"Paul Herber" wrote in message
al-september.org...
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:21:24 +0100, "JohnD" wrote:

"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

snip

Alastair, may I ask you one question? Are you actually serious about this
or
just playing your own little private game at everyone else's expense? It's
surely got to be some sort of game?

I had theoriginal Alastair McDonald on the "sensible" list. the other
one, going by just
Alastair as "non-sensible" and I'd assumed they were two different people.
Maybe not.

No, we are one and the same. I use Google Groups to respond to Dawlish
because I have kill-filed him on Outlook express. But perhaps I am a bit
like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Dawlish does drive me mad!

But have a look at the Pictet Experiment and see what you think then.

Cheers, Alastair.

"JohnD" wrote in message
...
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

snip

Alastair, may I ask you one question? Are you actually serious about this
or just playing your own little private game at everyone else's expense?
It's surely got to be some sort of game?

Try reading the small excerpt from the Pictet paper I have posted in my new
thread. Even Professor Pictet did not believe in cold radiation, but as he
showed it does exist.

It has nothing to do with supersonic lasers or some strange quantum effect.
It is just a plain fact, and I have been silly, by trying to prove its
existence theoretically.

Cheers, Alastair.

"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 10/08/15 15:09, Alastair McDonald wrote:

I think YOU need to learn some physics.

The photon doesn't know anything. It does not have a brain.

Excellent. So you agree it is not a hot photon or a cold photon; just a
photon.

Yes, but it is their number and individual frequency i.e energy that
determines whether the body warms or cools.

And blackbody
radiation is not absorbed by atoms.

Curious - what do you think absorbs/interacts with the photon when it
enters the 'body' in question?

Blackbody radiation is continuum radiation which is mainly absorbed by
phonons. Moreover, at terrestrial temperatures electronic absorption, i.e.
line absorption by atoms, is frozen out. That type of absorption and
emission only occurs at near infrared and visible wavelengths.

On Monday, 10 August 2015 18:14:28 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 6:07:01 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 10/08/15 16:53, RedAcer wrote:
On 10/08/15 15:12, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message

The hotter body will cool anyway whether the colder body is there or
not. The radiation from the colder body means that the hot body will
cool more slowly that it would have done if the cold body weren't
there.
It is not 'cold' radiation as you keep insisting. It does not cool the
hot body, it warms it up.(I'm assuming no background bodies or source
of
radiation)

There is always background radiation of one type or another. Think
about
it. You are either surrounded by walls, or by the earth and sky, or by
cosmic background radiation. Describe a real situation where it does not
exist.

We are all trying to explain some physics to you. The way that it's done
(in any physics class/book) is to concentrate on the salient features of
interest in the system and ignore/minimise other 'smaller' effects.
Assume we doing the experiment out in space where the CMBR is at 2.3K.
Let the cold body be at 200K and the hot at 300K. OK.
Terms of in the SB equation are proportional to T^4 and so can easily be
ignored in a first approximation.

Last sentence not very clear, should be:-
"Terms in the SB equation are proportional to T^4 an so the CMBR can
ignored in a first approximation."

You are making the same mistake as Alan LeHun in the Four Question thread.

You have not got a two body system. It is a three bodies when you include
the CMBR. In that case the main source of cold radiation is the coldest
body - the CMBR. It is not the cooler of the two bodies. If you then
approximate the CMBR, which is the source of the cold radiation, to zero,
then of course the cold radiation does not exist. But that is because you
have approximated it to zero. You can't just approximate numbers to zero,
particulary if they are divisors, which of course they aren't in this case.

I think you have a bit more to learn before you try to teaching me.

Cheers, Alastair.

Everyone is making the same 'mistake' as each other - not believing you about 'cold radiation', as its existence would mean re-writing the laws of thermodynamics.

Don't you think that is slightly odd? No-one in science would back you, yet you think you are completely right.

That makes you a genius, well worthy of the Nobel prize, or a completely deluded idiot, wouldn't you agree, Alastair?

Pointing out the simple fact that radiation from a colder object will cool a warmer one is only common sense. Considering it was demonstrated by Prof. Pictet 250 years ago, I can't see why I deserves any praise.

OTOH, the stick I have received from all on this newgroup for pointing out that fact does deserve an apology, but the possiblity of that happening can probably be approximated to zero :-(

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 9:06:23 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 10 August 2015 18:14:28 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 6:07:01 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 10/08/15 16:53, RedAcer wrote:
On 10/08/15 15:12, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message

The hotter body will cool anyway whether the colder body is there or
not. The radiation from the colder body means that the hot body will
cool more slowly that it would have done if the cold body weren't
there.
It is not 'cold' radiation as you keep insisting. It does not cool the
hot body, it warms it up.(I'm assuming no background bodies or source
of
radiation)

There is always background radiation of one type or another. Think
about
it. You are either surrounded by walls, or by the earth and sky, or by
cosmic background radiation. Describe a real situation where it does not
exist.

We are all trying to explain some physics to you. The way that it's done
(in any physics class/book) is to concentrate on the salient features of
interest in the system and ignore/minimise other 'smaller' effects.
Assume we doing the experiment out in space where the CMBR is at 2.3K.
Let the cold body be at 200K and the hot at 300K. OK.
Terms of in the SB equation are proportional to T^4 and so can easily be
ignored in a first approximation.

Last sentence not very clear, should be:-
"Terms in the SB equation are proportional to T^4 an so the CMBR can
ignored in a first approximation."

You are making the same mistake as Alan LeHun in the Four Question thread.

You have not got a two body system. It is a three bodies when you include
the CMBR. In that case the main source of cold radiation is the coldest
body - the CMBR. It is not the cooler of the two bodies. If you then
approximate the CMBR, which is the source of the cold radiation, to zero,
then of course the cold radiation does not exist. But that is because you
have approximated it to zero. You can't just approximate numbers to zero,
particulary if they are divisors, which of course they aren't in this case.

I think you have a bit more to learn before you try to teaching me.

Cheers, Alastair.

Everyone is making the same 'mistake' as each other - not believing you about 'cold radiation', as its existence would mean re-writing the laws of thermodynamics.

Don't you think that is slightly odd? No-one in science would back you, yet you think you are completely right.

That makes you a genius, well worthy of the Nobel prize, or a completely deluded idiot, wouldn't you agree, Alastair?

Pointing out the simple fact that radiation from a colder object will cool a warmer one is only common sense. Considering it was demonstrated by Prof. Pictet 250 years ago, I can't see why I deserves any praise.

OTOH, the stick I have received from all on this newgroup for pointing out that fact does deserve an apology, but the possiblity of that happening can probably be approximated to zero :-(

Yawn. For the third time from me and for the umpteenth time from others, Pictet's experiment was explained a century ago, without any invoking this silly 'cold radiation'.

You, however, do not wish to acknowledge this fact. No-one still believes what picket's experiment appeared to show, over 200 years ago, except you. Time you recognised that.

Take Pictet away - and we have - and you have absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever for this nonsense.

On 10/08/2015 20:26, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

He isn't interested in the truth, only in making me appear foolish.

You have excelled in quest that by your original post and inability to
comprehend explanations given to you by several posters now. Your attempt
to demean Dawlish has backfired and made you look ignorant, stubborn,
unwilling to leanr and stupid in roughly equal measure.

Yes :-(

I am only interested in the truth.

Well then, read the Pictet experiment, but be prepared for a shock.

*I* understand the Pictet experment. You *clearly* do not and you are
parading your now wilful ignorance here endlessly just like a netkook.

Your lack of understanding of basic physics is exposed. You are a crank!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:30:26 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/08/2015 20:26, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

He isn't interested in the truth, only in making me appear foolish.

You have excelled in quest that by your original post and inability to
comprehend explanations given to you by several posters now. Your attempt
to demean Dawlish has backfired and made you look ignorant, stubborn,
unwilling to leanr and stupid in roughly equal measure.

Yes :-(

I am only interested in the truth.

Well then, read the Pictet experiment, but be prepared for a shock.

*I* understand the Pictet experment. You *clearly* do not and you are
parading your now wilful ignorance here endlessly just like a netkook.

Your lack of understanding of basic physics is exposed. You are a crank!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I used the term 'idiot'. Hope you don't mind.

On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:30:26 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/08/2015 20:26, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

He isn't interested in the truth, only in making me appear foolish.

You have excelled in quest that by your original post and inability to
comprehend explanations given to you by several posters now. Your attempt
to demean Dawlish has backfired and made you look ignorant, stubborn,
unwilling to leanr and stupid in roughly equal measure.

Yes :-(

I am only interested in the truth.

Well then, read the Pictet experiment, but be prepared for a shock.

*I* understand the Pictet experment. You *clearly* do not and you are
parading your now wilful ignorance here endlessly just like a netkook.

Your lack of understanding of basic physics is exposed. You are a crank!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

You have lost your temper, and lost the argument.

Goodbye

Alastair.

On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:46:39 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:30:26 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/08/2015 20:26, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

He isn't interested in the truth, only in making me appear foolish.

You have excelled in quest that by your original post and inability to
comprehend explanations given to you by several posters now. Your attempt
to demean Dawlish has backfired and made you look ignorant, stubborn,
unwilling to leanr and stupid in roughly equal measure.

Yes :-(

I am only interested in the truth.

Well then, read the Pictet experiment, but be prepared for a shock.

*I* understand the Pictet experment. You *clearly* do not and you are
parading your now wilful ignorance here endlessly just like a netkook.

Your lack of understanding of basic physics is exposed. You are a crank!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I used the term 'idiot'. Hope you don't mind.

I did not want to be rude to Martin, and tell him he just another Dawlish.

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:19:03 AM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:30:26 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/08/2015 20:26, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

He isn't interested in the truth, only in making me appear foolish.

You have excelled in quest that by your original post and inability to
comprehend explanations given to you by several posters now. Your attempt
to demean Dawlish has backfired and made you look ignorant, stubborn,
unwilling to leanr and stupid in roughly equal measure.

Yes :-(

I am only interested in the truth.

Well then, read the Pictet experiment, but be prepared for a shock.

*I* understand the Pictet experment. You *clearly* do not and you are
parading your now wilful ignorance here endlessly just like a netkook.

Your lack of understanding of basic physics is exposed. You are a crank!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

You have lost your temper, and lost the argument.

Goodbye

Alastair.

Nothing you say works, Alastair, does it? Even this pathetic little attempt to squirm away.

This wasn't you then, within the first 20 posts, was it? 'Because you are a stupid arrogant little ****!'

You resorted to abuse a long time ago, on this thread, when you realised questions were being asked of you that you couldn't answer.

Your resort to Pictet (again, you didn't learn the first time) has gone (and indeed, did a century ago) so what possible other justification do you have for believing in 'cold radiation'.

You believe this; no-one else in the whole of published science does and no-one on this newsgroup supports you. If someone else persisted in proposing something as daft as this, what would you call them? A crank? An idiot?

Think about it.