On 09/08/15 14:59, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 07:30:58 UTC+1,
wrote:
.....
I hope you will now realise that you are wrong, will apologise
and admit your mistake. Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

There is no such thing in Physics as "cold" - just lack of heat.

I am not saying "cold" exists. I am saying "cold radiation" exists,
in the same way cold water exists.

No. You are talking about the human experience of temperature. We are
trying to explain to you how physicists, engineers, scientists talk
about heat.
(do you really have an engineering degree? - I find that hard to believe
- what was it in?)
If your hands feel extremely cold and you put them in 'cold' water from
your tap you may 'feel' the water as 'warm. Conversely if you feel
extremely hot and you put your hands in water at the same temperature
you would feel it as 'cold'.
The temperature of the water hasn't changed.
The point of science is to use definitions and talk precisely. Why can't
you accept this. Scientists don't talk about cold radiation. Are gamma
rays 'hot radiation' or just photons with a specific frequency/energy?

"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 08/08/15 12:26, Alastair wrote:
I learnt my Kinematics at University while studying for an
engineering degree, not from some smart alec teacher. Yours wasn't
Dawlish by an chance? OK the centrifugal force is not a force field
like gravity, magnetism, etc., but the centrifugal force can be
calculated, see your link which describe it
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ugalForce.html . That
link is proof enough for me. Strange that one can get so many hits
for centrifugal force if it does not exist.

Nonsense. If you were in a seat on a roundabout facing inwards then you
would feel a force pressing into you back forcing you to move in a
circle.
Try this experiment. Take a short piece of sting with a weight on the
end and whirl it round in a vertical circle. As the weight is at the top
of the circle, let go. If there was a centrifugal force it should move
outwards. It doesnt though. It will move off horizontally at a tangent
to the circle.

That wasn't what happened when George W. Bush took Gordon Brown for a trip
in his golf buggy!

On 09/08/15 14:35, Len Wood wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 14:13:12 UTC+1, Metman2012 wrote:
I've been following this thread with fascination. I'm not a physicist or
even a scientist, but I have a question that perhaps someone can answer.
Let's ask it with an example. There are three bodies, one at -50, one at
0 and one at 50 degrees. It's obvious that the one at 50 degrees is hot
radiating and the one at -50 is cold radiating. What is the one in the
middle doing? Unless I've completely missed the point, it's cold
radiating to the one at 50 and hot radiating to the one at -50. How can
it be both?
Now let's add another body, say at 100 degrees. This one is now the hot
radiating one, and the one at 50 degrees now becomes a body which does
both. Now the reality of the universe is that there are many bodies, all
busily radiating. And we can't know which is the hottest and which the
coldest, so everything is radiating both hot and cold.

ha! You beat me to it. I was just about to make the very same post


So am I being simplistic? Am I not understanding what all this is about?

No. You understand very clearly.

On 09/08/15 17:48, RedAcer wrote:
On 09/08/15 14:35, Len Wood wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 14:13:12 UTC+1, Metman2012 wrote:
I've been following this thread with fascination. I'm not a physicist or
even a scientist, but I have a question that perhaps someone can answer.
Let's ask it with an example. There are three bodies, one at -50, one at
0 and one at 50 degrees. It's obvious that the one at 50 degrees is hot
radiating and the one at -50 is cold radiating. What is the one in the
middle doing? Unless I've completely missed the point, it's cold
radiating to the one at 50 and hot radiating to the one at -50. How can
it be both?
Now let's add another body, say at 100 degrees. This one is now the hot
radiating one, and the one at 50 degrees now becomes a body which does
both. Now the reality of the universe is that there are many bodies, all
busily radiating. And we can't know which is the hottest and which the
coldest, so everything is radiating both hot and cold.

ha! You beat me to it. I was just about to make the very same post


So am I being simplistic? Am I not understanding what all this is about?

No. You understand very clearly.


Ahhh, Sorry. Meant to reply to Metman2012.

On 09/08/15 16:34, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:31:52 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 09/08/15 12:49, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"JohnD" wrote in message
...
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

Stephen was right. I falsely accused you of committing the fallacy of ad
hominem. It should have been the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum .
===============================================

Alastair, I'm sure I'm wasting my time here, but let me try just one more
time:

Not as much as I am :-(

The reason for raising what you're termed an ad populum argument is that
you are seemingly very resistant to agreeing to logical scientific
argument. So all I was saying was that even if you dismiss all the
scientific arguments against your theory then does it really cut no ice at
all that no-one else in this fairly well informed forum is prepared to
offer even a modicum of support for it? If so, I can only conclude that
you're starting to show signs of a messiah complex, at least insofar as
physics is concerned.

But let's try one other approach: Science is generally content with the
simplest theory that fits all of the observable facts. (What's sometimes
referred to as Occam's Razor in some contexts.) Would you disagree with
that? A new theory is only needed when there are certain observations that
are not well-explained by the prevailing scientific orthodoxy.

This isn't a new theory. What I didn't realise was that others are so
unfamiliar with it.

So (and leaving to one side all the potential theoretical objections to
'cold radiation'), why the need to postulate two types of radiation when
all current observations can be perfectly well described by the standard
concept of radiation?

It is a shorthand term for "the raditation emitted by a cold body."

What are these observations and experimental results
that are at odds with the existing model?

I have given two examples of observations: the cold baby in an incubator,
and Pictet's experiment which is described in this paper
http://www2.ups.edu/physics/faculty/...experiment.pdf (Or
try googling "Pictet's experiment", but it doesn't get as many hits as
centrifugal force. :-) That paper even explains how to carry out the
experiment yourself. My detractors have given no examples of experiments,
and have only presented what you call "theoretical objections", (and a few
insults e.g. acusing me of having a "messiah complex". You will have to
ask them how they conflict with their model. The existing model is the one
I am using, which I will now describe.

All bodies emit radiation based on their temperature (blackbody radiation).
A cold object emits cold radiation. If that radiation falls on a hot object
then the hot object will cool.

NO!NO!NO!; radiation contains energy. The energy emitted by a cold body
and absorbed by a hot body will heat the hot body. Are you saying that a
cold body emits negative energy??
Please stop this stupidity.

I don't think he is capable. Keep digging Alastair!


I think you're right - most people would have accepted that they were
wrong, by now. Why are we all still replying?

"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 09/08/15 14:59, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 07:30:58 UTC+1,
wrote:
....
I hope you will now realise that you are wrong, will apologise
and admit your mistake. Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

There is no such thing in Physics as "cold" - just lack of heat.

I am not saying "cold" exists. I am saying "cold radiation" exists,
in the same way cold water exists.

No. You are talking about the human experience of temperature. We are
trying to explain to you how physicists, engineers, scientists talk
about heat.
(do you really have an engineering degree? - I find that hard to believe
- what was it in?)

Why do you start your post with insults? Is that the way you were taught
science at school? Oh, I have just realised, your teacher was Dawlish!

If your hands feel extremely cold and you put them in 'cold' water from
your tap you may 'feel' the water as 'warm. Conversely if you feel
extremely hot and you put your hands in water at the same temperature
you would feel it as 'cold'.
The temperature of the water hasn't changed.

If the radiation arrives at an object and it is colder it will warm it, and
we can call the radiation hot radiation, just like your hot water.
If the radiation arrives at an object and it is warmer it will cool it, and
we can call the radiation coldradiation, just like your cold water.

Your water hadn't changed and neither has my radiation.

The point of science is to use definitions and talk precisely. Why can't
you accept this.

My definition of cold radiation IS precise. It is cold radiation if it
originated from a source colder than where it is absorbed; the difference in
temperature can be as small as you like. Can't get more precise than that!

Scientists don't talk about cold radiation.

How many do you know?

Are gamma rays 'hot radiation' or just photons with a specific
frequency/energy?

Can't tell if it is hot radiation until I know where the photons are
arriving.

Cheers, Alastair.

"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 09/08/15 12:49, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"JohnD" wrote in message
...
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

Stephen was right. I falsely accused you of committing the fallacy of
ad
hominem. It should have been the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum .
===============================================

Alastair, I'm sure I'm wasting my time here, but let me try just one
more
time:

Not as much as I am :-(

The reason for raising what you're termed an ad populum argument is that
you are seemingly very resistant to agreeing to logical scientific
argument. So all I was saying was that even if you dismiss all the
scientific arguments against your theory then does it really cut no ice
at
all that no-one else in this fairly well informed forum is prepared to
offer even a modicum of support for it? If so, I can only conclude that
you're starting to show signs of a messiah complex, at least insofar as
physics is concerned.

But let's try one other approach: Science is generally content with the
simplest theory that fits all of the observable facts. (What's sometimes
referred to as Occam's Razor in some contexts.) Would you disagree with
that? A new theory is only needed when there are certain observations
that
are not well-explained by the prevailing scientific orthodoxy.

This isn't a new theory. What I didn't realise was that others are so
unfamiliar with it.

So (and leaving to one side all the potential theoretical objections to
'cold radiation'), why the need to postulate two types of radiation when
all current observations can be perfectly well described by the standard
concept of radiation?

It is a shorthand term for "the raditation emitted by a cold body."

What are these observations and experimental results
that are at odds with the existing model?

I have given two examples of observations: the cold baby in an incubator,
and Pictet's experiment which is described in this paper
http://www2.ups.edu/physics/faculty/...experiment.pdf (Or
try googling "Pictet's experiment", but it doesn't get as many hits as
centrifugal force. :-) That paper even explains how to carry out the
experiment yourself. My detractors have given no examples of experiments,
and have only presented what you call "theoretical objections", (and a
few
insults e.g. acusing me of having a "messiah complex". You will have to
ask them how they conflict with their model. The existing model is the
one
I am using, which I will now describe.

All bodies emit radiation based on their temperature (blackbody
radiation).
A cold object emits cold radiation. If that radiation falls on a hot
object
then the hot object will cool.

NO!NO!NO!; radiation contains energy. The energy emitted by a cold body
and absorbed by a hot body will heat the hot body. Are you saying that a
cold body emits negative energy??
Please stop this stupidity.

No, that is what Dawlish would claim I am saying, if he were bright enough.

The energy arriving from a cold body is not enough to maintain the
temperature of the hot body, which is emitting black body radiation at
a greater intensity and so it cools.

Cheers, Alastair.

"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 08/08/15 18:11, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Eskimo Will" wrote in message
...

I really canot understand why this is being discussed at such length.
The
laws of thermodynamics state that heat energy (radiation is a form of
heat) flows from warm to cold and entropy increases, end of, surely?

I now realise that the problem is that we are talking at cross purposes.
They are talking about the balance of radiation which results in a NET
flow
of heat from warm to cold. I am talking about the cooler of those two
flows,
which is called cold radiation.

If there is a body at x^0 centigrade alone in space; is it emitting:-

radiation,
hot radiation,
cold radiation,
something else ?

What would 99.999999999999999% of physicists' or maybe, engineers say?


I think 100% of engineers and 99% of scientists would say it is emitting
blackbody radiation. It is only cold radiation if/when it arrives at a
warmer body which, from a 0C body, is most likely. So it would be hot
radiation when it arrived at a tank of liquid nitrogen or a block of dry
ice.

"Metman2012" wrote in message
...
I've been following this thread with fascination. I'm not a physicist or
even a scientist, but I have a question that perhaps someone can answer.

Let's ask it with an example. There are three bodies, one at -50, one at 0
and one at 50 degrees. It's obvious that the one at 50 degrees is hot
radiating and the one at -50 is cold radiating. What is the one in the
middle doing?

Unless I've completely missed the point, it's cold radiating to the one at
50 and hot radiating to the one at -50. How can it be both?

The term cold radiation really only applies to the radiation when it arrives
at a body. If it has originated from a cooler body then it is cold radiation
and the other body will cool. If it has originated from a warmer body then
it is hot radiation and the other body will warm.

Now let's add another body, say at 100 degrees. This one is now the hot
radiating one, and the one at 50 degrees now becomes a body which does
both. Now the reality of the universe is that there are many bodies, all
busily radiating. And we can't know which is the hottest and which the
coldest, so everything is radiating both hot and cold.

So am I being simplistic? Am I not understanding what all this is about?

Can someone answer in simple terms (one syllable or less) to explain this
please?

The temperature of a body depends on the net (a word of one syllable)
radiation it absorbs and emits. There is only one source for the
emissions, the body itself, but there can be lots of sources of the
radiation it is absorbing. Obviously it is the sum of the radiation from
all those sources that will determine how the temperature of the body
itself changes. And its final temperature will be reached when that sum
equals the radiation it emits as a blackbody.

Does that make sense?

Cheers, Alastair.

"Col" wrote in message
...

Those were Dawlish's words not mine.
However I was careless in my quoting so it's understandable that you
thought it was me.
--
Col

OK, you are forgiven :-)

I should have checked Dawlish's original message, but I have to go into
Google Groups to do that.

Cheers, Alastair.