Meteors and Comets

I am the one asking the question.  How could I possibly ask it and evade it at the same time?

This is getting fun.  You are avoiding Inquisitive's question.

You mean inquisitive's question asking about my question? 

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 07:57:13 PM

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes? 

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 08:15:11 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 08:12:31 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 08:10:11 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 07:57:13 PM

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?

Yes, and thermodynamics classes.

Then it must be perfectly clear to how satellites can lose heat in space and why Scepti's completely closed system can't possibly lose heat.

EDIT: I think I see what's happening here. I think you're asking how a satellite sheds heat in a vacuum, because you think that is analagous to Scepti's domed Earth floating in space. But you would be underestimating the insanity of Scepti's model. He claims that a "true" vacuum, which only exists oustide the dome, does not allow anything to move through it, including light. He says it's something like suspended animation. So he doesn't even leave the possibility of radiative cooling of the Earth.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 09:26:43 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 07:57:13 PM

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes?

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction. I guess you didn't pay attention then.

I was hoping to have a real debate over the obvious failure of the UA in RET. I guess you're not qualified to carry the RET side. Oh well. If you ever do understand TD, please do let me know. Thanks.

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 08:41:38 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 08:15:11 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 08:12:31 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 08:10:11 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 07:57:13 PM

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?

Yes, and thermodynamics classes.

Then it must be perfectly clear to how satellites can lose heat in space and why Scepti's completely closed system can't possibly lose heat.

Nothing "loses" heat.  Energy can not be created nor destroyed. 

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 09:32:49 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 09:26:43 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 07:57:13 PM

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes?

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction. I guess you didn't pay attention then.

I was hoping to have a real debate over the obvious failure of the UA in RET. I guess you're not qualified to carry the RET side. Oh well. If you ever do understand TD, please do let me know. Thanks.

From your own sorce:

Conduction can only take place within an object or material, or between two objects that are in direct or indirect contact with each other.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that you meant convection and now you are just trying to weasel out of your false statement. 

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 10:01:21 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 08:41:38 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 08:15:11 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 08:12:31 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 08:10:11 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 07:57:13 PM

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?

Yes, and thermodynamics classes.

Then it must be perfectly clear to how satellites can lose heat in space and why Scepti's completely closed system can't possibly lose heat.

Nothing "loses" heat.  Energy can not be created nor destroyed.

False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 10:01:21 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 08:41:38 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 08:15:11 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 08:12:31 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 08:10:11 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 07:57:13 PM

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?

Yes, and thermodynamics classes.

Then it must be perfectly clear to how satellites can lose heat in space and why Scepti's completely closed system can't possibly lose heat.

Nothing "loses" heat.  Energy can not be created nor destroyed.

Please see my edit. And don't be silly, of course things lose heat. The energy isn't lost of course, that's not what I'm saying. When a cup of coffee gets cold we say it has lost heat. In reality, yes, the heat is not ever lost, but the coffee no longer has it.

False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false? 

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:04:21 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 09:32:49 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 09:26:43 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 07:57:13 PM

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes?

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction. I guess you didn't pay attention then.

I was hoping to have a real debate over the obvious failure of the UA in RET. I guess you're not qualified to carry the RET side. Oh well. If you ever do understand TD, please do let me know. Thanks.

From your own sorce:

Quote

Conduction can only take place within an object or material, or between two objects that are in direct or indirect contact with each other.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that you meant convection and now you are just trying to weasel out of your false statement.

What false statement?

The one where you replied, "False!"

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:10:00 PM

False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

While I don't need to show that energy is created to show that your statement is false: Nuclear fission creates energy.

The one where you replied, "False!"

You're confused. That reply of "False" came after your inquiry. Please pay attention.

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 10:17:29 PM

The one where you replied, "False!"

You're confused. That reply of "False" came after your inquiry. Please pay attention.

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 10:05:14 PM

Nothing "loses" heat.  Energy can not be created nor destroyed.

False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

I must really be confused, because I see no inquiry that I made.  Perhaps you could elaborate, or admit that you were wrong?  Thanks. 

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 10:07:40 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:04:21 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 09:32:49 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 09:26:43 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 07:57:13 PM

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes?

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction. I guess you didn't pay attention then.

I was hoping to have a real debate over the obvious failure of the UA in RET. I guess you're not qualified to carry the RET side. Oh well. If you ever do understand TD, please do let me know. Thanks.

From your own sorce:

Quote

Conduction can only take place within an object or material, or between two objects that are in direct or indirect contact with each other.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that you meant convection and now you are just trying to weasel out of your false statement.

What false statement?

Again, what false statement did I make?

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 10:14:13 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:10:00 PM

False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

While I don't need to show that energy is created to show that your statement is false: Nuclear fission creates energy.

No it doesn't. Where did you hear that?

Again, what false statement did I make?

The one where you said that a vacuum has something to do with thermal conduction, when you meant convection.  It is ok.  Everybody messes up once in a while.  Most people, however, are man enough to admit when they messed up. 

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:10:00 PM

False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 10:14:13 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:10:00 PM

False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".

Heat is not lost.  It can only be transferred or converted. 

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:23:51 PM

Again, what false statement did I make?

The one where you said that a vacuum has something to do with thermal conduction, when you meant convection.  It is ok.  Everybody messes up once in a while.  Most people, however, are man enough to admit when they messed up.

I seem don't seem any false statement. I guess you're just demonstrating that you can mess up badly and try to blame the error on someone else. How sad for you.

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 07:57:13 PM

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

Care to admit you were wrong now? 

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 10:34:45 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 10:14:13 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:10:00 PM

False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".

Heat is not lost.  It can only be transferred or converted.

Heat can change to just matter. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation

Quote from: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 05:52:54 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 05:44:51 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 18, 2014, 05:10:48 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 05:05:22 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 04:06:01 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 03:46:23 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 18, 2014, 07:20:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 06:39:54 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 06:18:50 AM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.

Or a condenser.

So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.

They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.

It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?

I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?

Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.

An unavoidable byproduct. One that scepti's ice dome isn't immune to.

So, you admit that you are wrong.  Great to hear that an RE'er finally admits that.

Condensers change gases to liquids, not liquids to gases. Please note this.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 09:26:43 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 07:57:13 PM

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

Care to admit you were wrong now?

Again, what did I say that was wrong?

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 10:34:45 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 10:14:13 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:10:00 PM

False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".

Heat is not lost.  It can only be transferred or converted.

Well, if a coffee's heat is transferred to its environment such that its temperature drops to room temperature, I'd say it has lost heat. Note that I say "it" has lost heat. I'm not saying the heat is lost, or destroyed or something like that.

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 10:38:50 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 10:34:45 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 10:14:13 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:10:00 PM

False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".

Heat is not lost.  It can only be transferred or converted.

Heat can change to just matter. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation

So, you are saying that energy can be converted from one form to another.  Isn't that what I have been saying all along?

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:45:49 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 10:38:50 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 18, 2014, 10:34:45 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 10:14:13 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 18, 2014, 10:10:00 PM

False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".

Heat is not lost.  It can only be transferred or converted.

Heat can change to just matter. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation

So, you are saying that energy can be converted from one form to another.  Isn't that what I have been saying all along?

You also said a condenser changes a liquid to gas and since you are trying to lectures someone about admitting they are wrong, I fully expect you to admit you are wrong. So go ahead, say you are wrong and condensers condense a gas to a liquid.

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 05:55:21 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 05:52:54 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 18, 2014, 05:44:51 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 18, 2014, 05:10:48 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 05:05:22 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 04:06:01 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 03:46:23 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 18, 2014, 07:20:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 18, 2014, 06:39:54 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 18, 2014, 06:18:50 AM

A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.

Or a condenser.

So condensers don't need vents now?  How do you think they get rid of heat? 

Take a look at the back of your fridge.

They get rid of heat by slowing down agitation of matter. That's how the Earth does it.

So slowing down the agitation of matter stops the production of heat but that doesn't answer the question.

It answers the question perfectly well. What are you having trouble with?

I'm having trouble with condensers have to do with anything? Condensers change gases to liquids by transfer of heat. What does that have to do with the ice dome not melting?

Condensers change liquids to gas by pressure.  Heat being taken in or removed is simply a by-product.

An unavoidable byproduct. One that scepti's ice dome isn't immune to.

So, you admit that you are wrong.  Great to hear that an RE'er finally admits that.

Condensers change gases to liquids, not liquids to gases. Please note this.

Yes, but the condenser system also converts liquids to gases through the expansion valve.  Really, you are just arguing semantics anyway.  Nice try, though.  You don't seem to be as drunk tonight as you usually are.