"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 10/08/15 16:53, RedAcer wrote:
On 10/08/15 15:12, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message

The hotter body will cool anyway whether the colder body is there or
not. The radiation from the colder body means that the hot body will
cool more slowly that it would have done if the cold body weren't
there.
It is not 'cold' radiation as you keep insisting. It does not cool the
hot body, it warms it up.(I'm assuming no background bodies or source
of
radiation)

There is always background radiation of one type or another. Think
about
it. You are either surrounded by walls, or by the earth and sky, or by
cosmic background radiation. Describe a real situation where it does not
exist.

We are all trying to explain some physics to you. The way that it's done
(in any physics class/book) is to concentrate on the salient features of
interest in the system and ignore/minimise other 'smaller' effects.
Assume we doing the experiment out in space where the CMBR is at 2.3K.
Let the cold body be at 200K and the hot at 300K. OK.
Terms of in the SB equation are proportional to T^4 and so can easily be
ignored in a first approximation.

Last sentence not very clear, should be:-
"Terms in the SB equation are proportional to T^4 an so the CMBR can
ignored in a first approximation."

You are making the same mistake as Alan LeHun in the Four Question thread.

You have not got a two body system. It is a three bodies when you include
the CMBR. In that case the main source of cold radiation is the coldest
body - the CMBR. It is not the cooler of the two bodies. If you then
approximate the CMBR, which is the source of the cold radiation, to zero,
then of course the cold radiation does not exist. But that is because you
have approximated it to zero. You can't just approximate numbers to zero,
particulary if they are divisors, which of course they aren't in this case.

I think you have a bit more to learn before you try to teaching me.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 6:07:01 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 10/08/15 16:53, RedAcer wrote:
On 10/08/15 15:12, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message

The hotter body will cool anyway whether the colder body is there or
not. The radiation from the colder body means that the hot body will
cool more slowly that it would have done if the cold body weren't
there.
It is not 'cold' radiation as you keep insisting. It does not cool the
hot body, it warms it up.(I'm assuming no background bodies or source
of
radiation)

There is always background radiation of one type or another. Think
about
it. You are either surrounded by walls, or by the earth and sky, or by
cosmic background radiation. Describe a real situation where it does not
exist.

We are all trying to explain some physics to you. The way that it's done
(in any physics class/book) is to concentrate on the salient features of
interest in the system and ignore/minimise other 'smaller' effects.
Assume we doing the experiment out in space where the CMBR is at 2.3K.
Let the cold body be at 200K and the hot at 300K. OK.
Terms of in the SB equation are proportional to T^4 and so can easily be
ignored in a first approximation.

Last sentence not very clear, should be:-
"Terms in the SB equation are proportional to T^4 an so the CMBR can
ignored in a first approximation."

You are making the same mistake as Alan LeHun in the Four Question thread.

You have not got a two body system. It is a three bodies when you include
the CMBR. In that case the main source of cold radiation is the coldest
body - the CMBR. It is not the cooler of the two bodies. If you then
approximate the CMBR, which is the source of the cold radiation, to zero,
then of course the cold radiation does not exist. But that is because you
have approximated it to zero. You can't just approximate numbers to zero,
particulary if they are divisors, which of course they aren't in this case.

I think you have a bit more to learn before you try to teaching me.

Cheers, Alastair.

Everyone is making the same 'mistake' as each other - not believing you about 'cold radiation', as its existence would mean re-writing the laws of thermodynamics.

Don't you think that is slightly odd? No-one in science would back you, yet you think you are completely right.

That makes you a genius, well worthy of the Nobel prize, or a completely deluded idiot, wouldn't you agree, Alastair?

"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

snip

Alastair, may I ask you one question? Are you actually serious about this or
just playing your own little private game at everyone else's expense? It's
surely got to be some sort of game?

On 10/08/15 18:06, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 10/08/15 16:53, RedAcer wrote:
On 10/08/15 15:12, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message

The hotter body will cool anyway whether the colder body is there or
not. The radiation from the colder body means that the hot body will
cool more slowly that it would have done if the cold body weren't
there.
It is not 'cold' radiation as you keep insisting. It does not cool the
hot body, it warms it up.(I'm assuming no background bodies or source
of
radiation)

There is always background radiation of one type or another. Think
about
it. You are either surrounded by walls, or by the earth and sky, or by
cosmic background radiation. Describe a real situation where it does not
exist.

We are all trying to explain some physics to you. The way that it's done
(in any physics class/book) is to concentrate on the salient features of
interest in the system and ignore/minimise other 'smaller' effects.
Assume we doing the experiment out in space where the CMBR is at 2.3K.
Let the cold body be at 200K and the hot at 300K. OK.
Terms of in the SB equation are proportional to T^4 and so can easily be
ignored in a first approximation.

Last sentence not very clear, should be:-
"Terms in the SB equation are proportional to T^4 an so the CMBR can
ignored in a first approximation."

You are making the same mistake as Alan LeHun in the Four Question thread.

You have not got a two body system. It is a three bodies when you include
the CMBR. In that case the main source of cold radiation is the coldest
body - the CMBR. It is not the cooler of the two bodies. If you then
approximate the CMBR, which is the source of the cold radiation, to zero,
then of course the cold radiation does not exist. But that is because you
have approximated it to zero. You can't just approximate numbers to zero,
particulary if they are divisors, which of course they aren't in this case.

I think you have a bit more to learn before you try to teaching me.

Cheers, Alastair.



Clearly you do not understand physics. Write the SB equations for this
system and show how big the CMBR is compared to to the bodies at 200 and
300 K. Do the calculations with and without it.
hint 2^4 = 16
200^4 = 1,600,000,000
Before you start read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
You are on your own now.

On 10/08/15 18:21, JohnD wrote:
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

snip

Alastair, may I ask you one question? Are you actually serious about
this or just playing your own little private game at everyone else's
expense? It's surely got to be some sort of game?

I wondered that, but I think it's more likely to be a case of
Dunning-Kruger.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:21:24 +0100, "JohnD" wrote:

"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

snip

Alastair, may I ask you one question? Are you actually serious about this or
just playing your own little private game at everyone else's expense? It's
surely got to be some sort of game?

I had theoriginal Alastair McDonald on the "sensible" list. the other one, going by just
Alastair as "non-sensible" and I'd assumed they were two different people. Maybe not.



--
Regards, Paul Herber
http://www.paulherber.co.uk/

On 10/08/15 18:58, Paul Herber wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:21:24 +0100, "JohnD" wrote:

"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

snip

Alastair, may I ask you one question? Are you actually serious about this or
just playing your own little private game at everyone else's expense? It's
surely got to be some sort of game?

I had theoriginal Alastair McDonald on the "sensible" list. the other one, going by just
Alastair as "non-sensible" and I'd assumed they were two different people. Maybe not.

Hmmm. I'd been assuming they were the same person - I'm not sure now

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 6:21:52 PM UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

snip

Alastair, may I ask you one question? Are you actually serious about this or
just playing your own little private game at everyone else's expense? It's
surely got to be some sort of game?

He's always believed in this silly 'cold radiation'. There was a similar response to him trying to propose this a few years ago, but he didn't learn.

Even when he eventually slips away from this thread he will **still** believe there is such a thing as 'cold radiation; that cool bodies can somehow cool warmer ones by some weird cryogenic rays.

I'm still waiting for him to re-write physics, but that's just not happening, which is a shame, really.

"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 10/08/15 18:21, JohnD wrote:
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

snip

Alastair, may I ask you one question? Are you actually serious about
this or just playing your own little private game at everyone else's
expense? It's surely got to be some sort of game?

I wondered that, but I think it's more likely to be a case of
Dunning-Kruger.

Well I guess you know all about that :-)

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

He isn't interested in the truth, only in making me appear foolish.

You have excelled in quest that by your original post and inability to
comprehend explanations given to you by several posters now. Your attempt
to demean Dawlish has backfired and made you look ignorant, stubborn,
unwilling to leanr and stupid in roughly equal measure.

Yes :-(

I am only interested in the truth.

Well then, read the Pictet experiment, but be prepared for a shock.

Cheers, Alastair.