I meant what I said. If Q1**4 is proportional to Q2**4, then Q1 is proportional to Q2. I did NOT say "directly" proportional. I don't mind being corrected when I make a mistake but that was not a mistake.
More importantly, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?
No. I am not aware of any "conservation of power" law.
The outward surface S0 (if that is the outward extent of earth system) has a surface area of 1.002 * Earth's non-atmosphere surface), and therefore its temperature will be measurably lower than that of heat source T. And therefore we have a net heat transfer proportional to T - T0, which is a non-zero quantity.
And if one service offers an obstensibly cheaper price but has deficiencies that could actually cost you more money, result in tragedy, etc., how do you know that?
The same way you know that for traditional taxi services: they don't stay in business.
Sheesh. Is this really a question? How do you know when you buy a plum in the supermarket that it isn't poisoned? Is it just a wild-assed guess? Or is it more likely that purveyors of poisoned plums didn't get any repeat business?
Jane's concerned that the enclosing plate is bigger than the heated plate.
I know I said I wouldn't respond, but STOP TRYING TO TELL OTHERS WHAT *I* AM CONCERNED ABOUT. YOU DO NOT KNOW, SO YOU HAVE NO PLACE CLAIMING YOU DO.
I am not "concerned" about any of it. Though you seem to be. And I don't know why, because your analysis above actually verifies what I stated earlier. I've been wasting my time with (my opinion) an idiot.
But Earth's mean radius is 6371 km, and the effective radiating level is ~7 km higher, so these surface areas are only ~0.2% different.
0.2% is not zero. Therefore T0 (if that is the outward extent of earth system) has a surface area of T * 1.002, and its temperature will be measurably lower than that of heat source T. Therefore we have a net heat transfer proportional to T - T0, which is a non-zero quantity.
You've proved nothing here except to verify my point. But let's finish it...
Of course, in a thought experiment this difference can be made arbitrarily smaller. Despite Jane's protests, this doesn't change the fact that enclosing the heated plate makes it warmer.
This argument is HILARIOUS. The only way you can make it "arbitrarily small" is by making Spencer's (and your) whole argument "arbitrarily small" at the same time. I tried to tell you this before, but you just don't get it. That's too bad, because in reality you can't have it both ways.
If the dimensions (and therefore mass) of your "enclosing plate" approaches zero, then any absorption and re-rediation will also approach zero, and any supposed effect it will have on the temperature of the heat source will also approach zero. Even if your argument were correct, you're arguing yourself out of an argument.
So no, this argument is NOT valid with an "arbitrarily small" enclosing mass. It has to have enough to make a measurable difference on the temperature of the source (your argument, not mine) or the whole argument is empty.
You are trying to say you can make the dimensions larger by an "arbitrarily small" amount, without reducing the effect you are arguing for to an equally "arbitrarily small" amount. But the whole argument was about tangible and measurable effects. So you can't have it that way, man.
You sure know how to argue yourself into corners. Your assumptions are pure shit.
Now, I am done arguing. You can repeat the same BULLSHIT over and over all you want, but that won't make it any more valid. If you had the courage of your convictions, you would argue with the proper people about this, rather than trying to pick on (and losing to) a layman who is actually just laughing at your antics. Not laughing at your insults and attempts at ad-hominem and character assassination, no. But your antics, and your arguments about "physics", yes.
I told you already: you're trying to argue with the wrong person. I'm going to answer this, and them I'm done. You've been hammering at this unsuccessfully for over 2 years now. To say that it has been an outrageous waste of my time even answering you is an understatement.
Again, Dr. Latour claimed that mainstream physics, which includes absorption of cold back-radiation, "would constitute creation of energy, a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
No, he didn't. I swear, you are the King of mis-stating other peoples' arguments, so you cay try to shoot down straw-men instead.
What he actually argues is that Spencer's argument, not "mainstream physics", would result in creation of energy. His actual argument is that "mainstream physics" (which he has used almost daily in his career as an expert in heat transfer) shows that it can't be so, therefore Spencer's argument is false.
That's not the same, and your claim that it is just shows you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter.
The key phrase is "however slightly" because that difference can be made arbitrarily small. Since the only objection you've raised is arbitrarily small, does that mean you now see...
Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. Because you well know that even "arbitrarily small" is not zero. And any deviation from zero is enough to make the difference between T and T0 (or however you want to designate them) non-zero. A non-zero difference is all we need, no matter how "arbitrarily small" you try to make it. Remember that this is physical substance, not merely a mathematical abstraction.
you now see that Dr. Latour is wrong to claim that the heated plate will stay at 150F after the second plate is added, because he wrongly claims that absorbing cold back-radiation would violate the first law?
He doesn't wrongly claim that absorbing any "cold back radiation" would violate the first law. Again, you are merely mis-stating his actual argument. Now YOU are confusing absolute transfer with net transfer. That's your problem, not his. His argument has always been about NET transfer, and he does NOT claim that "any" re-absorption would violate the first law. You are again trying to claim that his argument is not about net transfer, when it fact it always has been. You are tilting at windmills again. Or still, take your pick. Why do you persist in this? Who are you trying to convince? You sure as hell aren't convincing me of anything. I mean, hell, YOU just tried to imply that an enclosing mass can be made of negligible mass, to the point that we don't even have to take it into account. Hahaha.
I mean that's so wrong on so many levels. For one thing (I already mentioned another), if the mass were negligible (as it would have to be, to make the difference in dimension negligible), then it would also absorb and re-emit negligble radiation, which makes the whole argument moot. And I have to wonder again why you don't see these glaringly obvious problems with your arguments. If you reduced the mass (and thereby dimensions) to almost zero, you reduce the absorption and re-radiation to almost zero. You can't have it both ways. Unless you want to hypothesize about some mystery substance that is not known to exist in reality.
So Dr. Latour was wrong to claim that mainstream physics predicts the heated plate warms infinitely.
He doesn't claim that. Repeat: you are mis-stating his argument. He actually claims the reverse: he USES "mainstream" physics to show that in reality it does not warm infinitely, and therefore Spencer's argument was wrong. I mean you're just absolutely trying to reverse the real argument here. But I really don't expect you to see that, because if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume), you don't even see the enormous gaping holes in
Again, he's completely wrong. The hotter bar absorbs cold back-radiation, and T does not remain 150F. That's why I refuted Dr. Latour by showing that a completely enclosed heated plate reaches an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K), which is less than the infinite temperature he claimed.
Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. THAT ISN'T WHAT HE CLAIMED. Quite the contrary. He claimed that a completely enclosed plate DOES NOT reach infinite temperature, which of course agrees with observations. Are you seriously this dense? Or did you just word your sentence in an unfortunate way, the way Latour did in his original blog post?
Here's one way you are wrong. In any realistic system, the enclosing plate would be of larger dimensions than the internal source, however slightly. So while the total re-radiated energy might be the same, it is spread over a larger area, so the energy density (and therefore temperature) would be lower.
How did you allow a layman to catch you in such an elementary error?
Not that I had any obligation to do so. Your argument is with him, not me. Just consider it a free lesson in humility.
No, you aren't. You're arguing something completely different.
Once again, if Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa.
What you're doing is known as "straw-man argument", or in this case (it's a bit gray) it might be called "moving the goalposts".
If you've actually looked into what he wrote about this, then why do you continue to deny that his whole argument is about NET heat transfer? He has explicitly stated otherwise.
Even if you did not take his word for it, his career building control systems precisely for the purpose of managing heat transfer would strongly suggest that this is hardly something he is likely to neglect.
If you want to make this other argument, then I suggest you read about his later challenge to Spencer and Watts to disprove his thesis, their attempts to do so, and his analysis of why they failed. (Hint: keeping the input power constant is one of the subjects discussed.)
You are only showing yet again that you haven't really looked into this. The original argument you made above was made moot over 2 years ago. This more recent argument, about a year ago. More or less.
And lastly, I will remind you: you should be making these arguments to HIM, not me. Why are you "arguing" with me about this? If you want to refute him, then refute him, in public where other people can see.
The leverage they have is that you're accused of committing a crime within the borders of the US, and evidence you have access to can be demanded under a warrant that covers details related to that crime.
Yes, but:
This may be true but it sidesteps one if the big points here: U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction abroad.
They might be able to sanction and punish the corporation for hiding its evidence, but it has no literal authority to otherwise force it to produce that evidence (like for example police action).
If the courts can punish Microsoft for not producing evidence in Ireland, why cannot it then punish Senators for not producing evidence of income hidden in the Bahamas?
Maybe it would help if we checked my calculations step by step. Start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.
We don't need to check your calculations because you're making a straw-man argument again. You are not refuting what Latour was actually arguing. And either you know that, or you just haven't paying attention. And the latter would be rather bizarre, given the nature of what you have been saying.
Stop making straw-man arguments. You aren't impressing anybody. You're making yourself look like a fool.
Once again, if Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa.
Absolute nonsense. He didn't do that simply because that was not the argument he was refuting. The argument he was refuting was clearly described, discussed, and linked to in his essay.
Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. I repeat: either you know it's wrong and are just spewing bullshit to make yourself look good (or in an attempt to make me look bad), or you just haven't done your due diligence.
My opinion is that you're just grasping at straws because you were shown to be wrong yet again. But those straws don't really exist. You were just plain wrong.
Wow! The double-down. I didn't (but probably should have) see that coming. So did I summarize your position accurately: You are not a birther. You are certain that someone faked Obama's birth certificate (because you read it on the internet), but you are not willing to speculate who did this or why. You have no idea where the president of the USA was born (hint: Hawaii, USA).
No, I am not certain "because I read it on the Internet". I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. Not all of them, of course. Some were just plain bullshit. Like your posts here. But some were true.
So now questions like, "How does one measure the amount of water passing a particular point in a river?" or "Why can you not see the Moon during the day?" are being asked.
Are you suggesting that it is okay for a Sysadmin to lack sufficient knowledge to answer those questions? Or that they are somehow discriminatory? I'm just not sure of your point here. I would be perfectly comfortable asking Sysadmin applicants these questions. (With the caveat that the moon is indeed sometimes visible during the day. That question is dumb. But asking why it's visible most nights is not. Interviewers can be stupid too.)
I'm not claiming they weren't being discriminatory. Maybe they were. But that's weak evidence at best.
One reason that I'm sure is a factor in the difference, is that companies are less inclined to bother reporting the "past due" status.
There's another reason that people seem to be ignoring: something that is "past due" will change out of that status, one way or another, after a short time. Something "in collection", not so much. One has to consider why it went into collection in the first place.
Another factor that is rather passed over in OP is that despite a few changes that were made for the better some years ago, they were actually pretty weak changes and credit reporting is still egregiously one-sided today.
Most companies of any size have whole departments that regularly report "past due" debt to collection agencies. But a consumer has many time-consuming and often expensive hoops to jump through to get that back off their record. In many ways it's still guilty-until-proven-innocent.
The fact that over generations people have become used to this travesty of justice just makes it all the more insidious.
You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about.
Almost Latour's entire thesis is that S-B law says net heat transfer is either 0 or in one direction, from the hotter area to the colder. If the roles are reversed, and the colder item becomes the hotter, then the sign changes and the net heat transfer is still only in one direction... from hotter to colder.
And you don't know this because you didn't actually do any actual research about it.You claim "his blog post is still live" but link to an web archive. You haven't researched the topic.
You ignored due diligence, and because of that your "refutation" is nothing but a straw-man, which you continue to deny, either because you know it's a straw-man, and are just doubling down, or because you still refuse to perform the due diligence necessary to make an intelligent argument. The rest of this nonsense falls down because it's all house-of-cards based on your initial misunderstanding of Latour's actual thesis.
Just to be clear: shortly after Latour published that blog post, it became clear that the language he used implied that no radiation at all was absorbed by the warmer body. So a reader could not reasonably be blamed for inferring that. But Latour quickly apologized for the unfortunate wording and corrected himself to make it very clear he was referring to net, not absolute, heat transfer.
As such, just what part of the S-B law do you find controversial?
I don't blame you for inferring -- from that one blog post, which you like to in archive -- that what he meant was any heat transfer, rather than net. But again: he corrected that right away and anybody who knows jack shit about the subject knows that. But you, on the other hand, apparently refused to be bothered with due diligence. Imagine that.
I wouldn't say it's the "cheapest" option. If you want to go strictly software, you can use something like BitTorent Sync.
Before anybody jumps on me: I wrote "something like". No, it's not open source. But using iCloud or Azure are proprietary solutions too!
I don't "trust" BitTorrent Sync's security. But odds are it's fine for this kind of use. You can also control access to files by simply putting them in different folders, and giving different people access to them, or give out temporary authorization codes.
So don't misunderstand: I would not endorse its security unless BitTorrent agreed to an open security audit. But it's also a "free" solution. And it's available for Windows, Mac, Android, and iOS. I think Linux too but I don't remember for sure.
I hope you realize how crazy this makes you sound.
I hope you realize that you just gave us more evidence, consisting of yet another astounding "coincidence" on top of all the others.
I hope you realize just how remarkably similar your writing is to that of khayman80, and how the timings of your replies so neatly coincide and cooperate.
You did nothing of the sort. You made the (quite incorrect) claim that Latour wasn't accounting for the fact that the subject at hand is net heat transfer. But that claim is simply incorrect. I repeat that Latour has written about this extensively, which you would know if you bothered to actually read more of what he has written than one blog post.
You took a badly-worded sentence or two and jumped on them as though Latour made a mistake. But his only mistake was wording a couple of sentences badly. He does in fact NOT suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation, and he has written as much many times. (Which apparently you did not know. Why?) So you were tilting at windmills again... or should I say straw-men?
You have refuted NOTHING but a couple of unfortunately-worded sentences, which Latour himself publicly corrected shortly after that post appeared.
You failed. If you could actually prove his actual argument wrong, as opposed to the argument you mistakenly thought he made, you'd do it to his face or publish your results or both. Because, after all, it would be important to this cause you so avidly defend. But you haven't. Is that because you knew you were making straw-man arguments, or because you simply didn't bother to research the subject you were attempting to refute? Either one represents failure.
You have not been able to actually refute Latour. The only place a genuine "refutation" occurred is in your own mind.
Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell.
I would also like to point out here the absolutely amazing fact that "Layzej" stopped replying the moment you popped up. What a "coincidence".
Well, this has been an interesting evening. Not only did I catch you in an outright lie, you accomplished exactly nothing but spreading more ad-hominem and attempted "character besmirching" based on that lie.
So, just in case the meaning of my comment above was not clear to you:
If there is any vestige of "paranoia" in my personality, then I think it's pretty fair to say that it was probably caused by you. Because nobody else has been doing these strange and outside-normal things.
Did the word "stalker" never come to mind when you were researching my life?
Are you claiming I am paranoid? Just trying to clarify.
It's amazing how you seem to have this entire collection of Slashdot comments I made years ago right at hand. I've mentioned this before. What is the basis of your (apparently unhealthy, and definitely creepy) obsession with me?
Researching (and apparently indexing) years of other peoples' Slashdot comments is not something your average normal person does.
Do you see how crackpot websites which make "ridiculous" claims that you might have made when you "knew next to nothing about the subject" might not be the best source of science education?
Since I've received exactly no education from there, how would I know? Do you really need me to repeat that again before you get it through your head?
Venus vs. Mercury has everything to do with the Slayer nonsense you're spreading. You're just regurgitating even more misinformation that I have to debunk. That's the exact opposite of a favor! It's the same absurd behavior I've repeatedly asked you to stop.
Let's be specific. Explain to us what Venus vs. Mercury have to do with Pierre Latour's thermodynamic argument in regard to greenhouse warming? Stop prevaricating, and say what you mean. Do you have an actual argument to make?
Again, thanks for finally being honest. Youâ(TM)re not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesnâ(TM)t hold up under scrutiny. Youâ(TM)ve used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesnâ(TM)t hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:
And yet, you have failed for 2 years to refute Latour. Gee, that's interesting. What isn't holding water again? Are you sure you have that straight?
Yet again, trying to inflate your ego at the expense of others. It won't wash. You know you can't refute Latour, so you are piling straw-man on top of straw-man to try to make yourself look good. Again, I say: if you have a specific argument to make, then make it. Other than, that is, just rehashing the failed arguments you made 2 years ago. Quoting yourself complimenting yourself doesn't prove anything.
I am going to ask you again: why have you made it a habit of taking certain peoples' comments out of context, and then arguing with those comments when those other people aren't present, about things they did NOT say?
Stop dancing and beating around the bush. You're being utterly and disgustingly transparent. You've made not a single valid argument, but only implications. You've also thrown quotes of yourself about, plus more of the same old ad-hominem, out-of-context, straw-man arguments you've been making all along. But there isn't any meat anywhere.
And I think it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you.
Slashdot Mirror
More importantly, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?
No. I am not aware of any "conservation of power" law.
I want to clarify my comment above:
The relevant part should have read:
The outward surface S0 (if that is the outward extent of earth system) has a surface area of 1.002 * Earth's non-atmosphere surface), and therefore its temperature will be measurably lower than that of heat source T. And therefore we have a net heat transfer proportional to T - T0, which is a non-zero quantity.
And if one service offers an obstensibly cheaper price but has deficiencies that could actually cost you more money, result in tragedy, etc., how do you know that?
The same way you know that for traditional taxi services: they don't stay in business.
Sheesh. Is this really a question? How do you know when you buy a plum in the supermarket that it isn't poisoned? Is it just a wild-assed guess? Or is it more likely that purveyors of poisoned plums didn't get any repeat business?
Jane's concerned that the enclosing plate is bigger than the heated plate.
I know I said I wouldn't respond, but STOP TRYING TO TELL OTHERS WHAT *I* AM CONCERNED ABOUT. YOU DO NOT KNOW, SO YOU HAVE NO PLACE CLAIMING YOU DO.
I am not "concerned" about any of it. Though you seem to be. And I don't know why, because your analysis above actually verifies what I stated earlier. I've been wasting my time with (my opinion) an idiot.
But Earth's mean radius is 6371 km, and the effective radiating level is ~7 km higher, so these surface areas are only ~0.2% different.
0.2% is not zero. Therefore T0 (if that is the outward extent of earth system) has a surface area of T * 1.002, and its temperature will be measurably lower than that of heat source T. Therefore we have a net heat transfer proportional to T - T0, which is a non-zero quantity.
You've proved nothing here except to verify my point. But let's finish it...
Of course, in a thought experiment this difference can be made arbitrarily smaller. Despite Jane's protests, this doesn't change the fact that enclosing the heated plate makes it warmer.
This argument is HILARIOUS. The only way you can make it "arbitrarily small" is by making Spencer's (and your) whole argument "arbitrarily small" at the same time. I tried to tell you this before, but you just don't get it. That's too bad, because in reality you can't have it both ways.
If the dimensions (and therefore mass) of your "enclosing plate" approaches zero, then any absorption and re-rediation will also approach zero, and any supposed effect it will have on the temperature of the heat source will also approach zero. Even if your argument were correct, you're arguing yourself out of an argument.
So no, this argument is NOT valid with an "arbitrarily small" enclosing mass. It has to have enough to make a measurable difference on the temperature of the source (your argument, not mine) or the whole argument is empty.
You are trying to say you can make the dimensions larger by an "arbitrarily small" amount, without reducing the effect you are arguing for to an equally "arbitrarily small" amount. But the whole argument was about tangible and measurable effects. So you can't have it that way, man.
You sure know how to argue yourself into corners. Your assumptions are pure shit.
Now, I am done arguing. You can repeat the same BULLSHIT over and over all you want, but that won't make it any more valid. If you had the courage of your convictions, you would argue with the proper people about this, rather than trying to pick on (and losing to) a layman who is actually just laughing at your antics. Not laughing at your insults and attempts at ad-hominem and character assassination, no. But your antics, and your arguments about "physics", yes.
Um, JUST NO. I really don't know where you might have gotten that idea, but it's false.
Again, Dr. Latour claimed that mainstream physics, which includes absorption of cold back-radiation, "would constitute creation of energy, a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
No, he didn't. I swear, you are the King of mis-stating other peoples' arguments, so you cay try to shoot down straw-men instead.
What he actually argues is that Spencer's argument, not "mainstream physics", would result in creation of energy. His actual argument is that "mainstream physics" (which he has used almost daily in his career as an expert in heat transfer) shows that it can't be so, therefore Spencer's argument is false.
That's not the same, and your claim that it is just shows you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter.
The key phrase is "however slightly" because that difference can be made arbitrarily small. Since the only objection you've raised is arbitrarily small, does that mean you now see...
Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. Because you well know that even "arbitrarily small" is not zero. And any deviation from zero is enough to make the difference between T and T0 (or however you want to designate them) non-zero. A non-zero difference is all we need, no matter how "arbitrarily small" you try to make it. Remember that this is physical substance, not merely a mathematical abstraction.
you now see that Dr. Latour is wrong to claim that the heated plate will stay at 150F after the second plate is added, because he wrongly claims that absorbing cold back-radiation would violate the first law?
He doesn't wrongly claim that absorbing any "cold back radiation" would violate the first law. Again, you are merely mis-stating his actual argument. Now YOU are confusing absolute transfer with net transfer. That's your problem, not his. His argument has always been about NET transfer, and he does NOT claim that "any" re-absorption would violate the first law. You are again trying to claim that his argument is not about net transfer, when it fact it always has been. You are tilting at windmills again. Or still, take your pick. Why do you persist in this? Who are you trying to convince? You sure as hell aren't convincing me of anything. I mean, hell, YOU just tried to imply that an enclosing mass can be made of negligible mass, to the point that we don't even have to take it into account. Hahaha.
I mean that's so wrong on so many levels. For one thing (I already mentioned another), if the mass were negligible (as it would have to be, to make the difference in dimension negligible), then it would also absorb and re-emit negligble radiation, which makes the whole argument moot. And I have to wonder again why you don't see these glaringly obvious problems with your arguments. If you reduced the mass (and thereby dimensions) to almost zero, you reduce the absorption and re-radiation to almost zero. You can't have it both ways. Unless you want to hypothesize about some mystery substance that is not known to exist in reality.
So Dr. Latour was wrong to claim that mainstream physics predicts the heated plate warms infinitely.
He doesn't claim that. Repeat: you are mis-stating his argument. He actually claims the reverse: he USES "mainstream" physics to show that in reality it does not warm infinitely, and therefore Spencer's argument was wrong. I mean you're just absolutely trying to reverse the real argument here. But I really don't expect you to see that, because if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume), you don't even see the enormous gaping holes in
Again, he's completely wrong. The hotter bar absorbs cold back-radiation, and T does not remain 150F. That's why I refuted Dr. Latour by showing that a completely enclosed heated plate reaches an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K), which is less than the infinite temperature he claimed.
Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. THAT ISN'T WHAT HE CLAIMED. Quite the contrary. He claimed that a completely enclosed plate DOES NOT reach infinite temperature, which of course agrees with observations. Are you seriously this dense? Or did you just word your sentence in an unfortunate way, the way Latour did in his original blog post?
Here's one way you are wrong. In any realistic system, the enclosing plate would be of larger dimensions than the internal source, however slightly. So while the total re-radiated energy might be the same, it is spread over a larger area, so the energy density (and therefore temperature) would be lower.
How did you allow a layman to catch you in such an elementary error?
Not that I had any obligation to do so. Your argument is with him, not me. Just consider it a free lesson in humility.
Once again, if Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa.
What you're doing is known as "straw-man argument", or in this case (it's a bit gray) it might be called "moving the goalposts".
If you've actually looked into what he wrote about this, then why do you continue to deny that his whole argument is about NET heat transfer? He has explicitly stated otherwise.
Even if you did not take his word for it, his career building control systems precisely for the purpose of managing heat transfer would strongly suggest that this is hardly something he is likely to neglect.
If you want to make this other argument, then I suggest you read about his later challenge to Spencer and Watts to disprove his thesis, their attempts to do so, and his analysis of why they failed. (Hint: keeping the input power constant is one of the subjects discussed.)
You are only showing yet again that you haven't really looked into this. The original argument you made above was made moot over 2 years ago. This more recent argument, about a year ago. More or less.
And lastly, I will remind you: you should be making these arguments to HIM, not me. Why are you "arguing" with me about this? If you want to refute him, then refute him, in public where other people can see.
The leverage they have is that you're accused of committing a crime within the borders of the US, and evidence you have access to can be demanded under a warrant that covers details related to that crime.
Yes, but:
This may be true but it sidesteps one if the big points here: U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction abroad.
They might be able to sanction and punish the corporation for hiding its evidence, but it has no literal authority to otherwise force it to produce that evidence (like for example police action).
If the courts can punish Microsoft for not producing evidence in Ireland, why cannot it then punish Senators for not producing evidence of income hidden in the Bahamas?
Maybe it would help if we checked my calculations step by step. Start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.
We don't need to check your calculations because you're making a straw-man argument again. You are not refuting what Latour was actually arguing. And either you know that, or you just haven't paying attention. And the latter would be rather bizarre, given the nature of what you have been saying.
Stop making straw-man arguments. You aren't impressing anybody. You're making yourself look like a fool.
Once again, if Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa.
Absolute nonsense. He didn't do that simply because that was not the argument he was refuting. The argument he was refuting was clearly described, discussed, and linked to in his essay.
Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. I repeat: either you know it's wrong and are just spewing bullshit to make yourself look good (or in an attempt to make me look bad), or you just haven't done your due diligence.
My opinion is that you're just grasping at straws because you were shown to be wrong yet again. But those straws don't really exist. You were just plain wrong.
Wow! The double-down. I didn't (but probably should have) see that coming. So did I summarize your position accurately: You are not a birther. You are certain that someone faked Obama's birth certificate (because you read it on the internet), but you are not willing to speculate who did this or why. You have no idea where the president of the USA was born (hint: Hawaii, USA).
No, I am not certain "because I read it on the Internet". I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. Not all of them, of course. Some were just plain bullshit. Like your posts here. But some were true.
So now questions like, "How does one measure the amount of water passing a particular point in a river?" or "Why can you not see the Moon during the day?" are being asked.
Are you suggesting that it is okay for a Sysadmin to lack sufficient knowledge to answer those questions? Or that they are somehow discriminatory? I'm just not sure of your point here. I would be perfectly comfortable asking Sysadmin applicants these questions. (With the caveat that the moon is indeed sometimes visible during the day. That question is dumb. But asking why it's visible most nights is not. Interviewers can be stupid too.)
I'm not claiming they weren't being discriminatory. Maybe they were. But that's weak evidence at best.
One reason that I'm sure is a factor in the difference, is that companies are less inclined to bother reporting the "past due" status.
There's another reason that people seem to be ignoring: something that is "past due" will change out of that status, one way or another, after a short time. Something "in collection", not so much. One has to consider why it went into collection in the first place.
Another factor that is rather passed over in OP is that despite a few changes that were made for the better some years ago, they were actually pretty weak changes and credit reporting is still egregiously one-sided today.
Most companies of any size have whole departments that regularly report "past due" debt to collection agencies. But a consumer has many time-consuming and often expensive hoops to jump through to get that back off their record. In many ways it's still guilty-until-proven-innocent.
The fact that over generations people have become used to this travesty of justice just makes it all the more insidious.
You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about.
Almost Latour's entire thesis is that S-B law says net heat transfer is either 0 or in one direction, from the hotter area to the colder. If the roles are reversed, and the colder item becomes the hotter, then the sign changes and the net heat transfer is still only in one direction... from hotter to colder.
And you don't know this because you didn't actually do any actual research about it.You claim "his blog post is still live" but link to an web archive. You haven't researched the topic.
You ignored due diligence, and because of that your "refutation" is nothing but a straw-man, which you continue to deny, either because you know it's a straw-man, and are just doubling down, or because you still refuse to perform the due diligence necessary to make an intelligent argument. The rest of this nonsense falls down because it's all house-of-cards based on your initial misunderstanding of Latour's actual thesis.
Just to be clear: shortly after Latour published that blog post, it became clear that the language he used implied that no radiation at all was absorbed by the warmer body. So a reader could not reasonably be blamed for inferring that. But Latour quickly apologized for the unfortunate wording and corrected himself to make it very clear he was referring to net, not absolute, heat transfer.
As such, just what part of the S-B law do you find controversial?
I don't blame you for inferring -- from that one blog post, which you like to in archive -- that what he meant was any heat transfer, rather than net. But again: he corrected that right away and anybody who knows jack shit about the subject knows that. But you, on the other hand, apparently refused to be bothered with due diligence. Imagine that.
I wouldn't say it's the "cheapest" option. If you want to go strictly software, you can use something like BitTorent Sync.
Before anybody jumps on me: I wrote "something like". No, it's not open source. But using iCloud or Azure are proprietary solutions too!
I don't "trust" BitTorrent Sync's security. But odds are it's fine for this kind of use. You can also control access to files by simply putting them in different folders, and giving different people access to them, or give out temporary authorization codes.
So don't misunderstand: I would not endorse its security unless BitTorrent agreed to an open security audit. But it's also a "free" solution. And it's available for Windows, Mac, Android, and iOS. I think Linux too but I don't remember for sure.
I hope you realize how crazy this makes you sound.
I hope you realize that you just gave us more evidence, consisting of yet another astounding "coincidence" on top of all the others.
I hope you realize just how remarkably similar your writing is to that of khayman80, and how the timings of your replies so neatly coincide and cooperate.
perhaps they will require a licence to accept payments using them?
Regulations? Licenses? Hmm. As it happens, we already have pertinent "regulations".
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10:
"No State shall ... make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"
You did nothing of the sort. You made the (quite incorrect) claim that Latour wasn't accounting for the fact that the subject at hand is net heat transfer. But that claim is simply incorrect. I repeat that Latour has written about this extensively, which you would know if you bothered to actually read more of what he has written than one blog post.
You took a badly-worded sentence or two and jumped on them as though Latour made a mistake. But his only mistake was wording a couple of sentences badly. He does in fact NOT suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation, and he has written as much many times. (Which apparently you did not know. Why?) So you were tilting at windmills again... or should I say straw-men?
You have refuted NOTHING but a couple of unfortunately-worded sentences, which Latour himself publicly corrected shortly after that post appeared.
You failed. If you could actually prove his actual argument wrong, as opposed to the argument you mistakenly thought he made, you'd do it to his face or publish your results or both. Because, after all, it would be important to this cause you so avidly defend. But you haven't. Is that because you knew you were making straw-man arguments, or because you simply didn't bother to research the subject you were attempting to refute? Either one represents failure.
You have not been able to actually refute Latour. The only place a genuine "refutation" occurred is in your own mind.
Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell.
Since I have neither, I wouldn't know.
I would also like to point out here the absolutely amazing fact that "Layzej" stopped replying the moment you popped up. What a "coincidence".
Well, this has been an interesting evening. Not only did I catch you in an outright lie, you accomplished exactly nothing but spreading more ad-hominem and attempted "character besmirching" based on that lie.
No, you publicly claimed you were paranoid. One of the only true things you've ever said.
NO, I did not. That is NOT what I wrote in the comment. That isn't even a distortion, it's just a plain old lie.
What I wrote was that I thought for a time I was being paranoid, but that the situation turned out to not be paranoia at all; it was real.
Stop lying about me. Period. Take your distortions and you lies and go crawl in a hole somewhere.
So, just in case the meaning of my comment above was not clear to you:
If there is any vestige of "paranoia" in my personality, then I think it's pretty fair to say that it was probably caused by you. Because nobody else has been doing these strange and outside-normal things.
Did the word "stalker" never come to mind when you were researching my life?
It's worthy of note in your paranoia diagnosis...
Are you claiming I am paranoid? Just trying to clarify.
It's amazing how you seem to have this entire collection of Slashdot comments I made years ago right at hand. I've mentioned this before. What is the basis of your (apparently unhealthy, and definitely creepy) obsession with me?
Researching (and apparently indexing) years of other peoples' Slashdot comments is not something your average normal person does.
Do you see how crackpot websites which make "ridiculous" claims that you might have made when you "knew next to nothing about the subject" might not be the best source of science education?
Since I've received exactly no education from there, how would I know? Do you really need me to repeat that again before you get it through your head?
Venus vs. Mercury has everything to do with the Slayer nonsense you're spreading. You're just regurgitating even more misinformation that I have to debunk. That's the exact opposite of a favor! It's the same absurd behavior I've repeatedly asked you to stop.
Let's be specific. Explain to us what Venus vs. Mercury have to do with Pierre Latour's thermodynamic argument in regard to greenhouse warming? Stop prevaricating, and say what you mean. Do you have an actual argument to make?
Again, thanks for finally being honest. Youâ(TM)re not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesnâ(TM)t hold up under scrutiny. Youâ(TM)ve used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesnâ(TM)t hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:
And yet, you have failed for 2 years to refute Latour. Gee, that's interesting. What isn't holding water again? Are you sure you have that straight?
Yet again, trying to inflate your ego at the expense of others. It won't wash. You know you can't refute Latour, so you are piling straw-man on top of straw-man to try to make yourself look good. Again, I say: if you have a specific argument to make, then make it. Other than, that is, just rehashing the failed arguments you made 2 years ago. Quoting yourself complimenting yourself doesn't prove anything.
I am going to ask you again: why have you made it a habit of taking certain peoples' comments out of context, and then arguing with those comments when those other people aren't present, about things they did NOT say?
Stop dancing and beating around the bush. You're being utterly and disgustingly transparent. You've made not a single valid argument, but only implications. You've also thrown quotes of yourself about, plus more of the same old ad-hominem, out-of-context, straw-man arguments you've been making all along. But there isn't any meat anywhere.
And I think it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you.
Once again, you're wrong. Furthermore, the fact that you can't even spell "Layzej" correctly suggests your Scooby gang is drunk at the wheel.
Well, folks, how about a vote: is it just strange coincidence that he answered a reply to "Layzej", or is it worthy of note?