| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
It seems to me that the main issue is not the warm atmosphere and the cold earth, but the other two major players in this system--the very hot sun and the very cold cosmic background, coupled with the earth's rotation, which means that it is never being heated or cooled uniformly, and therefore never in equilibrium with its surroundings. All that means that, lots of different things can happen including warm things getting warmer relative to nearby cooler things, and whatever happens not happening in any uniform sense.
I'm struggling to understand the scope of this
argument as written. It sounds from the last line
that the arguer is citing the argument as bogus?
Or is it /you/ referring to the argument and then
saying "this is nonsense." ? Who is arguing what?
I don't see why you couldn't find a way to
arrange this scenario. I prefer to think of it in
terms of power - so the hotter surface radiates
100W and the colder 99W, but it doesn't sound
like equilibrium to me. What does the rest of the
argument you cite entail - any notion of
equilibrium at all, or what that implies or does
not imply?