So we uninformed barbarians in the third and forth world areas of this planet still get informed about why a white underclass christian in a suburb of a booming american metropole has no health insurance?
Well, I don't have an answer to that. But I can tell you what probably ISN'T an answer: Last I checked, fewer people had insurance AFTER Obamacare than before.
Also, Federal Court recently struck down taxes and subsidies of Obamacare for the 36 states that used the Federal exchange.
Grow up and perhaps make science education.
Your well worded but substance less scientific (cough cough) rants, show pretty clearly that you never have any idea what you are actually talking about.
Holy shit, dude, you just spilled your Dunning-Kruger all over the damned floor.
That's your problem. I'm not going to clean it up for you.
Your item 12 is the whole point here. In a free country you should not have to go through all these steps just to keep your communications private. You don't have to be a criminal in order to have legitimate reasons for private conversations and business deals.
Yes, some publications even asked "Is this the end of String Theory?" which of course meant it wasn't.
I mean, it did take some serious blows. But it isn't quite gone yet.
On the other hand, since I have still seen no suggestions of practical ways to test for its existence (only its non-existence), I still have a bit of trouble with the "Theory" part. Last I heard it was only a hypothesis.
The point I was getting at before is that other people have made these arguments before. They didn't hold up. Which you would have already known, if you had simply researched your subject.
I am puzzled why you think repeating arguments that have already been publicly shot down would suddenly become valid. Just because YOU made them?
I understand what you're saying, very well. Too bad it's not correct. Repeating it isn't going to make it any more correct.
As for your heating the walls, the argument all along has been about something that is warmed from a cooler state to equilibrium. Whether your point about heating the walls is correct or not isn't part of it.
There was a reason for the particular argument Spencer was making. So he made that particular argument. Latour refuted that argument. If you want to argue about something else, that's your problem I guess.
As far as I can tell, it stays relatively non-inflationary as long as that extra money doesn't circulate.
It sure sounded like you were saying that to me.
Further, most of the money isn't "sitting there". Housing is booming again, and Wall Street is at record highs again. The overall economy might be sluggish that that doesn't mean the cash itself is stagnant. We have easily identifiable bubbles going on, even now.
Did I, at any point, say I felt passengers deserved to die? No, I did not.
I stated that the manufacturers deserved to lose a plane or two. That is not the same thing. Not every flight (for any airliner) is commercial, and not every flight carries passengers.
Once again, you place years-old and unrelated comments in juxtaposition in order to try to make it appear I was saying things I did not actually intend to say. That gets zero respect. Do you really not understand that "out of context" is one of the classic fallacies?
I have known, and openly stated, for a long time that Latour is a chemical process engineer. There is no contradiction there, no matter that you try to make it appear that way. His is a profession which deals with this kind of problem all the time. And his little group also does have physicists in it too. You should not forget that.
I showed Jane statements from the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society. Spoiler alert: mainstream physicists don't agree with the Slayers.
None of your citations even mention Latour, much less try to refute him. You are just making your usual straw-man arguments again.
And I already told you I was being an ass about your "power in equals power out" thing. Trying to lecture me about conservation of energy is particularly pointless, since I need no such lesson. But since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints.
It is now triply hilarious to me that now I have stopped guiding you by the nose through this problem, you have turned hostile and ad-hominem again. Why do you need my guidance? Why don't you present your argument to Latour? He is the one making the argument you are trying (so far -- two years now -- very UNsuccessfully) to refute. I am aware that you think you are correct, but repeating that to me isn't going to get you anywhere.
Did heat-transfer work for NASA, or managed NASA's Apollo Docking Simulator development? Doesn't seem to matter, as long as he did it for NASA. If having worked for NASA gives Dr. Latour credibility, shouldn't Jane find climate.nasa.gov credible?
Very well. I hereby correct my comments to say his career has involved heat-transfer work AND he has worked for NASA. (Not that I expect you to honor that correction... as you have so conveniently left out other corrections I have made over the years.) But no, for reasons I have mentioned many times elsewhere, I do not find climate.nasa.gov credible. But that's off the subject... which is just par for the course for you, eh?
Do you feel that doing work for JPL has increased your credibility any? I am curious. If someone had asked me before I got to know you I might have said yes. But today is a different matter.
Despite your incessant attempts at ad-hominem, Latour and friends have had an open challenge out there for more than a year now -- I think closer to two -- asking for anyone who can formally refute his main thesis, which was briefly explained in his rebuttal of Spencer. So far nobody has. Why is that? If you can, why aren't you? Why are you here, trying to argue with me instead?
But we both know why, don't we? I'm only asking so that any other people who might read this will ask themselves.
Go make these same arguments to Latour and his friends, and leave me alone. Of course, I know they will (quite correctly) tear your arguments to shreds, and I even know how they'll do it. But I have no particular need to do that. So you should really stop asking me to do that. I'm not doing any of this in fact... I'm just watching you do it to yourself. And no, I'm not going to give you any more hints. If that one isn't sufficient, you'll probably never get it. Two years now. Wow.
I agree, even then it should never be allowed. That would put the majority of American cable subscribers under a single provider, and that's should never have even made it to the table.
Other manufacturers do this also, such as GM and Chevy.
Yes, that was my understanding as well. And that was my point. It just doesn't look very smart, from where I sit.
In my view (which I would be happy to review and modify if someone has a better idea), you have 3 basic systems in a modern automobile. In order of importance: [1] critical control and feedback, [2] internal environment, and [3] entertainment.
[1] and [2] should have strictly limited communication, if any. [2] and [3] should probably have none, and [1] and [3] should not communicate at all under any circumstances.
Is it as Ruben Santamarta says, that the plane's satellite communications system can be hacked into via the plane's wifi? Or is it as the manufacturers say, and the hacker would have to have physical access to the hardware and couldn't do much of anything anyway? There's two very different points of view here and I'm not sure how they're supposed to meet up.
Any airplane manufacturer that is stupid enough to link their passenger wi-fi system to ANYTHING else, deserves to get a few planes stuffed into the ground. Same with auto companies. If true, the whole thing is about as lamebrained as it gets.
Given that, though: while they may have stopped publishing a target, they certainly have not stopped expanding the money supply. And the fact that they've "stopped tracking some measures" is rather ominous.
And I doubt they've really stopped tracking them. They just aren't publishing them, because they don't want people to panic. But a lot of economists aren't being fooled. Many have been raising alarm bells. Not to mention those who warned about these policies up front.
These open source Sage [sagemath.org] worksheets show my work for these thought experiments.
I know what a.sws file is. But I'm not going to download and install Sage on this computer to read it. And I didn't have any trouble understanding the above.
Regarding your calculations: you're making mistakes that others have already made -- and which have subsequently been shot down -- when trying to refute Latour. I could point a couple of them out now, but I'm not going to. This was amusing at first but I'm done babysitting you.
You really need to do your homework. I know you think you're right. But among other things, you're conflating... oops but I said I wouldn't do that. So good bye.
Haven't you noticed food prices going up? Surprise! Food hasn't been getting any harder to grow. We're producing more than ever before. So it's not "market forces". What could it be?
Short-lived commodities like food are among the first to be seriously affected by inflation. Add to that a wholly unjustified rebound in housing prices, and inflation has actually been pretty high.
I don't know what kind of "monetary growth" it is that you're referring to, but it isn't the supply of dollars. That hasn't gone down, even though it should have a long time ago. And if you're trusting "official" government figures for inflation, you're a fool.
No kidding - Free having access to spectrum would be horrendously bad for the incumbent corporations' profits. We can't have that now, and, my, what coincidental timing! Thank goodness we have the FCC looking out for the "public interest".
That's the only explanation that isn't astoundingly bizarre, so Occam's Razor says it's most likely the correct one.
But speaking of astoundingly bizarre: imagine living in a world in which FCC considers blocking Sprint and T-Mobile from sharing spectrum, and yet even briefly considered allowing Comcast and Time-Warner to merge into a blatantly and aggressively monopolistic mega-corporation.
(Note: a TWC employee recently told me the company is "making changes to their network because Comcast bought us". Apparently he isn't aware that it's not a done deal... and if his bosses are they aren't telling anybody.)
Energy conservation at equilibrium just inside the enclosing shell shows that the heated sphere will warm to an equilibrium temperature of 233.8F (385.3K)
Nice link. Do you really expect me to read that.sws file? How about something human-readable?
So, first you postulate a thermal superconductor, and then assert that it has a far higher temperature on one side than on the other?
Actually, something else is causing the seals to fail on the bearings and master bearing. The sampling pipe was the original theory but it could not account for the damage being done.
Even so, this shows what happens when you plan a one-shot operation with a single point of failure.
In this case, two: the drill itself and the seals. Either one means failure. When it's a one-shot operation with no provision for pause or repair, you're SOL. Fixable in this case? Yeah. For a fortune.
Again. Yes/No: do you claim the heated plate will remain at 150F after the second plate is added?
Repeat Latour's comment here:
However, the absorption rate of real bodies depends on whether the absorber T (radiating or not), is less than the intercepted radiation T, or not. If the receiver T [is less than] intercepted T, no [net] absorption occurs; if the receiver T [is less than] intercepted T the absorption rate may be as great as proportional to (T intercepted - T absorber), depending on the amounts reflected, transmitted or scattered.
(I have added [net] to indicate his argument is net heat transfer there, as Latour has explained many times elsewhere. I have also replaced "less than symbol" with [is less than] due to Slashdot's character restrictions.)
I repeat: you are completely (and wrongly) ignoring real-world conditions that apply to the experiment.
The experiment requires the passive plate to be some unspecified distance from the heat source. (This is a condition of the experiment; no contact is allowed since this is only about radiative transfer.) And no matter its configuration, it will radiate some of its absorbed energy outward to the chamber walls. This much we know.
The chamber walls C are actively cooled, although at a fixed power input. So it absorbs radiation from the internal space. We know at equilibrium T(c) will always be less than T at the source S: T(c) [is less than] T(s) because the wall is actively cooled. (We know for another reason too, but this is sufficient.)
We also know that the passive plate P will always be at a temperature less than that of the source, for the simple reason that no matter what its position, it does not absorb all the radiation from S. Or even if it did, as in the case of completely enclosing S, it would still re-radiate some of its absorbed energy out to the chamber walls C. Therefore as long as the conditions of the experiment are met, no matter what else varies such as relative mass, in this experiment T(p) will be lower than T(s). The amount is of no consequence, as long as it is non-zero (and it is).
Therefore, from S-B law, we can directly infer the following things:
T(c) [is less than] T(s) [net heat transfer is from source to walls, never the other way around]
T(p) [is less than] T(s) [net heat transfer is from source to plate, never the other way around]
We can also infer from the experimental conditions that T(c) [is less than] T(p), but that is irrelevant to the argument.
When equilibrium is achieved, these conditions still hold.
An elementary, obvious, and perfectly sound conclusion from this is that the source is not made hotter under any of these conditions. Even if plate P completely encloses source S, we know for at least two different reasons (greater radiative area, and the simple fact that it does radiate outward to the wall, which cools it) that T(p) will always be less than T(s), even at equilibrium.
Since the temperature of every other object is less than that of the heat source, there is no net heat flow TO the heat source, therefore the heat source does not become hotter. This is, and has been, the whole of Latour's argument, and it is valid. It is not crazy speculation by some nitwit, it is straightforward application of Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Q.E.D., indeed. If the above inequalities hold (and they do), Latour's conclusion is the only one that is mathematically valid.
I admit to being an ass there. Mea culpa. But it's irrelevant. As long as the power used by the source and the power used by the cooler are constant as required, any relationship between them has no bearing on the experiment.
Slashdot Mirror
Relative to what? This was my point: inflation is NOT low. It is quite high right now. Despite "official" government figures.
So we uninformed barbarians in the third and forth world areas of this planet still get informed about why a white underclass christian in a suburb of a booming american metropole has no health insurance?
Well, I don't have an answer to that. But I can tell you what probably ISN'T an answer: Last I checked, fewer people had insurance AFTER Obamacare than before.
Also, Federal Court recently struck down taxes and subsidies of Obamacare for the 36 states that used the Federal exchange.
Grow up and perhaps make science education.
Your well worded but substance less scientific (cough cough) rants, show pretty clearly that you never have any idea what you are actually talking about.
Holy shit, dude, you just spilled your Dunning-Kruger all over the damned floor.
That's your problem. I'm not going to clean it up for you.
I DID NOT BACKPEDAL. I simply pointed out that I did NOT say what other people seem to think I did.
My original comment stands, and it had nothing to do with killing passengers.
So why did Jane repeatedly mention working for NASA? How could working for NASA give someone credibility if Jane doesn't find NASA credible?
Why does "khayman80" repeatedly mention working for JPL online?
No reason at all? Just for giggles? Somehow I doubt that.
Your item 12 is the whole point here. In a free country you should not have to go through all these steps just to keep your communications private. You don't have to be a criminal in order to have legitimate reasons for private conversations and business deals.
Yes, some publications even asked "Is this the end of String Theory?" which of course meant it wasn't.
I mean, it did take some serious blows. But it isn't quite gone yet.
On the other hand, since I have still seen no suggestions of practical ways to test for its existence (only its non-existence), I still have a bit of trouble with the "Theory" part. Last I heard it was only a hypothesis.
The point I was getting at before is that other people have made these arguments before. They didn't hold up. Which you would have already known, if you had simply researched your subject.
I am puzzled why you think repeating arguments that have already been publicly shot down would suddenly become valid. Just because YOU made them?
I understand what you're saying, very well. Too bad it's not correct. Repeating it isn't going to make it any more correct.
As for your heating the walls, the argument all along has been about something that is warmed from a cooler state to equilibrium. Whether your point about heating the walls is correct or not isn't part of it.
There was a reason for the particular argument Spencer was making. So he made that particular argument. Latour refuted that argument. If you want to argue about something else, that's your problem I guess.
As far as I can tell, it stays relatively non-inflationary as long as that extra money doesn't circulate.
It sure sounded like you were saying that to me.
Further, most of the money isn't "sitting there". Housing is booming again, and Wall Street is at record highs again. The overall economy might be sluggish that that doesn't mean the cash itself is stagnant. We have easily identifiable bubbles going on, even now.
Did I, at any point, say I felt passengers deserved to die? No, I did not.
I stated that the manufacturers deserved to lose a plane or two. That is not the same thing. Not every flight (for any airliner) is commercial, and not every flight carries passengers.
I have known, and openly stated, for a long time that Latour is a chemical process engineer. There is no contradiction there, no matter that you try to make it appear that way. His is a profession which deals with this kind of problem all the time. And his little group also does have physicists in it too. You should not forget that.
I showed Jane statements from the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society. Spoiler alert: mainstream physicists don't agree with the Slayers.
None of your citations even mention Latour, much less try to refute him. You are just making your usual straw-man arguments again.
And I already told you I was being an ass about your "power in equals power out" thing. Trying to lecture me about conservation of energy is particularly pointless, since I need no such lesson. But since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints.
It is now triply hilarious to me that now I have stopped guiding you by the nose through this problem, you have turned hostile and ad-hominem again. Why do you need my guidance? Why don't you present your argument to Latour? He is the one making the argument you are trying (so far -- two years now -- very UNsuccessfully) to refute. I am aware that you think you are correct, but repeating that to me isn't going to get you anywhere.
Did heat-transfer work for NASA, or managed NASA's Apollo Docking Simulator development? Doesn't seem to matter, as long as he did it for NASA. If having worked for NASA gives Dr. Latour credibility, shouldn't Jane find climate.nasa.gov credible?
Very well. I hereby correct my comments to say his career has involved heat-transfer work AND he has worked for NASA. (Not that I expect you to honor that correction... as you have so conveniently left out other corrections I have made over the years.) But no, for reasons I have mentioned many times elsewhere, I do not find climate.nasa.gov credible. But that's off the subject... which is just par for the course for you, eh?
Do you feel that doing work for JPL has increased your credibility any? I am curious. If someone had asked me before I got to know you I might have said yes. But today is a different matter.
Despite your incessant attempts at ad-hominem, Latour and friends have had an open challenge out there for more than a year now -- I think closer to two -- asking for anyone who can formally refute his main thesis, which was briefly explained in his rebuttal of Spencer. So far nobody has. Why is that? If you can, why aren't you? Why are you here, trying to argue with me instead?
But we both know why, don't we? I'm only asking so that any other people who might read this will ask themselves.
Go make these same arguments to Latour and his friends, and leave me alone. Of course, I know they will (quite correctly) tear your arguments to shreds, and I even know how they'll do it. But I have no particular need to do that. So you should really stop asking me to do that. I'm not doing any of this in fact... I'm just watching you do it to yourself. And no, I'm not going to give you any more hints. If that one isn't sufficient, you'll probably never get it. Two years now. Wow.
I agree, even then it should never be allowed. That would put the majority of American cable subscribers under a single provider, and that's should never have even made it to the table.
Stupidity has a price. I didn't make things that way.
Other manufacturers do this also, such as GM and Chevy.
Yes, that was my understanding as well. And that was my point. It just doesn't look very smart, from where I sit.
In my view (which I would be happy to review and modify if someone has a better idea), you have 3 basic systems in a modern automobile. In order of importance: [1] critical control and feedback, [2] internal environment, and [3] entertainment.
[1] and [2] should have strictly limited communication, if any. [2] and [3] should probably have none, and [1] and [3] should not communicate at all under any circumstances.
Go compare prices in the supermarket to what they were 3-4 years ago. Then come back and tell me again why it's not inflationary.
Is it as Ruben Santamarta says, that the plane's satellite communications system can be hacked into via the plane's wifi? Or is it as the manufacturers say, and the hacker would have to have physical access to the hardware and couldn't do much of anything anyway? There's two very different points of view here and I'm not sure how they're supposed to meet up.
Any airplane manufacturer that is stupid enough to link their passenger wi-fi system to ANYTHING else, deserves to get a few planes stuffed into the ground. Same with auto companies. If true, the whole thing is about as lamebrained as it gets.
You are correct. I missed the word "target".
Given that, though: while they may have stopped publishing a target, they certainly have not stopped expanding the money supply. And the fact that they've "stopped tracking some measures" is rather ominous.
And I doubt they've really stopped tracking them. They just aren't publishing them, because they don't want people to panic. But a lot of economists aren't being fooled. Many have been raising alarm bells. Not to mention those who warned about these policies up front.
These open source Sage [sagemath.org] worksheets show my work for these thought experiments.
I know what a .sws file is. But I'm not going to download and install Sage on this computer to read it. And I didn't have any trouble understanding the above.
Regarding your calculations: you're making mistakes that others have already made -- and which have subsequently been shot down -- when trying to refute Latour. I could point a couple of them out now, but I'm not going to. This was amusing at first but I'm done babysitting you.
You really need to do your homework. I know you think you're right. But among other things, you're conflating... oops but I said I wouldn't do that. So good bye.
No. The one that has accelerated under Obama.
Haven't you noticed food prices going up? Surprise! Food hasn't been getting any harder to grow. We're producing more than ever before. So it's not "market forces". What could it be?
Short-lived commodities like food are among the first to be seriously affected by inflation. Add to that a wholly unjustified rebound in housing prices, and inflation has actually been pretty high.
I don't know what kind of "monetary growth" it is that you're referring to, but it isn't the supply of dollars. That hasn't gone down, even though it should have a long time ago. And if you're trusting "official" government figures for inflation, you're a fool.
No kidding - Free having access to spectrum would be horrendously bad for the incumbent corporations' profits. We can't have that now, and, my, what coincidental timing! Thank goodness we have the FCC looking out for the "public interest".
That's the only explanation that isn't astoundingly bizarre, so Occam's Razor says it's most likely the correct one.
But speaking of astoundingly bizarre: imagine living in a world in which FCC considers blocking Sprint and T-Mobile from sharing spectrum, and yet even briefly considered allowing Comcast and Time-Warner to merge into a blatantly and aggressively monopolistic mega-corporation.
(Note: a TWC employee recently told me the company is "making changes to their network because Comcast bought us". Apparently he isn't aware that it's not a done deal... and if his bosses are they aren't telling anybody.)
Energy conservation at equilibrium just inside the enclosing shell shows that the heated sphere will warm to an equilibrium temperature of 233.8F (385.3K)
Nice link. Do you really expect me to read that .sws file? How about something human-readable?
So, first you postulate a thermal superconductor, and then assert that it has a far higher temperature on one side than on the other?
What a magical world you must live in.
Actually, something else is causing the seals to fail on the bearings and master bearing. The sampling pipe was the original theory but it could not account for the damage being done.
Even so, this shows what happens when you plan a one-shot operation with a single point of failure.
In this case, two: the drill itself and the seals. Either one means failure. When it's a one-shot operation with no provision for pause or repair, you're SOL. Fixable in this case? Yeah. For a fortune.
Again. Yes/No: do you claim the heated plate will remain at 150F after the second plate is added?
Repeat Latour's comment here:
However, the absorption rate of real bodies depends on whether the absorber T (radiating or not), is less than the intercepted radiation T, or not. If the receiver T [is less than] intercepted T, no [net] absorption occurs; if the receiver T [is less than] intercepted T the absorption rate may be as great as proportional to (T intercepted - T absorber), depending on the amounts reflected, transmitted or scattered.
(I have added [net] to indicate his argument is net heat transfer there, as Latour has explained many times elsewhere. I have also replaced "less than symbol" with [is less than] due to Slashdot's character restrictions.)
I repeat: you are completely (and wrongly) ignoring real-world conditions that apply to the experiment.
The experiment requires the passive plate to be some unspecified distance from the heat source. (This is a condition of the experiment; no contact is allowed since this is only about radiative transfer.) And no matter its configuration, it will radiate some of its absorbed energy outward to the chamber walls. This much we know.
The chamber walls C are actively cooled, although at a fixed power input. So it absorbs radiation from the internal space. We know at equilibrium T(c) will always be less than T at the source S: T(c) [is less than] T(s) because the wall is actively cooled. (We know for another reason too, but this is sufficient.)
We also know that the passive plate P will always be at a temperature less than that of the source, for the simple reason that no matter what its position, it does not absorb all the radiation from S. Or even if it did, as in the case of completely enclosing S, it would still re-radiate some of its absorbed energy out to the chamber walls C. Therefore as long as the conditions of the experiment are met, no matter what else varies such as relative mass, in this experiment T(p) will be lower than T(s). The amount is of no consequence, as long as it is non-zero (and it is).
Therefore, from S-B law, we can directly infer the following things:
T(c) [is less than] T(s) [net heat transfer is from source to walls, never the other way around]
T(p) [is less than] T(s) [net heat transfer is from source to plate, never the other way around]
We can also infer from the experimental conditions that T(c) [is less than] T(p), but that is irrelevant to the argument.
When equilibrium is achieved, these conditions still hold.
An elementary, obvious, and perfectly sound conclusion from this is that the source is not made hotter under any of these conditions. Even if plate P completely encloses source S, we know for at least two different reasons (greater radiative area, and the simple fact that it does radiate outward to the wall, which cools it) that T(p) will always be less than T(s), even at equilibrium.
Since the temperature of every other object is less than that of the heat source, there is no net heat flow TO the heat source, therefore the heat source does not become hotter. This is, and has been, the whole of Latour's argument, and it is valid. It is not crazy speculation by some nitwit, it is straightforward application of Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Q.E.D., indeed. If the above inequalities hold (and they do), Latour's conclusion is the only one that is mathematically valid.
I admit to being an ass there. Mea culpa. But it's irrelevant. As long as the power used by the source and the power used by the cooler are constant as required, any relationship between them has no bearing on the experiment.