On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:26:01 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 09/08/15 12:49, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"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.

NO!NO!NO!; radiation contains energy. The energy emitted by a cold body
and absorbed by a hot body will heat the hot body. Are you saying that a
cold body emits negative energy??
Please stop this stupidity.

No, that is what Dawlish would claim I am saying, if he were bright enough.

Quote: "Why do you start your post with insults? Is that the way you were taught
science at school?' YOU said this, not one post ago, Alastair shakes head, laughing

The energy arriving from a cold body is not enough to maintain the
temperature of the hot body, which is emitting black body radiation at
a greater intensity and so it cools.

What you utterly fail to appreciate, is that the warmer body is **not** being cooled by the 'cold radiation' from the cooler one. Why will you not investigate the actual physics and why do you keep repeating this total ignorance about cold radiation?

Cheers, Alastair.