"JohnD" wrote in message
...
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

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 you agree that you can cool a body, or in the Pictet case a thermometer,
with radiation?

Fine, that's all I want to hear. I call that "cold radiation." Does that
make me the idiot that Dawlish is portraying?

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?

There are not any. I am giving you the established theory.

If you can't provide an answer to this then it's game, set and match I'm
afraid.

It has been game set and match for quite a while. There is no way that
you will accept what I have to say. This is just
a Kangaroo Court with me as a victim. Dawlish has persuaded every one to
distrust me, and just look how much he is enjoying it.

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)?

As I explained elsewhere, cold radiation is just shorthand for radiation
from a colder object. Change "cold radiation " to "RFACO" if you like. I'll
still believe in it, much to Dawlish's delight.

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.

Well then you must have accepted the drivel that Dawlish has been spouting.

I am not proposing a laser device to cool objects to 0K, though they do
exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling

I am saying with a flask full of ice and two concave mirrors it is possible
to lower the temperature in a thermometer. Note, the temperature does not
even reach 0C, far less 0K.

Actually, what the more intelligent here are objecting to is the idea that
the Earth cools at night because the incoming radiation is from a cold
source, i.e. cosmic background radiation. They seem to be arguing it is
because the Earth emits radiation that is lost to space (a rather vague
and unscientific idea , IMHO), and therefore cold radiation does not exist.

I am saying that if the net radiation an object absorbs and emits is
negative then it will cool. If it is positive it will warm. Since the
emissions are set by the objects temperature then if the incoming radiation
is from a cooler source the objects temperture will fall. I am calling that
radiation cold radiation. Dawlish say I am a fool for saying cold radiation
exists, but it would still exist under any other name.

Why not have a go at Dawlish? Get him to explain his ideas. Oh, perhaps not.
You will probably end up worse off, just like me. :-(

Cheers, Alastair.