On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:20:15 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/08/2015 21:26, Col wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 5:56:34 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

I find your posts so insulting I have difficulty reading them.

I know. It's because they tell you that you are clearly and
unambiguously wrong.

Didn't you say that there was no 'proof' in science?

But there is "disproof" - a subtle difference.

Absolutely correct. Here 'complete and utter ********' is a perfect description of cold radiation and if this has not been disproved for Alastair now, it brings into question anything he discusses re science. The fact that he also believes in centrifugal force shows that his ignorance of physics is not confines to thermodynamics.

snipped for clarity

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

Stephen was right. I falsely accused you of committing the fallacy of ad
hominem. It should have been the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum .
===============================================

Alastair, I'm sure I'm wasting my time here, but let me try just one more
time:

The reason for raising what you're termed an ad populum argument is that you
are seemingly very resistant to agreeing to logical scientific argument. So
all I was saying was that even if you dismiss all the scientific arguments
against your theory then does it really cut no ice at all that no-one else
in this fairly well informed forum is prepared to offer even a modicum of
support for it? If so, I can only conclude that you're starting to show
signs of a messiah complex, at least insofar as physics is concerned.

But let's try one other approach: Science is generally content with the
simplest theory that fits all of the observable facts. (What's sometimes
referred to as Occam's Razor in some contexts.) Would you disagree with
that? A new theory is only needed when there are certain observations that
are not well-explained by the prevailing scientific orthodoxy.

So (and leaving to one side all the potential theoretical objections to
'cold radiation'), why the need to postulate two types of radiation when all
current observations can be perfectly well described by the standard concept
of radiation? What are these observations and experimental results that are
at odds with the existing model?

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 08:50:59 +0100
"Eskimo Will" wrote:

Physicists are the new philosophers!

They are also the old philosophers; before they became Physicists they
were known as Natural Philosophers.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

There is no such thing in Physics as "cold" - just lack of heat. Everything
radiates heat, even a block of ice, the intensity of heat radiation being
proportional to the 4th power of the Absolute Temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann
Law). So if a body is in cold surroundings it radiates more heat than it
gets back and so is cooled. You could look at that as "cold radiation"; all
this argument is really just one of semantics.

Ian Bingham,
Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

===========================================

Thanks Ian,

Some sense at last :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

"JohnD" wrote in message
...
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

Stephen was right. I falsely accused you of committing the fallacy of ad
hominem. It should have been the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum .
===============================================

Alastair, I'm sure I'm wasting my time here, but let me try just one more
time:

Not as much as I am :-(

The reason for raising what you're termed an ad populum argument is that
you are seemingly very resistant to agreeing to logical scientific
argument. So all I was saying was that even if you dismiss all the
scientific arguments against your theory then does it really cut no ice at
all that no-one else in this fairly well informed forum is prepared to
offer even a modicum of support for it? If so, I can only conclude that
you're starting to show signs of a messiah complex, at least insofar as
physics is concerned.

But let's try one other approach: Science is generally content with the
simplest theory that fits all of the observable facts. (What's sometimes
referred to as Occam's Razor in some contexts.) Would you disagree with
that? A new theory is only needed when there are certain observations that
are not well-explained by the prevailing scientific orthodoxy.

This isn't a new theory. What I didn't realise was that others are so
unfamiliar with it.

So (and leaving to one side all the potential theoretical objections to
'cold radiation'), why the need to postulate two types of radiation when
all current observations can be perfectly well described by the standard
concept of radiation?

It is a shorthand term for "the raditation emitted by a cold body."

What are these observations and experimental results
that are at odds with the existing model?

I have given two examples of observations: the cold baby in an incubator,
and Pictet's experiment which is described in this paper
http://www2.ups.edu/physics/faculty/...experiment.pdf (Or
try googling "Pictet's experiment", but it doesn't get as many hits as
centrifugal force. :-) That paper even explains how to carry out the
experiment yourself. My detractors have given no examples of experiments,
and have only presented what you call "theoretical objections", (and a few
insults e.g. acusing me of having a "messiah complex". You will have to
ask them how they conflict with their model. The existing model is the one
I am using, which I will now describe.

All bodies emit radiation based on their temperature (blackbody radiation).
A cold object emits cold radiation. If that radiation falls on a hot object
then the hot object will cool. However, at the same time the hot object will
be emitting hot radiation which will warm the cold object. Eventually, all
other things being equal, the two objects will reach the same temperature in
accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The difficulty people are having is not realising it is the net flow of
radiation/heat which flows from hot to cold. There is still radiation
passing from the cold object to the hot object, but it is less than that
from the hot to the cold.

Another morning wasted, but it won't be if I have convinced you. Please say
you now believe in cold radiation!

Cheers, Alastair.

I've been following this thread with fascination. I'm not a physicist or
even a scientist, but I have a question that perhaps someone can answer.
Let's ask it with an example. There are three bodies, one at -50, one at
0 and one at 50 degrees. It's obvious that the one at 50 degrees is hot
radiating and the one at -50 is cold radiating. What is the one in the
middle doing? Unless I've completely missed the point, it's cold
radiating to the one at 50 and hot radiating to the one at -50. How can
it be both?
Now let's add another body, say at 100 degrees. This one is now the hot
radiating one, and the one at 50 degrees now becomes a body which does
both. Now the reality of the universe is that there are many bodies, all
busily radiating. And we can't know which is the hottest and which the
coldest, so everything is radiating both hot and cold.

So am I being simplistic? Am I not understanding what all this is about?

Can someone answer in simple terms (one syllable or less) to explain
this please?

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 1:00:15 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

Another morning wasted, but it won't be if I have convinced you. Please say
you now believe in cold radiation!

**No-one** believes in cold radiation. Not a single scientist in the world believes in cold radiation, as they have learned basic physics. You haven't.

Now re-write the second law of thermodynamics, or abandon this stupidity.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Sunday, 9 August 2015 14:13:12 UTC+1, Metman2012 wrote:
I've been following this thread with fascination. I'm not a physicist or
even a scientist, but I have a question that perhaps someone can answer.
Let's ask it with an example. There are three bodies, one at -50, one at
0 and one at 50 degrees. It's obvious that the one at 50 degrees is hot
radiating and the one at -50 is cold radiating. What is the one in the
middle doing? Unless I've completely missed the point, it's cold
radiating to the one at 50 and hot radiating to the one at -50. How can
it be both?
Now let's add another body, say at 100 degrees. This one is now the hot
radiating one, and the one at 50 degrees now becomes a body which does
both. Now the reality of the universe is that there are many bodies, all
busily radiating. And we can't know which is the hottest and which the
coldest, so everything is radiating both hot and cold.

So am I being simplistic? Am I not understanding what all this is about?

Can someone answer in simple terms (one syllable or less) to explain
this please?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you have hit the nail on the head. All bodies above 0 K radiate.
No point in talking about warm radiation or cold radiation.

It is the same as talking about cold temperatures and warm temperatures.
Wrong and often used by those you have no proper education in science.
Temperature is a scalar.
High and low temperatures is the correct way for reference.

Cold and warm temperatures are often used by weather presenters on the media, but I have seen it even on the UKMO website. Tut Tut.

Len
Wembury


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sunday, 9 August 2015 07:30:58 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2015 15:52:09 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
Dawlish,

On Page 576 of University Physics with Modern Physics, Technology Update, Thirteenth Edition (2010), which continues to set the benchmark for clarity and rigor combined with effective teaching and research-based innovation, they write:

"Radiation. Heat transfer by radiation is important in some surprising places. A premature baby in an incubator can be cooled dangerously by radiation if the walls of the incubator happened to be cold, even when the air in the incubator is warm. Some incubators regulate the temperature measuring the baby's skin ..."

Hot objects radiate heat which warms adjacent objects. Cold objects radiate cold which cools adjects objects. The latter is difficult to demonstrate because it is more difficult to maintain a constant cold temperature than a high temperture. The latter is easy using electrical heating. However, holding a thermnometer over an object taken from a freezer will cause the temperature shown to drop.

I hope you will now realise that you are wrong, will apologise and admit your mistake. Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

There is no such thing in Physics as "cold" - just lack of heat.

I am not saying "cold" exists. I am saying "cold radiation" exists, in the same way cold water exists.

Everything radiates heat, even a block of ice, the intensity of heat radiation being proportional to the 4th power of the Absolute Temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). So if a body is in cold surroundings it radiates more heat than it gets back and so is cooled. You could look at that as "cold radiation"; all this argument is really just one of semantics.

================================================== ======

Not as far as Dawlish is concerned. He doesn't believe in cold radiation. Perhaps he should have cold water poured over his head.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Sunday, 9 August 2015 08:23:42 UTC+1, Col wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
There hasn't been a single 'insult'.

You have been shown to be an idiot and have decided that you know better
than every single physicist alive today.

Well there has now!