On Monday, 26 September 2016 23:34:51 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 6:08:52 PM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:

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 :-)


=========

It's not my job or anyone else's to disprove. I cite Russell's Teapot. It's your job to prove your extraordinary claim, which you singularly haven't.. I could argue equally that you are not willing to change your belief in "cold radiation". Right? What's the difference? I'm not going to change my knowledge that the Earth is more-or-less a sphere either unless there is convincing evidence.

Actually the difference is that everyone has read what you have written with an open mind, considered it, been unconvinced by it and taken time out of their days to explain why.

Now, I again suggest you write a paper for peer review and see if you get it published. Geophysical Research Letters or nature or something. How about that?

Stephen
Indianapolis IN

I wasn't suggesting that you prove that cold radiation does not exist. I have heard enough spurious arguments already. I was challenging you to change your mind and accept that there are two flows of radiation which can sensibly be labelled hot and cold, just as when water at different temperatures is mixed it is called hot and cold.

Or do you not accept that radiation flows from cold bodies? Answer yes or no and don't claim the fallacy of the excluded middle. It does not apply here.