Spending

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: There is an atmospheric component to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Neither you nor itn took the time to learn how that equation is applied. Neither one of you seems to understand physics or you'd be aware of what I'm pointing out to you.

You need to first show that you understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you clearly don't. Go read up on it as much as necessary and then get back to me when you have a clue.

Politiplex - Science References - Stefan-Boltzmann

That Holy Link of yours explained nothing.

Then you need to read it again.

James___ wrote:
It kind of goes along with it's we need to define what "is" is.

LAME. You are actually going to use Bill's quote??

James___ wrote:
It seemed like all you did was string together different quotes you found online which you vaguely defined so YOU could give them meaning.

They are equations. They are specific. They have a specific meaning.

James___ wrote:
I'll give you a basic example of what you don't know. If anything absorbed all energy it is exposed to then it would a theoretical black hole.

So now you are trying once again to change the equation by removing the emissivity term.

James___ wrote:
Since nothing on earth absorbs All solar radiation, what isn't absorbed is refracted.

Reflected, actually. You still can't seem to understand these two words either.

James___ wrote:
Neither yourself nor itn are willing to consider how refracted solar radiation is different from the black body radiation emitted by the earth.

One is emitted due to Earth's temperature. The reflected light is not.

James___ wrote:
You simply ignore that part of the science.

No, YOU are ignoring the science. YOU are trying to change the equation to remove the emissivity term. Inversion fallacy.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: There is an atmospheric component to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Neither you nor itn took the time to learn how that equation is applied. Neither one of you seems to understand physics or you'd be aware of what I'm pointing out to you.

You need to first show that you understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you clearly don't. Go read up on it as much as necessary and then get back to me when you have a clue.

Politiplex - Science References - Stefan-Boltzmann

That Holy Link of yours explained nothing.

Then you need to read it again.

James___ wrote:
It kind of goes along with it's we need to define what "is" is.

LAME. You are actually going to use Bill's quote??

James___ wrote:
It seemed like all you did was string together different quotes you found online which you vaguely defined so YOU could give them meaning.

They are equations. They are specific. They have a specific meaning.

James___ wrote:
I'll give you a basic example of what you don't know. If anything absorbed all energy it is exposed to then it would a theoretical black hole.

So now you are trying once again to change the equation by removing the emissivity term.

James___ wrote:
Since nothing on earth absorbs All solar radiation, what isn't absorbed is refracted.

Reflected, actually. You still can't seem to understand these two words either.

James___ wrote:
Neither yourself nor itn are willing to consider how refracted solar radiation is different from the black body radiation emitted by the earth.

One is emitted due to Earth's temperature. The reflected light is not.

James___ wrote:
You simply ignore that part of the science.

No, YOU are ignoring the science. YOU are trying to change the equation to remove the emissivity term. Inversion fallacy.

That's you're problem right there itn, you simply don't know enough to know when you're wrong.