On 09/08/2015 15:29, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 09:20:15 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/08/2015 21:26, Col wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 5:56:34 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

I find your posts so insulting I have difficulty reading them.

I know. It's because they tell you that you are clearly and
unambiguously wrong.

Didn't you say that there was no 'proof' in science?

But there is "disproof" - a subtle difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...tific_evidence

There is no proof of correctness of a theory. Every independent
experiment consistent with a theory merely improves confidence in it
until you find a novel *experiment* that breaks the status quo. We can
never be sure we have a complete description but we get a successively
better approximation to describing our universe as time passes.

However, a scientific theory must be capable of being *refuted* and one
clear refutation is more than enough to show that a widely held theory
is invalid or at the very least incomplete. You can prove that some
theory is wrong because it does not describe the universe we live in.

"Cold radiation" doesn't even get over the first hurdle it is complete
and utter ********(TM) in the same vein as N-rays and polywater.

Prove that!

It is self evident to anyone with even a basic understanding of modern
thermodynamics and twentieth century physics. I rest my case.

You are unable or unwilling to learn so the only thing that remains now
is to ensure that no-one is misled by your inane ramblings.

There is only one sort of thermal radiation from any body determined by
its absolute temperature, geometry and surface emissivity. The changes
in temperature of thermally isolated bodies is determined by the balance
of emitted radiation and received radiation.

There is no need to invoke your magyck of "cold radiation" here.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown