don't you tell us the difference between heat and temperature so that we can begin to take you seriously.

You are trying to pass the buck, which is against the rules of epistemology and - very much to the contrary - is the very method by which the scumbag politician misdirects the bystander to get himself out of a hole.
Assuming you are an honest man - and by no means a scumbag poilitician - please either explain your position fully and cogently within the context of the discussion or go ahead and stick your head in the heat so you can prove the relevance of your point and write up your experience. Upon successful completion of either you will have every reason to proceed, but first things first if you please - and no more wriggling.

You are quite the angry little man, eh?
Tell you what. I'm short on time but I'll tell you this real quick...
It is a bit chilly this morning, so I put a hat on to reduce the heat, thereby keeping me warmer.

I am not in the slightest angry; what would be the point of that? I now understand that you have the extraordinary ability to reduce heat by putting a hat on. How do you manage that, I know of no other who possesses such talent - do tell.

Not extraordinary. Very simple. A hat is a poor coupling so it reduces the flow of thermal energy from hot to cold.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
23-09-2020 20:39
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: Does 'global warming' have heat? Or a temperature?

Great question!

What would a violation of physics have? Pete Rogers is all about his Atmospheric Thermal Enhacement being the result of gravity performing negative work. It sounds exactly like a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, ergo ... it is unheat ... or the undead version of heat.

... of course I could be mistaken. It might be an untemperature, in which case I would have unegg on my face.


.

The planet always has heat and temperature, more of each when it warms of course.
The ATE is a simple result of compression concentrating the heat energy within the adiabatic atmosphere which forces the temperature up. It is exactly the same phenomenon that is witnessed in the case of all planetary bodies with a troposphere. By the way I think you have egg pretty much everywhere by now.
23-09-2020 21:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: There is no place for incivility in a scientific examination

Pete, you need to actually be discussing science to have that protection.

The moment you start preaching and imposing your religion onto others, civility has leave to depart the premises.

It is not in your power to make up or change the rules by which we conduct analysis,

Now you are denying philosophy. Science isn't an analysis. It isn't a research of an observation. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
Pete Rogers wrote:
they are the laws of epistemology

Strawman fallacy. Nothing to do with science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so your arrogance at imposing your own will be noted and it will not change them - the narcissist alone thinks otherwise - so either obey the Laws or go away and play with such juveniles as might yet be impressed by the pomposity of another. It is the child and its grown up counterpart - the big baby - who thinks force of ego should be enough to hold sway over its audience. Grown-ups rightly scoff at such hubris.

Insult fallacies.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Your phrase "you need to actually be discussing science" suggests that you know otherwise, but in the absence of substantiation there is no way of confirming that you do.

You are not discussing science. You are denying several theories of science. You are denying philosophy. You are preaching.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It's just another angry teddy flying out of your stroller past my left ear, but I won't be picking it up, you will have to do that for yourself.

Insult fallacies.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Making statements as if their mere utterance is sufficient for them to hold sway is how the Bible and the Church work - not to mention all other religious initiatives. There is nothing like preaching to the effect that one's adversary is preaching.

You are preaching.
Pete Rogers wrote:
So let's ask "What is the definition of when someone accuses another of doing things they are themselves guilty of?".

Inversion fallacy. What you are doing right now in this post.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Here is an answer "it could be rhetorical, hypocritical, or psychopathological. The person accusing the other of doing what he himself is actually doing is normally a narcissist. They often accuse people of doing things that they themselves are doing as a form of deflection so as to control the conversation. It can be a form of abuse."
If you want to play with the grown-ups start observing the rules of earnest discussion instead of wasting everyone's time with your teddys.

Psychoquacker. Insult fallacies.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: The underlying cause of changing glaciation is insolation not weight

Nope. Changes in glaciation are caused by changes in the weather, which are random.

Bravo, well done! Changes in weather being principally causedy by matters associated with insolation of course.

Void argument fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Stop preaching and start discussing science.

This is a perfect example of that narcissism discussed above. The only preacher there has ever been around here is you, but there you go again, deflecting attention away from that - preaching includes the technique of accusation without proof - in order to try to control that which you ought not.

Psychoquacker. Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.


No argument presented. Inversions. Psychoquackery. Insults.


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
23-09-2020 21:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Roger's wrote: ... the laws of epistemology
IBdaMann, I'm wondering, should this be included in the manual?

Possibly, I need to think about it. I'm open to input from the board.

You were keen to sniff this out. Where have you heard this before, just in different wording?

Hint [spoiler]: This is Pete Roger's way of claiming ownership over "what we know."

Hmmmmm.


.


Agreed. This is essentially Mantras 31a and 32.


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
23-09-2020 22:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is not in your power to make up or change the rules by which we conduct analysis, they are the laws of epistemology so your arrogance at imposing your own will be noted and it will not change them -

Where do you suppose I could get me a copy of that rulebook?

Easy as you like, just Google the principles of epistemology and have a little read.

Google is not God. It does not define any word except 'Google'.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is the method by which inadequate opinion - such as yours

Argument of the stone fallacy. Opinions are expressed using arguments. You have not presented any counter-argument. Only fallacies.
Pete Rogers wrote:
in the way you try to argue (use of unsupported assertion,

A circular argument is not a fallacy. Only trying to prove one is the circular argument fallacy. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. The only one making such an argument is YOU. Inversion fallacy. Semantics fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
breaking the "tether" and employment of the ad hominem fallacy are your main offences)

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- can be distinguished from knowledge (being correct opinion).

Opinions are not knowledge.
Pete Rogers wrote:
One of the principles - as you will see - is that of "tethering" the opinion.

Opinions need not be 'tethered'. Circular arguments are not a fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
This means not allowing the advocate to pass on questions (usually done by the blocking act of switching the discussion onto something else,

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. Instead of discussing science, you go off on this unrelated semantics fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
a continual transgression in your case e.g. the thing you tried with "Better yet") showing that you refuse examination whereas it is only by embracing it

You don't get to declare 'examination rights' over any opinion but your own. You are not the king.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- and the more rigorous the better (no dodging the bullets you see, to show you are bulletproof) -

There is no such thing as a bulletproof opinion. No opinion is a proof or a Universal Truth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
that the opinion can ever achieve the status of knowledge.

Opinions are not knowledge. Ever. Knowledge isn't a status.
Pete Rogers wrote:
With respect you do not even try to abide by any examination system,

There is no such thing as an 'examination system'. Buzzword fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
your approach being that of the advocate,

Why not? You seem to think that someone that advocates their opinion (presenting an argument) is somehow wrong.
Pete Rogers wrote:
whereas the true scientist has the approach of the juror.

True Scotsman fallacy. Science isn't a jury.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The reason is that the job of the advocate is to win at all costs - your approach - playing any game that suits him for that purpose,

Not the job of an advocate. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.
Pete Rogers wrote:
whereas the role of the juror is to honour impartial assessment as required by science.

Science isn't a jury. There is no such requirement in science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The only requirement of any theory of science is that it be falsifiable. That is science. No more. No less.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You seem to proceed from the conceit that you are rightand quickly descend to mocking

Inversion fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
those who's examination you need for validation of your opinion

Opinions don't need validation.
Pete Rogers wrote:
when they ask questions you don't prefer.

I have asked you questions. You have so far refused to answer them:
Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. You cannot prove that which you cannot define, nor can there be any theory of any kind about it. Void argument fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It's really time for you to switch your integrity on and your hormones off.

Insult fallacies.


No argument presented. Semantics fallacies. Inversions. Redirections. Insults.


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
23-09-2020 22:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Where do you suppose I could get me a copy of that rulebook?
Easy as you like, just Google the principles of epistemology and have a little read.

The "Redirect Dodge." Into the Night doesn't have this specifically in his Mantra List but it really is a combined 4a&b.

Pete Rogers is trying to argue that his Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement, which is just Greenhouse Effect under a different name, is "what we know" because he mentions the buzz word "epistemology."

Pete, until you start discussion the scientific method, your ATE is not science and is not "what we know."


.


A redirection, or Pivot fallacy, is a Mantra 15. It may also take the form of 15a, by attempting to return to an old conversation, or of 15b by spamming across threads (usually in concert with 15a), or by 15c by moving goalposts or making a special pleading fallacy.

Mantra 4 is essentially the False Authority fallacy, using a Holy Link or non-authoritative source to support (not redirect) an argument.

Remember, science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It is just the theories themselves.

He has defined 'ATE', but it is not by science. It was done by denying science, including Mantras 20a1, 20a2, and 20a0 (0th law of thermodynamics), and by 20n and 10b. He then tried to back it up with 20p. 20e2 and 10j.

But at least he defined 'ATE'.


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
23-09-2020 22:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:[quote]Pete Roger's wrote: ... the laws of epistemology
IBdaMann, I'm wondering, should this be included in the manual?

Possibly, I need to think about it. I'm open to input from the board.

You were keen to sniff this out. Where have you heard this before, just in different wording?


Hint [spoiler]: This is Pete Roger's way of claiming ownership over "what we know."

Hmmmmm.

I don't own Plato's epistemology, we all do. It is the basis of the Scientific Method after all. Snide remarks such as yours have no place in this kind of discussion.


Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Plato does not define 'science'. Mantras 10h...20e2...4b...26...34a.

He is being snide because you are preaching. Mantras 10h.


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
23-09-2020 22:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
keepit wrote:
Get off it IBD, You aren't an expert on the scientific method. You don't have enough science to even explain your qualifications.


Bulverism fallacy. Science isn't a 'qualification'. It isn't any degree, license, or 'blessing' from anyone. It is just a set of falsifiable theories.


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
23-09-2020 22:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote: Does 'global warming' have heat? Or a temperature?

Great question!

What would a violation of physics have? Pete Rogers is all about his Atmospheric Thermal Enhacement being the result of gravity performing negative work. It sounds exactly like a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, ergo ... it is unheat ... or the undead version of heat.

... of course I could be mistaken. It might be an untemperature, in which case I would have unegg on my face.

All planetary bodies with atmospheres above 10kPa are subject to ATE. It is the nature of the Laws of Fluid Dynamics


Buzzword fallacy. Denial of science. No argument presented. Mantras 20a0, 20a1, 20a2, 20n, 20e2.


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
23-09-2020 22:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Better yet, why not stick your head in the flame just to be sure you don't confuse heat with temperature.

Better yet, why don't you tell us the difference between heat and temperature so that we can begin to take you seriously.

You are trying to pass the buck, which is against the rules of epistemology and - very much to the contrary - is the very method by which the scumbag politician misdirects the bystander to get himself out of a hole.
Assuming you are an honest man - and by no means a scumbag poilitician - please either explain your position fully and cogently within the context of the discussion or go ahead and stick your head in the heat so you can prove the relevance of your point and write up your experience. Upon successful completion of either you will have every reason to proceed, but first things first if you please - and no more wriggling.

You are quite the angry little man, eh?
Tell you what. I'm short on time but I'll tell you this real quick...
It is a bit chilly this morning, so I put a hat on to reduce the heat, thereby keeping me warmer.

I am not in the slightest angry; what would be the point of that? I now understand that you have the extraordinary ability to reduce heat by putting a hat on. How do you manage that, I know of no other who possesses such talent - do tell.


You don't know how to put on a hat??? Aren't you cold in the UK?


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
23-09-2020 22:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Pete Rogers wrote:
keepit wrote:
Why don't you guys just look it up in a physics dictionary and quit arguing?

It seems to me that he does not accept the entries. According to the physics dictionaries,

There is no 'physics dictionary'. Dictionaries do not define words. No dictionary owns any word.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and Fluid Dynamics,

'Dynamic' does not mean 'static'. Redefinition fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
the compression of an adiabatic Gas body causes enhancement of its temperature. He is arguing against that.

Mantra 20n,20a1. You are denying the ideal gas law again. You can't create energy out of nothing.


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
Edited on 23-09-2020 22:28
23-09-2020 22:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:

The temperature of the flame;

Flames have no temperature.



If flames have volume then they have temperature.

Flames have no volume and they have no temperature. They are not mass.
James___ wrote:
It's the large amount of energy flowing between highly charged ions that are heat. Aren't you tired of discussing the basics ITN?

Flames are not heat.

How come they are hot then?
Flames have no temperature.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I mean, having no heat and all - according to you.

Flames are not heat.

I have already answered your question. 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
23-09-2020 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: Does 'global warming' have heat? Or a temperature?

Great question!

What would a violation of physics have? Pete Rogers is all about his Atmospheric Thermal Enhacement being the result of gravity performing negative work. It sounds exactly like a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, ergo ... it is unheat ... or the undead version of heat.

... of course I could be mistaken. It might be an untemperature, in which case I would have unegg on my face.


.

The planet always has heat and temperature, more of each when it warms of course.

Heat has no temperature. The temperature of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The ATE is a simple result of compression concentrating the heat energy within the adiabatic atmosphere which forces the temperature up. It is exactly the same phenomenon that is witnessed in the case of all planetary bodies with a troposphere.

Denial of the ideal gas law again. Mantra 20n, 20a1. You can't create energy out of nothing. There is no 'witness' of ATE.
Pete Rogers wrote:
By the way I think you have egg pretty much everywhere by now.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You can't even make up your own insults. Lame.


No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Inversions. Insults.


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
24-09-2020 03:48
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
Into the Night wrote:

Heat has no temperature.



I like things that are bad for me. Ergo, I am responding to your post.
In Boltzmann's work in the Ideal Gas Law, tempertaure is measured in k which is Kelvins.
And in this instance, Boltzmann's Ideal Gas Law requires a volume of ~ (~ means "about") 22.4 liters. Ergo, temperature is relative to volume. Yet if we divide
KE + 3/2kT where T is Boltzmann's constant, we have the energy in a given volume of ~22.4 liters.
But if we divide that by n (Avagrado's number), then we know the KE of each particle. And in this instance each particle refers to an electron. An example of this is that an oxygen element has 8 electrons. It's heat (the flow of thermal energy) would be KE = 3/2kT/n*8*. And that's at 1.5 atmospheres of pressure.
How do you guys not understand this? As it happens, I like both you guys and science and so will keep repeating this until you learn it. It's kind of what this forum is about, right?
To give you an idea, is KE different at atmospheric pressure? Boltzmann's work suggests this is true. If it weren't, then exciting gasses above standard atmospheric pressure wouldn't be necessary. And this in turn gets into low pressure and high pressure weather systems. We've got this. As Tony Little would say, We Can Do It!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXOgMjn1oos

@All, temperature is the amount of heat in a given volume of space. This is because heat is the "flow" of energy. In this instance, it's the increase in electromagnetic radiation. This in turn encourages other atoms/molecules to become excited. I know you guys know this but I like stating the obvious.

Edited on 24-09-2020 03:54
24-09-2020 04:01
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is not in your power to make up or change the rules by which we conduct analysis, they are the laws of epistemology so your arrogance at imposing your own will be noted and it will not change them -

Where do you suppose I could get me a copy of that rulebook?

Easy as you like, just Google the principles of epistemology and have a little read. It is the method by which inadequate opinion - such as yours in the way you try to argue (use of unsupported assertion, breaking the "tether" and employment of the ad hominem fallacy are your main offences) - can be distinguished from knowledge (being correct opinion). One of the principles - as you will see - is that of "tethering" the opinion. This means not allowing the advocate to pass on questions (usually done by the blocking act of switching the discussion onto something else, a continual transgression in your case e.g. the thing you tried with "Better yet") showing that you refuse examination whereas it is only by embracing it - and the more rigorous the better (no dodging the bullets you see, to show you are bulletproof) - that the opinion can ever achieve the status of knowledge. With respect you do not even try to abide by any examination system, your approach being that of the advocate, whereas the true scientist has the approach of the juror. The reason is that the job of the advocate is to win at all costs - your approach - playing any game that suits him for that purpose, whereas the role of the juror is to honour impartial assessment as required by science. You seem to proceed from the conceit that you are right and quickly descend to mocking those who's examination you need for validation of your opinion when they ask questions you don't prefer. It's really time for you to switch your integrity on and your hormones off.


I understand this.I sometimes feel I am the only one with an open mind.


duncan61
24-09-2020 04:22
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
ITN I need more information on flames an example I will use is practical.I solder copper pipes with an Oxygen and LPG welding set,I like to run a slightly carburising flame as the temperature at the cone of unburnt gas is under 2000 C.If I add more oxygen the cone will become smaller and increase to around 3500 C.Copper tube and brass melt very easily and the carburising flame will take longer to heat the copper pipe and brass fitting but gives me more time to apply the solder and is less likely to melt the work.Its a flame,Its hot,How would you describe the flame not having heat??
24-09-2020 04:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
duncan61 wrote:
ITN I need more information on flames an example I will use is practical.

A flame is a visible chemical reaction. They can occur at any temperature where the energy of the reaction is hot enough to produce visible light. Infrared 'flames' are not normally called flames because you can't see them.
duncan61 wrote:
I solder copper pipes with an Oxygen and LPG welding set,I like to run a slightly carburising flame as the temperature at the cone of unburnt gas is under 2000 C.If I add more oxygen the cone will become smaller and increase to around 3500 C.

Spoken like one who knows his stuff. Yes, what you are describing is also the same way welders learn this stuff. They work with the 'temperature' of the flame, using the inner cone or outer flame as needed to do their work. The flame itself, however, has no temperature. It is a gaseous chemical reaction. It can occur at many different temperatures. Even the intensity of the reaction (in the inner cone or outside of it) is nothing more than just the rate of reaction.

The temperature the plumber or the welder learns (or the blacksmith, swordmaker, etc) is actually the color of the gasses as they recombine, or the color of the steel.

Wien's law describes the predominant visible color at a given temperature. It can be used to roughly estimate the temperature of any glowing substance (including stars). For steel, it is generally accurate to 100 deg C or so. For stars, accurate to a few thousand degrees or so.

But it is the gasses undergoing a chemical reaction that is converting chemical energy to thermal energy. It is this that is providing heat for your copper pipe, not the flame itself. The flame is only an indicator that the reaction is taking place.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. In your soldering, you are using a burning gas (a chemical reaction) to convert chemical energy to thermal energy. You are using that concentrated area of energy to heat the colder copper pipe enough to melt silver solder (the kind you use for plumbing nowadays, according to code). That's the 'no lead' stuff you buy to solder with.

You use flux as well. Normally, as you've probably noticed when learning to solder, that solder will naturally bead up and not go into the joint. Flux (latin for 'flow) chemically cleans the copper (even cleaner than your brushes did) and the solder can flow into the joint. Solder won't stick to copper oxide (not even a little bit of it!), but it will stick to pure copper or even clean brass.

You've also probably notice (when working on horizontal pipe that had water in it) how difficult to properly solder a joint that has even a little water in the pipe. The energy from your torch has to heat the water as well as the pipe, and it takes a lot of heat to get water to change even by one degree. A lot more than it takes copper to change one degree.

Heat is measured in watts. Temperature is measured in degrees. Total thermal energy is measured in joules. Average thermal energy is measured as temperature. Essentially, this is what the zeroth law of thermodynamics is about. It defines the concept of temperature.

duncan61 wrote:
Copper tube and brass melt very easily and the carburising flame will take longer to heat the copper pipe and brass fitting but gives me more time to apply the solder and is less likely to melt the work.

Heh. You don't want to melt the thing you are trying to solder! I get what you mean though.
duncan61 wrote:
Its a flame, Its hot, How would you describe the flame not having heat??


Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It has no temperature. It is measured in watts.
Flames have no temperature. Neither are they heat. They are nothing more than a visible indicator that a chemical reaction is taking place, converting chemical energy into thermal energy.

This localized hot gas in the flame in a vacuum can only heat by radiance. In open air, however, it can also heat by conductance. Enough to scorch studs and walls, if you don't put some kind of shield in place while you are soldering near such things.

Fortunately, a bit of metal can act as this shield, as long as it is not exposed too long to the heat. There's more mass in that shield, so it can protect the wood a bit longer than the metal in that pipe you're soldering on.

Now you know more than a lot of welders or plumbers know about their torches.


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
24-09-2020 05:46
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
Into the Night wrote:

A flame is a visible chemical reaction.



A spark is a visible chemical reaction. A flame has more to do with plasma and high energy particles.


p.s., I'd hope that you guys would know the difference by now.
24-09-2020 08:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

A flame is a visible chemical reaction.



A spark is a visible chemical reaction. A flame has more to do with plasma and high energy particles.


p.s., I'd hope that you guys would know the difference by now.


Nope. A spark is not a chemical reaction. It is ionization.


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
24-09-2020 12:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Pete Rogers wrote:
keepit wrote:
Why don't you guys just look it up in a physics dictionary and quit arguing?

It seems to me that he does not accept the entries. According to the physics dictionaries, and Fluid Dynamics, the compression of an adiabatic Gas body causes enhancement of its temperature. He is arguing against that.

Pete you can ponder endlessly as to how it is that ITN/IBD defy common sense. It's really not that fascinating at the end of the day. They are simply trying to waste your time.

Gravity is not compressing anything. What does "compressing" mean?
"flatten by pressure; squeeze or press." There is a before and an after in that concept. Work is done. The atmosphere has a pressure but no work was done on it by gravity.

"causes enhancement of its temperature." you are describing a change from a before to an after state. There is no before and after here.

Would you say a scuba divers tank was compressing the gas inside it? No

I don't see that you responded to my post did I miss it?

tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:The problem for them is that there is a much better explanation for the ATE - Gravity. The weight of the atmosphere at 1ton per sq ft means its volume is severely reduced by compression under its own weight (autocompression) so there are less units of volume for the heat energy passed into it from the surface to be spread between so the temperature rises.
So this concept is not correct as you've described it. The degree to which a gas is pre-compressed will have not influence on the temperature it will reach via conduction (let's just use conduction here to keep it simple). If I have two sealed gas cylinders that are at room temperature and I place them both into a bath tub full of water that is 50C. Both cylinders will in time reach 50C as well. If one gas cylinder contains gas at twice the pressure of the other, it has no influence at all on their both being just 50C in equilibrium with the water they are in.

Remember that the gas is under pressure due to gravity but it is NOT being "compressed" by gravity in the the sense that any work is being done. NO WORK IS BEING DONE BY GRAVITY. None at all.

Pete Rogers wrote:If the atmosphere were under lower pressure ... it would still contain the same heat energy - having the same mass - but that heat energy would be spread between ...so the temperature would be lower
So the "thermal energy" (let's use that instead of heat energy) determines temperature. Let's say the amount of thermal energy and the mass are constant:
PV=nRT
P, pressure, and V, volume can change, but n, the mass, R, ideal gas constant, cannot change. So what happens if pressure drops as volume increases? Lets put numbers in:
PV=nRT
P*V=n*R*T
P=10
V=10
n=1
R=1
10*10=1*1*T
100=T

So now let's cut the pressure in half and double the volume
P=5
V=20
n=1
R=1
10*10=1*1*T
100=T

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/gases-and-kinetic-molecular-theory/ideal-gas-laws/v/ideal-gas-equation-pv-nrt

This is because Temperature is the thermal energy per mass, not per volume.
I think you're visualizing the difficulty of the spread out molecules to conduct their thermal energy to a thermometer. I don't understand that and it seems weird to me too. An explanation would be appreciated.

My understanding is the gravity plays a roll in crating a very uneven distribution of temperature, hot at ground level, colder up high.

I'm not really following what you mean by "negative work".

Pete Rogers wrote:Venus is 90 times that of Earth due to its 96% CO2 content. Using the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law this pressure exactly predicts the enhanced surface temperature of 900K.
Again this doesn't sound right as with the gas canister example up top of the post. My understanding is that there is an altitude high in the Venutian atmosphere that is the actual emitting surface of Venus. It's emission matches what the Sun gives Venus. If you plug that temperature at that pressure high in the atmosphere, into the ideal gas equation, it may give you high temp at ground level.

Similarly the Sun has whatever energy it has first, due to fusion. The distribution of that energy and the resulting temperature comes after that generation of energy. The Sun's emitting surface is cooler and at a lower pressure.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 24-09-2020 12:42
24-09-2020 22:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7514)
tgoebbles wrote: Gravity is not compressing anything. What does "compressing" mean?
"flatten by pressure; squeeze or press." There is a before and an after in that concept. Work is done. The atmosphere has a pressure but no work was done on it by gravity.

Pete, I realize I have shot many holes in your ATE theory however the compression of the atmosphere was the one point you got right. Without gravity and the planet's solid surface, the atmosphere would be a free-floating cloud of gas in space with a much larger volume and zero pressure. Of course you can ponder endlessly as to how it is that tgoebbles can defy common sense. It's really not that fascinating at the end of the day. He is simply trying to waste your time and get you to believe in Greenhouse Effect as he preaches it ... and to deny the daytime side of the moon.

tgoebbles wrote:Would you say a scuba divers tank was compressing the gas inside it? No

Of course the correct answer is "yes." Would the gas otherwsie expand to a different volume? Yes, of course. How do we know this? Because when you open the valve, gas rushes out of the tank.

tgoebbles wrote:Remember that the gas is under pressure due to gravity but it is NOT being "compressed" by gravity in the the sense that any work is being done.

Pete, you have to ask yourself "Does tgoebbles drool when he gibbers like this?" Is he saying that the atmosphere is not being compressed even though it is? Why is he convoluting his statement by trying to tack on the condition of "work being done"? Is he going to say "Of course the atmosphere is being compressed, I just meant that if you swap the meaning of "compression" for the meaning of "work" then there is no compression, but if you don't swap out the meaning of "compression" then yes, the atmosphere is compressed by gravity"?


tgoebbles wrote:My understanding is the gravity plays a roll in crating a very uneven distribution of temperature, hot at ground level, colder up high.

Pete, you have to ask yourself, why does tgeobbles insist that gravity does not compress the atmosphere while acknowledging the greater compression at the bottom of the atmosphere and the lesser compression at the top?


tgoebbles wrote:My understanding is that there is an altitude high in the Venutian atmosphere that is the actual emitting surface of Venus.

Pete, you really have to ask yourself if your life is so meaningless that tgoebbles' posts merit your time.

I look upon the following in wonder:

tgoebbles wrote:"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN


THIS IS THE TRUE DEBUNKING SIGNATURE.
25-09-2020 04:38
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
IBDM I am accusing you of deliberately misunderstanding Tmiddles
Quote ;tgoebbles wrote:Would you say a scuba divers tank was compressing the gas inside it? No

He means the cylinder is not compressing the gas it is already compressed

Quote ;tgoebbles wrote:Remember that the gas is under pressure due to gravity but it is NOT being "compressed" by gravity in the the sense that any work is being done.

He means the gravity is already there it is not a new thing

From google ;The adiabatic compression of a gas causes a rise in temperature of the gas. Adiabatic expansion against pressure, or a spring, causes a drop in temperature. ... Adiabatic cooling occurs when the pressure on an adiabatically isolated system is decreased, allowing it to expand, thus causing it to do work on its surroundings.
25-09-2020 04:47
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
Thanks ITN for the heat explaination I get it.I am a big fan of the correct terminology people say they have no pressure in the water pipe but it is flow that is lacking due to a blockage the pressure remains constant.Increasing the pipe size will increase the flow but not the pressure.Speeding the pump up will increase both flow and pressure.I watched a good show where the team tested airfilters on various cars and compared horsepower.A different airfilter will not increase horsepower.To do that you have to change the fuel or engine mechanics.What they did not do was test under road conditions I have a 4.0l jeep cherokee and I put a pod filter straight on the manifold and cut a hole in the bonnet and fitted a bonnet scoop.The throttle response was more than I expected and it makes a cute sucking noise in the mornings when I first start up.It goes away for some reason also at highway speed I am getting a small boost of cold air.It works for me
25-09-2020 18:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
duncan61 wrote:
Thanks ITN for the heat explaination I get it.

Excellent.
duncan61 wrote:
I am a big fan of the correct terminology

Again, excellent.
duncan61 wrote:
people say they have no pressure in the water pipe but it is flow that is lacking due to a blockage the pressure remains constant.

As you know, pressure can vary widely in a pipe, especially when flow suddenly changes. That's why water hammers are installed in plumbing...to keep pipes from banging around due to pressure changes.
duncan61 wrote:
Increasing the pipe size will increase the flow but not the pressure.

Not quite true. Look at the venturi in a carburetor (or on some airplanes...a huge one off the left side. As air enters this pipe, it's pressure increases and flow is reduced. At the narrowing section, it's pressure drops and flow increases. At the part where it widens again, it's pressure rises and flow decreases. It is at the narrowest part that fuel is introduced from the carburetor bowl. It is literally sucked out of the bowl due to the low pressure in the venturi.

The same kind of thing happens as air moves through the compressor blades of a jet engine. It can compress air because it is narrowing the passage through the compressor, using active and static blades work with each other to do it. At the output, the pressure is quite high, but flow is lower. It is this compressed, slower moving air that is introduced to the burner cans.

The burner cans add energy, increasing the pressure of the air still more, and also increase flow. As air exits the jet engine, its pressure drops to atmospheric pressure again, and flow is dramatically increased.

Oddly enough, Ohm's law applies to plumbing as well as electrons in wires. You can trade voltage (pressure) for current (flow). The total energy (watts) remains the same. Thus, the jet engine can only increase flow beyond what went in because it's burning fuel to do it.

This happens because air is compressible.

In water pipes, water isn't compressible. So the walls of the pipe take it instead. Shoving water through a venturi (such as an unintentional one created by a bad solder joint) is enough to set up turbulence after the restriction and erode the pipe right through.

duncan61 wrote:
Speeding the pump up will increase both flow and pressure.

Again, not quite. It will increase energy in the medium. That can show up as an increase in flow, pressure, or both. What is really increasing is the water's ability to do work (energy, in watts).

The equations are:
P=F*R (or in electronics: E=I*R), and W=P*F (or P=I*E).
Pressure is flow times the resistance of the pipe walls, fittings, etc.). This is also true of rivers, creeks, wires, anything that has flow and pressure. In electronics, we call pressure 'voltage' or 'electromotive force' (why we use 'E' in Ohm's law), and flow 'current' or 'intensity' (why we use 'I' in Ohm's law). Power (in watts) is the pressure times the current, or flow.

In plumbing, we are rarely trying to use water to do work. We just want flow at the faucet when we open the valve. Through the sink, and into the sewage system...that other half of the plumbing that people always seem to forget about until it malfunctions.


duncan61 wrote:
I watched a good show where the team tested airfilters on various cars and compared horsepower. A different airfilter will not increase horsepower.

Actually, it can. An gasoline engine is basically a gasoline powered air pump. The more air moving through the engine, the more fuel you can put through it (up to the ultimate limits of the engine itself, of course. For reciprocating engines, that limit is the total pressure the cylinders can withstand before rupture (usually the rings or valves), or rpm (where the rod fails either at the wrist pin (usually) or the crank (more rare, but certainly possible).

For jet engines, the ultimate factors are temperature (usually failing in the burner cans or in the turbine). Basically the output turbine or the cans melt, causing catastrophic (and spectaular!) failure of the engine.

duncan61 wrote:
To do that you have to change the fuel or engine mechanics.

By making it easier for air to flow, you can meter more fuel into the engine without running the engine too rich. Indeed, look at what the accelerator pedal does to the engine. It opens an AIR valve, not a fuel valve. This is true of modern FADEC engines in cars today. The electronic throttle is opening an air valve, well before fuel is even introduced to the cylinders through the multi-point fuel inject system.

The computer in that car simply tries to maintain a stoichiometric ratio of fuel and air. Increase airflow, and the engine can use more fuel.

duncan61 wrote:
What they did not do was test under road conditions I have a 4.0l jeep cherokee and I put a pod filter straight on the manifold and cut a hole in the bonnet and fitted a bonnet scoop.The throttle response was more than I expected and it makes a cute sucking noise in the mornings when I first start up.It goes away for some reason also at highway speed I am getting a small boost of cold air.It works for me


The first effects usually show on the low end of engine torque, giving the car greater acceleration from standing starts. You CAN increase the horsepower put through the engine even at highway speeds, but you will shorten engine life that way. Drag racers can increase engine power to some eight times the normal rated horsepower of an engine simply by increasing airflow through the engine, allowing more fuel. These engines are capable of incredible horsepower, but they only last a few hours. It's enough to complete a race, and they expect to replace the engine as part of the cost of the race. It's the induction and exhaust systems they are fiddling with, and will move from engine to engine.

The failure point on these engines is usually rings and rods. Sometimes they push an engine too far, and the failure occurs as they accelerate from the starting line! Sometimes the engine is even ripped from the car, due to overloading torque on the drive shaft and engine mounts!

So, yes...you can increase horsepower by increasing air flow through the engine. You just have to increase the fuel flow with it, to maintain the proper ratio of air to fuel. This is what the fuel metering system (carburetor or computer) is always trying to do. Maintain that proper ratio of fuel and air.


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
25-09-2020 19:15
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1827)
Ha! Takes me back to high school automotive class. I got into a HUGE argument with my teacher because I suggested it should be called an air pedal instead of a gas pedal.
25-09-2020 19:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Ha! Takes me back to high school automotive class. I got into a HUGE argument with my teacher because I suggested it should be called an air pedal instead of a gas pedal.


Heh. It's amazing how much these teachers don't know!

I had the same kind of arguments with an electronics teacher, who was convinced that electrons flowed from + to -. I asked him to demonstrate how a vacuum tube worked under that model. The result was predictable: shouting match!


I've come across math teachers that didn't understand trigonometry, or how that relates to circles, tires, gears, azimuth, or a theodolite (a surveying instrument). He didn't understand Pythagorean's Theorem either.

He was the school football coach. He taught math to have an 'official' job.


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
26-09-2020 01:21
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Ha! Takes me back to high school automotive class. I got into a HUGE argument with my teacher because I suggested it should be called an air pedal instead of a gas pedal.



Both of them were actually wrong. I live in the southeast and am not sure why restrictor plate racing on Super Speedways is called that. Surely "choking" a naturally aspirated engine does not increase the amount of gas going into the combustion chamber while limiting airflow.
Why would a "cold" engine need to "burn" richer? That's almost like a diesel engine with it's precombustion chamber. Just not sure why a diesel engine would need an expansion chamber before the cylinder. It's like an atomizer in a boiler. An atomizer breaks up liquid fuel into particles so it becomes a mist that can more readily mix with the air blown in by an FDB. You know, a forced draft blower.
And it might be called a "gas pedal" because it increases the venturi effect in the throat of the carburetor which draws gas out of the fuel bowl in the carburetor and into the plenum of the manifold.
Boilers operate more like an engine that uses fuel injection.
As for "too much" air in a cold engine, too much air wouldn't allow for compression because not enough force is being generated by combustion in a cold engine.
As for restrictor plates and choking an engine, it limits how much fuel is combusted.
Sorry guys. Am just bored. And when a car or truck accelerates or goes faster, it's fuel consumption increases because someone pressed down on a floor pedal. Just not sure how depressing a pedal will cause a car or truck to increase it's fuel consumption. What would you call such a pedal?
26-09-2020 02:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7514)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Ha! Takes me back to high school automotive class. I got into a HUGE argument with my teacher because I suggested it should be called an air pedal instead of a gas pedal.

Heh. It's amazing how much these teachers don't know!

I had the same kind of arguments with an electronics teacher, who was convinced that electrons flowed from + to -.

I became convinced that college philosophy professors were only good at getting things wrong. The two I had were morons; I wanted to offer to teach them what they were supposed to know.

The first one was lecturing on Socrates getting the Sophists to contradict themselves by getting them to first claim that things were pius because the gods love them and then getting them to claim that gods love things because they are pius. I raised my hand and asked why that was a contradiction? After getting the "Isn't it obvious?" with an eyeroll, I explained that Socrates had simply pointed out a biconditional, like "Pressure increases because of an increase in temperature, and temperature increases because of an increase in pressure." I remember a brief awkward silence followed by an unintelligible dismissal that flowed seamlessly into the next point.

The second professor asked as an exam question "In your opinion what do you think of Aristotle's claim that happiness is the greatest good?" I wrote that I didn't care much for it because Aristotle did not include a uniqueness proof showing that there was no other good that also met the definition of "greatest good." I specified that all Aristotle had to do was show that if A and B were both greatest goods that A therefore must equal B, i.e. a uniqueness of "the greatest good" and not "multiple "greatest goods." Well, Mr. philosophy professor got a bug up his ass and gave me a "D" on the entire exam just because he didn't like my answer to that question. I mentioned that I had gotten everything else correct. He insisted that my answer to that question demonstrated that I knew nothing of Aristotle. I mentioned that a uniqueness proof is absolutely required in the Math department for any superlative claim of something being the "x-est", e.g. the greatest value, the furthest distance, the smallest number, i.e. superlative of anything. He insisted that mathematicians aren't philosophers. I mentioned that the question clearly stated "In my opinion ..." to which he reluctantly changed my grade to a "C."

Dumbass.

What did I learn in college? How stupid people can be and still be hired as professors.

When it comes to philosophy, I typically respect the thoughts of everyone over philosophy professors.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
26-09-2020 02:24
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Ha! Takes me back to high school automotive class. I got into a HUGE argument with my teacher because I suggested it should be called an air pedal instead of a gas pedal.

Heh. It's amazing how much these teachers don't know!

I had the same kind of arguments with an electronics teacher, who was convinced that electrons flowed from + to -.

I became convinced that college philosophy professors were only good at getting things wrong. The two I had were morons; I wanted to offer to teach them what they were supposed to know.

The first one was lecturing on Socrates getting the Sophists to contradict themselves by getting them to first claim that things were pius because the gods love them and then getting them to claim that gods love things because they are pius. I raised my hand and asked why that was a contradiction? After getting the "Isn't it obvious?" with an eyeroll, I explained that Socrates had simply pointed out a biconditional, like "Pressure increases because of an increase in temperature, and temperature increases because of an increase in pressure." I remember a brief awkward silence followed by an unintelligible dismissal that flowed seamlessly into the next point.

The second professor asked as an exam question "In your opinion what do you think of Aristotle's claim that happiness is the greatest good?" I wrote that I didn't care much for it because Aristotle did not include a uniqueness proof showing that there was no other good that also met the definition of "greatest good." I specified that all Aristotle had to do was show that if A and B were both greatest goods that A therefore must equal B, i.e. a uniqueness of "the greatest good" and not "multiple "greatest goods." Well, Mr. philosophy professor got a bug up his ass and gave me a "D" on the entire exam just because he didn't like my answer to that question. I mentioned that I had gotten everything else correct. He insisted that my answer to that question demonstrated that I knew nothing of Aristotle. I mentioned that a uniqueness proof is absolutely required in the Math department for any superlative claim of something being the "x-est", e.g. the greatest value, the furthest distance, the smallest number, i.e. superlative of anything. He insisted that mathematicians aren't philosophers. I mentioned that the question clearly stated "In my opinion ..." to which he reluctantly changed my grade to a "C."

Dumbass.

What did I learn in college? How stupid people can be and still be hired as professors.

When it comes to philosophy, I typically respect the thoughts of everyone over philosophy professors.


.




You're first argument isn't a contradiction. It shows where piety is a virtue respected by both man and God.
With your 2nd argument, it's presumptive. What is the "greater good"? Since the "greater good" cannot be defined, it cannot be used in an argument.

I'm just having a bad day IBDM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZoJiTP5XZo


p.s., Have a Nice Day

Edited on 26-09-2020 02:29
Page 9 of 9<<<789





Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals103-02-2017 20:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact