On Thursday, 6 August 2015 16:13:18 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:52:09 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
Dawlish,

On Page 576 of University Physics with Modern Physics, Technology Update, Thirteenth Edition (2010), which continues to set the benchmark for clarity and rigor combined with effective teaching and research-based innovation, they write:

"Radiation. Heat transfer by radiation is important in some surprising places. A premature baby in an incubator can be cooled dangerously by radiation if the walls of the incubator happened to be cold, even when the air in the incubator is warm. Some incubators regulate the temperature measuring the baby's skin ..."

Hot objects radiate heat which warms adjacent objects. Cold objects radiate cold which cools adjects objects. The latter is difficult to demonstrate because it is more difficult to maintain a constant cold temperature than a high temperture. The latter is easy using electrical heating. However, holding a thermnometer over an object taken from a freezer will cause the temperature shown to drop.

I hope you will now realise that you are wrong, will apologise and admit your mistake. Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

This explains it to you. You can access any number of other academic explanations. You will not find a single one which tells you that heat moves from cool to hot, unless and external energy supply is applied. Now stop this silly belief you have and don't make this proposal again.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

I find your posts so insulting I have difficulty reading them. So it is only now that I am replying.

What is described there is the flow of heat energy - i.e. the kinetic energy of molecules. If you have a bar of metal heat can only flow in one direction - from the hot end to the cold end. But the hot end will get cooler and the cool end hotter.

The dame thing happens with radiation. The hot body emits hot radiation which warms the cold body and the cold body emits radiation which cools the hot body.

Do hot bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that hot radiation.
Do cold bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that cold radiation.

If a cold body absorbs hot radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will warm.
If a hot body absorbs cold radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will cool. Do you agree?

No!

Because you are a stupid arrogant little ****!

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair" wrote in message
...

The dame thing happens with radiation. The hot body emits hot radiation
which warms the cold body and the cold body emits radiation which cools the
hot body.
=================================

Forget Dawlish, but observe that no-one else here, not one single person,
has posted support for this notion. Remember also that the readership here
contains a very considerable amount of scientific expertise and insight, yet
no-one, no-one at all, believes 'cold radiation' is a credible concept.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:56:34 PM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2015 16:13:18 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:52:09 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
Dawlish,

On Page 576 of University Physics with Modern Physics, Technology Update, Thirteenth Edition (2010), which continues to set the benchmark for clarity and rigor combined with effective teaching and research-based innovation, they write:

"Radiation. Heat transfer by radiation is important in some surprising places. A premature baby in an incubator can be cooled dangerously by radiation if the walls of the incubator happened to be cold, even when the air in the incubator is warm. Some incubators regulate the temperature measuring the baby's skin ..."

Hot objects radiate heat which warms adjacent objects. Cold objects radiate cold which cools adjects objects. The latter is difficult to demonstrate because it is more difficult to maintain a constant cold temperature than a high temperture. The latter is easy using electrical heating. However, holding a thermnometer over an object taken from a freezer will cause the temperature shown to drop.

I hope you will now realise that you are wrong, will apologise and admit your mistake. Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

This explains it to you. You can access any number of other academic explanations. You will not find a single one which tells you that heat moves from cool to hot, unless and external energy supply is applied. Now stop this silly belief you have and don't make this proposal again.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

I find your posts so insulting I have difficulty reading them. So it is only now that I am replying.

What is described there is the flow of heat energy - i.e. the kinetic energy of molecules. If you have a bar of metal heat can only flow in one direction - from the hot end to the cold end. But the hot end will get cooler and the cool end hotter.

The dame thing happens with radiation. The hot body emits hot radiation which warms the cold body and the cold body emits radiation which cools the hot body.

Do hot bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that hot radiation.
Do cold bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that cold radiation.

If a cold body absorbs hot radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will warm.
If a hot body absorbs cold radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will cool. Do you agree?

No!

Because you are a stupid arrogant little ****!

Cheers, Alastair.

========

I understand your frustration but not a single other person agrees either. So are we all "arrogant little ****s?"

Your smart, so I don't understand why this is so difficult.

Stephen.

On Friday, 7 August 2015 18:08:18 UTC+1, JohnD wrote:

Forget Dawlish, but observe that no-one else here, not one single person,
has posted support for this notion. Remember also that the readership here
contains a very considerable amount of scientific expertise and insight, yet
no-one, no-one at all, believes 'cold radiation' is a credible concept.

What they believe is not scientific proof, and what you are using is a fallacious ad hominem argument. Attacking me rather than my arguments. What is your answer to my four questions? Let's discuss the science, not resort to political point scoring.

The experiment showing that cold can be radiated was performed in the 18th Century and it is described in this paper:
http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/...experiment.pdf
Pictet's experiment is not well known, so it it is not surprising that people in this newsgroup have not heard of it. But he did show that if the radiation from a flask filled with ice is focussed with mirrors onto a thermometer then its temperature will fall. And this happened before Herschel "discovered" infrared radiation.

Actually, it all came about as a result of Horace-Benedict de Saussure FRS, described by R.G. Barry as the First Alpine Meteorologist", discovering the greenhouse effect. You can read about it here in my translation of Chapter 35 of his book "Voyages dans les Alpes".
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.u...APTER%2035.pdf

Cheers, Alastair.

On Friday, 7 August 2015 18:25:05 UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:56:34 PM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2015 16:13:18 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:52:09 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
Dawlish,

On Page 576 of University Physics with Modern Physics, Technology Update, Thirteenth Edition (2010), which continues to set the benchmark for clarity and rigor combined with effective teaching and research-based innovation, they write:

"Radiation. Heat transfer by radiation is important in some surprising places. A premature baby in an incubator can be cooled dangerously by radiation if the walls of the incubator happened to be cold, even when the air in the incubator is warm. Some incubators regulate the temperature measuring the baby's skin ..."

Hot objects radiate heat which warms adjacent objects. Cold objects radiate cold which cools adjects objects. The latter is difficult to demonstrate because it is more difficult to maintain a constant cold temperature than a high temperture. The latter is easy using electrical heating. However, holding a thermnometer over an object taken from a freezer will cause the temperature shown to drop.

I hope you will now realise that you are wrong, will apologise and admit your mistake. Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

This explains it to you. You can access any number of other academic explanations. You will not find a single one which tells you that heat moves from cool to hot, unless and external energy supply is applied. Now stop this silly belief you have and don't make this proposal again.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

I find your posts so insulting I have difficulty reading them. So it is only now that I am replying.

What is described there is the flow of heat energy - i.e. the kinetic energy of molecules. If you have a bar of metal heat can only flow in one direction - from the hot end to the cold end. But the hot end will get cooler and the cool end hotter.

The dame thing happens with radiation. The hot body emits hot radiation which warms the cold body and the cold body emits radiation which cools the hot body.

Do hot bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that hot radiation.
Do cold bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that cold radiation.

If a cold body absorbs hot radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will warm.
If a hot body absorbs cold radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will cool. Do you agree?

No!

Because you are a stupid arrogant little ****!

Cheers, Alastair.

========

I understand your frustration but not a single other person agrees either.. So are we all "arrogant little ****s?"

Your smart, so I don't understand why this is so difficult.

Stephen.

See my reply to JohnD.

Why is it so difficult for you to answer my four questions?

Cheers, Alastair.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:23:54 PM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:
On Friday, 7 August 2015 18:25:05 UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:56:34 PM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2015 16:13:18 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:52:09 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
Dawlish,

On Page 576 of University Physics with Modern Physics, Technology Update, Thirteenth Edition (2010), which continues to set the benchmark for clarity and rigor combined with effective teaching and research-based innovation, they write:

"Radiation. Heat transfer by radiation is important in some surprising places. A premature baby in an incubator can be cooled dangerously by radiation if the walls of the incubator happened to be cold, even when the air in the incubator is warm. Some incubators regulate the temperature measuring the baby's skin ..."

Hot objects radiate heat which warms adjacent objects. Cold objects radiate cold which cools adjects objects. The latter is difficult to demonstrate because it is more difficult to maintain a constant cold temperature than a high temperture. The latter is easy using electrical heating. However, holding a thermnometer over an object taken from a freezer will cause the temperature shown to drop.

I hope you will now realise that you are wrong, will apologise and admit your mistake. Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

This explains it to you. You can access any number of other academic explanations. You will not find a single one which tells you that heat moves from cool to hot, unless and external energy supply is applied. Now stop this silly belief you have and don't make this proposal again.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

I find your posts so insulting I have difficulty reading them. So it is only now that I am replying.

What is described there is the flow of heat energy - i.e. the kinetic energy of molecules. If you have a bar of metal heat can only flow in one direction - from the hot end to the cold end. But the hot end will get cooler and the cool end hotter.

The dame thing happens with radiation. The hot body emits hot radiation which warms the cold body and the cold body emits radiation which cools the hot body.

Do hot bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that hot radiation.
Do cold bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that cold radiation.

If a cold body absorbs hot radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will warm.
If a hot body absorbs cold radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will cool. Do you agree?

No!

Because you are a stupid arrogant little ****!

Cheers, Alastair.

========

I understand your frustration but not a single other person agrees either. So are we all "arrogant little ****s?"

Your smart, so I don't understand why this is so difficult.

Stephen.

See my reply to JohnD.

Why is it so difficult for you to answer my four questions?

Cheers, Alastair.

========

Because with the last of those you are begging the question.

And on the subject of fallacies, in no way did JohnD resort to argumentum ad hominen; whereas I believe that you did a short while earlier.

I am jumping off this carousel of an argument now. Good luck.

Stephen.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
Alastair wrote:

On Friday, 7 August 2015 16:37:55 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:


You simply didn't appreciate the irony in Graham's post, did you?

Oh! So you mean the centrifugal force does exist?


No, it doesn't.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ugalForce.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/clas...rbidden-F-Word

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 5:56:34 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2015 16:13:18 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:52:09 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
Dawlish,

On Page 576 of University Physics with Modern Physics, Technology Update, Thirteenth Edition (2010), which continues to set the benchmark for clarity and rigor combined with effective teaching and research-based innovation, they write:

"Radiation. Heat transfer by radiation is important in some surprising places. A premature baby in an incubator can be cooled dangerously by radiation if the walls of the incubator happened to be cold, even when the air in the incubator is warm. Some incubators regulate the temperature measuring the baby's skin ..."

Hot objects radiate heat which warms adjacent objects. Cold objects radiate cold which cools adjects objects. The latter is difficult to demonstrate because it is more difficult to maintain a constant cold temperature than a high temperture. The latter is easy using electrical heating. However, holding a thermnometer over an object taken from a freezer will cause the temperature shown to drop.

I hope you will now realise that you are wrong, will apologise and admit your mistake. Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

This explains it to you. You can access any number of other academic explanations. You will not find a single one which tells you that heat moves from cool to hot, unless and external energy supply is applied. Now stop this silly belief you have and don't make this proposal again.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

I find your posts so insulting I have difficulty reading them.

I know. It's because they tell you that you are clearly and unambiguously wrong. No-one likes being told that, so they are difficult for you to read. I understand that you don't like that, but it doesn't change the fact that I and everyone else who has replied to you has told you that you are wrong and that any scientist would tell you clearly that you are wrong. Cold radiation simply does not exist and it's a shame you can't recognise that. The fact that you can't leaves you in a very poor light, I can assure you. You won't like that either and will probably hate me as a result. Water and duck's there, because you are proposing idiocy and everyone with a brain in this newsgroup knows you are.


No!

Because you are a stupid arrogant little ****!

Abuse. That's what happens when people are backed into a corner, because they are hopelessly and inescapably wrong.

Cold radiation is a figment of your imagination and if you have any sense, you will not mention it again in this *science* newsgroup. However, I fear you have not that sense. Thus, the reaction you get to proposing such idiocy will not be my fault, Alastair.


Cheers, Alastair.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 6:08:18 PM UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message
...

The dame thing happens with radiation. The hot body emits hot radiation
which warms the cold body and the cold body emits radiation which cools the
hot body.
=================================

Forget Dawlish, but observe that no-one else here, not one single person,
has posted support for this notion. Remember also that the readership here
contains a very considerable amount of scientific expertise and insight, yet
no-one, no-one at all, believes 'cold radiation' is a credible concept.

It was Dawlish that pointed out the idiocy. Backed by your good self and everyone else who has replied to him, John. I can assure you that Alastair will not forget Dawlish. Sometimes people like this just need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that their ideas are just stupid.

On Friday, 7 August 2015 19:51:32 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:

Oh! So you mean the centrifugal force does exist?


No, it doesn't.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ugalForce.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/clas...rbidden-F-Word

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

Does that mean you agree with me that cold radiation can/does exist?

However, I can't agree with you that the centrifugal force does not exist :-(
As I wrote in my previous post, if there were no centrifugal force opposing the (centripetal) force of gravity, then Earth would be pulled straight down towards the Sun. Newton's third law states that every force has an equal and opposite force. In the case of the Earth's orbit, the gravitational force is opposed by the equal and opposite centrifugal force, fictitious or not.

But, let's not fall out about it :-)

Cheers, Alastair.