Horace Heffner wrote:
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?
Yes.
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.
IMHO you've showed us nothing but an undeveloped mind, relatively speaking. I
detailed precisely why you were incorrect. Feel free jump in and defend your
answer. Again, let's analyze your fuzzy logic. You said, 'If you will "succeed
single handedly", why do you need more people, or ask for money for an
impractical device?' Do you really think that proves me inconsistent? One more
time, lol --> Can you comprehend that more people joining this research could
help, lol. No offense guy, but your logic is really flawed. "Gee, I could
single handedly accomplish this task in perhaps 4 months, so therefore my fuzzy
logic states I should not seek help." Very silly, huh?
Yet one more time. I can accomplish such a task alone, but I will not give up on
seeking further help regardless of your efforts.
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^)
That's funny. "both sides of a thin sheet of opaque material radiates 882.4
Watts per square meter" means without question that both sides, not one side,
radiates 882.4 watts.
You seem good at dodging questions. I'll ask you again since you seem to
insinuate you're an authority on the topic. Again, you said, "As a person who
has written complex deterministic and stochastic simulations for a living,"
What computer language do you write in?
Another topic you dodged: Do you think you can write a mathematical equation on
paper that took a computer simulation program weeks to complete?
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
