Got this: [Google Groups does not currently support posting to the following usenet groups: "alt", "globa-", "warming"]
On Mar 2, 2:04 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote: > On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 00:25:46, Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 1, 5:24ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote: [trim] > > > > -- Mahipal > > > > #sequestrationfrustration not far behind... > > > > Are you saying that Krout is a good language? > > > No, I did not mean to give that impression. But in the modern fast > > paced Social Media, #MarketingWritersArePlagiarists and I am holding a > > grudge since eons ago. They think themselves talented and grab up all > > the light. > > > I did not find (sour?) Krout to be a language and you have removed > > sci_lang from the newsgroups. That's actually fine, not likely any > > humans peruse that group. Given their interaction, or lack thereof. > > > > A name for a device cannot be something that > > > fits on a 19" rack panel. ÿThe only "name" is > > > the the whole operating manual independant > > > of how many pages it fills! > > > That's highly impractical naming, though this notion I have heard > > about. > > > Since there's a shortage of one Pope at the Vatican, as of late, the > > Smithsonian TV media bombarded me with its predicament. Let's see... > > on this very recent new show, it was highlighted that Science books > > change every decade or so, yet The Bible remains constant. So the one > > string of serialized words in a Bible, might serve as its true pure > > name. While Science would be babbling and rambling due to its ever > > changing uncertain contents. > > > -- Mahipal > > I find Thermodynamics much more well thought out than religious > teachings from the Catholic or Anthropogenic Church. The > nonsense of AGW has now entered engineering textbooks.
A long time ago, I decided for myself that I would not engage in religious or political discussions. Yet as time for me progressed -- your rates may have varied -- it became unavoidable to ignore that these factions were chasing me, all of us. The AGW faction is definitely on the hunt! Politics works by Consensusification. To consensify, or not to... ergo, must claim victory by consensus measures. If one believes, then and only then one sees light.
Science is the Jewel of Humanity and everyone, however undeserving, wants -- not needs, simply wants -- to be a piece of Her. Right there, that tiny piece of real spot above Her Smirk. That's mine, all mine!
Since, per http://www.iep.utm.edu/heraclit/, "Heraclitus sees the great majority of human beings as lacking understanding" is deep and dark still, waters flowing or not, true... one must learn to deal with said abundant inadequacy that is The Consensus Guild.
> See "A Heat Transfer Textbook, 4th Edition" by John H > Lienhard V and John H Lienhard IV, Dover Publications Inc. > 2011. Part IV on Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer. on pp. > 535-537 has the most egregious explanation of Kirchoff's > Law of radiation.
I own some rather fine Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, Fluid Dynamics, CFD, ..., Math, and Physics texts. Might've even read one or two. My only fear is most are from the recently past millennium. I would be slapped silly by "modern" professors for referencing outdated academic texts. "Here, go buy this my very own book I authored for this my own class!" and, of course, it is the best reference ever. Oy.
"The only useful information is the one just now minted" Fallacy.
> "Kirchoff's law states that a body in thermodynamic equilibrium > emits as much energy as it absorbs in each direction and at > each wavelength" and continues "if this were not so, for > example a body might absorb more energy than it emits in one > direction theta1 and might emit more energy than it absorbs > in another direction theta2"., "The body would thus pump heat > out of its surroundings from the first direction theta1, and into > its surroundings in the second direction theta2." "Since > whatever matter in the first direction would be refrigerated > without any work input, the Second Law of Thermodynamics > would be violated,"... > > I want my money back and compensation for being tasked to > read such Religious nonsense!.
That long quote does read like verbal obfuscation. Do the authors offer any experimental evidence? How about a mathematical derivation of predicting T(t)? Amazon does have a decent return policy on most items.
> From the back cover: > "This introduction to heat transfer offers advanced undergraduate > and graduate engineering students a solid foundation in the subjects > of conduction, convection, radiation, and phase-chage," ...
False Advertisement, is there any other kind?! NevAr.
> This is what Amazon advertised, and the only reason I bought > this damned choir book.
I doubt Amazon hires any Thermodynamicists to write endorsements on the covers. Amazon is a major marketing machine for moneymaking. Not sharing it, no, just for making. I make the money, I keep the money! Should I write it again... hmmm... It is the way.