"JohnD" wrote in message
...
"Dawlish" wrote in message
...

It was Dawlish that pointed out the idiocy. Backed by your good self and
everyone else who has replied to him, John.

This post adds zilch to the thread I'm afraid but, for the record, my
comment was intended to be shorthand for: 'Forget your running battle with
Dawlish and zoom out from that; just look at the fact that absolutely
no-one else here, including several with a relevant and professional
scientific background, is prepared to give the notion of cold radiation
the time of day. Doesn't that give you pause for thought?'

But it's fairly clear that the answer to that question is no. And so as
Stephen says, this thread has run its course of useful discussion.

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 .

That is the error that was comitted when nearly everyone thought the
new idea of continental drift was wrong, but they were not correct.
And everyone here thinks I am wrong, presumably because cold
radiation is a new idea to them. But it was proved experimentally
about 250 years ago.

Science is successful because every new idea is fiercely contested. But that
does not mean that the counter arguments are more valid than the
original thesis. In this case everyone is looking for the flaw in my
arguments, and no one trying to to see where they are correct. I agree with
you and Stephen, this thread has probably run its course of useful
discussion since no one will try to evaluate my ideas objectively.

Cheers, Alastair.