On Saturday, 24 September 2016 21:38:08 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 2016-09-24 20:19:29 +0000, Alastair said:

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 16:09:26 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 2015-08-06 14:52:07 +0000, Alastair said:

Cold radiation does exist.

I am not arguing or taking sides (hard to believe, I know) but please
consider this.

Place an ice cube on a suitable surface (use tongs to protect your
body heat) and move your forefinger near to it until you feel the
cooling effect. This is caused by:

a) The cold is radiating from the ice cube, causing your fingertip to
feel less warm than before, or

b) The warmth from your finger is radiating towards the cooler ice
cube, causing your fingertip to feel less warm than before.

Then try this.

Put a kettle on to boil and move a fingertip towards the body of the
kettle until you feel the heat (taking great care not to burn
yourself). This is caused by:

c) The heat is radiating from the kettle, causing your fingertip to
feel warmer than before, or

d) The relative cold from your finger is radiating towards the kettle,
causing your fingertip to feel warmer than before.

The explanations for each outcome must agree, in other words you may
choose (a) and (d) as the answer or (b) and (c). Other combinations
would be self cancelling and therefore incorrect.

No advanced physics, no references to abstruse web sites, just a
simple experiment that we can all do and probably have done by chance
many times.

--
Asha
nature.opcop.org.uk
Scotland

Asha, the correct pair are a and c. In the case of both the ice cube
and the kettle the radiation from your finger does not change. So how
can it be an agent?

If my hands are cold and you kindly place your warm hands either side
of my cold hand (not touching) my hand will absorb warmth from yours.
Yours will not absorb cold from mine. Fingers radiate and that
radiation varies constantly (unless you are seriously ill).

I believe that is the case with the babies in question. A premature baby should be in a very warm environment with the mother doing all the heat regulating including as and when the baby moves and would get warm from exercise..

In an incubator the baby is absorbing more heat than would be set for an healthy one. And having it's environment set to certain larger healthier baby's standards kills them. Not all of them as even that cot death expert/scientit would have noticed.

Why is it when one offers someone two choices, they always
pick a third non-existent option?

I repeat, "you may choose (a) and (d) as the answer or (b) and (c)."
Choose an option available to you. I am making the offer; you do not
get to invent options for yourself.

Not without verifying by experiment one's self. Pity that we no longer have scientists in meteorology these days.

The problem with feeling cold is it is subject to your diet and attitude. I as a gout sufferer am particularly sensitive to heat I can tell when I walk past a stove or saucepan when it was last used within a couple of hours.

And if I eat certain foods that set me off I feel cold for hours until I vacuate it. YMWV.

But the original experiment demands a radiant heat source. We know about IR but there is no known invisible negative heat radiance so the answer must be that the mirror is contracting enough to deflect the focus or that the radiation is being polarised.

But in that case why is it not perturbed by the heat source?
The thermoscope was a clever invention considering nobody knew what heat was. But it was clearly not an equivalent experiment.

6.9 NEI Fiji Islands I might have got that but was mislead by volcanic activity. I think it should be given a mag 7 rating. There was another smaller one 3 degrees away 20 minutes earlier, so it won't be (6.4 NEI Tonga.)

The reason I point these out is that the contemporary idea about them is "strain release". But there is no mechanism for it. Continental Drift requires a mechanism and if we can't have centrifugal force then we certainly can't have Coriolis "effect".

We certainly get gyroscopic effect in even small guns:
A gun is sighted by the finest marksman and electronic gizmo but then it is fired there is a heavy moving spinning particle inside the barrel.

The gun yaws the way a vehicle would. Once released the missile is no longer connected to the now reacting gun. So that is all there ever was to that theory. The motion of Malakas demonstrates gyroscopic nutation too. As a storm loses rotation the path changes Malakas has rebuilt so the forecast track has straightened.

We can have polarisation of waves and this idea may lead to understanding the link between storm cyclosis and the odd way that earthquakes appear in the lists before and after them.
Consider how a pliable asthenosphere is supposed to store strain for millennia.

Food for though tonight.