Posted by By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
Comments
-
Nothing like a year-old, unsourced, obviously mendacious random article to make your point, pentax! You’re reeling in the converts now!
By the way, I’ve been away for a while and just skimmed.. but what the hell is it with deniers and spelling? Oil and water it seems.
-
Chris O’Neill
The temperature data is the data … there is no necessity to ‘define’ what it shows. It doesn’t matter exactly where you start looking, or what dataset you prefer
The problem I’m pointing out is what the data shows, or rather doesn’t show, not the words used to describe the data …
Anybody should understand that. And what the problem is. But apparently not …
-
Stu, have you found your speed difference between hand and box yet. Outside your own head, that is? 1½ years in denial about somthing that obvious is pretty bad if you ask me … As are the lame excuses for it you\ve tried
-
Joan, why are you still going on about the hand and box going at different speeds?
THEY DO NOT.
Really, it’s not even physics 101 and you’re still getting it wrong.
Stop thinking that the hand and the box are moving at different speeds!
-
“what the data shows, or rather doesn’t show, not the words used to describe the data …
Anybody should understand that”
We do understand what the data shows.
You don’t have the first clue.
It has been pointed out to you several times, but you’re incapable of understanding even the most basic of maths.
-
Haha. Is it, really? So, is this the way you “read” long texts with many words? You quickly, quickly skim untill you find a phrase that fits your view? Do you have any real arguments? Do you even understand what is written, if you even has read it?
-
Now, let’s see what big words wow will find after skimming this text.
“First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but energy cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and mass in the Universe is always constant; it merely changes from one form to another.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Heat may only be transferred from a hotter to cooler body, never vice versa. A cooler atmosphere cannot heat the earth’s warmer surface. The greenhouse effect is a myth because its premise clearly violates the second law of thermodynamics! Although all bodies above absolute zero radiate and absorb radiant energy, the warmer body always provides more energy to the cooler body than it receives back from the cooler body. A cooler body therefore can never heat up a warmer body; the cooler body warms and the warmer body cools, never vice-versa.
The Scientific Truth
The truth of the matter is that any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling. Stand near a fireplace that is burning and feel the warmth of the radiant energy, then have two people drape a blanket between you and the fireplace – you will feel cooler! This is like standing outside on a sun shiny day and when a cloud goes over and shields you from the direct rays of the sun, you feel cooler. A child knows this. Regarding the earth, our atmosphere provides cooling in the same manner: Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and any dust that is in the atmosphere all provide cooling.Why is this? It is very simple. If there were no atmosphere, all of the radiant energy from the sun would hit the earth. With an atmosphere, a portion of the incoming sun’s rays are reflected back toward the sun by striking the gaseous molecules and dust particles, so less radiant energy hits the earth and the earth is cooler because of its atmosphere, see the figure below.
Everyone also knows that cloud cover at night (more insulation) prevents the earth from cooling off as fast as it does when there are no clouds. However, on a relatively clear night if a cloud goes overhead you cannot feel any warming effect of the cloud, so this insulating effect is shown to be minimal compared to the daytime effect.
Anthropogenic Global Warming – more energy out than in – good trick, but violation of First Law of Thermodynamics. The US Patent Office would never patent such a concept.“ (Joseph E. Postma)” -
“The Scientific Truth
The truth of the matter is that any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling.”That is just woomancer bollocks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
proves the greenhouse gas effect.
-
panties, why do you keep with the projection?
You skim the blogosphere until you find something or someone that you think you can twist to “AGW is false” then stop.
Then you complain of everyone who actually reads and pretends they do like you do (else you’d have to admit you’re a speck of flyshit on humanity’s BLT sandwich).
-
Panties, how does heat travel and WHY does the second law apply.
You have learned the stock phrases (mostly because you’ve been told what phrases to use not because you understand anything about them), but you don’t know anything about how they come about.
Why does the second law apply? How does heat travel around.
Do you have ANY CLUE ****WHATSOEVER*** about what you’re cutnpasting out here?
No.
You don’t.
You will now demonstrate this by avoiding showing anything about how heat is transferred.
-
Wow, your argument being…namecalling? Untill you start use an adult language, and behave like an adult, I do’t see any point at all answering you.
-
Wow. A prediction that took onle 3 minutes to be proven correct.
TAKE THAT NOSTRADAMUS!
-
Wow, even when you get it right you don\t understand;
why are you still going on about the hand and box going at different speeds?
THEY DO NOT.
That’s correct. Everybody knows that.Stu knows that, and apparently even you (*).
Sru how ever imagined (out of thin air) that others had claimed the opposite, he even said that they argued the notion (‘different speeds’) for weeks. Althougn nobody ever did. Neither to start with nor later. Instead his misconception was pointed out within minutes. Explicitly!
And that poor excuse for a joke, still argued the opposite after 1½ years. In denial of reality …
Stop thinking that the hand and the box are moving at different speeds!
Still completely wrong, Wow. Nobody except Stu ever started thinking anything like this! Only he desperately wanted to imagine that others made such claims … In complete denial of reality.
And no Wow, I’m not getting the physics wrong. Luminous, you, Stu, chek end others did! Often badly …
(*) You’ve said many more incredibly stupid wrt to this topic, and I rarely pay attention. But it wouln’t suprise me if you have argued the opposite too
-
“” why are you still going on about the hand and box going at different speeds?
THEY DO NOT. ”
That’s correct”
Then why do you keep claiming that they do?
-
“Nobody except Stu ever started thinking anything like this! ”
Incorrect, you’re the only one thinking anything like that.
-
“And no Wow, I’m not getting the physics wrong.”
Nope, you’re getting everything about the physics wrong.
Not to mention incorrect maths, incorrect logic, incorrect physics and incorrect english.
Indeed there is nothing you are not capable of getting completely and utterly wrong and displaying such incapability proudly for all to see.
You are the dark side of the rennaisance man.
-
No Wow …
I very much doubt that you understand what the data shows … Instead you’ve tried completely irrelevant things about the dataset, the trend, and other diversions. Now knowing what the data is used for. Not even understanding the concept of a hypothesis.
And you even bring up Stefan Boltzman’s law, hoping it proves the greenhouse effect. But you who have demonstrated how poor your understanding of even simple physics is, wouldn’t know about that.
What you claimed is so stupid, even luminous looks like bright shining star of physics next you that. And he certainly wasn’t ..
-
There you go. Although you (claim to) to know that there are no speed differencies involved, yo imiagin that this claim was being made. It wasn’t. Only stu (and later possibly you) tried the idiot argument that others hade made this claim and even defended it wor weeks.
Utter stupidity. In denial of reality … or dishonest. And probably both.
And (suprise) a staunch believer in all kind of things you neither understand or can argue.
(However, I woulnd’t call your word sallad arguing … not anywhere close).
-
And still you claim that the hand and box move at different speeds????
Why????
How on earth can you get away with continuing to claim there is something different about the speed of the hand and the box ESPECIALLY after you admit there’s no such difference? Do you ignore your own posts when convenient?
-
“And you even bring up Stefan Boltzman’s law, hoping it proves the greenhouse effect.”
No hope needed.
You merely have to comprehend the science.
Something you are, as has been proven absolutely several times for you before, constitutionally incapable of doing.
Don’t worry. Intelligence is a bell curve and you just happen to be the bell end of it.
-
More evidence proving your inability to do any actual thinking is shown by the fact that, despite your continual waving of your CV and qualifications and your super-PhD education, you are unable to describe how the second law comes about and heat transfer happens.
Even undergraduates know enough to explain that.
You, however, because of your pretend education that you continue to prattle on about being completely fictional, are unable to manage even that simple task.
-
Look hereWow, little moron
any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling
This is quite correct, even when ‘the mass’ is the earths atmosphere:
1. At daytime, the sun is the energy source, and ‘tthe mass’ between it and the earth surface (relatively) cools the latter.
2. At night, the warmer earth surface (the radiant energy source) faces the colder space, and the same mass (ie atmosphere) ‘cools’ outer space (compared to its absence).
Simple as that. The greenhose effect has to do with how this mechanism works and differes depending on in which direction the heat is radiated. And Stefan Boltzman is not the explanation for that
-
Nad you continue to repeat your nonsens Wow. The only one imagining different speeds being argued was Stu .. And he did so for 1½ years … you joined in, and are now making equally stupid claims.
You can’t even read and get simpler statments correctly. And think you cana argue, math, physics, logic and science with me?
I am sorry to say, but I think your grasp of physics is even poorer than Stu’s.
But as I said, you are at the prefect place types like you here at Deltoid.
-
” any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling ”
WRONG.
Entirely wrong in so many ways.
You’re like those victorian ads selling lenses to “focus the cold”.
Another body doesn’t emit coolness. You don’t absorb cooling.
But given your insistence that the hand pushing a box goes at a different speed from the box itself, the complete inanity of your “provide cooling” is completely predictable.
-
The only one imagining different speeds being argued was You .. And you did so for 1½ years… and are still doing it.
-
“1. At daytime, the sun is the energy source, and ‘tthe mass’ between it and the earth surface (relatively) cools the latter.”
WRONG.
“2. At night, the warmer earth surface (the radiant energy source) faces the colder space, and the same mass (ie atmosphere) ‘cools’ outer space (compared to its absence).”
WRONG.
-
Stupidity beyond belief …
Nobody talks about ‘emitting coolness’ or ‘absorbing cooling’
The mass will provide cooling for the non- (or less) emitting body, relatively speaking. Exactly as I described.
And no, SB’s law is still not the proof of the GH-effect.
It seems you suffer from some kind of autism almost …
-
“Stupidity beyond belief … ”
I know. How can someone be as dumb as you yet still remember how to eat?
Do you have a nanny to feed you or something?
“The mass will provide cooling for the non- (or less) emitting body, ”
Nope, absolutely wrong.
-
Your fire is at about 2000C.
According to you, this cools you when you turn the light on because the light bulb filament is at 3000C.
Not even your fan club are supporting your statement.
THAT is how dumb you are.
-
Joan,
Do you like incandescent light bulbs?
Do you think that banning them is a bad idea because you think that the light bulb warms the house a little and CFLs being more efficient don’t do this, therefore require more heating of the home?
-
Come on, you’re pretending to be the master of masses.
Yet you can’t answer simple questions.
More proof (if any were needed) that you’re an incompetent.
-
The moon has no atmosphere and therefore nothing to “cool the outer space” but its night temperatures are much much colder than ours.
Venus has a lot more atmosphere and therefore, if it “cools the planet” like you say, it should be colder than the earth or no warmer, but it’s hot enough to melt tin.
When it’s a cloudy night, there’s no more mass to the atmosphere than on a cloudless night, but one night is warmer than the other and one day cooler than the other.
-
The blanket over you at night is more mass above you than without the blanket, yet if mass cools you as you assert, why do you get colder without the blanket?
-
Hillarious, wow really hasn’t the least clue of basic physics. Hillarious!
Interresting:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100196238/why-we-fight/
-
When you put your hand in body temperature water, the mass doesn’t cool your hand.
If you put your hand in a bucket of hot water which is between you and the fire in your room, your hand doesn’t get “cooled by the mass” in between your hand and the fire.
-
Wow, you are imagining nonsense. Like Stu was earlier (and still tries to get away with), like Jeff uses as his main method of ‘arguing’ ..
It is very hard to beleive that all the nonsens you write and claim is the result of so much ignorance and incomprehension it would require.
But hey, this is Deltoid, and many of the commenters here are on your level, or at least close to it …
-
“Hillarious, wow really hasn’t the least clue of basic physics.”
Hilarious is that your only evidence for this is that Joan says I don’t know basic physics.
-
“Wow, you are imagining nonsense. ”
Nope, you’ve been consistently imagining nonsense.
1) Hand and box moving at different speeds
2) You having an education
3) masses giving out cooling -
“…why do you get colder without the blanket?”
So you have never heard avout convection?
-
“It is very hard to beleive that all the nonsens you write”
Nonsense you are unable to discern. But just “know” is there?
Blind faith.
It’s all you have since that doesn’t require any thought, just memorisation of key phrases.
-
“So you have never heard avout convection?”
Joan hasn’t.
I have.
-
And what about convection?
-
“Hilarious is that your only evidence for this is that Joan says I don’t know basic physics.”
Haha, you’re so funny. You are very capable of showing everyone your knowledge in basic physics all by your self.
With your logic, the hand in the bucket with boiling water would heat the water even more. You obviosly hasn’t the slightes clue on the thermodynamic laws.
-
OK, so you don’t even have “Joan says I don’t know physics” then.
I.e. you’re just stating it and have absolutely no idea why.
-
“the hand in the bucket with boiling water would heat the water even more”
Nope.
That may be what YOU think it means, which is why you think it is wrong.
However, that’s not the science being wrong, it’s you.
You are the problem. Just like Joan.
-
So you don’t understand how convection works? What a surprise.
-
The only one who doesn’t apparently understand convection is you, otherwise you would have responded to the question.
If you don’t understand convection, you can’t answer the question.
If you do understand it, you could.
Since you haven’t, “don’t understand convection” is the currently evidence based winner.
-
Ok, what about another analogy, does the ice cubes in a whisky on the rocks cool or warm the whisky? Shouldn’t be to hard for you to answer.
-
You just asked if I understand convection.
I say I do.
Where do you get the idea I don’t understand convection?
I also note you’re not berating Joan for not understanding it either.
-
An analogy for what?
-
Since you don’t appear to know what the word analogy means, here’s one definition:
a·nal·o·gy
/əˈnaləjē/
NounA comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
A correspondence or partial similarity.Synonyms
similarity – resemblance – likeness – parity – parallel -
For what? Even that you don’t understand? You claim that the colder atmosphere warms the warmer earth. Which of course is impossible. So I wonder if you stand by this claim by asking you if an icecube warms the whisky. Is that plain enough for you?
-
“For what? Even that you don’t understand?”
You said nothing about what the analogy was to be understood. Again the problem here is you.
“You claim that the colder atmosphere warms the warmer earth.”
Nope, reality is that the colder atmosphere warms the earth.
This is fact. It is not only possible, it is the only explanation of how the second law comes about.
Is that plain enough for you?
-
“I wonder if you stand by this claim by asking you if an icecube warms the whisky. ”
Yes, it does look like the word “analogy” is your problem here.
Ice cube in whisky is not analogous to the sun-earth-atmosphere-space thermal system.
-
Do you even know what heat is?
-
Tell me you’re not thinking that heat is some sort of fluid.
-
Wow
It is very simple: Two bodies of which one is a source (more) of radiative energy.
You insert a pssive mass between them, and this ha the effect of making the colder of the two (relatively9 still colder.
Your moon is a perfect example of this. Introducing a mass between its surface and the ‘sky’ proves this both on the sunny side, and at night …
Introducing lightbulbs, blankets and bockets of water .. that’s all just in your head. And equally unnecessary
-
Haha, as I suspected, you don’t have the slightes clue what thermodynamic is about. So, ’till next time.
PS The las of your posts has been without any namecalling and ad homs. How does that feel? Anyway, congrats for that. DS
-
“It is very simple: Two bodies of which one is a source (more) of radiative energy. ”
Sorry, what?
What do you mean by “source (more) of radiative energy”?
What is the “(more)” in there and what do you mean by it?
“Source of more radiative energy”?
-
I think it was signature *skeptic’ who introduced the term ‘word diarrhea’, or possibly Cris.
It’s a very fitting term for one character here.
Even the ‘analogy’ with a blanket preventing (or just lowing) convevctive heat transfer between on warmer body and the (colder) sourounding, works in the way way described:
The passive mass introduced between, lowers the rate of heat transfer.
Just amazing
-
“You insert a pssive mass between them”
Is that mass in thermal equilibrium?
-
“Haha, as I suspected”
Like I knew: you don’t know what heat is, what convection is or what you’re posting.
-
“Even the ‘analogy’ with a blanket ”
Are you and tampax the same person?
They don’t understand what analogy means.
It wasn’t an analogy.
-
So, did you run out of arguments?
-
“preventing (or just lowing) convevctive heat transfer between on warmer body and the (colder) sourounding”
Several problems here.
1) Your assertion about mass cooling things has nothing about convection. That you now bring it in means you agree that you were wrong.
2) The blanket is at room temperature. The same temperature as the room you’re in. Your body sees the same temperature world as without the blanket but DOES change its temperature. Your anti-science doesn’t allow that to happen.
3) A thin sheet would stop convection from your body into the room 100% as effectively as a thick woolen blanket or TOG 21 duvet. But people don’t put sheets over their body to keep warm. They put thick blankets on themselves to keep warm.
-
“So, did you run out of arguments?”
Nope. I still haven’t gotten any answers either.
Because you don’t know the answer.
-
“You insert a pssive mass between them”
What is a passive mass?
-
Wow … I misplaced the ‘more’, shold have read:
Two bodies of which one is a source of (more) radiative energy.
You insert a passive mass between them, and this has the effect of making the colder of the two (relatively) still colder.
The ‘more’ refers only to the comparison between the two. It may refer to temerature (and a SB blackbody) but that’s not required. Not necessarily therma equlibrium either, but for the sake of argument (and in the most basic interpretation) this is assumed.
And SB’s law still is not the proof or the main explanation of the greenhouse effect.
And buckets of water, lightbulbs, blankets, moons anda distorting everything will not make things better for you
-
“The ‘more’ refers only to the comparison between the two”
So it would be correct to say
“Two bodies both radiating, one more than the other”, right?
-
Both bodies radiate, right?
-
This isn’t a difficult question.
Either “yes” or you need to explain what you DO mean.
-
-
Looking forward to Jonas’ explaining “passive mass” as well. I’m sure he has a good reason to bring gravity into this.
-
Wow, here is the original and perfectly sensible statement, with a simple example:
any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling. Stand near a fireplace that is burning and feel the warmth of the radiant energy, then have two people drape a blanket between you and the fireplace – you will feel cooler!
The drape is the passive mass (ie not an energy source) and should have ambient temperature (but thermal equilibrium is not strictly required, but sufficient)
And you claimed that was wrong. Several times, even: “Entirely wrong in so many ways”
As I said: Stupidity beyond belief. You even provided an example (the moon) prefectly demonstrating what I had just described:. In absence of an intermediate atmosphere the surface facing the sun is warmer, and the surface facing outer space is colder (than they would be with the presence of an atmosphere, like on earth)
Still the simplests thing. But you did not only have severe difficulties understanding this. You claimed this was completely wrong. And started talking about all kinds of imagined gibberish (lightbulbs, buckets, blankets etc)
That’s quite hilarious. And Stu too, who again wants to imagine the ‘introduction’ of his own feverish fantasy products …
-
No, you clown, “passive mass” has a very distinct meaning in physics. Of course, you are blissfully unaware of that.
-
Nope Stu ..
You don’t need gravity to talk about a mass … Particularly not in this case.
Again, it is you imaginary ‘six years studies of physics’ which make you imagine thins far beyond your comprehension. As we’ve seen many times before.
And, have you forgotten? You never saw anything wrong with luminous physics …let alon ‘distinctly wrong’
You are and remain a total and complete joke, Stu.
-
So you don’t know what “passive mass” means in physics, and are too stupid and/or stubborn to look it up.
Duly noted.
-
And so we see that stu also have difficulties comprehending the language.
“You don’t need gravity to talk about a mass … Particularly not in this case.”
was obviously a too long sentence for him to take in.
-
Stu as I said … nothing I explain to you guys is that complicated. A hand pushing a box sliding over a surface ..
But it is enough for many of you to lose it. And yes, this has been noted.
Your fantasies have always been your own only …
Hasn’t it struck you Stu, that for 1½ year here you have had exactly zip to say or contribute of any substance.
Trying different words and phrases, imagining claims, inventing your own reality etc … But absolutely nothing of substance.
And you regularly side with the most moronic commenters and even their claims.
Why is that you think?
-
…and pentax doesn’t know what “passive mass” means either. Is there a law for deniers that disallows you from looking anything up?
This is “the hand must move faster also” all over again.
I WAS NOT THE ONE TO BRING UP “PASSIVE MASS”, MORON. Just because you clowns have no concept of physics does not mean that the terms you use have actual meanings you are unaware of.
It also does not excuse you from looking it up and retracting some of the more egregiously moronic formulations once they are pointed out to you.
-
A hand pushing a box sliding over a surface
And again, defending that “the hand needs to move faster also” proves you have never passed a physics class. Ever.
But it is enough for many of you to lose it.
Really?
IT’S ALL PROJECTION.
And yes, this has been noted.
Look, clownshoe, if you see a phrase new to you that you like and want to steal, it’s usually best to wait a little more than five minutes to use it while talking to the very people you stole it from.
You’ve done this half a dozen times now. It’s pathetic.
Hasn’t it struck you Stu, that for 1½ year here you have had exactly zip to say or contribute of any substance.
Is there anything of substance to address? So far, all I seem to recall is “90%, I don’t see it, and no, I won’t read attributions”, “luminous is wrong, but I can’t say how”, “hand moves faster also is perfectly reasonable”, and now “passive mass”.
Meanwhile, you can’t spell, you can’t read, and you can’t do math. I’m just trying to address those issues first.
Trying different words and phrases
Yes, I have tried to explain basic concepts to you in dozens of different ways. Heck, I’ve tried telling you that you wouldn’t look like such a dolt if you used spell-check a dozen times.
This is now a bad thing? I’d say it’s almost angelic patience with a stupid troll.
imagining claims
You’re just going to say “different speeds between hands and box” again, aren’t you? Let me pre-empt that by quoting “the hand must move faster also”.
And you regularly side with the most moronic commenters and even their claims. Why is that you think
I think, coming from someone so dense and annoying that he’s been confined to his own thread, that IT’S ALL PROJECTION.
-
One must be properly twisten in the head for claming
“You don’t need gravity to talk about a mass … Particularly not in this case.”
means “you don’t know what “passive mass” means in physics”
English just isn’t his strong side.
-
Stu, there is absolutely nothing complicated with introducing a mass between to radiating bodies, and requiring it to be (energetically) passive.
You are once more derailing of things in your fantasy, just when you were unable to understand that in order for the hand to accelerate it needed to increas its speed …
And plese, don’t forget Stu: You could see absolutely nothing wrong with luminous long winded attempts at ‘physics’
But I don’t require you to retract your nonsens. I believe you when you say that you can see nothing wrong with it …
Apart from the different speeds of course. That it was only you and your imagination who concocted this up, is so obvious even you must have noticed this by now. Especially since it’s been copied squarly in front of you again and again …
Sorry Stu, you still come across like the young kid coming home from school after having learnt a new word which he doesn’t quite understand, but is eager to use at the first best occasion …
different speeds .. dependet variables … officially introduced in the equations … and now ‘passive mass’ in the philosophical understanding … in contrast to active mass. And even this done wrongly
What a total joke you are Stu … But hey,, you can point out the typos. That’s always useful
-
pentax, you sniveling lying sycophant.
Jonas brings up “passive mass”.
I point out “passive mass” has a specific, gravitational meaning in physics, and using the term is stupid.
Jonas says “you don’t need gravity to talk about a mass”, missing the point completely and spectacularly.
You defend Jonas.
You are both dolts. Again, very slowly…
Saying
“Passive
Mass”
Was
Stupid.Get it now?
-
” any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling”
WRONG.
-
“The drape is the passive mass (ie not an energy source)”
So “passive mass” means “does not emit radiation itself”, right?
-
“was obviously a too long sentence for him to take in.”
Nope, the reason why it is not understood to be right is BECAUSE IT IS WRONG.
No matter how short or long that sentece is, it remains WRONG.
-
“Stu as I said … nothing I explain to you guys is that complicated”
Indeed.
It is simply wrong.
-
“One must be properly twisten in the head for claming
“You don’t need gravity to talk about a mass … Particularly not in this case.””
Totally agree.
How could Joan get their head so bent they can say that and thing it is right?
-
“there is absolutely nothing complicated with introducing a mass between to radiating bodies, and requiring it to be (energetically) passive.”
No, it’s simply wrong.
It is NOT POSSIBLE to get a mass that is energetically passive.
-
“You could see absolutely nothing wrong with luminous long winded attempts at ‘physics’ ”
Thats because nothing wrong was demonstrated.
Just like you can’t demonstrate it now.
-
“Apart from the different speeds of course. ”
There you go again, thinking that the hand and the box are going at different speeds!!!!
Joan, why do you insist on thinking that they go at different speeds?
-
Is your insane belief that: requre[ing] it to be (energetically) passive.”” is remotely possible the reason why you will not answer my question about the meaning of your statement “The ‘more’ refers only to the comparison between the two” is that you would have to admit that both bodies radiate?
Are you clueless or just a liar?
-
Stu, you are so ncreadiby stupid.
If the hand is to accelerate, it must increase its speed, ie move quicker.
And to avoud all confusion (apart among the hoplessly stupid) it was even particularly and explicity pointed out that the ‘move quicker’ refered to ‘accelerate’.
This case is so closed and all the egg is in your face Sstu. But I’ll gladly open it again and show it all to you.
And you imaagine that this or that popping up in your mind ‘proves’ anything? About me? Sure you believe your own fantasies. But they don’t involve me or any topic here.
And you are on Wow-level now claiming to be unable to see all the bad violations of simple physics lunimous tried to get in and out of his mess ..
As I said: Zip substance. Same with the 90%. Zip! I doubt that you even understand the question.
And now, you have not tried to explain concepts. You have put out words and phrases hoping the would show something, anything and help ‘your side’. A´nd they never did. Not this time either …
Really funny is that you think Deltoid’s erasing my comments elsewhere proves anything …
Jeff claimed something similar. And that yours and Wow’s support amounted to him being more correct …
He had the same problem Stu. He never was close to anything relevant.
-
The temperature data is the data
Thanks for the tautology. Your statement has no mathematics. No mathematics -> no meaning. Your statement is meaningless.
BTW, for people who know that meaning depends on mathematics, I’d say you nearly always need at least 14 years of data to get an uncertainty range above the zero line. For example, enter start date 1985, end date 1999 with GISSTemp.
Some clowns will probably try to tell us that global temperature goes through a “hiatius” every 13 years. They will, of course, say they know what they’re talking about.
-
“If the hand is to accelerate, it must increase its speed, ie move quicker. ”
Shit, are you the emperor of obvious land?
accelerate == increase it’s speed == move quicker.
Do you want to tell everyone about the new discovery that up is upwards and higher up now?
-
“And you are on Wow-level now claiming to be unable to see all the bad violations of simple physics lunimous tried to get in and out of his mess .. ”
There are none at all on this page.
Are you suggesting we have to imagine they are there first???
-
Wow … you are the clueless one. and possibly a liar too. At least you are so often so helplessly wrong, and contradicting yoursel that this seems like the most obvious explanation.
-
” At least you are so often so helplessly wrong”
BWAHAHAHAHA!
This is fucking priceless!
The moron who can’t do anything with anything for anything except post complete and utter bullshit AND DOESN’T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE’S SAYING thinks that merely claiming “oh, you’re so wrong” works!!!!
-
There are none on page 51 either.
So where are they?
Absence of existence means they don’t exist. It means they aren’t there.
January 5, 2013
January 5, 2013
January 5, 2013
January 5, 2013
January 5, 2013