"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?