Well, I didn't interpret the article the same way you did. I thought the article was saying that you can be logical and still feel wonder. It wasn't saying that science-oriented people need to be religious, but rather that religious people should stop seeing them as somehow inhuman and unfeeling without a belief in their God.

Why would they be in for a "rude" awakening, when one would think that any awakening at all should be a pleasant surprise?

Further, as Sam Harris argues quite well, one need not be a theist to have moral values. Science + secular society are perfectly capable of agreeing upon ethical and moral rules, without resorting to theism.

So how does that work then? If you tell me something that's true, but you can't be bothered to try persuading me of it, shall I flatly refuse to believe it? Regardless of the idea's underlying merit? I don't see how that policy is profitable.

I believe it was the great Joel Hodgson and Josh Weinstein, who counselled us in such matters:

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show,
I should really just relax
For Mystery Science Theater 3000."

Those who understand how to correctly apply the scientfic method know that the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion (the alternative hypothesis).

I never really bought into this idea of "burden of proof". It strikes me as a rhetorical / debating tactic, rather than a part of good-faith truth-seeking.

If an assertion is true, then it's true regardless of who in a debate advances it.

No, you don't. You just have to give enough people cheap energy that they're no way to put the genie back in the bottle.

Once you do that, the Gateses and Kochs of the world can be safely ignored. They won't have any power anymore.

"Any dick and his Cessna" is not involved in commercial interstate transportation.

I am disputing nothing of the sort. As I have explained many times now, you are not drawing your lines properly.

You keep making the same bullshit assertions, after I have proved them false. Why do you do this?

You're just going to look that much more foolish later.

PROOF that you're bullshitting everybody:

NO!!! I did not. I held the power constant, just as Spencer stipulated.

For a gray body, which you stipulated, radiant power out = (emissivity) * (S-B constant) * T^4. This is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between radiant temperature of a gray body and its power output.

T is known: 150F or 338.71 K.

Solving for radiant power out we get 82.12 Watts/m^2. Times khayman80's stipulated area (510.065 m^2) = 41886.54 Watts.

It is this POWER that remains constant according to Spencer. Khayman80 himself asserted that "power in = power out". Therefore POWER IN = POWER OUT = 41886.54 Watts.

But because of the equation I showed above, which is a physical law, after the hollow sphere is inserted (which is COLDER than the heat source), nothing at the power source has changed. Emissivity is still the same. Power input is still 41886.54 Watts = radiant power output of 41886.54 Watts. Which (by the equation above) yields the same temperature.

I didn't assume the same temperature, I calculated it using known physical law.

ANYTHING ELSE is a direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

NO!!!

I have told you 5 or 6 or maybe more times now, this is a VIOLATION of the very straightforward Stefan-Boltzmann law.

How it applies in this situation is quite straightforward, and not at all as complex as you are making it out to be.

Radiant power output of a gray body is calculated using ONLY the variables: emissivity and temperature. THAT IS ALL. There is no other variable dealing with incident radiation, or anything else. When the system is at radiant steady-state, power out (and therefore power in) are easily calculated, and I have calculated them.

Further, Spencer's "electrical" input power was to the heat source, not to the whole system.

YOUR OWN PRINCIPLE: power in = power out. Now you're trying to contradict yourself and say it meant something else.

It's just bullshit. You're squirming like a fish on a hook. You just don't seem to realize you have already been flayed, filleted, and fried in batter.

You're owned, man.

I do think it's cute, however, how you tried to use Spencer's statement as proof of itself.

Have I reminded you lately that your grasp of logic seems a bit off?

It doesn't seem odd at all, because established science shows that his assertion that the temperature changes is wrong.

Considering that he is wrong, why should I find it odd that he said a wrong thing.

SIMPLE CALCULATION, which I have already shown several times: power "sufficient" to heat the heat source under initial conditions to 150F: 41886.54 Watts.

Power input at the source remains constant. Spencer's stipulation. Therefore by the S-B relation, once everything comes up to radiative steady-state the input power and output power of the heat source are constant. There is no inconsistency here.

Further, because ALL the other surfaces are cooler than the heat source, ALL the net heat transfer is outward, because T(a)^4 - T(b)^4 is a positive number.

This is established science, and it doesn't depend on the incorrect opinions of either Spencer or yourself.

I'm going to correct/clarify myself again:

It's not that I don't agree. You might come up with the right answer for some sub-calculation. I don't know, I don't care, and I'm not even going to bother to check, much less agree. The issue is that I have already solved the problem, and arrived at the correct answer (within reasonable limits).

So I don't HAVE to agree or disagree with you. I've already done it, according to the correct textbook-approved physics. AND (unlike you) I checked my work and it checks out. And unlike your answer it doesn't violate conservation of energy.

Nothing you can say is going to change that.

You're misapplying your physics principles again. You're trying to introduce outside influences that the SIMPLE, UNREFUTABLE Stefan-Boltzmann relation says is ALWAYS true:

For a given gray body, its thermodynamic temperature is related ONLY to emissivity, radiant power output, and the S-B relation (emissivity)* (S-B constant) * T^4.

PERIOD. That's physics. And I repeat: given your OWN "draw a border around it" thermodynamic reasoning, the power input (whether it is electrical, chemical, or something else) must equal that output. That's physics.

You're trying to bring in energy from elsewhere, but it isn't relevant to this calculation AT ALL; it is erroneous thinking.

Power input is specified to be constant. Calculating the total power in initial conditions is, as I stated before, "dirt simple". Specified emissivity is known: 0.11. Temperature is known: 338.71K. Solving for the above we get 82.12 W/m^2.

We already have ALL the information needed to calculate this, given the Stefan-Boltzmann relation (above), relating these numbers. Nothing else is required, and in fact trying to introduce other factors is ERROR. That is what the accepted science says.

Since we CAN easily calculate that in initial conditions, and we know the area (YOU specified it), we can calculate the total power output (which is the ONLY power output) by multiplying Watts per area by the area. Our result is 82.12 W / m^2 * 510.065 m^2 = 41886.54 Watts.

This is simple physical fact, according to standard principles of physics. I repeat that you can twist and squirm all you want, but unless you can come up with a "khayman80 law" to replace the Stefan-Boltzmann law, this IS the answer, it is known, and it is unequivocal.

Further, even if you use the "long" equation from Wikipedia to calculate heat transfer, rather than my somewhat simplified estimate method, the primary terms in the denominator are still T1^4 minus T2^4, indicating that net heat flow is all OUTWARD from the heat source.

Introduce all the complications, and prevarications and half-assed reasoning you want. I have already shown you the correct answer according to established physics.

Give it up lest you make yourself look more of a fool than you already are. Because as I promised you, all of this is being recorded and will be made public, with your name displayed prominently. I promised that I would do that regardless of how it turned out. You have no reason to complain just because you lost.

Further, I'm going to INVITE people who teach heat transfer to examine my write-up, and evaluate it. I already know what they will say about your half-assed thermodynamic reasoning.

To be honest, I still don't see why YOU don't see, where I showed that you were clearly wrong. But again, I suspect that your CO2-based greenhouse gas religion will not let you accept the clearly established facts.

I have said all I need to say here. Nothing you say will change it, and no, I do not agree with your fallacious "reasoning". I'll stick with the engineering textbooks, thanks very much.

I disagree. It isn't worrisome at all.

I look forward to the day I can break away from daily "work" and just pursue my interests and hobbies.

And in fact, this is the economy of Start Trek: an economy of plenty, rather than our current economy based on scarcity. People do what they do because they want to, not because they get paid for it.

I don't think the Star Trek scenario is unreasonable, if we were to find better ways to generate energy. Nobody has to be idle (though they could be if they wanted). That isn't a species-killing idea, it's just another evolutionary step.