On Sunday, 9 August 2015 09:20:15 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/08/2015 21:26, Col wrote:
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?

But there is "disproof" - a subtle difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...tific_evidence

There is no proof of correctness of a theory. Every independent
experiment consistent with a theory merely improves confidence in it
until you find a novel *experiment* that breaks the status quo. We can
never be sure we have a complete description but we get a successively
better approximation to describing our universe as time passes.

However, a scientific theory must be capable of being *refuted* and one
clear refutation is more than enough to show that a widely held theory
is invalid or at the very least incomplete. You can prove that some
theory is wrong because it does not describe the universe we live in.

"Cold radiation" doesn't even get over the first hurdle it is complete
and utter ********(TM) in the same vein as N-rays and polywater.

Prove that!

"Alastair" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 08:23:42 UTC+1, Col wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
There hasn't been a single 'insult'.

You have been shown to be an idiot and have decided that you know better
than every single physicist alive today.

Well there has now!

Those were Dawlish's words not mine.
However I was careless in my quoting so it's understandable that you thought
it was me.
--
Col

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

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 2:59:10 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 07:30:58 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2015 15:52:09 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.

There is no such thing in Physics as "cold" - just lack of heat.

I am not saying "cold" exists. I am saying "cold radiation" exists, in the same way cold water exists.

Everything radiates heat, even a block of ice, the intensity of heat radiation being proportional to the 4th power of the Absolute Temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). So if a body is in cold surroundings it radiates more heat than it gets back and so is cooled. You could look at that as "cold radiation"; all this argument is really just one of semantics.

================================================== ======

Not as far as Dawlish is concerned. He doesn't believe in cold radiation. Perhaps he should have cold water poured over his head.

Cheers, Alastair.

Not just me. Alastair, every single person with even only the basics of an education in physics understands simple thermodynamics and knows that cold radiation is impossible.

You have demonstrated clearly that you don't understand this and I can assure you that is not my fault.

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:35:59 PM UTC+1, Col wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 08:23:42 UTC+1, Col wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
There hasn't been a single 'insult'.

You have been shown to be an idiot and have decided that you know better
than every single physicist alive today.

Well there has now!

Those were Dawlish's words not mine.
However I was careless in my quoting so it's understandable that you thought
it was me.
--
Col

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

My words and completely true. How deep can this man dig his hole? The entertainment value of watching Alastair digging has surpassed excellent.

On Sunday, 9 August 2015 09:35:20 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/08/2015 23:21, Alan LeHun wrote:
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.

You are confusing and conflating the net flux of energy with
temperature.

No, you are.

An object doesn't care about its surroundings it emits
radiation according to its own absolute temperature and surface
emissivity.

True.

The balance between the net fluxes of emitted and received
radiation determines the objects final equilibrium temperature.

Yes, but the output flux is fixed by the object's temperature, as you have just written. So the only way you can change the temperature is by alterations to the input flux. You raise the temperature with radiation from a hotter source and cool it with radiation from a cooler source, i.e. cold radiation.

You cool
a body by lack of incident radiation like when the sun goes down or the
sky clears at night.

When that happens the input flux is background radiation at 4K. That is what cools the surface. If the sky is cloudy, then the cooling is not as great, because the radiation from the clouds is not as cold. But it is cold relative to the Earth's surface, and so the surface cools to its temperature. In other words, the rate at which the Earth's surface cools depends on the temperature at which the incoming radiation is generated (modified by the effects of greenhouse gases).

I thought initially that you were trolling but it is now clear that you
do not understand the subject of radiative heat transfer at all.

I thought you were smart, but I see you are just as incapable of revising your preconceived ideas as Dawlish. But he's got an excuse. He isn't interested in the truth, only in making me appear foolish. I had thought you were better than that :-(


I think this is one of those things where having explained modern
thermodynamics patiently and with several different approaches we have
to consign Alastair to the same netkook status as Oriel36 in the
astronomy groups (he can't cope with sidereal days being fundamental).

That is an example of you explaining modern thermodynamics is it. All you have said is that when the sun goes down it gets colder!

We will end up going over the same ground forever. He will never be
convinced that he is wrong. All we can do is make sure that mainstream
thermodynamics is represented whenever this dross comes up again.

And you will never be convinced I am right. You ignore my arguments, and dismiss any evidence I present. You haven't even read the paper on the Pictet Experiment.

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.

How about lumping it in with phlogiston, polywater and N-rays?
"Cold radiation" is from the same stable.

I bet you enjoyed writing that but it has nothing to do with science.

Cheers, Alastair.

On 09/08/15 12:49, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"JohnD" wrote in message
...
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

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 .
===============================================

Alastair, I'm sure I'm wasting my time here, but let me try just one more
time:

Not as much as I am :-(

The reason for raising what you're termed an ad populum argument is that
you are seemingly very resistant to agreeing to logical scientific
argument. So all I was saying was that even if you dismiss all the
scientific arguments against your theory then does it really cut no ice at
all that no-one else in this fairly well informed forum is prepared to
offer even a modicum of support for it? If so, I can only conclude that
you're starting to show signs of a messiah complex, at least insofar as
physics is concerned.

But let's try one other approach: Science is generally content with the
simplest theory that fits all of the observable facts. (What's sometimes
referred to as Occam's Razor in some contexts.) Would you disagree with
that? A new theory is only needed when there are certain observations that
are not well-explained by the prevailing scientific orthodoxy.

This isn't a new theory. What I didn't realise was that others are so
unfamiliar with it.

So (and leaving to one side all the potential theoretical objections to
'cold radiation'), why the need to postulate two types of radiation when
all current observations can be perfectly well described by the standard
concept of radiation?

It is a shorthand term for "the raditation emitted by a cold body."

What are these observations and experimental results
that are at odds with the existing model?

I have given two examples of observations: the cold baby in an incubator,
and Pictet's experiment which is described in this paper
http://www2.ups.edu/physics/faculty/...experiment.pdf (Or
try googling "Pictet's experiment", but it doesn't get as many hits as
centrifugal force. :-) That paper even explains how to carry out the
experiment yourself. My detractors have given no examples of experiments,
and have only presented what you call "theoretical objections", (and a few
insults e.g. acusing me of having a "messiah complex". You will have to
ask them how they conflict with their model. The existing model is the one
I am using, which I will now describe.

All bodies emit radiation based on their temperature (blackbody radiation).
A cold object emits cold radiation. If that radiation falls on a hot object
then the hot object will cool.

NO!NO!NO!; radiation contains energy. The energy emitted by a cold body
and absorbed by a hot body will heat the hot body. Are you saying that a
cold body emits negative energy??
Please stop this stupidity.

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:31:52 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 09/08/15 12:49, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"JohnD" wrote in message
...
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

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 .
===============================================

Alastair, I'm sure I'm wasting my time here, but let me try just one more
time:

Not as much as I am :-(

The reason for raising what you're termed an ad populum argument is that
you are seemingly very resistant to agreeing to logical scientific
argument. So all I was saying was that even if you dismiss all the
scientific arguments against your theory then does it really cut no ice at
all that no-one else in this fairly well informed forum is prepared to
offer even a modicum of support for it? If so, I can only conclude that
you're starting to show signs of a messiah complex, at least insofar as
physics is concerned.

But let's try one other approach: Science is generally content with the
simplest theory that fits all of the observable facts. (What's sometimes
referred to as Occam's Razor in some contexts.) Would you disagree with
that? A new theory is only needed when there are certain observations that
are not well-explained by the prevailing scientific orthodoxy.

This isn't a new theory. What I didn't realise was that others are so
unfamiliar with it.

So (and leaving to one side all the potential theoretical objections to
'cold radiation'), why the need to postulate two types of radiation when
all current observations can be perfectly well described by the standard
concept of radiation?

It is a shorthand term for "the raditation emitted by a cold body."

What are these observations and experimental results
that are at odds with the existing model?

I have given two examples of observations: the cold baby in an incubator,
and Pictet's experiment which is described in this paper
http://www2.ups.edu/physics/faculty/...experiment.pdf (Or
try googling "Pictet's experiment", but it doesn't get as many hits as
centrifugal force. :-) That paper even explains how to carry out the
experiment yourself. My detractors have given no examples of experiments,
and have only presented what you call "theoretical objections", (and a few
insults e.g. acusing me of having a "messiah complex". You will have to
ask them how they conflict with their model. The existing model is the one
I am using, which I will now describe.

All bodies emit radiation based on their temperature (blackbody radiation).
A cold object emits cold radiation. If that radiation falls on a hot object
then the hot object will cool.

NO!NO!NO!; radiation contains energy. The energy emitted by a cold body
and absorbed by a hot body will heat the hot body. Are you saying that a
cold body emits negative energy??
Please stop this stupidity.

I don't think he is capable. Keep digging Alastair!

On 08/08/15 12:26, Alastair wrote:
I learnt my Kinematics at University while studying for an
engineering degree, not from some smart alec teacher. 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.

Nonsense. If you were in a seat on a roundabout facing inwards then you
would feel a force pressing into you back forcing you to move in a circle.
Try this experiment. Take a short piece of sting with a weight on the
end and whirl it round in a vertical circle. As the weight is at the top
of the circle, let go. If there was a centrifugal force it should move
outwards. It doesnt though. It will move off horizontally at a tangent
to the circle.

On 08/08/15 18:11, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"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.

If there is a body at x^0 centigrade alone in space; is it emitting:-

radiation,
hot radiation,
cold radiation,
something else ?

What would 99.999999999999999% of physicists' or maybe, engineers say?

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:52:26 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 08/08/15 18:11, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"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.

If there is a body at x^0 centigrade alone in space; is it emitting:-

radiation,
hot radiation,
cold radiation,
something else ?

What would 99.999999999999999% of physicists' or maybe, engineers say?

I think you may be underestimating the % who would not say 'cold radiation'. *))