On Monday, 26 September 2016 22:45:20 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:05:03 AM UTC-4, David Mitchell wrote:
I have every sympathy with Alistair on this. Science, physics, whatever have their place and can't be argued with on this issue. (But should really, as that's what science is about).

However, sometimes in life there are ways of explaining things that challenge the accepted definition and I totally understand his point and it's actually a very interesting idea. Wrong but interesting. But it actually gets the point across well.

Scientists will not comprehend that at all, but those with open minds will get it.

========

With respect, I cannot agree at all the scientists do not have open minds.. They have to.

I don't agree either that "cold radiation" communicates anything well either! As it does not exist it muddles the matter, IMHO, by introducing an unnecessary concept, and I think that Alistair is actually proposing a new radiation paradigm rather than finding a way to describe what already exists.


Stephen
Indianapolis IN

Stephen,

Who has approached this wih an open mind?

You are all convinced, wrongly, that the 2nd law states that there is only a flow from hot to cold. That only seems to be true when a cup of coffee cools in a room. It cools to room temperature. But that is because the room is so massive that its cooling effect on the coffee is overwhelming. In fact, following the law of conservation of energy, the coffee actually warms the room, but only inperceptively.

So the coffee is emitting warm radiation and the room cold radiation.

But I guarantee you will not accept this because no one is ever willing to change their beliefs. Now prove me wrong :-)