Thus demonstrating your total ignorance about the way scientific experiments are carried out. You can bring this up time and time again but you won't be any more right.I think it's important to understand what is meant in each case, by each person, by
experiment.
What I mean is the one proposed by nomuse in
post #248which was adapted to use sunlight instead of an artificial light. Although I refer to the adapted experiment as "mine" nomuse's suggestion occurred before I joined the thread; I merely adopted it.
In
post #289 Heavenlybody respondedBeginning here, Heavenlybody confounds the effects, clearly not understanding what the experiment is designed to prove. Jason Thompson raised the issue of confounding variables in post #300. I went into painful detail in post #305.
At this point Heavenlybody changed the subject and went off on the Von Braun tangent.
Jason reiterated the experiment in
post #376This too is the essence of "my" experiment.
But then Heavenlybody dismissed it (whether using artifical lght or sunlight) in
post #386sayingIn that context Heavenlybody's latest post is especially ironic: she accuses me of co-opting
her experiment and complains about name-calling.
Tanalia (
post #393) has the best response:
We discussed some valid variations on that experiment, which I summarized in
post #408 consisting of the single sentence:
Whatever you did to isolate one mode of heat transfer from another would help validate the experiment.A key turning-point occurred in
post #410. Heavenlybody said and I responded thus in
post #421:Here and subsequently I reject Heavenlybody's methodology and instead substitute my own. Again I say that we
can isolate and study heat transfer methods in isolation if we use proper scientific methodology. And the various experiments referred to by nomuse, Tanalia, Jason, and I that involve a control and a variable receptor are examples of that correct metholodogy. Conversely I do not recognize, and never have recognized, that Heavenlybody's method of putting receptors at different places on Earth constitutes a viable way of characterizing the effects of angle of incidence in isolation.
Heavenlybody, your method won't work. But just because yours won't work doesn't mean ours won't or that no method can work. You can't handwave around that confounding variables pose problems if you're the one who confounded them in the first place.
Then nomuse, the orginal proponent of the controlled experiment, stepped in.
Post #431.
Heavenlybody then shifted the goalposts in
post #432.There began the handwaving obfuscation of whether heat transfer modes could be experimentally separated.
Several people wrote substantially similar essays on the nature of isolating variables in experiments. In
post #448 I used a phrase Heavenlybody wasn't familiar with. She doesn't know what "controlled for" means, as she admits below. That, of course, indicates just how little she really knows about experimentation. She is trying to make it sound like no one can ever know the role of angle of incidence, therefore no one can perform a logical thermal design of the lunar module.
The key question comes in
post #488:
(emphasis added)
In the subsequent post I answred, "It doesn't. It
controls for them so that angle of incidence can be studied in isolation." That's still my answer. What apparently went over Heavenlybody's head is the notion that my experiment is correct because it doesn't allow the extraneous variables to change. That is, it doesn't
represent that variable, it properly
eliminates it.
In the subsequent discussion it seems that Heavenlybody somehow thinks I'm claiming my experiment
fixes hers. It doesn't; it
replaces it. My experiment solves the problems in hers by doing the study a different way so as to eliminate the effect of the variables that get in the way of hers. This is basic science, as I've said so many times.
Then a ban occurred.
At this point I can digress and discuss the fateful
post #500(italicized emphasis added)
What I had in mind was electrical current from an external source. Since the electrical current that produces Earth's magnetic field is generated by the field itself, it's a sort of chicken-and-egg dilemma. But I later agreed that in the most meaningful sense it doesn't matter where the electrical current comes from if it's the proximal cause of the field. Changing one's mind on a matter of interpretation is not the same as simply getting facts wrong. And to be nit-picky, Heavenlybody is still using the term
electromagnetic field incorrectly.
Then on one of her first posts (
#614) after her ban, Heavenlybody askedSo much for someone who is "schooling the play-group." I responded in
post #627 reiterating what it takes to isolate a variable, and reiterating that she had been laboriously lectured on how the methodologies compare between the two proposed experiments.
Then came more bluster from Heavenlybody in
post #628.Still the mistaken notion that my experiment must function the same way hers does and suffer all its effects. My (our) experiment is
different from hers
because it controls for those other effects. Distance, density, atmospheric properties -- all are held constant in what nomus, Jason, I, and others proposed.
Note well that she asked for the explanation in the context of
my experiment -- not of hers -- because in
post #658 she askedNow she's back to the context of
her experiment, shifting the goalposts to make it seem as if I'm the one being evasive.
My experiment is not affected by changes in those variables
because they are not allowed to change. That's the best way to control for them.
At the risk of belaboring the answer: the answer to Heavenlybody's question was given in the exchange surrounding posts #488 and #489. Since our experiment does not allow all those other factors to vary, it lets us test whether and by how much angle of insolation affects the thermal properties of an object. The rest is just Heavenlybody backpedalling and blustering.
The "did-didn't" exchange goes a couple more rounds, culminating lately in
post #755Still more goalpost-shifting. Originally it was how my methodology worked in my experiment. Then it was how my method would address her broken experiment and correct it. Now it's simply the variable nature of the quantities in question.
Again the answer is simply that they are rendered irrelevant by conducting the experiment as I have suggested, such that they do not vary independently from sample to sample. And again, that's basic science. The very fact that such things might differ from place to place is why any experiment that requires differently placed receptors is invalid and can never hope to investigate the effect on temperature of one single heat transfer method on sound footing. This is why my experiment must replace hers and why it shows
only the effects of angle of incidence.
Oh, but it gets worse.
Post #765.(emphasis added)
I went back and checked. And in post #489 quoted above I say exactly the opposite of what Heavenlybody says I did. I did
not say I needed two plates at the equator and could thus control for all effects at the pole. And again she interpolates her confounding variables.
Contrary to Heavenlybody's claims, her questions
have been answered, the references to the answers have been restated, and the copious evidence of her shifting of goalposts has been laid bare and shown in her own words.
Let this suffice.