On Monday, 26 September 2016 22:39:14 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:26:27 PM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:

snip

Anyway I am about to flounce off again. We are now off the topic of cold radiation, and I have better things to do with my time than respond to insults such as "flouncing off."

========

Is one of those things writing a paper on cold radiation and getting it peer reviewed and published?

A word of advice: I wouldn't mention Pictet. As I pointed out far back his experiment has long-since been explained without resorting to cold radiation.


Stephen
Indianapolis IN

Pictet's experiments were explained by postulaing two flows of radiaion: to and from the thermometer ie a bidirectional flow. What was dismissed was 'radiation of cold' implying that cold existed as a different object to heat..

What has become clear since then is that unlike two flows of water which would blend, the incoming and outgoing radiation pass through each other and the net effect happens at the surface which is heated or cooled. But that takes us towards quantum mechanics which anyone who claims they understand it doesn't.