"Vidcapper" wrote in message ...

But that incorrect notion *was* backed up by force by the church, though...

I get the feeling that I'm missing something in the point you're seeking to
make. But how is it relevant to Alistair's modern misapprehension - you'll
need to spell it out for me I'm afraid. As far as I know, Alistair does not
have the Pope on his side.

On 28/09/2016 10:05, 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."

What is complex about that? It is about as simple as you can get.

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.

It seems as if this newsgroup seems is driven by a herd mentality led
by Dawlish.

"I can't believe it."

It's not a binary situation though - just because Dawlish disagrees with
you, doesn't mean we agree with *him*.



--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

In article ,
says...
"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."

What is complex about that? It is about as simple as you can get.


If I have a bucket with two differently sized holes in the bottom, would
the water that leaks be called big water and small water? Or just water?

You are right in that there is nothing complex about it, Alistair.
Whether the object is warm or cold it emits radiation.

If you have two objects which are of marginally different temperatures,
the radiation emitted will be identical, save that one object will emit
more of it than the other, so you couldn't cal that radiation warm or
cold as your nomenclature is relative.

It is true, that there are temperature levels, either side of which, the
wavelength of the radiation from any particular material will change but
it is still the same radiation and more so, two objects of differing
material can emit the same wavelength of radiation even though they are
at vastly different temperatures. Are you saying that that radiation is
both warm and cold at the same time?

It isn't complex until you start adding warm and cold to it.

--
Alan LeHun

On 28/09/2016 08:39, Alastair wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 18:14:08 UTC+1, Col wrote:


I have not ignored what you wrote, I just disagree with it!
Yes my mid is made up, but then so is yours. So what's the difference?

My ideas are based on the science and common sense. Yours are based on your gut feelings. You wrote:
"There aren't two separate streams, one warm and one cold, somehow
battling it out for supremacy."

But 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.

Agreed in so far as all objects above absolute zero emit radiation.
However the cold object just emits less radiation than the hot one, it's
not a different *kind* of radiation.


I have conducted this discussion in a perfectly civil & courteous
manner. Un[ike you I've not called anybody an 'idiot' for example.

That is true, but please understand that I am being continually provoked (stalked) by Dawlish, and I find remarks which side with him extremely irritating.

As far as accusing him of being an idiot, it is a term that he has used himself on many occasions as I am sure you are aware.

So you are giving as good as you get, fair enough.
I wouldn't have commented upon it but I found it a bit rich you
effectively accusing me of being 'unfriendly' with a pretty ligt-hearted
remark about 'flouncing off' while you were calling somebody else an 'idiot'

--
Col

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

On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 08:04:24 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 02:21:10 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 21:26:35 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 20:29:03 UTC+1, wrote:

His experiment is so easily explained

Idiot.

Pity you said that. I was going to enjoy learning how he easily explains the Pictet results.

But now I realise he doesn't know what he is talking about. Baa.

Good point WL.

Well Dawlish, how do you explain Pictet's result?

Google is your friend. As I've told you to do at least 6 times. I've explained it to you before. Others have. You simply can't understand science.

Not my fault. Again (7) google it.

On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 08:39:17 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 18:14:08 UTC+1, Col wrote:


I have not ignored what you wrote, I just disagree with it!
Yes my mid is made up, but then so is yours. So what's the difference?

My ideas are based on the science and common sense.

Hahahaha! Oh! priceless.

ping

On 28/09/2016 16:40, JohnD wrote:
"Vidcapper" wrote in message ...

But that incorrect notion *was* backed up by force by the church,
though...

I get the feeling that I'm missing something in the point you're seeking
to make. But how is it relevant to Alistair's modern misapprehension -
you'll need to spell it out for me I'm afraid. As far as I know,
Alistair does not have the Pope on his side.

Of course not - he seems to think he *is* the Pope...


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Cold radiation seems very real. I'm a gov't whistleblower and quite often I'm attacked with a type of radiation that easily passes through metal and is cold enough to cause tissue damage. If I touch the affected area of my body with my hand it will feel cold. In many, many ways that we don't realize, our gov't has already made the impossible possible.

On 06/01/2018 20:40, wrote:
Cold radiation seems very real. I'm a gov't whistleblower and quite often I'm attacked with a type of radiation that easily passes through metal and is cold enough to cause tissue damage. If I touch the affected area of my body with my hand it will feel cold. In many, many ways that we don't realize, our gov't has already made the impossible possible.

Oh no, not this old chestnut again!

--
Col

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