On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 4:01:22 PM UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 04:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Alastair wrote:

I learnt my Kinematics at University while studying for an
engineering degree, not from some smart alec teacher.

I cannot believe that any qualified teacher or university professor
would be daft enough to teach that centrifugal force is real.

They wouldn't have. Alastair must have fallen asleep at this point and dreamed it exists, in the same parallel universe as cold radiation exists.

Yours wasn't
Dawlish by an chance? OK the centrifugal force is not a force field
like gravity, magnetism, etc., but the centrifugal force can be
calculated, see your link which describe it
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ugalForce.html . That
link is proof enough for me. Strange that one can get so many hits
for centrifugal force if it does not exist.

You can get many hits for chemtrails but that doesn't make them any
more real than centrifugal force.


By the way, if you do release the centripetal force, e.g. a hammer at
the Olympics games, then it will fly off, just as you predict if the
centrifugal force did exist.

The hammer flies off because the force is removed, there is no need to
invent another force to explain it.


--
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 Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 4:01:22 PM UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 04:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Alastair wrote:

I learnt my Kinematics at University while studying for an
engineering degree, not from some smart alec teacher.

I cannot believe that any qualified teacher or university professor
would be daft enough to teach that centrifugal force is real.

Yours wasn't
Dawlish by an chance? OK the centrifugal force is not a force field
like gravity, magnetism, etc., but the centrifugal force can be
calculated, see your link which describe it
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ugalForce.html . That
link is proof enough for me. Strange that one can get so many hits
for centrifugal force if it does not exist.

You can get many hits for chemtrails but that doesn't make them any
more real than centrifugal force.


'The moon landings never happened'
About 109,000 results (0.45 seconds)

9/11 CIA plot
About 858,000 results (0.39 seconds)


By the way, if you do release the centripetal force, e.g. a hammer at
the Olympics games, then it will fly off, just as you predict if the
centrifugal force did exist.

The hammer flies off because the force is removed, there is no need to
invent another force to explain it.

Correct.

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/

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
news:20150808160120.2e0028bb@home-1...
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 04:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Alastair wrote:

I learnt my Kinematics at University while studying for an
engineering degree, not from some smart alec teacher.

I cannot believe that any qualified teacher or university professor
would be daft enough to teach that centrifugal force is real.

Yours wasn't
Dawlish by an chance? OK the centrifugal force is not a force field
like gravity, magnetism, etc., but the centrifugal force can be
calculated, see your link which describe it
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ugalForce.html . That
link is proof enough for me. Strange that one can get so many hits
for centrifugal force if it does not exist.

You can get many hits for chemtrails but that doesn't make them any
more real than centrifugal force.


By the way, if you do release the centripetal force, e.g. a hammer at
the Olympics games, then it will fly off, just as you predict if the
centrifugal force did exist.

The hammer flies off because the force is removed, there is no need to
invent another force to explain it.


I really canot understand why this is being discussed at such length. The
laws of thermodynamics state that heat energy (radiation is a form of heat)
flows from warm to cold and entropy increases, end of, surely?

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 4:41:23 PM UTC+1, wrote:
"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
news:20150808160120.2e0028bb@home-1...
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 04:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Alastair wrote:

I learnt my Kinematics at University while studying for an
engineering degree, not from some smart alec teacher.

I cannot believe that any qualified teacher or university professor
would be daft enough to teach that centrifugal force is real.

Yours wasn't
Dawlish by an chance? OK the centrifugal force is not a force field
like gravity, magnetism, etc., but the centrifugal force can be
calculated, see your link which describe it
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ugalForce.html . That
link is proof enough for me. Strange that one can get so many hits
for centrifugal force if it does not exist.

You can get many hits for chemtrails but that doesn't make them any
more real than centrifugal force.


By the way, if you do release the centripetal force, e.g. a hammer at
the Olympics games, then it will fly off, just as you predict if the
centrifugal force did exist.

The hammer flies off because the force is removed, there is no need to
invent another force to explain it.


I really canot understand why this is being discussed at such length. The
laws of thermodynamics state that heat energy (radiation is a form of heat)
flows from warm to cold and entropy increases, end of, surely?

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

Yet another states the bleeding obvious to you Alastair.

Surely your ignorance here can't persist?

In article ,
says...


It cools because the absorbed radiation is colder than that which it is emitting.


I shall try one more time...
Assuming an object is not receiving any 'warm' radiation then...

An object receiving 'cold' radiation will cool.
The less 'cold' radiation the object receives, the quicker it will cool.
An object not receiving any 'cold' radiation will cool quickest.

This clearly demonstrates that 'cold' radiation does not cool objects
but does, in fact, warm them.




--
Alan LeHun

"Eskimo Will" wrote in message
...

I really canot understand why this is being discussed at such length. The
laws of thermodynamics state that heat energy (radiation is a form of
heat) flows from warm to cold and entropy increases, end of, surely?

I now realise that the problem is that we are talking at cross purposes.
They are talking about the balance of radiation which results in a NET flow
of heat from warm to cold. I am talking about the cooler of those two flows,
which is called cold radiation.

It is all very simple, but I am having trouble coping with the insults which
seem to accompany nearly every post, not just those from Dawlish, who of
course muddies the water when ever he can.

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alan LeHun" wrote in message
. ..

I shall try one more time...
Assuming an object is not receiving any 'warm' radiation then...

An object receiving 'cold' radiation will cool.
The less 'cold' radiation the object receives, the quicker it will cool.
An object not receiving any 'cold' radiation will cool quickest.

This clearly demonstrates that 'cold' radiation does not cool objects
but does, in fact, warm them.

The less 'cold' radiation it receives at a fixed temperature the SLOWER it
will cool. The only way to reduce the radiation at a fixed temperature is to
move the object away. If you move the cold object away, the radiation will
fall off with the square of the distance and the cone of cold radiation will
be narrower. The smaller cone will allow more radiation from the
surroundings which will be at the same temperature as the as the object. So
adding the additional radiation from the surroundings will cause the object
to cool more slowly.

Replace the cold body in the initial position with an even colder body, then
the first body will cool more quickly.

Good try!

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alan LeHun" wrote in message
.. .

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.

I would call them different if they were at different temperatures. If
the drippy water was cold water (colder than that in the tank), then
the temperature in the tank would fall. The leaky water would not
change the tank temperature, since it would be at the tank temperature.
However, its rate of flow would affect the rate at which the tank
temperature fell.

It is the same with radiation and objects, but of course two objects
(hot and cold) interchange radiation much as if you interconnected
two tanks of hot and cold water.

Cheers, Alastair.

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
news:20150808160216.61e461bc@home-1...
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 05:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
Alastair wrote:

What about the microwave background at 4K. Can't we call it cold
radiation?

No, because it's warmer than 0K.

Ice is warmer than 0K but you would call that cold, wouldn't you?

"JohnD" wrote in message
...
"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.

Stephen was right. I falsely accused you of committing the fallacy of ad
hominem. It should have been the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum .

That is the error that was comitted when nearly everyone thought the
new idea of continental drift was wrong, but they were not correct.
And everyone here thinks I am wrong, presumably because cold
radiation is a new idea to them. But it was proved experimentally
about 250 years ago.

Science is successful because every new idea is fiercely contested. But that
does not mean that the counter arguments are more valid than the
original thesis. In this case everyone is looking for the flaw in my
arguments, and no one trying to to see where they are correct. I agree with
you and Stephen, this thread has probably run its course of useful
discussion since no one will try to evaluate my ideas objectively.

Cheers, Alastair.