You have demonstrated yourself to be utterly inept at knowing "what I actually mean".

These are just straw-man arguments, as usual. I have no argument with these other physicists. It was about Spencer's challenge and how YOU got it wrong, nothing more. Have you asked them, personally, about Spencer's experiment? (No, you haven't, or you would know you were wrong.)

Bringing up OTHER arguments like greenhouse gases won't win THAT argument for you. You have already lost it.

And that last sentence is not an argument, it's just a statement of fact.

There's a classic quip about that. "A liberal is someone who will give you the shirt off of someone else's back."

I will make this one correction here. Yes, the view factor I mentioned was the wrong one, from the inside of the enclosing sphere to the heat source. (Or from the chamber wall to the outside of the enclosing sphere, which just happens to be the same due to specified dimensions.) Of course it is not the same from the chamber wall to the heat source. But that is the only mistake I made here.

But (this is not for you, but for other readers): because ALL of the incoming cooler radiation is reflected or scattered, and no NET amount is absorbed, it goes right back out your boundary. The rest that misses the heat source also goes right back out your boundary (pretty much by definition). Which all adds up to the TOTAL radiation coming in through your boundary going right back out again. There is no need to account for the view factor in this direction because there is no net radiation absorbed. It all goes right back out. Net inwelling energy through your boundary is zero.

I almost started to argue with you again, but I have learned that it won't do any good. You'll still keep insisting that this violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is really how it's done. Sigh.

I don't think you really believe that for a second, if you're really the physicist you claim to be. The very simple textbook math has proved it wrong. I mean, didn't it send up a red flag when you took your answer and fed it back into standard heat transfer equations and it didn't balance? Oh, that's right... you didn't. But I did.

But that's just a statement of fact. I'm not arguing with you now and I'm not going to again. You're either a fool or a liar, and I do not care which. I have already proved it and I intend to publish that for the world to see. Along with textbook explanations and diagrams showing exactly where and how you went wrong.

The only "meaning" it has is to their particular recycling and waste disposal programs. As you say, this is not about waste at all. It is only about where to put different kinds of trash.

It would be very similar to an ordinance that fines people for putting glass in the aluminum recycle bin.

Use

To make a single line break. Double it for 2 (paragraph). Also see down below your text entry window for "Allowed HTML". b in brackets is bold, i in brackets is italics, etc. You must use opening and closing brackets around your text. E.g.,

<i>This would be italics.</i>

I used trickery to do that though. The brackets don't show up in the final text. Try it in a reply and use the "preview" button.

Further, Emma Watson's speech wasn't so much about "the need for feminism" as it was about how so many women distort feminism and turn it into man-hating instead.

"Terribly uninteresting"? How quaint.

The moon is the single best opportunity for the expansion of space exploration.

Guess what? Rockets large enough to send out to the asteroid belt with people in them, as a practical matter, are too damned big to launch from Earth. Did I hear "build them in orbit"? Nope. Too difficult, slow, and expensive. At our current level of technology you really need gravity to do practical construction on a very large scale. 1/6 the gravity? Perfect! Rockets built there don't have to be very large at all.

The moon has vast natural resources; they merely need to be extracted from the rock. Oxygen is one of them. There is also a surprising amount of fissionable material available. So... given some initial energy and material input, you can probably have sustained output, without too much "resupply" coming from Earth. And while energy requirements of a colony might be high, there are vast amounts of solar energy available, and plenty of silicon and trace elements to make solar cells.

Etc., etc. Our current U.S. government administration might be clueless about these things, but in the long run, the moon is our greatest hope for the future.

I am also going to say to you, khayman80, that there will be no further discussion here. You have been doing nothing but repeating false claims which I proved wrong long ago. Any further discussion with you would be a waste of time. You have wasted far too much of my time already.

You've twisted and distorted arguments, played havoc with the math, and tried to deny known physical laws. But I've caught you at every turn.

Time to act like a man and admit that you were wrong. After all, other people are going to see it anyway. I promised to publish the results of our exchange no matter how it turned out. You don't get to complain now just because you lost.

I am making one last reply to "khayman80" here, because he's so good at trolling and readers deserve to see the rebuttal.

Just no. If radiation goes in and comes right back out, we do not need to account for it, because then the NET amount of that particular radiation crossing your boundary is ZERO. A = A. You do know how to add and subtract, right? You know what a zero is, right?

Just no. This is a ridiculous assertion. The equation above is for heat transfer, not radiative power.

I used the proper equation for radiative power, which at steady-state doesn't depend on other bodies. So there is no "difference" term. Just temperature. That's simple physics. You are trying to use a heat transfer equation to calculate power out of a single body at known temperature. That's just plain WRONG.

I made no such claim, you liar. As you well know, the view factor from the surface of the inner sphere to the inner surface of the outer sphere is 1. The calculated view factor from the outer sphere to the inner was 0.9998. BUT, since all the radiation going IN which strikes the hotter body is effectively reflected or scattered, it goes right back out, AND the small amount of radiation from the cooler body that misses the inner sphere ALSO goes right back out, then the EFFECTIVE view factors in this case are both 1.

All the radiation going IN from the cooler body just goes right back OUT again, making the NET radiation crossing your boundary from the cooler body zero. If that were not so, then you'd have net energy being transferred from a cooler body to a hotter one, which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. As I've explained to you many times now. You're just plain wrong.

No, I don't need to educate either one. They can both pick up a textbook on heat transfer and see that I am correct. I'm not arguing with them. Our discussion was about THIS experiment of Spencer's. What I did was refute YOUR "solution" to Spencer's challenge. I found the correct answers and checked my work. Funny, but YOUR solutions didn't check out when plugged back in to standard heat transfer equations. I daresay that any eminent physicist can also do the math and see where you were wrong. And I'm going to give them plenty of opportunity to see it. So why not just wait and see?

I did NOT make broad claims in this recent exchange about "greenhouse gas" or any such thing. So I'm not arguing with those other people. I simply showed YOU to be wrong.

I agree with Blue Trane. It's just not a defining factor. Science fiction is about science. Even if it's just postulating a future world, there is a line between fantasy fiction and science fiction, even if it's a blurry one.

There is nothing more to say. You have been proved wrong. You can write books about your nonsense "physics", and it won't make your bullshit theory any more correct.

I have 3 heat transfer textbooks here, and they all say you're wrong. I'll stick with the well-known and established physics, thanks very much, and dismiss the nonsense from the cheap seats.

Funny, but for years you talked about "consensus" and "established science", but whenever the established physics disagrees with you, you will write pages and pages about why they're wrong and you're right.

There's a word for that. The word is "hypocrisy". There are other words for what you do, too, but I'll let other readers decide on those.

Well, it didn't work and it won't work. The textbooks all say you're wrong. Goodbye.

And you can achieve that quite nicely by drawing your "boundary" around the heat source.

Nonsense. By the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, the chamber walls add no net power in. It just goes right back out through your boundary again. How many times must I explain this to you?

Apparently I would be explaining forever, because I've explained it clearly many times now.

I won't consider it because it's not physics. There is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. It's against the second law of thermodynamics, and it violates the S-B radiation law: (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4).

We've been over this. You're just trolling. You were proved wrong many days ago now. No more. Done.

The Golden Compass is considered as dangerous by Christian parents as Narnia is by Atheist parents

So... not dangerous at all then? I'm an Athiest. I loved the Narnia series aged 7-11. I'll get my kids to read them. I know many Athiest parents who have allready bought The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe for their bubs before they can read.

I want my kids to be as wideley read as possible Most Athiest Parents I know feel the same way. Knowledge is something to be embraced. Not feared.

I don't think so. That description describes fantasy as well as it does science fiction, but they're two different genres.

You're forgetting the "science" in science fiction. While there is occasionally some overlap, science fiction isn't fantasy fiction isn't horror fiction.