Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (22395)	7/20/2008 2:43:10 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

I see we are on agreement on several important points. These theoretical physicists though are a funny bunch. They will insist on applying the exchange theory. They will say... the temperature of the ball is at (273 + 20) degrees Kelvin and the ball is radiating a HUGE AMOUNT of energy into the fire. If the fire wasn't lit, and at zero degrees Kelvin (let say in Pluto's shadow) it's temperature would rise rapidly from the massive blast of radiant heat from the metallic ball. If the fire is now lit, and rises to (273 + 1000) degrees Kelvin the amount of energy being received from the metallic ball IS THE SAME, just that now it is much hotter and it's output of radiant energy is such that is actually heats the metallic ball. A small but significant distinction. An important one though when you say the words "the ball also does not heat the fire". The paper mentioned also says similar things, and it would be best not to attract the sharp minds of the theoreticians on the small error. They could perhaps give the paper a rough ride if they decided they were not in agreement with it.