On 2016-09-24 21:16:10 +0000, Alastair said:

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 21:38:08 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:

If my hands are cold and you kindly place your warm hands either side
of my cold hand (not touching) my hand will absorb warmth from yours.
Yours will not absorb cold from mine.

Of course they will. My hands will cool whether we touch or not.

But it is not cold that my hands absorb. There is no such thing as
cold. It is the cold radiation from your hands which will cool mine.

But it is obvious to me now that you are taking sides against me. But
tell me which of the two choices you believe is correct.

I am not taking sides for or against you. Everyone else is against you.
I am trying to understand your beliefs because of the fact that you
persist in the face of ridicule interests me. I admire people who have
the strength to do that. Right and wrong does not come into it.

Have you ever been asked to take part in market research?
They ask questions like 'which of these is nearest to your political
view, slightly left of centre, centre, slightly right of centre?'
Now assuming you agreed to take part, you choose one. You don't ask the
interviewer to add a box 'somewhat left of Stalin' (or whatever) and
then have them tick it.

These things are very easy to answer. Indeed, they are formulated such
that everyone can. I did my best to formulate the choices I offered you
such that one would be nearest your view but could not know which.
There was no point in offering an exact match because nothing would be
gained by either of us.

I seem to remember reading you swearing at one person who would not
answer your four questions. You won't even answer one easy question.
Why is that? Doubts?

I will answer yours immediately afterwards. I did, after all, ask first.

--
Asha
nature.opcop.org.uk
Scotland

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 21:38:08 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 2016-09-24 20:19:29 +0000, Alastair said:

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 16:09:26 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 2015-08-06 14:52:07 +0000, Alastair said:

Cold radiation does exist.

I am not arguing or taking sides (hard to believe, I know) but please
consider this.

Place an ice cube on a suitable surface (use tongs to protect your
body heat) and move your forefinger near to it until you feel the
cooling effect. This is caused by:

a) The cold is radiating from the ice cube, causing your fingertip to
feel less warm than before, or

b) The warmth from your finger is radiating towards the cooler ice
cube, causing your fingertip to feel less warm than before.

Then try this.

Put a kettle on to boil and move a fingertip towards the body of the
kettle until you feel the heat (taking great care not to burn
yourself). This is caused by:

c) The heat is radiating from the kettle, causing your fingertip to
feel warmer than before, or

d) The relative cold from your finger is radiating towards the kettle,
causing your fingertip to feel warmer than before.

The explanations for each outcome must agree, in other words you may
choose (a) and (d) as the answer or (b) and (c). Other combinations
would be self cancelling and therefore incorrect.

No advanced physics, no references to abstruse web sites, just a
simple experiment that we can all do and probably have done by chance
many times.

--
Asha
nature.opcop.org.uk
Scotland

Asha, the correct pair are a and c. In the case of both the ice cube
and the kettle the radiation from your finger does not change. So how
can it be an agent?

If my hands are cold and you kindly place your warm hands either side
of my cold hand (not touching) my hand will absorb warmth from yours.
Yours will not absorb cold from mine. Fingers radiate and that
radiation varies constantly (unless you are seriously ill).

I believe that is the case with the babies in question. A premature baby should be in a very warm environment with the mother doing all the heat regulating including as and when the baby moves and would get warm from exercise..

In an incubator the baby is absorbing more heat than would be set for an healthy one. And having it's environment set to certain larger healthier baby's standards kills them. Not all of them as even that cot death expert/scientit would have noticed.

Why is it when one offers someone two choices, they always
pick a third non-existent option?

I repeat, "you may choose (a) and (d) as the answer or (b) and (c)."
Choose an option available to you. I am making the offer; you do not
get to invent options for yourself.

Not without verifying by experiment one's self. Pity that we no longer have scientists in meteorology these days.

The problem with feeling cold is it is subject to your diet and attitude. I as a gout sufferer am particularly sensitive to heat I can tell when I walk past a stove or saucepan when it was last used within a couple of hours.

And if I eat certain foods that set me off I feel cold for hours until I vacuate it. YMWV.

But the original experiment demands a radiant heat source. We know about IR but there is no known invisible negative heat radiance so the answer must be that the mirror is contracting enough to deflect the focus or that the radiation is being polarised.

But in that case why is it not perturbed by the heat source?
The thermoscope was a clever invention considering nobody knew what heat was. But it was clearly not an equivalent experiment.

6.9 NEI Fiji Islands I might have got that but was mislead by volcanic activity. I think it should be given a mag 7 rating. There was another smaller one 3 degrees away 20 minutes earlier, so it won't be (6.4 NEI Tonga.)

The reason I point these out is that the contemporary idea about them is "strain release". But there is no mechanism for it. Continental Drift requires a mechanism and if we can't have centrifugal force then we certainly can't have Coriolis "effect".

We certainly get gyroscopic effect in even small guns:
A gun is sighted by the finest marksman and electronic gizmo but then it is fired there is a heavy moving spinning particle inside the barrel.

The gun yaws the way a vehicle would. Once released the missile is no longer connected to the now reacting gun. So that is all there ever was to that theory. The motion of Malakas demonstrates gyroscopic nutation too. As a storm loses rotation the path changes Malakas has rebuilt so the forecast track has straightened.

We can have polarisation of waves and this idea may lead to understanding the link between storm cyclosis and the odd way that earthquakes appear in the lists before and after them.
Consider how a pliable asthenosphere is supposed to store strain for millennia.

Food for though tonight.

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 22:16:11 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 21:38:08 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:

If my hands are cold and you kindly place your warm hands either side
of my cold hand (not touching) my hand will absorb warmth from yours.
Yours will not absorb cold from mine.

Of course they will. My hands will cool whether we touch or not.

But it is not cold that my hands absorb. There is no such thing as cold. It is the cold radiation from your hands which will cool mine.

But it is obvious to me now that you are taking sides against me. But tell me which of the two choices you believe is correct.

If radiation is photon transfer, they have mass. And the transfer of mass has a reaction to it. What is that reaction?

Ecclesiastes 3:10, 11 & 12.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...12&version=LEB

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 21:19:30 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:


WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT..... ICE CUBES EMIT COLD RADIATION

One day you will accept the laws of thermodynamics and realise why people are laughing at you.

On 24/09/2016 22:16, Alastair wrote:
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 21:38:08 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:

If my hands are cold and you kindly place your warm hands either
side of my cold hand (not touching) my hand will absorb warmth from
yours. Yours will not absorb cold from mine.

Of course they will. My hands will cool whether we touch or not.

But it is not cold that my hands absorb. There is no such thing as
cold. It is the cold radiation from your hands which will cool mine.

But it is obvious to me now that you are taking sides against me. But
tell me which of the two choices you believe is correct.


We are not 'taking sides', we are just trying to point you in the
direction of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...thermodynamics

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 07:28:52 UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:
On 24/09/2016 22:16, Alastair wrote:
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 21:38:08 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:

If my hands are cold and you kindly place your warm hands either
side of my cold hand (not touching) my hand will absorb warmth from
yours. Yours will not absorb cold from mine.

Of course they will. My hands will cool whether we touch or not.

But it is not cold that my hands absorb. There is no such thing as
cold. It is the cold radiation from your hands which will cool mine.

But it is obvious to me now that you are taking sides against me. But
tell me which of the two choices you believe is correct.


We are not 'taking sides', we are just trying to point you in the
direction of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...thermodynamics

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Exactly that. I may have put it a little stronger. *))

On 25/09/2016 07:28, Vidcapper wrote:
On 24/09/2016 22:16, Alastair wrote:
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 21:38:08 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:

If my hands are cold and you kindly place your warm hands either
side of my cold hand (not touching) my hand will absorb warmth from
yours. Yours will not absorb cold from mine.

Of course they will. My hands will cool whether we touch or not.

But it is not cold that my hands absorb. There is no such thing as
cold. It is the cold radiation from your hands which will cool mine.

But it is obvious to me now that you are taking sides against me. But
tell me which of the two choices you believe is correct.


We are not 'taking sides', we are just trying to point you in the
direction of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...thermodynamics

Unfortunately Alastair becomes very defensive with any attempt to even
debate rationally, effectively accusing people of picking on him.

--
Col

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

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 09:00:11 UTC+1, Col wrote:
On 25/09/2016 07:28, Vidcapper wrote:
On 24/09/2016 22:16, Alastair wrote:
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 21:38:08 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:

If my hands are cold and you kindly place your warm hands either
side of my cold hand (not touching) my hand will absorb warmth from
yours. Yours will not absorb cold from mine.

Of course they will. My hands will cool whether we touch or not.

But it is not cold that my hands absorb. There is no such thing as
cold. It is the cold radiation from your hands which will cool mine.

But it is obvious to me now that you are taking sides against me. But
tell me which of the two choices you believe is correct.


We are not 'taking sides', we are just trying to point you in the
direction of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...thermodynamics

Unfortunately Alastair becomes very defensive with any attempt to even
debate rationally, effectively accusing people of picking on him.

--
Col

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

That is a pure ad hominem arguement with no mention of the science. I don't recall ever accusing people of picking on me but your reply is an excellent example of just that!

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 07:28:52 UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:
On 24/09/2016 22:16, Alastair wrote:
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 21:38:08 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:

If my hands are cold and you kindly place your warm hands either
side of my cold hand (not touching) my hand will absorb warmth from
yours. Yours will not absorb cold from mine.

Of course they will. My hands will cool whether we touch or not.

But it is not cold that my hands absorb. There is no such thing as
cold. It is the cold radiation from your hands which will cool mine.

But it is obvious to me now that you are taking sides against me. But
tell me which of the two choices you believe is correct.


We are not 'taking sides', we are just trying to point you in the
direction of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...thermodynamics

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul H. The second law of dynamics is bidirectional. You have never seen a cup of coffee warm up but you also have never seen an ice cube cool down. They always do warm up and melt. Heat flows to achieve and equilibrium not only towards cold.

On 2016-09-24 21:36:03 +0000, Asha Santon said:

On 2016-09-24 21:16:10 +0000, Alastair said:

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 21:38:08 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:

If my hands are cold and you kindly place your warm hands either side
of my cold hand (not touching) my hand will absorb warmth from yours.
Yours will not absorb cold from mine.

Of course they will. My hands will cool whether we touch or not.

But it is not cold that my hands absorb. There is no such thing as
cold. It is the cold radiation from your hands which will cool mine.

But it is obvious to me now that you are taking sides against me. But
tell me which of the two choices you believe is correct.

I am not taking sides for or against you. Everyone else is against you.
I am trying to understand your beliefs because of the fact that you
persist in the face of ridicule interests me. I admire people who have
the strength to do that. Right and wrong does not come into it.

Have you ever been asked to take part in market research?
They ask questions like 'which of these is nearest to your political
view, slightly left of centre, centre, slightly right of centre?'
Now assuming you agreed to take part, you choose one. You don't ask the
interviewer to add a box 'somewhat left of Stalin' (or whatever) and
then have them tick it.

These things are very easy to answer. Indeed, they are formulated such
that everyone can. I did my best to formulate the choices I offered you
such that one would be nearest your view but could not know which.
There was no point in offering an exact match because nothing would be
gained by either of us.

I seem to remember reading you swearing at one person who would not
answer your four questions. You won't even answer one easy question.
Why is that? Doubts?

I will answer yours immediately afterwards. I did, after all, ask first.

Alastair, thank you for your responses. I am sorry that you are unable
to continue.
Things are seldom absolutely black and white as you will see if you
watch a film of that type. Rather, things may be defined a little more
accurately as 256 Greyscale. Refusing to move from an absolute square
to a slightly grey one answers all of my questions, not least because
certainty is a very dangerous attribute.

--
Asha
nature.opcop.org.uk
Scotland