On 26/09/2016 20:58, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 18:50:02 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 12:43:48 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
Dawlish discussed the science for once and brought a point which I think is what is confusing everyone.

He wrote "'...heat *always* flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies, and *never* the reverse, unless external work is performed on the system'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Intuitive_meaning_of_ the_law"

But the sentence actually reads "FOR EXAMPLE, heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies ...". That is not a statement of the second law, it is an example. Another example is that cold always flows from a colder to a hotter body unless external work is performed on the system e.g a refigerator.

Putting it another way hot objects always cool and cold objects always warm e.g, cup of coffeee and an ice cube. But hot cups of coffe are so common it is easy to forget about cold ice cubes. (Thanks Asha for reminding me.)

Moreover, as I have already explained, the difference in temperature between and ice cube and room temperature is much less than that between a boiling kettle and room temperature. It is only when you have a tray of ice cubes and you use the back of your hand that you can sense the cold radiation.

Pictet used a sensitive air thermometer and had cooled his ice with nitric acid when he discovered cold radiation. Count Rumford, the famous physicist, could not reproduce the experiment until he was shown how in Edinburgh.

Utter bilge. The net flow is always from warmer to cooler. Get a grip.

Idiot!

The net flow (by definition) is made up of at least two flows: a warm flow and a cold flow.

There aren't two seperate streams, one warm and one cold, somehow
battling it out for supremacy. A warm object will heat a cold object
until they reach thermal equilibrium. We can call this 'warm' radiation
but there is no distinct 'cold' radiation.
Conversely we could just flip the concept and consider that the cold
object is cooling the warm one until they reach thermal equilibrium. We
could call this 'cold' radiation but by the very act of doing so we
would have to banish any concept of 'warm' radiation.
You can think of it in one term or another, heat is just negative cold
and vice versa, the two simply can't coexist as discreet entities.


Just continue with the insults and inuendo. That is what you are good at.

Anybody who has just called someone an 'idiot' should be rather wary of
making statements like this.....

--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

On 26/09/2016 21:26, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 18:33:35 UTC+1, Col wrote:


I don't however understand Alastairs's behaviour though, this thread
popped up again out of nowhere and he could have ignored it. People
(especially Asha) have attempted to debate with him reasonably, and most
certainly not abusively, yet he still flounces off.

Col,

I responded to Asha because she said she was not taking sides
But you accused her of taking sides!

and I assumed she had an open mind.
Even 'open minds' have to come to a conclusion though.

But it became clear that she wanted me to choose between two questions, which if I answered yes to either would have made me appear a fool,

much like the old standard. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" If you answer yes or no you are still admitting you are a wife beater.

Not content with employing the fallacy of the excluded middle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma she then accused me of not understanding logic.

It was obvious to me that wasn't going to give me any credit for my
knowledge logic or science so it seemed poitless to continue into a
slanging match.

Is that so bad?

There was never going to be any slanging match, the whole debate seemed
to be going perfectaly amicably. She *disagreed* with you, that's all.
I have no intention of trawling through what she wrote to decide whether
what you say is justiiable. Her words, not mine. If she wants to come on
here and defend herself then fine but from what I recall she conducted
herself perfectly reasonably.



Anyway I am about to flounce off again. We are now off the topic of cold radiation, and I have better things to do with my time than respond to insults such as "flouncing off."


If you seriously consider a term such as 'flouncing off' to be an insult
then I suggest you must be a very dainty thing who can't take the merest
hint of criticism. How you have survived this long on Usenet is a
mystery to me.

--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:26:27 PM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:

snip

Anyway I am about to flounce off again. We are now off the topic of cold radiation, and I have better things to do with my time than respond to insults such as "flouncing off."

========

Is one of those things writing a paper on cold radiation and getting it peer reviewed and published?

A word of advice: I wouldn't mention Pictet. As I pointed out far back his experiment has long-since been explained without resorting to cold radiation.


Stephen
Indianapolis IN

On 2016-09-26 21:18:42 +0000, Col said:


There was never going to be any slanging match, the whole debate seemed
to be going perfectaly amicably. She *disagreed* with you, that's all.
I have no intention of trawling through what she wrote to decide
whether what you say is justiiable. Her words, not mine. If she wants
to come on here and defend herself then fine but from what I recall she
conducted herself perfectly reasonably.

To do so would suggest a possibility that it was necessary whereas in
reality, I don't need to.


--
Asha
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk/food/home-grown.htm
Scotland

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:05:03 AM UTC-4, David Mitchell wrote:
I have every sympathy with Alistair on this. Science, physics, whatever have their place and can't be argued with on this issue. (But should really, as that's what science is about).

However, sometimes in life there are ways of explaining things that challenge the accepted definition and I totally understand his point and it's actually a very interesting idea. Wrong but interesting. But it actually gets the point across well.

Scientists will not comprehend that at all, but those with open minds will get it.

========

With respect, I cannot agree at all the scientists do not have open minds. They have to.

I don't agree either that "cold radiation" communicates anything well either! As it does not exist it muddles the matter, IMHO, by introducing an unnecessary concept, and I think that Alistair is actually proposing a new radiation paradigm rather than finding a way to describe what already exists.


Stephen
Indianapolis IN

On 2016-09-26 21:45:18 +0000, said:

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:05:03 AM UTC-4, David Mitchell wrote:
I have every sympathy with Alistair on this. Science, physics, whatever
have their place and can't be argued with on this issue. (But should
really, as that's what science is about). However, sometimes in life
there are ways of explaining things that challenge the accepted
definition and I totally understand his point and it's actually a very
interesting idea. Wrong but interesting. But it actually gets the point
across well. Scientists will not comprehend that at all, but those
with open minds will get it.
=======
With respect, I cannot agree at all the scientists do not have open
minds. They have to.



Scientists are not a separate species. The majority of them work for
corporate employers and do exactly what they are told. They do and say
what they must to earn a living just like everyone else. Profit
outweighs truth, always has and always will.

Of course there are some who seek the truth insofar as it is possible
to find it but that is true of many groups of people. They are still a
minority. To assume scientists are all the same is silly. Some have
open minds, some do not, as in any other group. The idea that to be a
scientist one must have an open mind is bizarre.

The pharmaceutical, tobacco, and oil industries all employ legions of
scientists. They do not have open minds and are looking for currency
units, not truths. Perhaps you think the reason a scientist searches
for the cure for cancer is to save people from the condition?

Mega lolz!

--
Asha
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk/food/home-grown.htm
Scotland

On Monday, 26 September 2016 22:45:20 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:05:03 AM UTC-4, David Mitchell wrote:
I have every sympathy with Alistair on this. Science, physics, whatever have their place and can't be argued with on this issue. (But should really, as that's what science is about).

However, sometimes in life there are ways of explaining things that challenge the accepted definition and I totally understand his point and it's actually a very interesting idea. Wrong but interesting. But it actually gets the point across well.

Scientists will not comprehend that at all, but those with open minds will get it.

========

With respect, I cannot agree at all the scientists do not have open minds.. They have to.

I don't agree either that "cold radiation" communicates anything well either! As it does not exist it muddles the matter, IMHO, by introducing an unnecessary concept, and I think that Alistair is actually proposing a new radiation paradigm rather than finding a way to describe what already exists.


Stephen
Indianapolis IN

Stephen,

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 :-)

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 5:58:59 PM UTC-4, Asha Santon wrote:


Scientists are not a separate species. The majority of them work for
corporate employers and do exactly what they are told. They do and say
what they must to earn a living just like everyone else. Profit
outweighs truth, always has and always will.

Of course there are some who seek the truth insofar as it is possible
to find it but that is true of many groups of people. They are still a
minority. To assume scientists are all the same is silly. Some have
open minds, some do not, as in any other group. The idea that to be a
scientist one must have an open mind is bizarre.

The pharmaceutical, tobacco, and oil industries all employ legions of
scientists. They do not have open minds and are looking for currency
units, not truths. Perhaps you think the reason a scientist searches
for the cure for cancer is to save people from the condition?

Mega lolz!

--
Asha
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk/food/home-grown.htm
Scotland

I'm writing in the context of this thread. Lumping all scientists together is what I was challenging. I see no need for your undisguised derision.

Stephen.

On Monday, 26 September 2016 22:39:14 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:26:27 PM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:

snip

Anyway I am about to flounce off again. We are now off the topic of cold radiation, and I have better things to do with my time than respond to insults such as "flouncing off."

========

Is one of those things writing a paper on cold radiation and getting it peer reviewed and published?

A word of advice: I wouldn't mention Pictet. As I pointed out far back his experiment has long-since been explained without resorting to cold radiation.


Stephen
Indianapolis IN

Pictet's experiments were explained by postulaing two flows of radiaion: to and from the thermometer ie a bidirectional flow. What was dismissed was 'radiation of cold' implying that cold existed as a different object to heat..

What has become clear since then is that unlike two flows of water which would blend, the incoming and outgoing radiation pass through each other and the net effect happens at the surface which is heated or cooled. But that takes us towards quantum mechanics which anyone who claims they understand it doesn't.

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