Because your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. Here's another hint: I have told you several times where you're wrong, but you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid.

Go where this has been debated before if you want your answers. Because you keep demanding them from me even though you were too goddamned stupid to realize that I gave you the clue a long time ago.

No more replies. I am through. Again.

"As much" rock. There certainly were rocks. And remember, it went much farther, faster, than Curiosity. Under otherwise harsher conditions: much hotter sometimes, much colder sometimes. The Mars atmosphere may be thin, but at least there is one.

Oh, hell. I'll just give it away, since you're being such a dumbass (my opinion).

Among other mistakes, you're making the same one that Watts did when he tried to refute Latour. I have noticed a couple of other mistakes, but that by itself shows you are wrong.

I have done nothing of the sort.

Are you saying that you have changed the nature of the experiment, such that it is no longer in vacuum?

The original experiment does not involve "enclosing a heated plate", except to the extent that it was already enclosed. In the experiment that has (always, as far as I am concerned) been under discussion, there is a heat source S, a passive plate P that is heated by that source, and an enclosure (which I have called W for "wall") that is actively cooled. Everything inside the enclosure is in vacuum, so that ALL heat transfer is by radiation only. No convection, no conduction.

Are you referring to the same experiment? If so, then I will repeat what I have already stated several times. And I will also repeat that if you have an argument with it -- other than your straw-man argument above, that is -- you go argue it with the proper parties, not with me. But I am indulging you to this extent.

1) Even if the passive plate completely surrounds the source, then in any real-world situation it is impossible for it to ever quite reach the same temperature as that source, even if only because the surface area is (however slightly) greater than that of the source. We have discussed this before. Therefore at equilibrium temperature Ts will always be warmer -- even if only a little -- than the passive plate Tp.

2) By the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, NET heat transfer will always be from hotter to colder. And since Ts - Tp is a positive number, net heat transfer is from the source to the plate. The plate cannot cause the heat source to be hotter because that would require NET heat transfer in the other direction. But that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. (There is no need to re-derive how we apply the S-B law here. Again, that would be re-hashing old news.)

By asserting that at equilibrium the passive plate can cause the source to be hotter, you are contradicting the S-B law. You can make all the other arguments you like to try to sidestep this, but eventually you're just going to step in it again. Pun very much intended.

I have stated this all before. I repeat that you are making a mistake. But in order to find out what it is, you are going to have to address your argument to the person you are attempting to refute. Your argument is not with me and trying to make it with me is childish. Given that, and the abusive nature of your past behavior, I refuse to help you further. No more hints.

Jesus, you're a dumbshit. (That's just a statement of opinion. But an honest one.)

I told you before I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong. But here's another hint you don't deserve: I don't dispute your Equation 1, and never have (in a hypothetical ideal context, that is). You're just applying it in a way that doesn't actually apply.

I admit that it took me a while to figure that out when originally presented with this idea (which was a few years ago now). But I did, and I'm no physicist. However, there are physicists (like Joe Postma, for example) who might be happy to explain it to you if, that is, you don't piss him off (or haven't already pissed him off) with your adolescent, antisocial behavior.

And no, your ad-hominem explanation of why you won't confront the actual engineer who made the argument won't wash. First, it *is* ad-hominem... not in the context of your scientific argument, but in the context of why you refuse to make your argument to the proper parties. So no, I did not "misuse" the phrase ad hominem. It was part of your argument, so it applies. Not to mention that it's just plain bullshit anyway.

Go ahead, keep making a fool of yourself. I'm happy to let you do it.

And even if they weren't, a lot of things get censored in the process that never should be. Censorship, even by accident, is Not Okay.

Why are you discussing someone's tweets here in a blatantly off-topic manner here on Slashdot? Oh, right... because you continue to claim it's me. Though that doesn't make it any less off-topic.

After visiting those links, I think to native speakers of English it's pretty clear: "unsettled" is wordplay on the phrase "settled science".

But since you bring MY name up, I will repeat this: I DO NOT dispute that humans have contributed to an increase in CO2 concentration. How much of an increase is due to human activity is not known. The only thing *I* dispute (as opposed to someone else) is whether said increase in CO2 is a significant cause of "global warming". I have stated this to you repeatedly, yet you keep trying to claim otherwise. That's called denial.

But I should not even have replied to you at all, since your comment was, after all, entirely off-topic.

It depends entirely on the state.

There is an intent clause in the law. The "surveillance" has to be for the purpose of seeing onto my property, or the goings on there, specifically.

Note that this does not give a pass to mass photography by drones or helicopters, either, since then the intent would still be surveillance.

Uh... yeah. How about 40 years ago?

Granted, those wheels were not exposed to as much rock, but they drove 2 passengers much farther than Curiosity has gone, at a far higher rate of speed. The astronauts even hotdogged it a little bit. No damage whatever.

GP was correct: it was a questionable design decision from the beginning. Somebody made a bad choice.

No, that's what normal business applications looked like in the 90s. This is what web pages looked like in the 90s.

>> "The rover has reached its planned mission life, everything beyond this is a bonus."
> I agree with the rest of your post, but this part is tricky to evaluate.

This says "mission accomplished".

It makes me suspicious that you weren't around in the 90s. That's not what web application UIs looked like.

I've tried. For some reason, now my car won't start.

About 40,000 people die in car accidents every year, in the US alone. It's one of those things that I keep pointing out because people keep seeming to fail to realize how many people that is. When people say, "We can't have solar power because it'll kill a thousand birds!" or "We can't have freedom (i.e. NSA spying and CIA torture is ok!) because otherwise we might have another 9/11, which killed a thousands of people!"

40,000 people die every year due to car accidents. Nobody is talking about giving up cars.