Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[SSDD]

Did you note that at the end of your equation...after the last equals sign, it says the same thing the equation I have been providing all along says...all you showed is the algebraic reduction to the equation I have been providing all along...which says nothing about net since there is nothing in that equation from which to derive net....same old tedious misunderstanding you have had since the beginning...

 

[Wuwei]

Did you note that at the end of your equation...after the last equals sign, it says the same thing the equation I have been providing all along says...all you showed is the algebraic reduction to the equation I have been providing all along...which says nothing about net since there is nothing in that equation from which to derive net....same old tedious misunderstanding you have had since the beginning...

Of course I "noted" the final term. That's why I showed the derivation. What do you mean it says nothing about net? Look at the first term of equation 3. That defines net as the out-flow minus the in-flow of radiation. That is a normal usage of the word "net", as used in business finance, etc. The text also shows the meaning when T1 < T2.

.

 

[SSDD]

Did you note that at the end of your equation...after the last equals sign, it says the same thing the equation I have been providing all along says...all you showed is the algebraic reduction to the equation I have been providing all along...which says nothing about net since there is nothing in that equation from which to derive net....same old tedious misunderstanding you have had since the beginning...

Of course I "noted" the final term. That's why I showed the derivation. What do you mean it says nothing about net? Look at the first term of equation 3. That defines net as the out-flow minus the in-flow of radiation. That is a normal usage of the word "net", as used in business finance, etc. The text also shows the meaning when T1 < T2.

.

Simply saying net in front of an equation doesn't make it actually mean net...the ease with which you are fooled never ceases to give me a chuckle....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you note that at the end of your equation...after the last equals sign, it says the same thing the equation I have been providing all along says...all you showed is the algebraic reduction to the equation I have been providing all along...which says nothing about net since there is nothing in that equation from which to derive net....same old tedious misunderstanding you have had since the beginning...

Of course I "noted" the final term. That's why I showed the derivation. What do you mean it says nothing about net? Look at the first term of equation 3. That defines net as the out-flow minus the in-flow of radiation. That is a normal usage of the word "net", as used in business finance, etc. The text also shows the meaning when T1 < T2.

.

Simply saying net in front of an equation doesn't make it actually mean net...the ease with which you are fooled never ceases to give me a chuckle....

Still no back up for your "one-way flow only" claims.

Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

Did you note that at the end of your equation...after the last equals sign, it says the same thing the equation I have been providing all along says...all you showed is the algebraic reduction to the equation I have been providing all along...which says nothing about net since there is nothing in that equation from which to derive net....same old tedious misunderstanding you have had since the beginning...

Of course I "noted" the final term. That's why I showed the derivation. What do you mean it says nothing about net? Look at the first term of equation 3. That defines net as the out-flow minus the in-flow of radiation. That is a normal usage of the word "net", as used in business finance, etc. The text also shows the meaning when T1 < T2.

.

Simply saying net in front of an equation doesn't make it actually mean net...the ease with which you are fooled never ceases to give me a chuckle....

The middle two terms of the equation define net. So, yes, it actually does mean net.

 

[jc456]

Did you note that at the end of your equation...after the last equals sign, it says the same thing the equation I have been providing all along says...all you showed is the algebraic reduction to the equation I have been providing all along...which says nothing about net since there is nothing in that equation from which to derive net....same old tedious misunderstanding you have had since the beginning...

Of course I "noted" the final term. That's why I showed the derivation. What do you mean it says nothing about net? Look at the first term of equation 3. That defines net as the out-flow minus the in-flow of radiation. That is a normal usage of the word "net", as used in business finance, etc. The text also shows the meaning when T1 < T2.

.

Simply saying net in front of an equation doesn't make it actually mean net...the ease with which you are fooled never ceases to give me a chuckle....

Still no back up for your "one-way flow only" claims.

Weird.

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence. too fking funny. still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you note that at the end of your equation...after the last equals sign, it says the same thing the equation I have been providing all along says...all you showed is the algebraic reduction to the equation I have been providing all along...which says nothing about net since there is nothing in that equation from which to derive net....same old tedious misunderstanding you have had since the beginning...

Of course I "noted" the final term. That's why I showed the derivation. What do you mean it says nothing about net? Look at the first term of equation 3. That defines net as the out-flow minus the in-flow of radiation. That is a normal usage of the word "net", as used in business finance, etc. The text also shows the meaning when T1 < T2.

.

Simply saying net in front of an equation doesn't make it actually mean net...the ease with which you are fooled never ceases to give me a chuckle....

Still no back up for your "one-way flow only" claims.

Weird.

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence. too fking funny. still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence.

DURR.

still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

Why would it?
You're still really bad at the math, aren't you?

Try again?

 

[SSDD]

Did you note that at the end of your equation...after the last equals sign, it says the same thing the equation I have been providing all along says...all you showed is the algebraic reduction to the equation I have been providing all along...which says nothing about net since there is nothing in that equation from which to derive net....same old tedious misunderstanding you have had since the beginning...

Of course I "noted" the final term. That's why I showed the derivation. What do you mean it says nothing about net? Look at the first term of equation 3. That defines net as the out-flow minus the in-flow of radiation. That is a normal usage of the word "net", as used in business finance, etc. The text also shows the meaning when T1 < T2.

.

Simply saying net in front of an equation doesn't make it actually mean net...the ease with which you are fooled never ceases to give me a chuckle....

The middle two terms of the equation define net. So, yes, it actually does mean net.

Sorry guy...but in the end, the middle two terms were factored out.....they are meaningless...there is no net...but do feel free to provide observed, measured evidence of net energy exchange if you like...

No....never mind...you already lost that point over and over and over....refer to one of those past incarnations of this discussion...oh the tedium...

 

[Crick]

So, you never passed algebra, did you? Or could you show us those terms being "factored out"?

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...but in the end, the middle two terms were factored out.....they are meaningless...there is no net...but do feel free to provide observed, measured evidence of net energy exchange if you like...

No....never mind...you already lost that point over and over and over....refer to one of those past incarnations of this discussion...oh the tedium...

Again, the middle two terms show an emission minus an absorption that defines a net. The first term compiles the second and third terms. "Tedium" seems to be your argument when all else fails with you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry guy...but in the end, the middle two terms were factored out.....they are meaningless...there is no net...but do feel free to provide observed, measured evidence of net energy exchange if you like...

No....never mind...you already lost that point over and over and over....refer to one of those past incarnations of this discussion...oh the tedium...

Again, the middle two terms show an emission minus an absorption that defines a net. The first term compiles the second and third terms. "Tedium" seems to be your argument when all else fails with you.

Yeah, but, salt....high blood pressure and stress......ulcers.

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for SSDD to show us those two middle terms being factored out.

 

[IanC]

SSDD took his position from the Slayer's handbook and has stonewalled ever since.

The funny part is that most of the extreme skeptics/deniers that he copied, have changed their stance since then.

SSDD is like the last Japanese soldier holding out on an unknown island.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD took his position from the Slayer's handbook and has stonewalled ever since.

The funny part is that most of the extreme skeptics/deniers that he copied, have changed their stance since then.

SSDD is like the last Japanese soldier holding out on an unknown island.

Still waiting on that observed, measured evidence that supports your models...

 

[SSDD]

So, you never passed algebra, did you? Or could you show us those terms being "factored out"?

\
Here is a kids site that you might understand on factoring....

Factoring in Algebra

The final expression of that equation is what I have been saying all along...there is no expression there for calculating net...

engineer my shiny metal ass...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, you never passed algebra, did you? Or could you show us those terms being "factored out"?

\
Here is a kids site that you might understand on factoring....

Factoring in Algebra

The final expression of that equation is what I have been saying all along...there is no expression there for calculating net...

engineer my shiny metal ass...

Still no one agrees with your solo misinterpretation.

Weird.

 

[Crick]

So, you never passed algebra, did you? Or could you show us those terms being "factored out"?

\
Here is a kids site that you might understand on factoring....

Factoring in Algebra

The final expression of that equation is what I have been saying all along...there is no expression there for calculating net...

engineer my shiny metal ass...

Show us how you factored out the middle term, as you claimed asshole.

 

[Wuwei]

The final expression of that equation is what I have been saying all along...there is no expression there for calculating net...

That is not true at all. The SB equation you have been saying all along always had the expression,
.... (T⁴ – Tc⁴) where you specified the second term was always colder.

The textbook equation we are now referring to has the form
.... (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴) where T₁ and T₂ can be any temperatures.

.

 

[IanC]

The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment

Here is an article by one of SSDDs heroes. Wuwei, here is a good opportunity to pick out the flaws. Post up a handful and we'll see if our thoughts coincide.

An interesting quote- Thermal equilibrium is defined or established when the heat flow between two objects reduces to zero, and the heat flow between two objects is defined as the net difference of the power emitted by either object. It is important to note here that heat is defined only as the net of the difference between the power emissions, and that therefore either power emission by itself is generally not heat. This goes to the quote from Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

 

[Wuwei]

The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment

Here is an article by one of SSDDs heroes. Wuwei, here is a good opportunity to pick out the flaws. Post up a handful and we'll see if our thoughts coincide.

An interesting quote- Thermal equilibrium is defined or established when the heat flow between two objects reduces to zero, and the heat flow between two objects is defined as the net difference of the power emitted by either object. It is important to note here that heat is defined only as the net of the difference between the power emissions, and that therefore either power emission by itself is generally not heat. This goes to the quote from Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

I stopped reading past the second paragraph after I saw things like this:

steel greenhouse advocates literally believe that 5 = 1 conserves energy​

The author goes on about this in that paragraph. I am missing some context because I assume that is a metaphor of some sort, but it came out of the blue and I don't know what it refers to.