uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 5th 15, 01:06 AM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,158
Default Oh the Experts

Say they know everything, prove nothing.

  #2   Report Post  
Old April 5th 15, 07:25 AM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Mar 2008
Posts: 10,601
Default Oh the Experts

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 1:06:13 AM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Say they know everything, prove nothing.


That's because there is no proof in science. Idiot.
  #3   Report Post  
Old April 5th 15, 11:23 AM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Mar 2015
Posts: 13
Default Oh the Experts

On 05/04/2015 07:25, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 1:06:13 AM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Say they know everything, prove nothing.


That's because there is no proof in science. Idiot.


Proof is through evidence. Idiot.
  #4   Report Post  
Old April 5th 15, 12:11 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,594
Default Oh the Experts

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:23:47 AM UTC+1, Verity wrote:
On 05/04/2015 07:25, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 1:06:13 AM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Say they know everything, prove nothing.


That's because there is no proof in science. Idiot.


Proof is through evidence. Idiot.


Yes, that is why Dawlish thinks cold radiation does not exist. He ignores the evidence

Evans, J., and B. Popp. "Pictet's Experiment: The Apparent Radiation and Reflection of Cold." American Journal of Physics 53, no. 8 (1985): 737-53. http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/...experiment.pdf

  #5   Report Post  
Old April 5th 15, 12:51 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Jan 2015
Posts: 451
Default Oh the Experts

On 05/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:23:47 AM UTC+1, Verity wrote:
On 05/04/2015 07:25, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 1:06:13 AM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Say they know everything, prove nothing.

That's because there is no proof in science. Idiot.


Proof is through evidence. Idiot.


Yes, that is why Dawlish thinks cold radiation does not exist. He ignores the evidence

Evans, J., and B. Popp. "Pictet's Experiment: The Apparent Radiation and Reflection of Cold." American Journal of Physics 53, no. 8 (1985): 737-53. http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/...experiment.pdf


He must be working on the theory that heat radiates while cold sucks.
If he moves his hand towards a heat source, he feels the warmth before
making contact. That, he assumes, is the heat radiating towards him, not
his hand sucking in the heat.
If he moves his hand towards a cold source, he feels the chill before
making contact. That, he assumes, is the cold sucking the heat from his
hand, not the cold radiating towards him.
What he assumes means that heat radiates towards cold whereas cold sucks.

Such a theory implies that if you place a warm and cool object together,
the warm object will always be the active partner in changing the
temperature of the cool one. So, when you place a block of dry ice in a
warm room, the fog will not drift outwards towards the heat.

Fortunately, it is 7° today and temporarily sunny. If it were minus 7,
than that really would suck.

--
AS
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk/


  #6   Report Post  
Old April 5th 15, 02:41 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,594
Default Oh the Experts

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 12:51:05 PM UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 05/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:23:47 AM UTC+1, Verity wrote:
On 05/04/2015 07:25, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 1:06:13 AM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Say they know everything, prove nothing.

That's because there is no proof in science. Idiot.


Proof is through evidence. Idiot.


Yes, that is why Dawlish thinks cold radiation does not exist. He ignores the evidence

Evans, J., and B. Popp. "Pictet's Experiment: The Apparent Radiation and Reflection of Cold." American Journal of Physics 53, no. 8 (1985): 737-53.. http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/...experiment.pdf


He must be working on the theory that heat radiates while cold sucks.
If he moves his hand towards a heat source, he feels the warmth before
making contact. That, he assumes, is the heat radiating towards him, not
his hand sucking in the heat.
If he moves his hand towards a cold source, he feels the chill before
making contact. That, he assumes, is the cold sucking the heat from his
hand, not the cold radiating towards him.
What he assumes means that heat radiates towards cold whereas cold sucks.

Such a theory implies that if you place a warm and cool object together,
the warm object will always be the active partner in changing the
temperature of the cool one. So, when you place a block of dry ice in a
warm room, the fog will not drift outwards towards the heat.


Pictet used a concave mirror to collect the radiation from a a flask full of ice and another mirror to concentrate that radiation onto a thermometer which cooled. What do you call the radiation passing between the two mirrors?

Saussure's daughter understood the experiment:

"Not long afterwards, Rumford met Albertine Necker de Saussure,the married daughter of the Swiss physicist, and conversed with her on, among other things, Pictet's experiment. He found her "uncommonly well informed. She gave me the best explanation I had ever heard of the curious phenomenon of the reflection of cold [cold radiation]. My explanation and hers differ only in the meaning of the words. She supposes obscure heat [infrared radiation] to be emitted by all bodies and I suppose invisible rays to be emitted which though not hot themselves are the cause of heat in other bodies. These rays I suppose to be merely undulations in the etherial fluid."
  #7   Report Post  
Old April 5th 15, 03:00 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Jan 2015
Posts: 451
Default Oh the Experts

On 05/04/15 14:41, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 12:51:05 PM UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 05/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:23:47 AM UTC+1, Verity wrote:
On 05/04/2015 07:25, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 1:06:13 AM UTC+1, Lawrence
Jenkins wrote:
Say they know everything, prove nothing.

That's because there is no proof in science. Idiot.


Proof is through evidence. Idiot.

Yes, that is why Dawlish thinks cold radiation does not exist. He
ignores the evidence

Evans, J., and B. Popp. "Pictet's Experiment: The Apparent
Radiation and Reflection of Cold." American Journal of Physics
53, no. 8 (1985): 737-53.
http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/...experiment.pdf


He must be working on the theory that heat radiates while cold
sucks. If he moves his hand towards a heat source, he feels the
warmth before making contact. That, he assumes, is the heat
radiating towards him, not his hand sucking in the heat. If he
moves his hand towards a cold source, he feels the chill before
making contact. That, he assumes, is the cold sucking the heat from
his hand, not the cold radiating towards him. What he assumes means
that heat radiates towards cold whereas cold sucks.

Such a theory implies that if you place a warm and cool object
together, the warm object will always be the active partner in
changing the temperature of the cool one. So, when you place a
block of dry ice in a warm room, the fog will not drift outwards
towards the heat.


Pictet used a concave mirror to collect the radiation from a a flask
full of ice and another mirror to concentrate that radiation onto a
thermometer which cooled. What do you call the radiation passing
between the two mirrors?


I think I made it very obvious that I agree with you. That is why my
comments sought to amusingly disprove the alternative.

--
AS
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk/
  #8   Report Post  
Old April 5th 15, 04:13 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Apr 2015
Posts: 4
Default Oh the Experts

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 3:00:35 PM UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 05/04/15 14:41, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 12:51:05 PM UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 05/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:23:47 AM UTC+1, Verity wrote:
On 05/04/2015 07:25, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 1:06:13 AM UTC+1, Lawrence
Jenkins wrote:
Say they know everything, prove nothing.

That's because there is no proof in science. Idiot.


Proof is through evidence. Idiot.

Yes, that is why Dawlish thinks cold radiation does not exist. He
ignores the evidence

Evans, J., and B. Popp. "Pictet's Experiment: The Apparent
Radiation and Reflection of Cold." American Journal of Physics
53, no. 8 (1985): 737-53.
http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/...experiment.pdf


He must be working on the theory that heat radiates while cold
sucks. If he moves his hand towards a heat source, he feels the
warmth before making contact. That, he assumes, is the heat
radiating towards him, not his hand sucking in the heat. If he
moves his hand towards a cold source, he feels the chill before
making contact. That, he assumes, is the cold sucking the heat from
his hand, not the cold radiating towards him. What he assumes means
that heat radiates towards cold whereas cold sucks.

Such a theory implies that if you place a warm and cool object
together, the warm object will always be the active partner in
changing the temperature of the cool one. So, when you place a
block of dry ice in a warm room, the fog will not drift outwards
towards the heat.


Pictet used a concave mirror to collect the radiation from a a flask
full of ice and another mirror to concentrate that radiation onto a
thermometer which cooled. What do you call the radiation passing
between the two mirrors?


I think I made it very obvious that I agree with you. That is why my
comments sought to amusingly disprove the alternative.

--
AS
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk/


Sorry, I thought you believed the alternative. Not helped by my infamy - Everyones got it infamy :-(

Cheers, Alastair.
  #9   Report Post  
Old April 5th 15, 04:20 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Mar 2008
Posts: 10,601
Default Oh the Experts

Oh I love it. This idiot actually believes in cold radiation. You've actually come out and said it again.

One of the most ridiculous things I have ever read in this newsgroup.

Go on Alastair. Try to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics on the back of a kook's paper. actually laughing out loud
  #10   Report Post  
Old April 5th 15, 04:29 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Jan 2015
Posts: 451
Default Oh the Experts

On 05/04/15 16:13, wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 3:00:35 PM UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 05/04/15 14:41, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 12:51:05 PM UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 05/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:23:47 AM UTC+1, Verity wrote:
On 05/04/2015 07:25, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 1:06:13 AM UTC+1, Lawrence
Jenkins wrote:
Say they know everything, prove nothing.

That's because there is no proof in science. Idiot.


Proof is through evidence. Idiot.

Yes, that is why Dawlish thinks cold radiation does not exist. He
ignores the evidence

Evans, J., and B. Popp. "Pictet's Experiment: The Apparent
Radiation and Reflection of Cold." American Journal of Physics
53, no. 8 (1985): 737-53.
http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/...experiment.pdf


He must be working on the theory that heat radiates while cold
sucks. If he moves his hand towards a heat source, he feels the
warmth before making contact. That, he assumes, is the heat
radiating towards him, not his hand sucking in the heat. If he
moves his hand towards a cold source, he feels the chill before
making contact. That, he assumes, is the cold sucking the heat from
his hand, not the cold radiating towards him. What he assumes means
that heat radiates towards cold whereas cold sucks.

Such a theory implies that if you place a warm and cool object
together, the warm object will always be the active partner in
changing the temperature of the cool one. So, when you place a
block of dry ice in a warm room, the fog will not drift outwards
towards the heat.

Pictet used a concave mirror to collect the radiation from a a flask
full of ice and another mirror to concentrate that radiation onto a
thermometer which cooled. What do you call the radiation passing
between the two mirrors?


I think I made it very obvious that I agree with you. That is why my
comments sought to amusingly disprove the alternative.

--
AS
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk/


Sorry, I thought you believed the alternative. Not helped by my infamy - Everyones got it infamy :-(

Cheers, Alastair.


Look on the bright side. At least you're not paranoid. They really are
out to get you.
I'll just sit here and quietly fade away and radiate.

--
AS
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk/


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
calling all Dines TSR users/experts Philip Eden uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 2 June 27th 04 09:11 AM
Re; No doubts global warming is real, U.S. experts say Gavin Staples uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 11 December 5th 03 06:05 PM
Re; Re; No doubts global warming is real, U.S. experts say Gavin Staples uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 1 December 4th 03 12:25 PM
No doubts global warming is real, U.S. experts say Brendan DJ Murphy uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 0 December 4th 03 09:30 AM
new maps for the experts Eric Stein uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 1 July 22nd 03 12:14 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 Weather Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Weather"

 

Copyright © 2017