|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 27, 2007 5:45:22 GMT -4
You must have data from both locations in order to derive any useful data. Simply saying no you don't, is not very scientific is it? Let me explain to your resident expert once again. At the equator the sun is directly over head, at the poles it is very low in the sky. Therefore the amount of atmosphere the solar-radiation must travel through at the equator is far less than at the poles. Do you follow so far? Perfectly, but that is NOT the condition the experiment was proposed to consider. The experiment is to deal SOLELY with the effect of angle of incidence of incoming radiation. The atmosphere is another factor that is not being tested by the experiment. We KNOW the atmosphere presents a thicker barrier to solar radiation at the poles. The experiment we proposed, and the data that you were given about other bodies in the solar system, is to show that it wouldn't matter if it was there or not. An object illuminated obliquely by the sun will warm up slower and reach a lower equilibrium temperature than an object heated perpendicularly. The atmospheric effect is a second variable. That variable is controlled in our experiment by having the two plates in the same location. Our experiment covers only the angle of incidence of incoming solar radiation, and that is all it was ever supposed to do. Your experiment is to tackle something else that we never disputed nor intended to assess. When will you stop trying to shoehorn the two together? Your inability to understand the basic tenets of scientific experiment is getting very tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 27, 2007 5:47:21 GMT -4
I have also been looking at the Freemason connection. The lower levels are window dressing they are the clueless ones that do not have any idea that at the top levels Freemasonry is nothing more that a network of devil (money) worshipers. Freemasons had A. the motive; money & dumbing down of the public. B. the recourses; people in key positions and money the American tax payers money! C.They were present at the scene of the crime; Neil & Buzz in the studio. This is still ireelevant if you can't even demonstrate that Apollo was actually faked. It doesn't matter what motive or capability a man may have to commit a crime if that crime was never committed in the first place. Deal with evidence first and apportion blame later.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Apr 27, 2007 7:24:32 GMT -4
Heavenlybody,
You have shown time and again that it is you that does not know what you are talking about. You admitted it, as Jay showed in a quote by you. If anything, you exceed in irony.
Once again, you provide useless, irrelevent speculation about Freemasons. I suggest you carefully read the post "How to test a Conspiracy Theory" , by PeterB. See what criteria your ideas pass.
As I said, I'll repeat the question I put to you, in abridged form. I shall repeat it until I get a response from you. Now.... If you consider Apollo faked, do you consider unmanned probes missions fake too? If not, why not? If so, why?
Is this a rude question? Does it cause offense to you?
Look at this definition provided again:
It is you that has fit this description, not us.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 27, 2007 8:27:38 GMT -4
Your inability to understand the basic tenets of scientific experiment is getting very tiresome. Have you considered that she does understand but pretends otherwise just to irritate and provoke? Heavenlybody is a troll, plain and simple. I think you're playing right into her hands.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 27, 2007 9:04:39 GMT -4
Heavenlybody is a troll, plain and simple.
Correction: A dishonest troll, as I pointed out in my previous post. Asked for data, got it, and deliberately ignored it because it showed exactly the opposite effect as she/he was claiming.
Don't feed the troll.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 27, 2007 9:09:38 GMT -4
What a load of old rubbish, your experiment is inadequate.
No, you just don't understand how it's adequate. And it's been explained to you several times.
And despite your pitiful claims that it hasn't been, I've shown exactly how and where it was in this thread, complete with quotations and post numbers. And predictably, you have ignored all that in favor of your condescending attitude.
Not only that, I gave you exact post numbers where I said the opposite of what you claimed I had said, thus proving you to be a liar. Therefore by your own definition, you are engaging in shady behavior and showing absolutely no remorse whatsoever over it.
You are uncommonly ignorant, stubborn, rude, evasive, and patronizing. I've had done with you.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 27, 2007 10:10:17 GMT -4
Heavenlybody, I gave you a chance. I have warned you about your attitude, and I gave you an opportunity to cool off. All I expect from you is to behave like a mature adult, but instead you continue to resort to personal attacks. No one here has attacked you personally, if you can't handle people criticizing your claims or pointing out your errors without getting angry then this isn't the right forum for you. If someone makes a claim we expect them to be able to support it in a mature and polite fashion. You appear to be incapable of this. If you make a claim then be adult enough to put up with the criticism, and either support your claim or withdraw it. Don't expect us to roll over and let you make ridiculous statements without a response. You have repeatedly violated the rules (specifically #1 - The Golden Rule, and #8 - Trolling). You are therefore banned permanently. I will not put up with your attitude any longer.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 27, 2007 10:22:59 GMT -4
Heavenlybody... ...You are therefore banned permanently. I will not put up with your attitude any longer. Thanks, LO. I think this action was warranted. Heavenlybody's posts had all the hallmarks of a true troll.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 27, 2007 10:39:42 GMT -4
I concur with Bob, especially after having re-read the entire(!) thread yesterday. There was a clear pattern of her projecting onto others what were identified as points against her. She was simply feeding off whatever people gave her.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Apr 27, 2007 12:33:20 GMT -4
aw, that's too bad. I actually had an idea on how to explain this. If you picture the sun with rays comming out of it. Each ray has a certain amoung of energy. in one second, a number of rays go by, and you could calculate the total energy that they all contain. If you could freeze time take a 3d slice out of that, you would have a cube containing a certain amount of energy. Let's call the contents of that cube 1 unit of energy. So, a plate with the same surface area as a cube face will get 1 unit of energy in 1 second. but now, if you turn the plate, you can see that it gets less than 1 unit of energy.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 27, 2007 13:00:11 GMT -4
aw, that's too bad. I actually had an idea on how to explain this. Don't worry... he/she/they will be back. They always find a way to come back no matter how many times they get banned. I like you explanation, it made sense to me but I don't know about Heavenlybody.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 27, 2007 13:07:21 GMT -4
Tofu, your diagram is almost verbatim (graphatim?) how this principle is commonly explained in physics and engineering textbooks. It's simple, expressive, and correct. Not only have you hit the nail squarely on the head, you've driven it with one blow.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Apr 27, 2007 14:28:11 GMT -4
how this principle is commonly explained in physics and engineering textbooks. That's probably where I got the idea, though I don't have a specific memory of it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Apr 27, 2007 16:02:57 GMT -4
The non-intuitive aspect of this, I think, is the fact that the rotated plate is still visibly fully lit by the sun. Without considering the diagram, it doesn't seem like it would get less energy. Even with a good understanding of the concept, I tend to be somewhat surprised that a satellite, or MIR, would lose its electrical power when its solar arrays were not aimed directly at the Sun.
|
|