On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:26:01 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
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.

No, that is what Dawlish would claim I am saying, if he were bright enough.

Quote: "Why do you start your post with insults? Is that the way you were taught
science at school?' YOU said this, not one post ago, Alastair shakes head, laughing

The energy arriving from a cold body is not enough to maintain the
temperature of the hot body, which is emitting black body radiation at
a greater intensity and so it cools.

What you utterly fail to appreciate, is that the warmer body is **not** being cooled by the 'cold radiation' from the cooler one. Why will you not investigate the actual physics and why do you keep repeating this total ignorance about cold radiation?

Cheers, Alastair.

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:26:02 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
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 100% of engineers and 99% of scientists would say it is emitting
blackbody radiation.

I would say 100% of scientists. None would say that the warmer body is being cooled by 'cold radiation'. Not one. Zilch.

Yet you say it is.

See your problem? No? Didn't think you would.

In article ,
says...
The energy arriving from a cold body is not enough to maintain the
temperature of the hot body, which is emitting black body radiation at
a greater intensity and so it cools.

What you utterly fail to appreciate, is that the warmer body is **not** being cooled by the 'cold radiation' from the cooler one


You are not reading, again!

It is beginning to look to me as though Alistair maybe looking at the
issue from a perspective more familiar to the rest of us. I can see
little wrong with the quote above. If only he had just left out the term
'black body'....


--
Alan LeHun

On Sunday, 9 August 2015 18:43:52 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:26:02 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message


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 100% of engineers and 99% of scientists would say it is emitting
blackbody radiation.

I would say 100% of scientists. None would say that the warmer body is being cooled by 'cold radiation'. Not one. Zilch.

Well 100% of the engineers would say it is being cooled. Might be less than 99% of the scientists. How many do you think would claim, like you, that the warmer body would be made even hotter by an adjacent cold body?

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:10:32 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 18:43:52 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:26:02 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message


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 100% of engineers and 99% of scientists would say it is emitting
blackbody radiation.

I would say 100% of scientists. None would say that the warmer body is being cooled by 'cold radiation'. Not one. Zilch.

Well 100% of the engineers would say it is being cooled. Might be less than 99% of the scientists. How many do you think would claim, like you, that the warmer body would be made even hotter by an adjacent cold body?

Errrrrr. None, as they understand the second law of thermodynamics. You don't. Simple as that.

On Friday, 7 August 2015 18:25:05 UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote:

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

Stephen.

Because I was not smart enough to realise Dawlish thinks that because a cold body radiaties blackbody radiation it will warm an adjacent body. That is just unbelievable - wouldn't you agree? Surely even a fool like him can't think that.

On Sunday, 9 August 2015 19:18:18 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:10:32 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 18:43:52 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:26:02 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message


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 100% of engineers and 99% of scientists would say it is emitting
blackbody radiation.

I would say 100% of scientists. None would say that the warmer body is being cooled by 'cold radiation'. Not one. Zilch.

Well 100% of the engineers would say it is being cooled. Might be less than 99% of the scientists. How many do you think would claim, like you, that the warmer body would be made even hotter by an adjacent cold body?

Errrrrr. None, as they understand the second law of thermodynamics. You don't. Simple as that.

Then how many would think it is made cooler?

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:26:55 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Friday, 7 August 2015 18:25:05 UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote:

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

Stephen.

Because I was not smart enough to realise Dawlish thinks that because a cold body radiaties blackbody radiation it will warm an adjacent body. That is just unbelievable - wouldn't you agree? Surely even a fool like him can't think that.

Listen to what others are saying and don't try to focus on one person. The whole newsgroup is telling you you are wrong and not a single piece of published work beyond the 18th century supports you.

Geddit?

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:28:39 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 19:18:18 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:10:32 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 18:43:52 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:26:02 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"RedAcer" wrote in message


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 100% of engineers and 99% of scientists would say it is emitting
blackbody radiation.

I would say 100% of scientists. None would say that the warmer body is being cooled by 'cold radiation'. Not one. Zilch.

Well 100% of the engineers would say it is being cooled. Might be less than 99% of the scientists. How many do you think would claim, like you, that the warmer body would be made even hotter by an adjacent cold body?

Errrrrr. None, as they understand the second law of thermodynamics. You don't. Simple as that.

Then how many would think it is made cooler?

It cools via net radiation balance. It is not 'made cooler'. **None** would think that because it doesn't happen and can't happen. Cold radiation, by which a colder body cools a warmer one is impossible, as defined by the second law of thermodynamics. Oddly you don't seem able to re-write that law.

The fact that you don't understand this is your problem; no-one else's. All we can do is point it our to you until you learn, or until you disappear from this thread, still ignorant of the physics.

On Sunday, 9 August 2015 19:34:13 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

It cools via net radiation balance. It is not 'made cooler'.

So if we took the cold object away, the hot one would still cool? You are saying it is not the cold object that is making it cold.