Don't you see that you threw in this whole "thermal superconductor" schtick without considering what properties a thermal superconductor must actually have?

In order to superconduct, it must be the same temperature everywhere, always. The only way this would be even remotely possible were if it were a perfect radiator, with emissivity of 1. It would also be a perfect absorber, absorptivity of 1. Regardless of wavelength.

So while this might not technically be true, for all practical purposes it is: a thermal superconductor would be completely transparent to all radiation, and there is no way to heat it or cool it in relation to its surroundings. It has no "thermal mass".

So it would have absolutely no effect on anything in this experiment. For practical purposes, it would not exist.

Your idea that you can get around this by placing some kind of thin lining on its interior doesn't work. It's still as though it weren't there at all... all you have left for practical purposes is the thin shell, nothing else.

Trying to use it as part of your demonstration won't wash. Every time you try to demonstrate something with it, you end up contradicting yourself. (Which I have pointed out to you many times now. Not just twice, more like 5 or 6 times.)

That's why I say: no more prevarication. No more beating about the bush. Take Spencer's original challenge, apply Latour's thermodynamic treatment of it, and show where it is wrong.

Anything else constitutes failure to back up your claim that Latour is wrong and -- as you have said more than once -- some kind of nutcase. You've had more than 2 years. That is plenty.

Like accuracy, you mean?

The official end of Summer is the moment before Autumn starts, sometime around the 20th of September, give or take.

And I want to be clear about this: I'm not demanding anything from you. YOU are the one who proclaimed Latour wrong, therefore it is your burden to demonstrate that he actually is, by showing exactly where he is incorrect.

I really don't give a damn whether you believe it or not. I'm not the one following you around, casting personal aspersions against YOU. I've just been defending myself from YOUR malicious attacks.

The whole point: You claimed Latour was wrong. But you refuse to back up your claim by showing WHERE in his calculations he was incorrect. That's your burden and you haven't been meeting it. Until you do, you have no argument to make. You can throw all the ad-hominem and straw-man arguments and irrelevancies in that you want, but none of it proves you correct. Until you actually show where Latour made a mistake, in his actual calculations related to this experiment, you're wrong by default.

See? Same shit different day. You won't sit down and do the calculations start-to-finish, instead you do one small part, then start indulging in your hallmark game of out-of-context he-said, she-said, toss in a straw-man, then claim it's all proved. Here's a classic example of the kind of straw-man arguments you introduce:

Here is an excellent example of this (19.3.2), which illustrates why it is a straw-man argument that is not relevant to the problem at hand. In this case the walls are warmer, not cooler, and the radiation shield is blocking the thermocouple from the radiation inward from the chamber walls, so that it can get an accurate temperature reading of the air without interference from the walls. In your case, it is the opposite: the walls are cooler than the thermocouple. But in neither case is the situation a representation of equilibrium (for example in this case, air is convecting away some of the heat of the thermocouple). The shield is absorbing and emitting radiation, too, it's just that it is isolated from the chamber walls, and so is closer to the ambient temperature of the medium being measured.

This is in no way related to our experiment at all. It is in a vacuum. There is no "medium" to measure, with an ambient temperature. Not even remotely. It's simply another illustration of the depths of hand-waving you will go to, rather than actually doing all the calculations on the actual experiment from start to finish.

All you're doing is tossing in more straw-men and irrelevancies. You won't do the actual experiment. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn here is that you won't do it because you know you're wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. You calculated the outside temperature from the inside temperature, saying it's LOWER because of its greater area. This much is correct.

THEN you try to say that with a thermal superconductor, the inner temperature would be the same as outside. Except you just calculated that outside temperature from a WARMER interior. You quite literally can't have it both ways. EITHER you're claiming a superconductor has a different temperature on both sides, or you're claiming that the inside has 2 different temperatures simultaneously.

Over a period of MORE THAN TWO YEARS, I have repeatedly tried to engage you in a thorough analysis of this experiment. EVERY TIME, you have done (usually incorrectly) a partial analysis, then declared the subject proved. But it never was. When pressed, you resorted to the same kind of bullshit you have pulled here, with ad-hominem, not-sequiturs, and straw-men. NEVER daring to face the full problem in real detail.

Because you KNOW Latour was correct. And it isn't just him. TEXTBOOKS about practical applications of thermodynamics say so.

You have NEVER, ONCE, tackled the problem head-on. Always a little twist here, a little change there, let's ignore areal exposure to the ambient radiation, ad nauseum. Always weaseling sideways, never quite taking on the task of REFUTING LATOUR, even though that's what you claimed to be doing, with all your misdirection.

Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, even though I honestly don't believe you deserve it. I am willing to concede that you really are a Kool-Aid drinker, and can't accept that the dogma isn't what you thought it was. That's preferable to believing that you're simply a malicious lying sonofabitch.

I am fucking well done here.

I'm repeating that, with the quotations done properly, so I can save it for posterity.

Haha. Here are your words.

But its inner temperature ISN'T 149.6F, because it's being heated from the inside, not the outside. You calculate a temperature due to heating on the inside, with its area, then account for a reduced temperature on the outside due to increased area, then try to turn around and say the temperature on the inside is the same as the outside.

I'm not changing a thing. This is the same criticism I gave before (just in more detail). And you're STILL full of shit, you pretender. This is the most ludicrous thing I've heard coming from someone who claims to be a real scientist in years.

I've heard some "doozies", as they say, but it's doubly hilarious that I've pointed this out to you three times, and here you are still trying to defend it, rather than simply saying "Oops, I messed up."

It is A WASTE OF MY TIME to argue with you. You don't learn. I won't do it any more. And I'm going to give a copy of this to my grandchildren.

Haha. Here are your words.

At equilibrium, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K).

A_h*T_h^4 = A_c2*T_c2^4 (Eq. 3)

For the moment, let's pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F (338.5K). Energy conservation at equilibrium just inside the enclosing shell shows [dumbscientist.com] that the heated sphere will warm to an equilibrium temperature of 233.8F (385.3K)

But its inner temperature ISN'T 149.6F, because it's being heated from the inside, not the outside. You calculate a temperature due to heating on the inside, with its area, then account for a reduced temperature on the outside due to increased area, then try to turn around and say the temperature on the inside is the same as the outside.

I'm not changing a thing. This is the same criticism I gave before (just in more detail). And you're STILL full of shit, you pretender.

Oh, Jesus Christ. I actually started to have a serious discussion with you, then you had to obfuscate it and throw n all this other bullshit.

Every goddamned time. I thought we'd actually settle this scientifically, once and for all, but I see that you were never really interested in that anyway. I think other readers (which there WILL be) will conclude the same.

Really sorry if you're dying, but if so (I didn't believe it for a moment) you can go knowing that you abdicated on a chance to prove to the world that you can solve "civilization-paralyzing misinformation".

And I will know that you went exactly as you (from what you have shown me, anyway) deserve: unknown and deservedly so.

I offered to work through this with you reasonably, from start to finish. Even after you have repeatedly demonstrated that I have to reasonable obligation to you, to do so. You have refused.

End of discussion. End of ALL discussions with you, as far as I am concerned. Given that I have often offered to discuss this openly with you, and you have continually refused, then the matter is done. You lose by default because you refuse to lose like a man.

Pardon me.

s/equal volume and dimensions/equal dimensions

Spencer's INITIAL description of his thought experiment. As I have told you several time. This first, then more if you want to get into it. I will not discuss this with you in the other order, AS I HAVE TOLD YOU. Because until you get that right, you're not going to get the other one right. If you continue to argue the other case first, then we are done, and I will write you off as hopeless.

No "enclosing shell". Two parallel plates. The original thought experiment is two parallel plates (we can make them of equal volume and dimensions just to simplify, but it's not necessary). I repeat: we briefly discussed "even if it were enclosing" but that's a complication of the original, and we'll solve the original first.

What the fuck am I doing? I actually started to solve this for you, after telling you I wouldn't. It must be very late on a Friday night.

Also, I don't think we're assuming black bodies. The best we can realistically do is grey bodies that absorb in all the relevant frequencies under discussion.

What the hell. Anything is better than your "thermal superconductors" that you then claim are different temperatures on different sides. Do you remember that is the second time you tried to pull that? I bet not.

If you really believe inflation has been at 1.5-2%, you're either a complete loon, or you haven't tried to buy a house lately, or you've totally swallowed the government Kool-Aid.

OR, more likely, you've just been letting the wife buy the groceries and not listen to her complaints about the prices.

For fuck's sake, man, if you knew how CPI was calculated you'd never listen to that BS.

Let's be clear:

You have made it abundantly clear that your interest here is to try to make me look bad. You can pretend you are having an "argument" all you like, but an objective observer can (has, actually) easily see that it is not so.

I have no reason to participate in your game and give you the satisfaction, regardless of the fact that (past evidence shows, and that's another truth) you would lose anyway. I have better things to do with my time.

To put it another way: this isn't worth my time. I will not respond further.

Right, you're just making shit up now and attributing it to me.

That's called "lying".

Don't be an ass. That isn't what I said. I was explaining why NOAA's datasets are not trustworthy. No more, no less.

On second thought, based on recent experience, I won't tell you to not be an ass anymore, because if you did you'd disappear.