Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!elsie!imsvax!ted
From: ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: metamorphoses... Sagan-Greenhouse ==> Thoop-solar-collector
Message-ID: <615@imsvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Sep-86 19:39:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: imsvax.615
Posted: Mon Sep  8 19:39:55 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Sep-86 03:09:22 EDT
Organization: IMS Inc, Rockville MD
Lines: 55


Wayne Throop, from the "Known World" writes:

>> No.  Greenhouses don't melt lead.  The surface heat of Venus would.  The
>> super-greenhouse theory is Sagan at his worst.

>"Greenhouses don't melt lead."  *This* is *Ted* at his worst.  A vague
>assertion, meaning unclear, backed up by bogus arguments that don't
>consider the relevant factors and aren't based on any meaningful
>calculations, and finally used to justify an unrelated position later.

>Aside to Ted:

>    Surely you don't mean "no solar collector based on the 'greenhouse
>    effect' can have a thermal equilibrium temperature greater than the
>    melting point of lead."  I don't find this implausible at all.  If
>    this is what you mean, perhaps you could say *why* you find this
>    implausible.

Solar collectors, as I understand them, involve FOCUSING large amounts
of energy on a small area either through lenses or parabolic reflectors.
Since the atmosphere of Venus is concave DOWN (towards the surface of
the planet), this would only work for light coming from the ground.
Sorry, throop,  I'm more of a big-game hunter than that.  I mean, I'll
stick to debunking SAGAN;  you can give your thermal collector theory to the
local second grade class to debunk.

The books BY Sagan and his ilk speak of a "super-greenhouse-theory";
they don't speak of any solar collector theories.  Ever wonder what
Wayne Throop does when he's not "debunking" me and my theories or my
"debating tactics"?  The following is from net.physics:


>But all this leads to an interesting (I think so anyhow) puzzle.  Let us
>assume we are on a spaceship which is in the process of circumnavigating
>the galaxy in 50 years subjective time, as outlined above.  How much
>"centrifugal acceleration" do the inhabitants of the ship experience
>(relative to the center of the galaxy, of course)?  (Or, equivalently,
>how much centripetal acceleration must the ship's engines supply?)

You can always tell the types who are keen on reality.......  I mean, it
SHOWS.  A CAR with an engine capable of centripetal acceleration
wouldn't need steering gear, and if Throop ever DOES get his spaceship
to rolling that hard, he'd best HOPE it's rolling in a straight line.

I write articles to net.origins on occasion for the benefit of a small
handfull of people out there who can and have learned something from
them;  that obviously doesn't include Throop or three or four of my
loudest detractors.

I'm not even INTERESTED in debating you, Throop.  It's kind of like the
old story about the fat lady walking into a bar with a duck under her
arm.  The barkeep says "that's a mighty fine looking pig you got there",
the lady replies "that's not a pig, that's a duck, you dummy", and the
barkeep says "I was TALKING TO the duck".