On Jun 18, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote:
I've already repudiated your fuzzy logic claims that I'm
"inconsistent."
Do you even know what fuzzy logic is?
I challenge you to show us my inconsistency.
I feel thoroughly satisfied I have done that - yourself excluded of
course. No need to waste even more time on that.
If you can't then you have no business accusing people of cheap talk.
I didn't "accuse" anyone of cheap talk. I said talk is cheap. I
should know. I do plenty of it. Blah blah blah ....
For example, when I clearly wrote *BOTH* sides of a material
radiates and you replied I was wrong, when in actuality you were
incorrect. My answer was correct.
So is 42.
I stand by my answer: "Each side of the square meter radiates
(5.6705119E-8 kg/(s^3 (deg. K)^4)) * (297 deg. K)^4 * (1 m^2) =
441.2 watts."
Your language is misleading. Not only that, you use the same
language on your web site. You state "both sides of a thin sheet of
opaque material radiates 882.4 Watts per square meter". That gives
1764.8 watts total. The correct answer is half that. I suggest you
improve the language on your web site, otherwise some people might
think you are an idiot. How will you ever manage to troll folks into
your private news group? I patiently await the editing of your
http://emwiki.info/ 8^)
Regards,
Horace Heffner
