On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:45:00 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:07:18 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

No point in asking if you have changed your mind now, since it isn't broad enough for ideas new to you to fit in. Just one idea, that you repeat endlessly "Cold radiation does not exist." Don't you think that a rather narrow view of life?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...lained&f=false

by still believing Pictet, you believe in 'Caloric' and by association, phlogisten.

This is why I didn't want to start this argumeent. You have got it all arse about face and I am left trying to sort you out.

Roughly speaking, Pictet only believed in the pure caloric theory until he had conducted his experiment. That was why he thought, like you, it would not work. You are the believer in caloric claiming that radiation can only travel in one direction, just like the fluid caloric. After the experiment he had to accept that vibrations were involved, but of course at that time electro-magenetic were not recognised as such.

BTW, that book you are quoting is wrong. The first experiment with a small hot cannon ball was first carried out by H-B de Saussure with Pictet as his assistant. See Section 926 in Chapter 35 of "Travels in the Alps".
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.u...APTER%2035.pdf
or
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1029499.r=.langFR
if you don't trust my translation.
Moreover, it was not the cooling cannon ball that heated the thermometer, the cannon ball was allowed to cool until it no longer produced visisble rays. Your book claims that Pictet believed in caloric, but not after the experiment as your book implies. See:

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aap...0.1119/1.14305

The 'apparent' reflection of cold. in practice, of course, it doesn't happen, because the reflection of cold is impossible.

http://www2.ups.edu/physics/faculty/evans/Pictet's%20experiment.pdf

The final nail in your Pictet coffin; the classic, full and accepted (by everyone except you, of course) explanation of why Pictet found what he did, published by Evans and Popp 1984.

http://www2.ups.edu/physics/faculty/evans/Pictet's%20experiment.pdf

Without Pictet, you have nothing else but your imagination to keep you going. Cold radiation is a figment of that.

No, I did not omit my reference. You have saved me the bother of entering it since you quote it three times. Yours is the same reference each time! Do you think that makes your interpretaion of it three times more correct?

Pictet demonstrated that the reflection of cold can occur, as did others before him. Have you read any of that paper?

As I wrote elsewhere I only started this debate to clarify this issue in my mind. That is now done. Thank you for your part in it. You have been of use to me. Can I now award your the epithet of "Useful idiot" :-)

"Useful idiots need to be shown the facts ... . Until then, rational people can have fun laughing at their ignorance."