On Sunday, 25 September 2016 07:28:52 UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:

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

1. Who is "We"?
2. Who is "You"?

We are all on one side or another over certain things. The ignorant and the stupid are the only ones in the middle.

Gods Ballet Class:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#curren...=4.882,-82.805

Either the world was a universe filled with **** before creation began or it was a near-vanna nothingness waiting for the first pin to drop.

What WE Are is trying to decide which side We Are On.

On 25/09/2016 09:48, Alastair wrote:
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.


That is a pure ad hominem arguement with no mention of the science.

It isn't 'ad hominem' to discuss the manner in which you are conducting
the argument.

I don't recall ever accusing people of picking on me

Not so. From your reply to Asha Santon:

"But it is obvious to me now that you are taking sides against me."

That very much sound like you are complaining that you are being 'picked on'

but your reply is an excellent example of just that!

Eh?
So voicing my opinion as to the manner in which you are discussing this
is construed as you being picked on??

--
Col

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

On 2016-09-25 09:29:27 +0000, Weatherlawyer said:

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 07:28:52 UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:

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

1. Who is "We"?
2. Who is "You"?

We are all on one side or another over certain things. The ignorant and
the stupid are the only ones in the middle.

Gods Ballet Class:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#curren...=4.882,-82.805


Either the world was a universe filled with **** before creation began
or it was a near-vanna nothingness waiting for the first pin to drop.

The answer (for you) is in the question. Nothing could have existed
before it was created, that being the definition of creation.

--
Asha
nature.opcop.org.uk
Scotland

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 09:49:03 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
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!

**** for brains says:
"Unfortunately X becomes very defensive with any attempt to even debate rationally, effectively accusing people of picking on him."
....all the time.

It his his defence mechanism against showing his ignorance.

On Saturday, 24 September 2016 22:36:05 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:

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.

That's a rather backhanded compliment.

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.

I always tick the box "None of the above."

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.

In answer to your question - Neither (None of the above). They are both wrong.

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 swore at the person because he ridiculed me, not because he didn't answer the questions.

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

I answered your question, but it seems you do not like my answer. Don't bother giving me yours, because I am not going to waste any

--
Asha
nature.opcop.org.uk
Scotland

Asha,

I am sorry to say this will be my last response to you. For me this is just a waste of time trying to think of arguments that will connect with people who have already made up their minds. However, thanks to you I have one new argument which I will now present.

If you take an ice box out of the freezer, which I have just done, and place your hand over it palm side down you may sense cold. If you urn your hand over, with the back of your hand over the tray then you will certainly sense the cold being radiated from the ice. That radiation exists. All objects radiate. I call that radiation cold radiation when it cools the object it falls on. Thus cold radiation exists by definition!

That's all I got to say not I am not going to get into further arguments with you or anyone else no matter how abusive they get.

Bye,

Alastair.

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 10:48:46 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:
On 2016-09-25 09:29:27 +0000, Weatherlawyer said:

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 07:28:52 UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:

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

1. Who is "We"?
2. Who is "You"?

We are all on one side or another over certain things. The ignorant and
the stupid are the only ones in the middle.

Gods Ballet Class:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#curren...=4.882,-82.805


Either the world was a universe filled with **** before creation began
or it was a near-vanna nothingness waiting for the first pin to drop.

The answer (for you) is in the question. Nothing could have existed
before it was created, that being the definition of creation.

The answer for everyone is that we take sides.
My side is the one where we find out how it all works.
Another side is that X gets to decide what he wants.
Another again is the side that most people believe. I am all for democracy so long as it is administered justly. But it is no way to decide.
Is it?

So this is what I have found so far:
The world is like a synoptic chart. Each successive one shows how it vibrates in an animation.
Sometimes the first cause allows knots to develop and sometimes it is all straightened out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polarizacio.jpg

Where the knots are turns out to be some sort of storm. Whether it is a layer of sediment deep in the earth or in a lake bed under a mountain or in the air we can almost see.

It is nice to know. It is nice to know that you can't take the clouds to make fish-food without making waves, is all there is to it!

I am not overly concerned about who believes me, although it would be nice to get someone capable of interfering with humanity to make things go just fine when the knot does its job.

But the only person I know who can do so effectively has given the problem to us because we are that kind of creature. He will provide limited funds to help us deal with it; if we ask him but we have to ask him.

If we all did that simultaneously, that would be a pleasant convergence. But what we usually end up with is some sort of psyclosis instead.

On 25/09/2016 11:12, Alastair wrote:


Asha,

I am sorry to say this will be my last response to you. For me this is just a waste of time trying to think of arguments that will connect with people who have already made up their minds. However, thanks to you I have one new argument which I will now present.

If you take an ice box out of the freezer, which I have just done, and place your hand over it palm side down you may sense cold. If you urn your hand over, with the back of your hand over the tray then you will certainly sense the cold being radiated from the ice. That radiation exists. All objects radiate. I call that radiation cold radiation when it cools the object it falls on. Thus cold radiation exists by definition!

No it doesn't!
Just because we can clearly feel both heat & cold on our hands doesn't
mean there are two distinct types of radiation. Yes of course we can
feel cold that is associated with something that is colder but that
simply means that the heat from our warmer hand is radiating/conducting
to that colder body so our hands cool down.
Cold really is just an absence of heat relative to the surroundings.

That's all I got to say not I am not going to get into further arguments with you or anyone else no matter how abusive they get.

Ah well, looks like I have wasted my time but I know you will read this.
Oh, and nobody has become abusive, well not on this 'resurrected'
portion of the thread anyway.

Bye,

Yeah, bye.
But you will be back to discuss this at some point in the future,
I can count on that

--
Col

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

On 25/09/2016 09:00, 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.


That explains *what* he does, but not why on earth it makes him think
his ideas are right, when the whole of the scientific mainstream says he
is wrong...

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 11:12:45 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 22:36:05 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:

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.

That's a rather backhanded compliment.

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.

I always tick the box "None of the above."

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.

In answer to your question - Neither (None of the above). They are both wrong.

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 swore at the person because he ridiculed me, not because he didn't answer the questions.

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

I answered your question, but it seems you do not like my answer. Don't bother giving me yours, because I am not going to waste any

--
Asha
nature.opcop.org.uk
Scotland

Asha,

I am sorry to say this will be my last response to you. For me this is just a waste of time trying to think of arguments that will connect with people who have already made up their minds. However, thanks to you I have one new argument which I will now present.

If you take an ice box out of the freezer, which I have just done, and place your hand over it palm side down you may sense cold. If you urn your hand over, with the back of your hand over the tray then you will certainly sense the cold being radiated from the ice. That radiation exists. All objects radiate. I call that radiation cold radiation when it cools the object it falls on. Thus cold radiation exists by definition!

That's all I got to say not I am not going to get into further arguments with you or anyone else no matter how abusive they get.

Bye,

Alastair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll pitch in for what it's worth.
I think Alastair's cold radiation is referring to net radaitive cooling,
i.e. surface (or layer) losing more radiation than gaining, therefore cooling.

Temperature is a on a scale.
It is bad physics to talk about a warm temperature. Temperatures are relative and it is better and correct to talk about a higher temperature rather than hot temperature.
Radiation is also on a scale.
A body is emitting radiation from a point high or low on the scale.
So strictly the terms warm or cold radiation are not allowed.

Having said that, the terms warm and cold temperatures are in common usage and the public don't complain about them.
So perhaps Alastair's cold and warm radiation will also come into commom usage.

Len
Wembury, SW Devon

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 12:14:10 UTC+1, Len Wood wrote:
On Sunday, 25 September 2016 11:12:45 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 22:36:05 UTC+1, Asha Santon wrote:

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.

That's a rather backhanded compliment.

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.

I always tick the box "None of the above."

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.

In answer to your question - Neither (None of the above). They are both wrong.

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 swore at the person because he ridiculed me, not because he didn't answer the questions.

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

I answered your question, but it seems you do not like my answer. Don't bother giving me yours, because I am not going to waste any

--
Asha
nature.opcop.org.uk
Scotland

Asha,

I am sorry to say this will be my last response to you. For me this is just a waste of time trying to think of arguments that will connect with people who have already made up their minds. However, thanks to you I have one new argument which I will now present.

If you take an ice box out of the freezer, which I have just done, and place your hand over it palm side down you may sense cold. If you urn your hand over, with the back of your hand over the tray then you will certainly sense the cold being radiated from the ice. That radiation exists. All objects radiate. I call that radiation cold radiation when it cools the object it falls on. Thus cold radiation exists by definition!

That's all I got to say not I am not going to get into further arguments with you or anyone else no matter how abusive they get.

Bye,

Alastair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll pitch in for what it's worth.
I think Alastair's cold radiation is referring to net radaitive cooling,
i.e. surface (or layer) losing more radiation than gaining, therefore cooling.

Temperature is a on a scale.
It is bad physics to talk about a warm temperature. Temperatures are relative and it is better and correct to talk about a higher temperature rather than hot temperature.
Radiation is also on a scale.
A body is emitting radiation from a point high or low on the scale.
So strictly the terms warm or cold radiation are not allowed.

Having said that, the terms warm and cold temperatures are in common usage and the public don't complain about them.
So perhaps Alastair's cold and warm radiation will also come into commom usage.

Len
Wembury, SW Devon

:-)