-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
U
Ununionized
Go look on your own website, churcher.
They'll teach you CLEARLY about how 29% LESS LIGHT IN
means MORE than 100% OUT.
LOOK for the PHRASE - as if you haven't BARKED it yourself a DOZEN, DOZEN-TIMES,
The ATMUSFEAR MAKES OWUR PLANIT HODDUR THAN IF THAIR WARN'T EVUN NO ATMUSFEAR AT AWL!"
Get back with us when you figure out a little about how much light can come out of a ROCK,
a cold light blocking BATH lets 29% LESS
REACH and WARM.
When you grow the manhood to come here and discuss those claims, someone will try to be around to engage in vigorous debate
about your church's story more energy comes out of the planet than goes in.
Therm-0-BiLLy.
They'll teach you CLEARLY about how 29% LESS LIGHT IN
means MORE than 100% OUT.
LOOK for the PHRASE - as if you haven't BARKED it yourself a DOZEN, DOZEN-TIMES,
The ATMUSFEAR MAKES OWUR PLANIT HODDUR THAN IF THAIR WARN'T EVUN NO ATMUSFEAR AT AWL!"
Get back with us when you figure out a little about how much light can come out of a ROCK,
a cold light blocking BATH lets 29% LESS
REACH and WARM.
When you grow the manhood to come here and discuss those claims, someone will try to be around to engage in vigorous debate
about your church's story more energy comes out of the planet than goes in.
Therm-0-BiLLy.
Brother Nature
Well-known member
That song put me in a better mood Gry. 
I guess I shouldn't be attacking the guy, I know little about thermodynamics. I just dislike the tone and delivery of what he says, it seems to strike a nerve in me. Who knows, he could have some issues and I shouldn't judge, I mean who does't have issues lol
Apologies for derailing the thread a bit. No hard feelings from me, to each his own.
Anyways, this bong's for you UU.
I guess I shouldn't be attacking the guy, I know little about thermodynamics. I just dislike the tone and delivery of what he says, it seems to strike a nerve in me. Who knows, he could have some issues and I shouldn't judge, I mean who does't have issues lol Apologies for derailing the thread a bit. No hard feelings from me, to each his own.
Anyways, this bong's for you UU.
U
Ununionized
You're forgiven for admitting you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
No hard feelings. If or when you recover enough you think you have evidence a magical gassiness,
dun made a cold light blocking Nitrogen bath a heater,
you come on back and present that.
These other dolts doing nothing but name calling, don't have the guts to try.
No hard feelings. If or when you recover enough you think you have evidence a magical gassiness,
dun made a cold light blocking Nitrogen bath a heater,
you come on back and present that.
These other dolts doing nothing but name calling, don't have the guts to try.
Last edited:
U
Ununionized
Hey if you want to, you can try to present some evidence for these therm-0-billies' ludicrous bullsh**.
They'll appreciate the help. Go over to any of your OR their favorite websites which bark about the
magical gaissiness,
making more light come out of a rock than goes in,
by making less light go in,
and you can give it a shot.
Can't hurt right? It shouldn't be difficult at all for you to present us all some evidence of a cold light blocking nitrogen bath heating objects they stop 29% of the energy from heating,
instead of cooling them like real science says removing 29% of the energy warming it will do.
I'm gonna just X out my last post insulting you.
They'll appreciate the help. Go over to any of your OR their favorite websites which bark about the
magical gaissiness,
making more light come out of a rock than goes in,
by making less light go in,
and you can give it a shot.
Can't hurt right? It shouldn't be difficult at all for you to present us all some evidence of a cold light blocking nitrogen bath heating objects they stop 29% of the energy from heating,
instead of cooling them like real science says removing 29% of the energy warming it will do.
I'm gonna just X out my last post insulting you.
That song put me in a better mood Gry.
Apologies for derailing the thread a bit. No hard feelings from me, to each his own.
Anyways, this bong's for you UU.
Last edited:
U
Ununionized
Coming in here admitting you saw someone winning an argument, and just decided you don't like them winning it,
is admission you, have issues controlling YOUR self, by the way.
Then trying to project that I do because YOU do
is called ''transference.''
And you haven't derailed anything. These losers have been trying to insult their way to crashing the thread
and having it closed
so nobody will be able to see what's happened to them
for weeks now.
Just the simple ''this bong hit's for you'' is more human than all of the rest of these intellectual deadbeats have wished anyone disagreeing with them for MONTHS and it's a nice gesture.
It's not evidence a magical gassiness made a cold light blocking nitroxy bath a heater.
But it is what it is.
Here's to you, too!
is admission you, have issues controlling YOUR self, by the way.
Then trying to project that I do because YOU do
is called ''transference.''
That song put me in a better mood Gry.
Apologies for derailing the thread a bit. No hard feelings from me, to each his own.
Anyways, this bong's for you UU.
And you haven't derailed anything. These losers have been trying to insult their way to crashing the thread
and having it closed
so nobody will be able to see what's happened to them
for weeks now.
Just the simple ''this bong hit's for you'' is more human than all of the rest of these intellectual deadbeats have wished anyone disagreeing with them for MONTHS and it's a nice gesture.
It's not evidence a magical gassiness made a cold light blocking nitroxy bath a heater.
But it is what it is.
Here's to you, too!
Holy shit cold nitrogen baths are a real thing!
https://www.medicaldaily.com/lebron...r-all-rage-now-heres-science-behind-it-335642
https://www.austin360.com/lifestyle...ce-bath-but-does-work/fKOTa414cutxGX59uVhy7L/
No idea what this has to do with climate change but I wonder if they'd let you smoke a snow bong.
https://www.medicaldaily.com/lebron...r-all-rage-now-heres-science-behind-it-335642
https://www.austin360.com/lifestyle...ce-bath-but-does-work/fKOTa414cutxGX59uVhy7L/
No idea what this has to do with climate change but I wonder if they'd let you smoke a snow bong.
U
Ununionized
More PATHETIC NAME CALLING by the MENTAL CHILDREN BRIGADE.
When you get some evidence for your KOOK-0-TARD claims, CHILD,
you slither up to the bar, and present it.
When you grow some respect everyone else will accept your, and you,
science darkening friends' apologies
for spamming the thread for WEEKS with no evidence at all
just ENDLESS
CHILDISH
WHINING, MOANING NAME CALLING and LYING.
When you get some evidence for your KOOK-0-TARD claims, CHILD,
you slither up to the bar, and present it.
When you grow some respect everyone else will accept your, and you,
science darkening friends' apologies
for spamming the thread for WEEKS with no evidence at all
just ENDLESS
CHILDISH
WHINING, MOANING NAME CALLING and LYING.
Last edited:
U
Ununionized
What the moderator should probably do is tell you ALL,
that the VERY next TIME he or she comes by and sees ANY post from you people
with NO other CONTENT than CHILDISH INSULTING LIES, you're just banned, on the spot,
without another word.
The site owner came in here - and PLED with at least one of you to PLEASE - DON'T just melt the entire thread down,
to NAME calling without anything else.
WEEKS later you're in here NAME calling in the VERY same post you're begging for
someone to step in and stop a person from WINNING an ARGUMENT with your pathetic ass.
That's PATHETIC when you try to INSULT and NAME-CALL and when for WEEKS you won't stop,
finally just asking the people that own the website to do something, YOU LOST AN ARGUMENT.
In the WORLD of ADULTS there's something called ''You clicked ''I AGREE''
to RESPECT other MEMBERS
and CONDUCT yourself
like you're OLDER than 18."
Since you've proven YOU can't do that igrowone - maybe YOU
need to have something done
about YOU.
You're LOSING an ARGUMENT.
PUT it in your PIPE and SMOKE it.
Better yet PRESENT SOME EVIDENCE for your CLAIMS.
Grow into the ADULT you ageed you were when you clicked ''ACCEPT'' to join
and defend yourTEACHINGS.
"Cain't nobody tayle us, we'uns is RAWNG."
Somebody just DID.
And you're gonna wear it.
that the VERY next TIME he or she comes by and sees ANY post from you people
with NO other CONTENT than CHILDISH INSULTING LIES, you're just banned, on the spot,
without another word.
The site owner came in here - and PLED with at least one of you to PLEASE - DON'T just melt the entire thread down,
to NAME calling without anything else.
WEEKS later you're in here NAME calling in the VERY same post you're begging for
someone to step in and stop a person from WINNING an ARGUMENT with your pathetic ass.
That's PATHETIC when you try to INSULT and NAME-CALL and when for WEEKS you won't stop,
finally just asking the people that own the website to do something, YOU LOST AN ARGUMENT.
In the WORLD of ADULTS there's something called ''You clicked ''I AGREE''
to RESPECT other MEMBERS
and CONDUCT yourself
like you're OLDER than 18."
Since you've proven YOU can't do that igrowone - maybe YOU
need to have something done
about YOU.
You're LOSING an ARGUMENT.
PUT it in your PIPE and SMOKE it.
Better yet PRESENT SOME EVIDENCE for your CLAIMS.
Grow into the ADULT you ageed you were when you clicked ''ACCEPT'' to join
and defend yourTEACHINGS.
"Cain't nobody tayle us, we'uns is RAWNG."
Somebody just DID.
And you're gonna wear it.
Last edited:
Brother Nature
Well-known member
Here's what I believe...
Here's what I believe...
[youtubeif]aOl4oeHZnBk[/youtubeif]
Here's what I believe...
[youtubeif]aOl4oeHZnBk[/youtubeif]
U
Ununionized
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
[iframe1]ldLBoErAhz4[/iframe1]
U
Ununionized
As soon as you indicate GHGs do anything but cool the Earth you MIGHT have a point.
Oh that's right, you won't, WARM LOW ICE PERIODS are named OPTIMUMS
by REAL science.
Oh that's right, you won't, WARM LOW ICE PERIODS are named OPTIMUMS
by REAL science.
Lol 10 pages of nonsense since my video post and no relevant reply on how come the earth is hotter than the moon despite being o n same distance from the sun.
There's one word which could partially explain it and it was not mentioned yet. Clue - It's not 'atmosphere'.
There's one word which could partially explain it and it was not mentioned yet. Clue - It's not 'atmosphere'.
U
Ununionized
The fact you believe it's possible for two rocks,
receiving about the same amount of light,
to wind up claiming the rock with NO cold light blocking nitrogen atmosphere is colder,
than the one WITH the cold light blocking atmosphere dropping it's own temperature 29%
that's about all anyone needs to know about your grasp of this.
The answer to your ultimate question,
do cold light blocking baths make things hotter than the same or similar objects
with NO cold light blocking bath?
No.
As a matter of fact in physics one of the definitions of what the highest possible final temperature is, for an object,
is that it
HAS no FLUIDS COOLING it, has no means for conduction loss,
so it's only means of cooling, is RADIATING into VACUUM.
LoL.
"Cold gas baths make things warmer than if they had none."
You're
hilarious.
There are only three modes of cooling.
Conduction through solids,
a method of conduction enhancement using fluids which actually has another name, Convection,
and Radiation.
Radiation without other modes is the HIGHEST final temperature an object can attain with identical energy, it's a physics test question, and the part B of the question is - "Why?"
The answer is "Admission of another mode of cooling, definitionally limits what would otherwise have to radiate.
If radiant loss is sole loss mode, or mechanism,
then all energy loss is via that mode,
and since radiant energy transfer speed is based in total gradient, - in other words the difference between the temperature of the radiating object and field it radiates into,
final radiating temperature is the highest it can be because their ARE no other MODES, to SHARE in the ENERGY-LOSS PROCESS.
Somebody told you a cold bath's a heater after it stopped 29% of available energy from reaching the object in the bath -
from reaching it and heating it.
That couldn't have been the truth which is why you, and everyone you know who'll claim it could be true,
are repeatedly caught violating the most very basic tenets of heating and cooling.
Like you just did.
What I told you is at the very basis - it's among the very first things taught, in a freshman high school science course.
What are the modes of cooling,
What modes cool objects fastest,
What modes cool objects slowest.
You're gobsmacked, you never HEARD of any of it.
Yeah - I saw that, ten pages back, when I didn't embarrass you by reminding you of this. You're welcome.
You're just as welcome now when you have been alerted to there being three modes of cooling,
conduction,
convection,
& radiation,
and that the radiation mode's the form that leaves things warmest
when it's the only kind of cooling happening.
Since you felt left out, as a bonus to you I'll throw in that
the reason radiation MUST be always the type leaving an object with it's highest physically possible temperature,
for the energy striking it, is that - THE OTHER TWO MODES DON'T EVER EXIST,
WITHOUT the RADIANT MODE EXISTING, TOO
throughout most of physics.
Particularly this relates to objects in Astronomy, which will finally radiate to space.
In most practical senses, radiant mode is always in existence where the conduction and it's fluid-component analog Convection, - sometimes they're not there.
Indeed in many writings related to the temperature of objects you see the phrase ''final radiating temperature,''
which is the temperature at which objects radiate to open space around them, after CONDUCTION in it's solid or fluid forms, have lowered temperature.
This is the foundations of heating and cooling. Any online science tutorial can help you learn how to tell the difference between whether something gets hotter or colder, when someone puts some story in print about how "...a cold gas bath,
dun 'come uh HeeduR."
receiving about the same amount of light,
to wind up claiming the rock with NO cold light blocking nitrogen atmosphere is colder,
than the one WITH the cold light blocking atmosphere dropping it's own temperature 29%
that's about all anyone needs to know about your grasp of this.
The answer to your ultimate question,
do cold light blocking baths make things hotter than the same or similar objects
with NO cold light blocking bath?
No.
As a matter of fact in physics one of the definitions of what the highest possible final temperature is, for an object,
is that it
HAS no FLUIDS COOLING it, has no means for conduction loss,
so it's only means of cooling, is RADIATING into VACUUM.
LoL.
"Cold gas baths make things warmer than if they had none."
You're
hilarious.
There are only three modes of cooling.
Conduction through solids,
a method of conduction enhancement using fluids which actually has another name, Convection,
and Radiation.
Radiation without other modes is the HIGHEST final temperature an object can attain with identical energy, it's a physics test question, and the part B of the question is - "Why?"
The answer is "Admission of another mode of cooling, definitionally limits what would otherwise have to radiate.
If radiant loss is sole loss mode, or mechanism,
then all energy loss is via that mode,
and since radiant energy transfer speed is based in total gradient, - in other words the difference between the temperature of the radiating object and field it radiates into,
final radiating temperature is the highest it can be because their ARE no other MODES, to SHARE in the ENERGY-LOSS PROCESS.
Somebody told you a cold bath's a heater after it stopped 29% of available energy from reaching the object in the bath -
from reaching it and heating it.
That couldn't have been the truth which is why you, and everyone you know who'll claim it could be true,
are repeatedly caught violating the most very basic tenets of heating and cooling.
Like you just did.
What I told you is at the very basis - it's among the very first things taught, in a freshman high school science course.
What are the modes of cooling,
What modes cool objects fastest,
What modes cool objects slowest.
You're gobsmacked, you never HEARD of any of it.
Yeah - I saw that, ten pages back, when I didn't embarrass you by reminding you of this. You're welcome.
You're just as welcome now when you have been alerted to there being three modes of cooling,
conduction,
convection,
& radiation,
and that the radiation mode's the form that leaves things warmest
when it's the only kind of cooling happening.
Since you felt left out, as a bonus to you I'll throw in that
the reason radiation MUST be always the type leaving an object with it's highest physically possible temperature,
for the energy striking it, is that - THE OTHER TWO MODES DON'T EVER EXIST,
WITHOUT the RADIANT MODE EXISTING, TOO
throughout most of physics.
Particularly this relates to objects in Astronomy, which will finally radiate to space.
In most practical senses, radiant mode is always in existence where the conduction and it's fluid-component analog Convection, - sometimes they're not there.
Indeed in many writings related to the temperature of objects you see the phrase ''final radiating temperature,''
which is the temperature at which objects radiate to open space around them, after CONDUCTION in it's solid or fluid forms, have lowered temperature.
This is the foundations of heating and cooling. Any online science tutorial can help you learn how to tell the difference between whether something gets hotter or colder, when someone puts some story in print about how "...a cold gas bath,
dun 'come uh HeeduR."
Last edited:
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Nothing. I mean NOTHING you show or say will convince him. Obviously, he's a fossil fuel or trump plant.
Naw... they'd use someone with a believable argument.
a reasonable question i think, didn't see the video, outside links do have a rep
and much depends on the question, commonly temperature has an implication of atmosphere
so semantics can be open to interpretation
now what i believe you mean comes from the earth being molten core and geologically active, it's hot inside the earth
the moon cooled off millions of years of ago, maybe billions, have to check that
i think that's what you were talking about
