On Sunday, 25 September 2016 12:00:57 UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:
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...

Maybe he is unitarian. We can't all be communists. But at least he is free to feel the cold if he wants to.

Perhaps if we could devise some sort of plan to lock him up and throw away the key. Wait... that's the plan for dawlish, I forgot.

I know; I am heat sensitive, why don't I have a go?

I got some beefburgers yesterday and they have been in the freezer. I will try and remember what's cooking, later.

On 2016-09-25 10:12:45 +0000, Alastair said:

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."



But there was no box 'none of the above'. Don't you get that?
Obviously, market research (and logic) is not familiar to you.

I matters not to me that you will not argue with me in future becasue I
was not arguing with you in the first place.
Does the ice cube radiate cold towards my finger? Of course it does but
that is my opinion and I may be wrong. People are welcome to hold the
opposing view. I am not frightened by that.

Do not assume that because I ask questions, I disagree with you.

I wish you well anyway as your posts are generally worth reading.

--
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!

Your idea of cold radiation is simply preposterous and it would need the second law of thermodynamics to be re-written. I can assure you that physicists would not do that for your idea. Time to recognise that and stop believing in this nonsense. Or, endure ridicule.

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 09:54:11 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
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.

Utter rubbish. It is not:

Wiki and you can find it in every physics textbook:

'...heat *always* flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies, and *never* the reverse, unless external work is performed on the system'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...g_of_ the_law

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.

You tried again to push this idiocy, failed miserably and you've sulked. Just change your mind and stop acting like a child.

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 12:14:10 UTC+1, Len Wood wrote:

I'll pitch in for what it's worth.
I think Alastair's cold radiation is referring to net radiative 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.

If I may I correct you, please:

Heat is relative, temperature is precise, that is why all those relatives in the OP were dying.

Put it anther way, there is a fellow in Coimbatore that has a ladder fixed top and bottom to a wall facing the sun. In sunny weather he is able to make forecasts about earthquakes.

That was because he noticed that on some sunny days it was warm and on others it was cold. It appeared he was receiving the same amount of radiation but it tuns out (presumably) that ice clouds too high to form a cohesive mass were cooling his ladder.

From the positions of the shadows cast he was able to give a broad spectrum forecast, either of large convergence waves; or nothing out of the ordinary "no worries" waves.

What appears to be happening in the mirror experiment, as opposed to the thermograph one, is that the ice is affecting the thermometer in a negative direction. And until someone arranges enough mirrors to demonstrate it; once and for all to see, we are never going to get to the end of this bus crash of an argument to nowhere.

I suggest that some of us, with the ability to arrange such things, have a look at the Youtube videos of converting satellite dishes to mirrors and sets up a couple of them to demonstrate it one way or the other. And until then, just shut the **** up!

All the wrong focii:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ldwWIPAwqk

Or at least refrain from ad hominem attacks like a bunch of dawlishes.

Meanwhile if you want to know what ice cloud creation appears as in a weather chart take a look at them developing by t+150 in this morning BoM's Southern Hemisphere run 25 September 2016. 06:00 + T+150: (actually 00:00 plus 150.)

http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/char... =Refresh+View

Now all you have to do is wait and see what the world's wettest sea has in its store rooms ready for the day of war.

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 14:09:06 UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, 25 September 2016 09:54:11 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
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.

Utter rubbish. It is not:

Wiki and you can find it in every physics textbook:

'...heat *always* flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies, and *never* the reverse, unless external work is performed on the system'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...g_of_ the_law

I wish you well anyway as your posts are generally worth reading. They make me feel good about me.

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 14:10:55 UTC+1, wrote just to show us what wet sheep think about when they are not thinking:


You tried again to push this idiocy, failed miserably and you've sulked. Just change your mind and stop acting like a child.

All this quote:

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.

Just to tell us that!

If I was Alice, I would not reply to him. But unfortunately, I love a bit of sheep scragging now and again, then I sell them to English people.

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

Nope. He really does believe in cold radiation. Really, he does.

On 25/09/2016 14:05, wrote:


Your idea of cold radiation is simply preposterous and it would need the second law of thermodynamics to be re-written. I can assure you that physicists would not do that for your idea. Time to recognise that and stop believing in this nonsense. Or, endure ridicule.

There is absolutely no need for ridicule.
As this is a scientfic newsgroup then debate, even robost debate, is all
that is necessary to get ones point across.
You don't have to mock the person you disagree with.

--
Col

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