On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 10:05:21 AM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 09:16:02 UTC+1, Graham Easterling wrote:

I think Alistair's almost religious obsession with cold radiation is forcing him toward a complexity in much the same way.

Graham,

"All objects emit radiation based on their temperatures - scientific fact.. If you have two objects then there will be two sets of radiation - common sense. The hotter object will emit hot radiation and the cold object will emit cold radiation - common sense. The hot radiation will warm the cold object and the cold radiation will warm the hot object - simple science."

Many people have tried to explain to you, but let me try another, non technical, way.

If I walk down into the sea for a surf, the pools on the beach fell cold. After being immersed in the colder ocean, on the way back up the beach the pools feel warm.

They haven't flipped to a new type of radiation, nothing has changed except that I have cooled. Your cold radiation neither exists nor is needed. The idea came about simply by our bodies perceptions of the environment. We perceive the ground as solid in fact it is virtually nothing. Brian Cox's The Quantum Universe: Everything that can happen does happens' is a good and relatively easily understood read, which perhaps you should consider.

Graham
Penzance




It is Dawlish's obsession with making me look a fool which is in partly driving me to try and clear my name, not some religious idealism. However, only the very brightest here seem capable of accepting simple arguments like that above.

I think you should review that statement.

Graham
Penzance