On Friday, 7 August 2015 21:02:54 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 6:08:18 PM UTC+1, JohnD wrote:

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.

Dawlish,

Answer the four questions.

Cheers, Alastair.

In article ,
says...
Do hot bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that hot radiation.

Why not just call it radiation?

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

Why not just call it radiation

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

If a body receives more radiation than it emits, it will warm.

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


If a body emits more radiation than it receives, it will cool.

--
Alan LeHun

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article ,
says...

I can assure you that Alastair will not forget Dawlish.


I'm the King of the Castle!
I'm the King of the Castle!

While others have tried to educate, you have simply indulged in
epicaracic mocking.


--
Alan LeHun

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 5:56:34 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

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.

Didn't you say that there was no 'proof' in science?
--
Col

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

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...

It was Dawlish that pointed out the idiocy. Backed by your good self and
everyone else who has replied to him, John.

This post adds zilch to the thread I'm afraid but, for the record, my
comment was intended to be shorthand for: 'Forget your running battle with
Dawlish and zoom out from that; just look at the fact that absolutely no-one
else here, including several with a relevant and professional scientific
background, is prepared to give the notion of cold radiation the time of
day. Doesn't that give you pause for thought?'

But it's fairly clear that the answer to that question is no. And so as
Stephen says, this thread has run its course of useful discussion.

On Friday, 7 August 2015 21:20:02 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:

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

Why not just call it radiation?

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

Why not just call it radiation

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

If a body receives more radiation than it emits, it will warm.

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


If a body emits more radiation than it receives, it will cool.

Exactly, if the radiation a body receives is from a cooler body, then the first body will cool. So it is possible to cool a body with radiation, and it only makes sense to call it cold radiation.

It is not defying the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because the first body will warm the second until both are at the same temperature. But it is difficult to experience or demonstrate because both bodies are surrounded by the ambient radiation. You need strict experimental conditions, such as those used by Pictet to see it happening.

Sorry if this is an angry reply. I am in the middle of responding to Dawlish.

Cheers, Alastair.

Dawlish,

I am not going to let myself be dragged down to your level. Answer my four questions or shut up.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:05:21 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
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 :-(

That's because you have no understanding of physics. It 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.

You really don't have any idea do you?

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

Whatever.


Cheers, Alastair.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:09:42 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Friday, 7 August 2015 21:02:54 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 6:08:18 PM UTC+1, JohnD wrote:

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.

Dawlish,

Answer the four questions.

Cheers, Alastair.

Oh hilarious! I now have 4 questions to answer! Just too funny.

Cold radiation is a figment of your imagination. Get used to it, because it is a fact.

In article ,
says...
Exactly, if the radiation a body receives is from a cooler body, then the first body will cool. So it is possible to cool a body with radiation, and it only makes sense to call it cold radiation.


No. As a visualisation, it does sort of work, but it isn't an accurate
representation of what is actually going on. It is thus not sense to use
it.

You wouldn't call the water going into a bucket, drippy water, and the
water coming out it, leaky water, and then try and claim that drippy
water and leaky water are somehow different types of water.

--
Alan LeHun