NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Explanations > NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference. > Page 8

Page 8 of 16

05-07-2020 23:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14443)	tmiddles wrote: If you mean that "light" refers to what human beings can see OK. A useless point to make though. You are once again conflating units of measure, and that is a Category 3 violation of Local Ordinance § TMID Technically, I'm not supposed to waste time explaining errors that you make more or less intentionally but I happen to be in a good mood. Radiance is Power normalized over Area. Light is a form of energy, specifically electromagnetic energy. They're obviously not the same thing, yet you decided to waste everyone's time by trying to argue that they are, and then you lashed out with insults due to your frustration over being a total moron ... which you brought upon yourself with your solemn vows of ignorance and obedience to your slavemasters who will be doing your thinking for you from now on. In summary, Category 3 violation. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
06-07-2020 01:12
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Radiance is Power normalized over Area. Light is a form of energy, specifically electromagnetic energy. They're obviously not the same thing,... So just to confirm ITN is correct here: Into the Night wrote: Radiance is not light. But wrong here?: link Into the Night wrote: You can measure radiance by measuring light. Radiance is light. link Into the Night wrote: Blackbody radiance is light emitted by vibrating molecules due to temperature. Also you are saying "radiance" is NOT electromagnetic energy?
06-07-2020 01:43
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	You have yet to respond to the example of this topic. How is it that a human body maintains body temperature if it is not absorbing radiance from it's cooler surroundings? Edited on 05-07-2020 11:42 I thought we ate food and wore clothes
06-07-2020 01:48
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote: You have yet to respond to the example of this topic. How is it that a human body maintains body temperature if it is not absorbing radiance from it's cooler surroundings? I thought we ate food and wore clothes Yes indeed. The available energy from food is calculated in the first post Duncan, about 1/7th what is needed. ITN/IBD believe you cannot reduce radiance AND that warmer objects can't absorb radiance from cooler ones. So clothes do nothing according to them aside from reducing conduction/convection.
06-07-2020 05:41
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: For those of you who are new to this forum and for those who have forgotten, tgoebbles does not recognize a daytime side of the moon because it exceeds 240F (120C). This goes against his religious dogma that requires him to believe atmospheres make a planet's surface specifically warmer ... and that black people cannot be racist. The fact is that no daytime temperature anywhere on earth ever gets anywhere close to the oven temperatures on the daytime side of the moon which has no atmosphere. tgoebbles cannot reconcile this reality so he deludes himself into denying it. There ... I have refreshed everyone's memory. . I actually did a post about that. I referred to it because a planet's surface composition affects both temperature and radiance. I think to say "Net Thermal Radiation" might be an over simplification. There's nothing that says why it matters. If you were to consider the walls around you, their surfaces REFRACT light. That's almost too basic. Kind of why I don't get what this thread is about. It's like when steel is heated and then it emits radiation. It's not a big deal. And what the video also suggests is that heat can come from the interior of a planet. https://youtu.be/Wvm4hurlock p.s., seems I broke my thumb when doing some wood working. Have to take it easy now and hope ya'all like the video. Edited on 06-07-2020 05:43

06-07-2020 07:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14443)	tgoebbles wrote: So just to confirm ITN is correct here: .... But wrong here? No. I take it you will never grasp the concept of context. Within the context of explaining the dynamics of thermal radiation, Into the Night was obviously accurately describing what was occurring. Within the context of you conflating units of measure, e.g. work with normalized power, radiance with temperature, etc ... it is appropriate for others to point out your error as a courtesy to you to explain why your argument makes no sense. Into the Night is correct. You still hose yourself by not grasping context. tgoebbles wrote: Also you are saying "radiance" is NOT electromagnetic energy? I'm saying that work is not power. Are you arguing they are? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
06-07-2020 08:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21624)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted IAW tmiddles ordinance #1... Denial of science. 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
06-07-2020 18:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: You have yet to respond to the example of this topic. How is it that a human body maintains body temperature if it is not absorbing radiance from it's cooler surroundings? Edited on 05-07-2020 11:42 I thought we ate food and wore clothes Capillaries reduce blood flow through the outer layers of skin. This keeps more heat in the body.
06-07-2020 22:01
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	So you're saying ITN is correct in both the statements that radiance is and is not light. Whatever. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Also you are saying "radiance" is NOT electromagnetic energy? I'm saying that work is not power. Are you arguing they are? How was that not a yes or no question? I'm not arguing they are because that statement has nothing to do with what we are talking about. So you're saying that: radiance = work and that electromagnetic energy = power ? An increase in temperature is not "work". "work" is displacement of an object and has nothing to do with what we are discussing. "power" is the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time and so EM is not power. The rate of conversion of EM to something else, like thermal energy would be power. "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
06-07-2020 22:37
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: So you're saying ITN is correct in both the statements that radiance is and is not light. Whatever. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Also you are saying "radiance" is NOT electromagnetic energy? I'm saying that work is not power. Are you arguing they are? How was that not a yes or no question? I'm not arguing they are because that statement has nothing to do with what we are talking about. So you're saying that: radiance = work and that electromagnetic energy = power ? An increase in temperature is not "work". "work" is displacement of an object and has nothing to do with what we are discussing. "power" is the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time and so EM is not power. The rate of conversion of EM to something else, like thermal energy would be power. "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 post is an egregious violation of the Official tmiddles Preemption Ordinance. It is summarily dismissed. Edited on 06-07-2020 22:39
06-07-2020 23:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14443)	gfm7175 wrote:This post is an egregious violation of the Official tmiddles Preemption Ordinance. It is summarily dismissed. How right you are! It was far too egregious to be accidental; it had to be intentional. It's a good thing for tmiddles that there are no monetary fines associated with this ordinance. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
06-07-2020 23:37
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: How right you are!... So you won't be responding IBD?
06-07-2020 23:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14443)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: How right you are!... So you won't be responding IBD? What a coincidence, I was just wondering if you were going to be answering any of the questions I posed to you without EVADING ... even if to admit that you never had any sort of answer. 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] 6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered] - 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered] 7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered] 8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered] 9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered] 10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered] 11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered] 12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered] 13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered] ... and I take it that you won't be reading my answer to your question, that you are just going to ask again as though I have never answered you. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
06-07-2020 23:59
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...I was just wondering if you were going to be answering any of the questions... On this topic. So? This your way to duck out?
07-07-2020 00:27
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...I was just wondering if you were going to be answering any of the questions... On this topic. So? This your way to duck out? Nope. The evasion is YOURS. You are refusing to answer the questions that will allow any sort of meaningful discussion with you to ensue...

07-07-2020 00:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote:...questions that will allow any sort of meaningful discussion with you to ensue... About Aztecs? What exactly is needed to continue this debate: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Also you are saying "radiance" is NOT electromagnetic energy? I'm saying that work is not power. Are you arguing they are? Hmmm?
07-07-2020 02:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21624)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted IAW tmiddles ordinance #1... No argument presented. RQAA. Semantics fallacies. Denial of science. 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 07-07-2020 02:52
07-07-2020 02:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21624)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: How right you are!... So you won't be responding IBD? 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
07-07-2020 02:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21624)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...I was just wondering if you were going to be answering any of the questions... On this topic. So? This your way to duck out? Mantra 7...29. No argument presented. 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
07-07-2020 02:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21624)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:...questions that will allow any sort of meaningful discussion with you to ensue... About Aztecs? What exactly is needed to continue this debate: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Also you are saying "radiance" is NOT electromagnetic energy? I'm saying that work is not power. Are you arguing they are? Hmmm? Mantra 2...29... No argument presented. 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
09-07-2020 01:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21624)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted IAW tmiddles ordinance #1...Mantras 6...10...20u...20g...20v...10b... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Semantics fallacies. Answer the questions put to you. 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
09-07-2020 01:23
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBD if you aren't going to respond to the post below let me know and I'll stop asking. tmiddles wrote: So you're saying ITN is correct in both the statements that radiance is and is not light. Whatever. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Also you are saying "radiance" is NOT electromagnetic energy? I'm saying that work is not power. Are you arguing they are? How was that not a yes or no question? I'm not arguing they are because that statement has nothing to do with what we are talking about. So you're saying that: radiance = work and that electromagnetic energy = power ? An increase in temperature is not "work". "work" is displacement of an object and has nothing to do with what we are discussing. "power" is the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time and so EM is not power. The rate of conversion of EM to something else, like thermal energy would be power. "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
09-07-2020 01:50
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: IBD if you aren't going to respond to the post below let me know and I'll stop asking. tmiddles wrote: So you're saying ITN is correct in both the statements that radiance is and is not light. Whatever. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Also you are saying "radiance" is NOT electromagnetic energy? I'm saying that work is not power. Are you arguing they are? How was that not a yes or no question? I'm not arguing they are because that statement has nothing to do with what we are talking about. So you're saying that: radiance = work and that electromagnetic energy = power ? An increase in temperature is not "work". "work" is displacement of an object and has nothing to do with what we are discussing. "power" is the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time and so EM is not power. The rate of conversion of EM to something else, like thermal energy would be power. "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 I'm missing your point. I've never really seen where electromagnetic energy is considered as power. Power often times is calculated as A = w/v or amps = watts divided by volts. If an increase in temperature expands gases which moves something, then the increase in temperature is responsible for work being performed. It is moving some thing. The Atmos clock converts thermal energy into work. In this instance, a change in temperature is directly proportional to work being performed. https://www.jaeger-lecoultre.com/us/en/watches/atmos.html If you want to know, I am pursuing work which would have scientists reconsider why Venus is hot. The data that has been collected is in conflict with itself which is why I am interested.
09-07-2020 04:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21624)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted IAW tmiddles ordinance #1...Mantra 6...29... No argument presented. RQAA. Answer the questions put to you. 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
09-07-2022 18:07
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	IBdaMann wrote: Max Planck deceased for 73 years tgoebbles never got the memo; he thinks he just "knows" temperatures of entire planets, justifying his omniscience by mentioning that humans successfully navigated a probe to its death on Venus, hence no data is ever needed for tgoebbles . Let's be honest, the probes on Venus did measure the temp and pressure, you can't just dismiss the data they gathered. I mean you can but it just makes you look like a fool who dismisses everything he doesn't like even if it's actual measurements. It's a ridiculous stance to say that specially made equipment totally failed to do the task it was designed to do several times in a row. It's not that hard to simulate 90 atm and 500c on earth to test the thermometers. Stop being ridiculous. (Not sure if that was you or ITN who said that the data is totally unusable, somewhere in some other thread.)
09-07-2022 18:47
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	IBdaMann wrote: tgoebbles wrote: And that your friend David is named David. That's an abstract concept not a measurement. You are WRONG! That they are called "bricks" is not a measure, but that there are 137 bricks in the pile most certainly is, and I can know it to absolute certainty. . Well you definitely can not. What is a brick? Isn't a brick an abstract concept too? Sure you can count the bricks but I for example can say that there's only 136 because the other one is not really a brick bc it's too small/too big/too light/ etc. All of the bricks are different, so you can be sure there is 137 and someone else can be sure there's only 136/ 135.5 because it depends on how you define a brick. I wouldn't say that you can know something to absolute certainty since you can't even for sure count the bricks since all of them are different and some of them might not be true bricks. Some bricks are smaller than others. So how big does a brick need to be to count as a brick? Maybe by weight it's actually 135.9 bricks. Maybe some bricks are too small to be counted as full bricks. I say no brick that's 0.97787 by weight of a full brick can count as a brick. So there's only 134 bricks. So who is right? What is a brick anyway? Or I say there's 136 and a half bricks. Because 1 of them is not big enough to be counted as a full brick. It just depends on how you define a brick. So you definitely can not know with absolute certainty the number of bricks. All of them are slightly different and some may not count as legit bricks. Maybe some have more internal cracks than a brick should have. If you want you can dismiss anything. This is what you do when you're presented with Venus temp measurements, you're (maybe it was ITN, I don't remember) saying they are all bs because "high temps and space travel would damage the thermometers". That's just garbage. When you measure the temp in your room and it's say 70F, do you calibrate the thermometer? Ofc no, nobody does. Yet somehow 70f is pretty accurate (it's accurate enough for your purposes of knowing the temp inside. You don't measure the temp at the ceiling, at the middle and at the floor and then take an average, it's not needed) since the humanity knows how to make relatively accurate thermometers. It's stupid to assume that people who put thermometers on Venus probes used really shit ones, to the point that all of the measurements are complete crap and can't be used at all. That's ridiculous. Can you measure the length of a shoreline with absolute certainty? You can not. But you can measure it to some degree of accuracy. The same was done at Venus (obviously the temp measurements, not length measurements were done). So to claim that the temp on Venus is unknown is just stupid and ignorant. You only need 1 measurement (assuming the device is working correctly) to have an idea of what's happening and plenty of measurements were done on Venus. So that's just a crap argument. You say you need to measure someone to know their height and weight, but dude, the height and the weight of a person are not static, they change even during the day. And and what if the scale was broken? You just need to be reasonable. Also the claim that you can't measure the temp/E of the earth is not really true, you definitely can. Can you measure the temp/E of a brick/ball? The earth is just a big brick. To measure a bricks temp, 1 or 2 thermometers are enough. So it definitely can be done. E of the brick def can be measured. I'm saying that you'd need somewhere from 15 to 300 thermometers spread evenly across the globe to get a relatively accurate MAST of the earth. A 1000 would be nice but it's not necessary. Even 30 would do. It doesn't really matter how big the earth is, as long as there are some thermometers on the cold side, some on the hot side and some in between that's enough. Not that difficult is it. Say all of them would take a measurement every minute. Or 10 minutes or even every hour would do. That's it. Not so difficult. Saying that it's impossible is ignorant. When you measure the temp of a brick you don't need to measure the energy of every molecule, same with the earth, you don't need to measure the temp of every sq km. It's not necessary. The issue would be to fix in place the ones in the oceans though. But it's totally doable Measuring the E shouldn't be that hard, you measure the flux coming off the earth, next you put an object (several obj with different known E values) with known E at the same distance from the sun and measure it's radiant flux and temp, next you compare fluxes, done. If you can measure the temp and E of a brick, you can measure them for the earth, as a brick and the earth are essentially the same. Edited on 09-07-2022 18:50
09-07-2022 18:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14443)	Sugondeez wrote:Let's be honest, Yes, let's avoid being dishonest, shall we? Sugondeez wrote: the [totally uncalibrated space-traveling, lift-off enduring and environmental-extreme suffering] probes on Venus did measure the temp and pressure, you can't just dismiss the data they gathered. I totally dismiss the uncalibrated and unverified signals of a device in the process of being destroyed. Remember, we are supposed to be honest here. Sugondeez wrote: I mean you can but it just makes you look like a fool who dismisses everything he doesn't like I mean, you can tout any errant electromagnetic radiation as a sign from God, but it just makes you look like a nutcase preacher who is determined to impose his religious faith onto others. I'm just being honest here. Sugondeez wrote: It's a ridiculous stance to say that specially made equipment totally failed to do the task it was designed to do It is common sense to acknowledge that equipment under extreme/destructive stress won't function as it was designed. We really should be honest about this. Sugondeez wrote:It's not that hard to simulate 90 atm and 500c on earth to test the thermometers. The design of the car above was road-tested thoroughly before being introduced. It is stupid to imply that one should just religiously assume that a miracle will occur and that the car will continue to perform precisely as it was designed while suffering fatal/destructive stress. Stop being ridiculous and start being honest. Sugondeez wrote:. (Not sure if that was you or ITN who said that the data is totally unusable, somewhere in some other thread.) I'm sure both of us echoed the common sense of rational adults in the thread multiple times, because we are being honest and not pushing any sort of religious faith in this thread. I'll tell you what. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but if you can land a probe on Venus without it suffering a harsh collision with the surface, that continues operating as designed for a few months after landing, and is capable of performing a successful self-calibration, then I will accept data thereof. Shall we discuss what it is "we will know" upon receiving temperature data taken from one point on the surface of the planet with its elevation being unknown? I'm eagerly awaiting your honest response. .
09-07-2022 19:27
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	IBdaMann wrote: I'm eagerly awaiting your honest response. . I don't understand, it's 25C in my room rn. Will you say that since my thermometer is not calibrated the reading is totally worthless? It's just a thermometer reading. We could assume that the numbers from Venus are wrong but they are all we have. So why not assume that they are relatively correct? Why is that such a big deal? It just gives us an understanding of what's happening there. 453C or 456C it's still pretty hot. I don't think you'll argue with that. I'll tell you what. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but if you can land a probe on Venus without it suffering a harsh collision with the surface, that continues operating as designed for a few months after landing, and is capable of performing a successful self-calibration, then I will accept data thereof. This is called being really stubborn for no reason. Whatever. It's almost equivalent to saying that I'll accept that the number of bricks is 137 after you take them all apart atom by atom to be sure that none had fake atoms inside and so can't count as real bricks. Pretty ridiculous but nobody can stop you from demanding that. It is common sense to acknowledge that equipment under extreme/destructive stress won't function as it was designed. We really should be honest about this. Lol unless it was designed to function under exactly that kind of stress. And it was because there were multiple probes (I think). The design of the car above was road-tested thoroughly before being introduced. It is stupid to imply that one should just religiously assume that a miracle will occur and that the car will continue to perform precisely as it was designed while suffering fatal/destructive stress. Stop being ridiculous and start being honest. That's pretty bad. The car wasn't designed to survive being in a press, it was designed to drive on a road, see the difference? Put a tank in that press and the press probably won't do much. If the thermometer was designed to last some time on Venus, and it did, what makes you think it was reporting bad data?
09-07-2022 20:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14443)	Sugondeez wrote:I don't understand, Thank you for prefacing the discussion with your level of understanding. I'll try to go a little bit more slowly. Sugondeez wrote:it's 25C in my room rn. Will you say that since my thermometer is not calibrated the reading is totally worthless? Despite your thermometer being uncalibrated, are you saying that you nonetheless know, with absolute certainty, to the millionth of a degree, the temperature in the far corner of the room opposite of the thermometer? Are you claiming to be omniscient? Sugondeez wrote:It's just a thermometer reading. It's just a claim of omniscience. Sugondeez wrote:We could assume that the numbers from Venus are wrong but they are all we have. Let's analyze this from a scientific perspective. Let's presume we are researchers and we have some numbers that we suspect are totally bogus and for which we have no way to verify veracity. What do we do with the numbers? A) Publish conclusions drawn from the bogus numbers as "what we know", or B) Discard the numbers [Hint: B] Does the answer somehow change if the numbers are "all we have"? Sugondeez wrote:So why not assume that they are relatively correct? Because that is prohibited in science. You aren't a scientist. Ask me how I know. Sugondeez wrote:Why is that such a big deal? You aren't a scientist. Ask me how I know. Sugondeez wrote:It just gives us an understanding of what's happening there. No, it does not. One possibility is that it is hot and harsh where the probe landed, but it is also possible that the probe happened to land coincidentally inside an active volcano, or that it landed in freezing Arctic conditions but the shock of the landing threw all sensors out of wack, causing them to register very hot readings before succumbing to the damage of the collision with the surface. The point is that you do not know anything at all about the surface of Venus as a whole, despite your claims that your religious faith somehow affords you divine wisdom. You cannot verify anything that you claim, and the scientific method is all about verification. I'm not buying your religion. I'm not buying your claims of omniscience. Sugondeez wrote:453C or 456C it's still pretty hot. I don't think you'll argue with that. Possibly being off by 400C is way off. I don't think you'll argue with that. Sugondeez wrote:[This is called being really stubborn for no reason. Like I said, you are being an irrational preacher who is pushing a WACKY religion onto others. Naturally, you are going to perceive rational adults who apply common sense as being "really stubborn for no reason" but we are simply applying common sense and rejecting your religious faith. Why do you insist that I "believe" as you do while avoiding the scientific method like the plague? Now is the time for you to keep the discussion within the context of the scientific method. Tell me what you have verified beyond mere belief. The floor is yours, preacher. Sugondeez wrote:Lol unless it was designed to function under exactly that kind of stress. And it was because there were multiple probes (I think). This is a stupid statement. Nothing is designed to function normally while being destroyed ... except for warheads, of course. All Venus probes were apparently destroyed, some prior to landing, some in the course of landing, and one shortly after landing. So why do you believe that a successful landing of an uncalibrated and possibly heavily damaged probe on Venus suddenly imparts omniscience about Venus to you? Sugondeez wrote:That's pretty bad. The car wasn't designed to survive being in a press, The Venus probes weren't designed to survive being destroyed either, or to function normally despite critical damage. You have no idea of the design of any of the Venus probes. Ask me how I know. .
09-07-2022 20:38
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	You're just arguing semantics. Jesus. You're arguing stupid shit for the sake of arguing. I said it's 25C because it's just what the thermometer reads, holy f shit man. Obviously I didn't measure every molecule of the air because I don't need that lvl of precision. Wow that's truly incredible. Tell me, can you measure the t of a brick? E of a brick? How is a brick different from the earth? I'd like you to respond to my big post, I'm curious what you have to say about my suggested way of measuring the temp of the surface atmo. I'm saying that you'd need somewhere from 15 to 300 thermometers spread evenly across the globe to get a relatively accurate MAST of the earth. A 1000 would be nice but it's not necessary. Even 30 would do. It doesn't really matter how big the earth is, as long as there are some thermometers on the cold side, some on the hot side and some in between that's enough. Not that difficult is it. Say all of them would take a measurement every minute. Or 10 minutes or even every hour would do. That's it. Not so difficult. Saying that it's impossible is ignorant. When you measure the temp of a brick you don't need to measure the energy of every molecule, same with the earth, you don't need to measure the temp of every sq km. It's not necessary. Also I'm not tmiddles, I literally never posted in this forum before, calm down ok. I'm not him, you don't need to attack me, I'm just saying. You aren't a scientist. LUL dude, did I ever claim to be a scientist? Also that's kinda mean. I'm not buying your religion. What religion? Tf are you smoking dude. Like I said, you are being an irrational preacher who is pushing a WACKY religion onto others. Holy **** dude, when did I push something onto you, much less a religion? Calm down we suspect are totally bogus and for which we have no way to verify veracity. Suddenly you're speaking for some unknown number of people. Who are we? Do you mean you? Didn't you accuse tmiddles of doing the same? Hmmmmm I'm not buying your religion. I think you're high, I'm not selling anything, definitely not selling any religion, not like I could do that. I think you need to calm down, I'm not trying to sell you any WACKY religion as you say, just making some points that I want to make. That's all. Chill ok? I just want to talk Edited on 09-07-2022 20:56

09-07-2022 20:45
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	This is a stupid statement. Nothing is designed to function normally while being destroyed ... except for warheads, of course. All Venus probes were apparently destroyed, some prior to landing, some in the course of landing, and one shortly after landing. Huh why do you think they were destroyed? Maybe it's bc it's really f hot there and there's a lot of pressure? Stuff doesn't work for long when it's so hot. Or I mean ofc, maybe it's just the aliens, they made us think that it's 400c there, but actually it's 25c and they are just messing with us and they destroyed the probes. That's way more likely. Sure. Ofc. It's just the aliens. One possibility is that it is hot and harsh where the probe landed, but it is also possible that the probe happened to land coincidentally inside an active volcano, or that it landed in freezing Arctic conditions but the shock of the landing threw all sensors out of wack, causing them to register very hot readings before succumbing to the damage of the collision with the surface. Exactly it's also possible that aliens fudged up the readings. Sure man, it's totally possible. We don't know anything. Tell me what you have verified beyond mere belief. The floor is yours, preacher. Yikes. Ok. I verified that you're being an ass for no reason to people who you don't know who are just trying to talk to you. I'm not trying to attack you, just saying that it's weird how you're so certain that the numbers from Venus are so unreliable you can't use them. What degree of accuracy do you need to accept that numbers are fine? Did I ever said that it's the temp of the whole planet? Don't remember saying that. You're just attacking me man, calm down Edited on 09-07-2022 21:13
09-07-2022 21:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14443)	Sugondeez wrote:Huh why do you think they were destroyed? I wrote "apparently." Why do you believe otherwise? You seem to be confident in your omniscience. Please explain what you have verified beyond mere belief. You still have yet to do so. Sugondeez wrote:Maybe it's bc it's really f hot there That is certainly one possibility. What have you verified about this possibility beyond mere belief? Sugondeez wrote:and there's a lot of pressure? It is certainly a definite possibility, one to which I subscribe. Of course, no human has been able to verify it. All probes were apparently destroyed. Sugondeez wrote:Stuff doesn't work for long when it's so hot. Stuff doesn't work at all, usually. Are you starting to get the point? You don't get to argue both confidence in a probe's normal operation while explaining why it wouldn't work at all. Sugondeez wrote: We don't know anything. OK, we'll end on common ground. By the way, let it be known that you were the one that carried the discussion to "deceptive aliens" while I simply adhered to the scientific method. Just for the record.
09-07-2022 21:15
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	IBdaMann wrote: By the way, let it be known that you were the one that carried the discussion to "deceptive aliens" while I simply adhered to the scientific method. Just for the record. Oh come on now, you're being an ass for no reason. I just brought that up to show you that you're being unreasonable, that's all Still would like you to respond to my big post about measuring the t and E of the earth. Not bc I want to sell you something, but bc I'm fairly certain the earth is a body, just like any other, and that you indeed can measure it's t. Stuff doesn't work at all, usually. Can't agree with that. It depends. My hammer works fine. My cup works fine. My phone works alright. My TV works fine. My monitor works fine. >Are you starting to get the point? What point? Maybe try making one Edited on 09-07-2022 21:22
09-07-2022 21:37
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	IBdaMann wrote: You don't get to argue both confidence in a probe's normal operation while explaining why it wouldn't work at all. I'll rephrase it a bit. Probes went there in like 1980s. And even today you'd struggle to make a probe that could measure stuff and transmit the signal to earth for a long time under such conditions. That's all I'm saying. Even stuff that was designed for those conditions didn't last long, normal parts wouldn't work there at all. So it's a success that they even measured something. I'm sure there are books about those probes, where it's explained what they put on them, how they designed it and why. Several probes actually landed there and transmitted something. That's a success in my book. You can argue all you want but you actually have some measurements. Are they perfect? No. But it's some info you can use. Or you can be a fanatic of perfect data that only exists in your fantasy. Just saying
09-07-2022 21:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14443)	Sugondeez wrote:Oh come on now, you're being an ass for no reason. Oh, wait! Now that you put it that way, I totally see your point. Yes, you really do know so much about Venus. I don't know how I missed it earlier. Sugondeez wrote:I just brought that up to show you that you're being unreasonable, that's all I already covered this. You are trying to impose a WACKY religious faith onto others, one that holds that you are somehow omniscient, and you consider the application of the scientific method by rational adults to be "totally unreasonable." You are clearly a scientifically illiterate moron who is desperate to appear "thmart." You are attempting to convince others that you are an omniscient genius. How would you rate your success on that matter? I think you are demonstrating that you are stupid, uneducated and totally gullible. You have not answered a single question I have posed to you while I have thoroughly answered all of yours. Either start providing valid answers to my questions or accept that you are an idiot who is preaching religious gibberish. You have provided no useful information in this thread. You have only shown this board what you strongly believe and how desperate you are for others to believe likewise, to the point that you will insult those who you do not convert to your faith or who remain steadfast in the scientific method. Sugondeez wrote: Still would like you to respond to my big post about measuring the t and E of the earth. I'll be happy to, once you either provide a valid response to one of my questions or simply admit honestly that you don't know anything that you believe about Venus because none of it has ever been verified. ... and thereafter post a link to your post because I don't remember ever seeing it. Sugondeez wrote: I'm fairly certain the earth is a body, just like any other, and that you indeed can measure it's t. You are engaging in dishonest wordplay. Can you measure a box? Can you measure a box that is in a different galaxy? If you answer "yes" then I mock you for claiming to be able to measure something that you cannot. If you answer "no" then I mock you for claiming that a box is somehow not measurable. Don't preface the discussion with how much you desperately BELIEVE that the earth's temperature is measurable. We already know just how WACKY your beliefs are. Instead, explain how someone can measure the temperature of the earth to within a specified margin of error. The floor is your, preacher.
09-07-2022 22:09
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	IBdaMann wrote: Yes, you really do know so much about Venus. Don't remember saying that I know much. I said we know something. There are some measurements. That's about it. You are trying to impose a WACKY religious faith onto others, one that holds that you are somehow omniscient What faith? What are you talking about? >that you are somehow omniscient Never claimed that, stop drinking so much bro. You're seeing stuff that's not there. You're accusing me of preaching and trying to sell you some religion. What? You are clearly a scientifically illiterate moron who is desperate to appear "thmart." You are attempting to convince others that you are an omniscient genius. Wow you went to insulting me real fast. >You are attempting to convince others that you are an omniscient genius Don't remember doing that. You have not answered a single question I have posed to you while I have thoroughly answered all of yours. What? Lol you didn't ask me anything man. You're just attacking me. For no reason I should note. You have provided no useful information in this thread. You have only shown this board what you strongly believe and how desperate you are for others to believe likewise, to the point that you will insult those who you do not convert to your faith or who remain steadfast in the scientific method. Oy yeah? Actually you are insulting me. Just wow. Maybe you should drink less bc you're literally attacking me when I just want to talk and I'm just asking questions. I'll be happy to, once you either provide a valid response to one of my questions You haven't asked me anything serious. You're being nitpicky about words. > the link Sure, here's the link https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference--d10-e2769-s280.php#post_87325 You are clearly a scientifically illiterate moron who is desperate to appear "thmart." You are attempting to convince others that you are an omniscient genius. How would you rate your success on that matter? I think you are demonstrating that you are stupid, uneducated and totally gullible. You have not answered a single question I have posed to you while I have thoroughly answered all of yours. a bunch of nonsense that i'm not going to answer You are engaging in dishonest wordplay. No no, you claimed that you can't measure the t of the earth. So I'm asking you, can you measure the t of a brick? How is a brick different from the earth? Can you measure a box that is in a different galaxy? But the earth is not a box and it's not in a different galaxy. It's right here. Don't preface the discussion with how much you desperately BELIEVE that the earth's temperature is measurable. We already know just how WACKY your beliefs are. Instead, explain how someone can measure the temperature of the earth to within a specified margin of error. Tf are you talking about. You somehow know what my beliefs are? I'm starting to think that you are all of that that you blame others of. Weird right? Don't preface the discussion with how much you desperately BELIEVE that the earth's temperature is measurable. Why is it not? We already know just how WACKY your beliefs are. LOL. WHO ARE WE MATE? Is there 2 of you? And what are my beliefs? How tf do you know? You are really fantasizing a lot don't you? Instead, explain how someone can measure the temperature of the earth to within a specified margin of error. Read my post, I hope the link works. Remember, I'm not attacking you, I hope you calm down a bit F*cking hell bro. It's a tough life on a climate forum, huh?
09-07-2022 22:33
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	IBdaMann wrote: I'll be happy to, once you either provide a valid response to one of my questions I've been answering your questions btw. You need to stop drinking, you're claiming to know my beliefs. You're saying that I desperately need something. How tf do you know what I need? Sheesh. What else do you know about me? My hair color? My height? What I ate for dinner? Really nice telepathic powers man. You have only shown this board what you strongly believe and how desperate you are for others to believe likewise Tf dude. Ok. What do I "strongly believe" as you say? I'm all ears. Lol how would you even know that? Do you have some mind reading abilities? Maybe teach me some? You are trying to impose a WACKY religious faith onto others Gotta stop smoking that stuff or whatever you're doing, empty accusations mate. How do you even know what I'm "trying to do"? Chill out a bit, you're really worked up about some religions and beliefs and other crazy stuff, that I desperately need to convince someone (? HUH??? MATE STOP SMOKING OK), wtf, I don't even know what you're accusing me of. The link, again: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference--d10-e2769-s280.php#post_87325
09-07-2022 23:17
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14443)	Sugondeez wrote:I've been answering your questions btw. You have not provided a single valid response. Sugondeez wrote:You need to stop drinking, you're claiming to know my beliefs. You have stated your beliefs and your faith. This is not a valid response to any of my questions. Sugondeez wrote:Gotta stop smoking that stuff or whatever you're doing, empty accusations mate. This is also not a valid response to any of my questions. Sugondeez wrote:Chill out a bit, you're really worked up about some religions and beliefs and other crazy stuff, that I desperately need to convince someone Nice distraction but this is also not a valid response to any of my questions. Sugondeez wrote:The link, again: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference--d10-e2769-s280.php#post_87325 Thank you for the link. As I specified, I will give you a thorough response once you have addressed some of my questions, or you have admitted that you don't know anything that you believe about Venus because none of it has been verified. The floor is yours, preacher. You have my full attention.
09-07-2022 23:21
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Tell me IBdaMann , who is claiming omniscience? I said there are some measurements of Venus. I didn't say that the avg t of the whole Venus was measured. I just said there are some measurements and asked why you think they are bad? And now you are claiming to know my beliefs, to know what I want??, to know what I'm "trying to do"? Accusing me of some bullshit? Who is claiming omniscience man? Are you sure it's not you? I'm "pushing" something? Wow you really know a lot about me.. Except you don't. You are trying to impose a WACKY religious faith onto others, who is desperate to appear "thmart." You are attempting to convince others that you are an omniscient genius. Don't preface the discussion with how much you desperately BELIEVE that the earth's temperature is measurable. We already know just how WACKY your beliefs are. Like I said, you are being an irrational preacher who is pushing a WACKY religion onto others.
09-07-2022 23:30
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	IBdaMann wrote: Nice distraction but this is also not a valid response to any of my questions. You haven't asked anything. You've just been attacking me and accusing me of some bs. What do you want me to answer? How to measure the t of the earth? Read the link. If you want to know something else, ask away. You've been mostly attacking me so I don't remember you asking much. You have stated your beliefs and your faith. Oh yea? And what is it? How tf do you know that dude. Who is claiming omniscience? Definitely it's not you.. Oh wait.. You miraculously know my beliefs.. Yikes. , or you have admitted that you don't know anything that you believe about Venus because none of it has been verified. Bro how do you know what I believe about it? You have no idea. All I said is that there are some measurements and that there's no reason to think they are bad. That's all I said. Wake up I didn't say that the t of the whole planet was measured. You are dreaming if you think that bc I never said that. You need to learn how to talk to people without attacking them. And stop trying to think that you know what someone believes in, especially if you have no idea, like you have no idea about my beliefs. You are clueless clearly, because you wouldn't be attacking me if you knew what I believe in. I just wanted to ask some questions and you're being an ass for no reason. Edited on 09-07-2022 23:50

Page 8 of 16

Join the debate NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The Van Allen radiation belts and the Tropopause	5	06-01-2024 23:46
The government now wants everyone to ALWAYYS use their real name when using the net	20	18-11-2023 22:35
Anyone explain how does N2 and O2 don't absorb electromagnetic radiation?	49	02-02-2023 01:23
Under Dorsey the FBI literally determined everything that Twitter was allowed to put on the net	3	03-01-2023 19:25
Net Metering	7	10-12-2020 14:37