My ignorance on full display!

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > My ignorance on full display! > Page 3

Page 3 of 4

28-01-2022 00:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: OP's topic: GasGuzzler wrote: ...How is it possible to have two identical items sitting in the sun and one is much hotter than the other because it was black. ... My barely diffetent example: tmiddles wrote:... A shiny steel ball rusts. Does it or does it not have an increase in it's mean temperature? And whatever this is IBdaMann wrote: ....Your diversionary steel ball tangent ...sheet of music. ...earth's emissivity is ...baby, do it. The topic is about a simple, fundamental aspect of thermodynamics: that emissivity can determine a higher mean temperature WITHOUT changing the source of energy. It disproves the ITN/IBD bs about needing "new energy" to have a higher temp. Earth never needs to enter the discussion. But keep running away. It's all you have left. Word stuffing. There is no such thing as 'new energy'. Energy has no age. It cannot be created nor destroyed. 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 01:31
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	But you claim emissivity can't be measured. You can fool your self but not everybody. Edited on 28-01-2022 01:32
28-01-2022 01:59
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Can something have a changing emissivity?: Yes of course No. Emissivity is a measured constant. It is not a variable. And there you have it. The belief, unsupported by anything, that how reflective an object is, it's emissivity, cannot change.
28-01-2022 02:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tmiddles wrote:And there you have it. The belief, unsupported by anything, that how reflective an object is, it's emissivity, cannot change. And there you have it. The belief, unsupported by anything, that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing. Why should any rational adult believe that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing? By the way, GasGuzzler, since you are the author of this thread, and are therefore the authority on the topic and context of this thread, would it be fair to characterize my question as being completely aligned with the topic of this thread and thusly deserving of an answer within this thread?
28-01-2022 03:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: But you claim emissivity can't be measured. You can fool your self but not everybody. Word stuffing. Emissivity can be measured. The emissivity of the Earth cannot be measured. 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 03:25
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:And there you have it. The belief, unsupported by anything, that how reflective an object is, it's emissivity, cannot change. And there you have it. The belief, unsupported by anything, that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing. Why should any rational adult believe that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing? By the way, GasGuzzler, since you are the author of this thread....would it be fair to characterize my question as being completely aligned with the topic of this thread and thusly deserving of an answer within this thread? Absolutely. It is a totally fair question. Tmiddles, Why on Earth (pun intended) would the emissivity of the entire planet be changing? Do you have any explanation? Why do you evade the question? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 28-01-2022 03:26
28-01-2022 03:51
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	The emissivity is changing because the atmosphere is changing.
28-01-2022 04:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: The emissivity is changing because the atmosphere is changing. 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 04:43
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote: Tmiddles, Why on Earth (pun intended) would the emissivity of the entire planet be changing? Do you have any explanation? Why do you evade the question? If emissivity cannot change then it's impossible right? GG, IBD, GFM, do you agree with ITN here: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Can something have a changing emissivity?: Yes of course No. Emissivity is a measured constant. It is not a variable. If it is impossible for the emissivity of anything to change then that would include Earth. But why does ITN believe that? And if you agree why do you? I believe it's nearly impossible for any object to have an emissivity that does not change a little. The Earth with it's swirling clouds, uneven terrain, has a constantly changing emissivity of course. I'm at a loss as to how this could be doubted.
28-01-2022 04:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Tmiddles, Why on Earth (pun intended) would the emissivity of the entire planet be changing? Do you have any explanation? Why do you evade the question? If emissivity cannot change then it's impossible right? Word stuffing. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: GG, IBD, GFM, do you agree with ITN here: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Can something have a changing emissivity?: Yes of course No. Emissivity is a measured constant. It is not a variable. If it is impossible for the emissivity of anything to change then that would include Earth. Word stuffing. Emissivity is a measured constant. It is not a variable. tmiddles wrote: But why does ITN believe that? And if you agree why do you? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: I believe it's nearly impossible for any object to have an emissivity that does not change a little. The Earth with it's swirling clouds, uneven terrain, has a constantly changing emissivity of course. I'm at a loss as to how this could be doubted. Divisional fallacy. Denial of Thenevin's Law. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Uneven terrain is not emissivity. Swirling clouds 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
28-01-2022 04:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	keepit wrote:The emissivity is changing because the atmosphere is changing. No one ever accused you of being logically adept. If the atmosphere changes from one of negligible absorptivity to another of negligible absorptivity, it would seem that the earth's emissivity would not change beyond negligibly ... or less. If the atmosphere were to change to the point that it absorbed substantively less then I would simply expect the lithosphere and hydrosphere to be absorbing more. Hence, it would seem that the earth's emissivity would not change beyond negligibly ... or less. If the atmosphere were to change to the point that it absorbed substantively more then I would simply expect the lithosphere and hydrosphere to be absorbing less. Hence, it would seem that the earth's emissivity would not change beyond negligibly ... or less. Perhaps you would explain to this board why a rational adult should: 1. believe that the atmosphere is changing in any way that substantively affects the earth's emissivity, and 2. believe that the earth's emissivity is actually changing beyond negligibly or less. .... aaaaw, who the F am I kidding? You don't have anything of any cognitive value to contribute. Just nevermind. Edited on 28-01-2022 04:46
28-01-2022 10:07
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:... If the atmosphere were to change to the point that it absorbed substantively less .... So the emissivity can change? ITN says is can't Are you two not in agreement?
28-01-2022 10:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:... If the atmosphere were to change to the point that it absorbed substantively less .... So the emissivity can change? ITN says is can't Are you two not in agreement? Word stuffing. 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 16:25
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: But you claim emissivity can't be measured. You can fool your self but not everybody. Can you read?? I'm being completely serious with that question... as serious as one can possibly be... Did you not read the post before the one you're responding to here, the one in which ITN specifically referred to emissivity as "a MEASURED constant". He specifically claimed that emissivity IS measured, not that it can't be. HOLY **** dude... You sure do have your c-clamp on super tight right now, don't you? ... loosen that puppy up a bit so that your brain can get some oxygen... seriously.
28-01-2022 16:39
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:... If the atmosphere were to change to the point that it absorbed substantively less .... So the emissivity can change? ITN says is can't Are you two not in agreement? Mantra 30a. (bogus position assignment... IOW, your favorite mantra)

28-01-2022 16:42
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Tmiddles, Why on Earth (pun intended) would the emissivity of the entire planet be changing? Do you have any explanation? Why do you evade the question? If emissivity cannot change then it's impossible right? Continued evasion. Answer his questions. tmiddles wrote: GG, IBD, GFM, do you agree with ITN here: Into the Night wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: Can something have a changing emissivity?: Yes of course No. Emissivity is a measured constant. It is not a variable. ITN is correct. Emissivity is a measured constant. tmiddles wrote: If it is impossible for the emissivity of anything to change then that would include Earth. But why does ITN believe that? And if you agree why do you? Continued evasion. Why do you believe Earth's emissivity is changing?
29-01-2022 05:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tmiddles wrote: ITN says is can't Is this your daily bogus position assignment for Into the Night?
29-01-2022 05:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tmiddles wrote:Can something have a changing emissivity? No. Of course not. If you are using the term "emissivity" then you are referring to the Stefan-Boltzmann law and to black body science ... where "emissivity" is a constant value. If you weren't mathematically incompetent, you would know that constants cannot be changing. I realize that what you really want to ask is "can matter change chemically?" ... but you are too scientifically illiterate to know that those are the correct words. The correct answer is, of course, yes. I also realize that you are totally aware that after a chemical reaction/change, the resulting body of matter differs from the original body of matter, thereby establishing it as a different body of matter. Sadly, the best we can expect from you is word games that are intended to confuse matters, not to clarify them. tmiddles wrote:If it is impossible for the emissivity of anything to change then that would include Earth. There are no constants that can change. tmiddles wrote:But why does ITN believe that? And if you agree why do you? Let's turn that around. Why do you believe the earth's emissivity is changing? ... and why should a rational adult believe that the earth's emissivity is changing? tmiddles wrote:I believe it's nearly impossible for any object to have an emissivity that does not change a little. So you believe that it is nearly impossible for a constant to not change just a little? tmiddles wrote: The Earth with it's swirling clouds, uneven terrain, has a constantly changing emissivity of course. Do constants change because of human activity? This is where you explain how swirling clouds and uneven terrain cause the earth to change chemically. Why do you believe that the earth of today has a perceptibly different emissivity from the earth of, say, a century ago? tmiddles wrote:I'm at a loss as to how this could be doubted. This is because you are a moron, and I mean that in the nicest, most positive sense of the word.
30-01-2022 09:25
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: ITN says is can't Is this your daily bogus position assignment for Into the Night? ITN says emissivity cannot change, that it is a constant. See here: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Can something have a changing emissivity?: Yes of course No. Emissivity is a measured constant. It is not a variable. Am I missing something in ITN's lunacy there? And you agree (not with yourself but with the moment): IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Can something have a changing emissivity? No. Of course not. Now it it's IMPOSSIBLE for the emissivity of an object to change in your and ITN's view then there is no need to talk about something as complex as Earth. Let's keep it simple. A woman reverses here jacket, changing the outer surface from blue to black. Does a blue object have the same emissivity as a black object?
30-01-2022 09:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tmiddles wrote:ITN says emissivity cannot change, that it is a constant. Into the Night is correct. I detailed your fallacy in this post. In a physics context, emissivity is a constant. In a physics context, if an object changes then it becomes a different object. Your error is to jump in and out of different contexts as convenient to promulgate your disinformation. tmiddles wrote:Now it it's IMPOSSIBLE for the emissivity of an object to change in your and ITN's view It's a math rule that constants don't change. You sure do like to pick fights with math and science. I bet you are genuinely confused as to why you never win. Too funny. tmiddles wrote:Does a blue object have the same emissivity as a black object? Did you just ask if two different objects have different emissivity values which are constants?
30-01-2022 10:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 20b2...1d...11...10k...RQAA....25f...20b2...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 Edited on 30-01-2022 10:17
30-01-2022 10:27
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: It's a math rule that constants don't change. OK cool. But when the car changes color, the woman flips her jacket, or the shiny steel rusts the temperature would go up right? The mean temp to reach equilibrium would be higher for rust vs. shiny, black vs. blue, ect. So let me give you a fresh one. A space ship floating in space, same distance from the sun as earth, would receive the same radiance, and it's painted white. It has a mean internal temperature of 14C. Robby, the astronaut, bored, goes out on space walk and covers the ship with black sheets. Now what happens to the mean internal temp of the ship? It was 14C when the ship was white, now the ship is black. I'll help you out. It goes up. It'll tell you why: due to the difference in emissivity a black object absorbs more radiance than a white one. Furthermore this is an example of anthropogenic (Robby is to blame) warming of an object floating in the void of space, receiving the sun's radiance. Correct?
30-01-2022 10:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tmiddles wrote:OK cool. But when the car changes color, the woman flips her jacket, or the shiny steel rusts the temperature would go up right? Are you asking if Stefan-Boltzmann says that an object with a higher emissivity will achieve a higher equilibrium temperature? If so, the answer is "yes." tmiddles wrote:So let me give you a fresh one. A space ship floating in space, same distance from the sun as earth, would receive the same radiance, and it's painted white. It has a mean internal temperature of 14C. Robby, the astronaut, bored, goes out on space walk and covers the ship with black sheets. Now what happens to the mean internal temp of the ship? It was 14C when the ship was white, now the ship is black. Whether you are discussing a spaceship's climate-controlled interior or the earth's mantle, other factors determine the temperature besides EM absorption. Black body science is typically an outer surface thing. Stick with the surface. Hint: this is one of the reasons your "core temperature of a man in a cool room" is a bogus hypothetical, and the fact that you are using a living organism (uber-complex) is another. tmiddles wrote:I'll help you out. It goes up. I'll help you out. The denizens of the spaceship will adjust the temperature to their liking. By the way, you used the term "anthropogenic." Would you mind unambiguously defining "human activity"? It would clear up a few things. Would your space ship scenario be totally different if it were a Vulcan craft and not a product of humans? There couldn't be any such thing as Vulcan Warming caused by Vulcan activity, right?
30-01-2022 11:22
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...spaceship's climate-controlled interior... it's not climate controlled due to budget cuts. So anthropogenic warming of the craft correct? It would achieve a higher temp due to Robby changing the surface of the ship by covering it with black sheets. Right? IBdaMann wrote: By the way, you used the term "anthropogenic." Would you mind unambiguously defining "human activity"? Human activity is the activity of a human, in this case Robby. Robby engages in the activity of placing black sheets all over the ship, Robby is human. I think that about covers it. Edited on 30-01-2022 11:23
30-01-2022 12:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted 20a1...20b2...10k...denial of human anatomy...20a4...RQAA...39o...10k...39o...RQAA....39j... 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 Edited on 30-01-2022 12:11
30-01-2022 12:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote:....deleted Mantras 15c....20a2...RQAA...10k...26...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 12:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:...denial of human anatomy... That's what she said
30-01-2022 13:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tmiddles wrote:So anthropogenic warming of the craft correct? tmiddles wrote:Human activity is the activity of a human, in this case Robby. So "anthropogenic" is the religious belief that humanity is the all powerful "Prime Mover" who causes everything to happen, just like what Christianity claims about God, I see. Hmmmm. I don't think I believe what you believe.
30-01-2022 21:05
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: It's a math rule that constants don't change. OK cool. But [proceeds to repeat the very same bullshit that has already been addressed ad nauseum by multiple different posters, refusing to learn from others] RQAA. tmiddles wrote: So let me give you a fresh one. [aka, let me use some different wording to make the exact same erroneous claim that I've been making all along, namely via conflating colloquial terminology with physics terminology.] You are still incorrect, for the same reasons meticulously explained in this post. Edited on 30-01-2022 21:06
31-01-2022 06:52
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...."anthropogenic" is the religious belief.... So Robby the astronaut covered the space ship, which was white, with black sheets. Isn't the spaceship covered in black sheets warmer? Yes And where did the additional energy come from IBD? GFM?

31-01-2022 08:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tmiddles wrote:Isn't the spaceship covered in black sheets warmer? Nope, although the black sheets might be warmer. The space ship, which is now under black sheets that are reflecting some amount of solar energy away from the ship, is now cooler than it was. Into the Night tried to explain this to you but you simply ended up mocking him because you were too stupid to understand his explanation. tmiddles wrote:And where did the reflected energy go IBD? GFM? It was reflected off into space.
31-01-2022 10:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...."anthropogenic" is the religious belief.... So Robby the astronaut covered the space ship, which was white, with black sheets. Isn't the spaceship covered in black sheets warmer? Yes No. RQAA. Mantras 20a4...20b2... tmiddles wrote: And where did the additional energy come from IBD? GFM? There isn't any. Mantras 20a1... RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over like a moron. It's been answered multiple times already. 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 11:05
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Isn't the spaceship covered in black sheets warmer? Nope, although the black sheets might be warmer. The space ship, which is now under black sheets that are reflecting some amount of solar energy away from the ship, is now cooler than it was... How are you separating the black sheets from "space ship". They were stored into the cargo hold and have been relocated to the surface of the ship. So they are part of the ship and have simply been moved around. If you'd like you can pretend the old ship was destroyed or whatever (I don't care). You are, quite incredibly, claiming that temperature measurement from the interior of a black ship would be "cooler" than the interior of a white ship? Into the Night wrote:...Stop asking... I'm almost never talking to you ITN.
31-01-2022 17:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tmiddles wrote:How are you separating the black sheets from "space ship". They were stored into the cargo hold and have been relocated to the surface of the ship. Wait ... did you write "sheets" when you meant "panels"? Do you simply not know how to spell "panels"? Did you just waste my time with a scenario you did not mean because you don't say what you mean or mean what you say? Question for the board: Does anybody else have tmiddles' difficulty distinguishing ... from ... tmiddles wrote: So they are part of the ship Nope ... not if you are effectively burying the ship in sheets (making that the surface) and are now asking for a conclusion about the interior of the object (below the surface). This is why it is important to be unambiguous and to say what you mean and to mean what you say. You've got only one job, and that is to write what you mean. It should be too easy. tmiddles wrote: If you'd like you can pretend the old ship was destroyed or whatever (I don't care). If you'd like, you can pretend that you learned how to communicate in English or whatever (I don't care). tmiddles wrote:You are, quite incredibly, claiming that temperature measurement from the interior of a black ship would be "cooler" than the interior of a white ship? You are, quite incredibly, assigning yet another bogus position to me. You are, quite incredibly, insisting to discuss the interior when I have told you that you are supposed to be discussing the surface. You are, quite incredibly, arranging an apparent scenario that is about the surface of a space ship ... and then asking for a conclusion to be drawn about the interior of the space ship, knowing that the interior is independently climate controlled. Too funny. If you'd like, you can pretend that you aren't totally confused, that you are somehow not babbling and that you are somehow making sense or whatever (I don't care). tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...Stop asking... I'm almost never talking to you ITN. Logic 101: Ergo, occasionally you are talking to him. If you'd like you can pretend that there is a "rule" that Into the Night cannot address you until you address him or whatever (I don't care). If you'd like, you can pretend that Into the Night can read your mind and therefore knows when you are talking to him or whatever (I don't care).
31-01-2022 20:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Isn't the spaceship covered in black sheets warmer? Nope, although the black sheets might be warmer. The space ship, which is now under black sheets that are reflecting some amount of solar energy away from the ship, is now cooler than it was... How are you separating the black sheets from "space ship". They were stored into the cargo hold and have been relocated to the surface of the ship. So they are part of the ship and have simply been moved around. If you'd like you can pretend the old ship was destroyed or whatever (I don't care). You are, quite incredibly, claiming that temperature measurement from the interior of a black ship would be "cooler" than the interior of a white ship? Into the Night wrote:...Stop asking... I'm almost never talking to you ITN. RQAA. The question has already been answered. Stop being a moron asking the same question 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 21:14
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Wait ... did you write "sheets" when you meant "panels"? Does it chsnge the laws of thermodynamics if the spaceship has sheets instead of panels? You didn't answer: is the ship (thre whole ship) warmer with a black vs a white outer surface? If so how? Where did the additional energy come from.
31-01-2022 21:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Wait ... did you write "sheets" when you meant "panels"? Does it chsnge the laws of thermodynamics if the spaceship has sheets instead of panels? You didn't answer: is the ship (thre whole ship) warmer with a black vs a white outer surface? If so how? Where did the additional energy come from. RQAA. Stop asking the same questions over and over like a moron. They've 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 23:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Wait ... did you write "sheets" when you meant "panels"? Does it chsnge the laws of thermodynamics if the spaceship has sheets instead of panels? It changes the scenario entirely if you are adding a covering that is not part of the space ship. That's why this is such a big deal: Again, you have the responsibility to be clear an unambiguous. You have to say what you mean and mean what you say. Covering a space ship in sheets is not applying panels to the surface. If you are not smart enough to express your thoughts, at least be will to clarify and to have the courtesy of not blaming others for your errors.
01-02-2022 01:10
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	The dark side of the moon get s sunlight when it faces the sun.
01-02-2022 03:08
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...Covering a space ship in sheets is not applying panels to the surface.... How about this IBD. The spaceship has a black upper body and a white belly. Robby orients the ship so that it's black upper body is receiving most of the sunlight. The interior of the ship has a temperature X. He then rotates the ship so the white side of the ship is exposed, the interior has a temperature Y. Any clue on if X and Y are different? Does it make a difference if the black or white side of the ship is receiving the sunlight?

Page 3 of 4

Join the debate My ignorance on full display!:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Miller Lite has now gone full Burka, praise Allah	0	17-05-2023 19:13
Prince Andrew the pedophile will be in full shit brit military uniform at the witches funeral	0	14-09-2022 03:25
Elon Musk going full retard	0	24-07-2022 04:05
The Epic Way To End The NCOV Pandemic is Educate Reveal Full Virus Working Mechanism To The People	2	24-06-2021 20:02
Truth About Game Of Life, The Difference Between Human Part Ascension vs Full Nirvana Evolution	1	22-01-2021 11:09