On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:30:49 PM UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

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

I have given two examples of observations:snip previous detail

You're clearly missing the point, whether deliberately or not I can't tell.
The observations in the experiments you quoted are perfectly well explained
by existing theory with just one type of radiation (as others have described
in detail). Hence there is no need to invoke a more complex theory.

So let me ask the important and hitherto unanswered question again. Where
are there any experimental observations that cannot be fully explained and
understood by established theory? If you can't provide an answer to this
then it's game, set and match I'm afraid. Or to put it another way, why is
there any need to postulate the existence of totally separate hot rays and
cold rays (if such a distinction is even imaginable, but which is how
everyone is interpreting what you're writing)?

Using the term 'cold radiation' makes it sound like it's possible to imagine
a device (a laser let's say, but some equivalent in your alternative
universe) that can project a beam of cold rays, which would then be able to
cool down a target indefinitely (or at least to 0K), similar to how a
conventional laser can heat a target more or less indefinitely. This is the
bizarre concept that everyone is taking exception to, if I judge the thread
content correctly.

You judge it correctly. That's exactly what the man thinks. It is perfectly loopy.