In article ,
says...
If you place your finger below a kettle, to prevent it being affected by convection, it will feel warm because of the warm radiation, and if you place it above and ice cube it will feel cold because of the cold radiation.


No. It will feel cold because of the lack of warm radiation.

If the level of radiation that your finger is receiving is greater than
the level it is emitting, your finger will (feel) warm. Conversely, if
your finger is emitting more energy than it is receiving, it will (feel)
cool.

I thought we had cleared this up last time.

Your cold radiation and your warm radiation are the same thing. They are
just at different energy levels.

--
Alan LeHun

"Col" wrote in message ...

You don't have to mock the person you disagree with.

Agreed. But Alistair is a particularly persistent repeat offender on this
issue despite extensive exposure to all the contrary evidence - it's
scarcely surprising if exasperation sets in.

What I'm curious about is what the (negative?) energy transfer agent of any
putative cold radiation could conceivably be? We have EM radiation for
normal energy transfer by radiative means. What's the corresponding
wave/particle/whatever for 'cold radiation'?

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 16:04:23 UTC+1, Col wrote:
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

Cold radiation? In the face of every physicist on earth and established scientific law, accepted by all in science? Cue flat earthers? Do they not deserve ridicule? Or how about creationists? You wouldn't ridicule either of those points of view? Really? All these people are entitled to their opinion, but I can assure you they receive ridicule in scientific circles, as they have in this newsgroup. I'd always defend someone's right to their point of view, bit I'd always laugh at good comedy - as do others. That's why he has received ridicule on here - and certainly not just from me.

On 25/09/2016 18:01, wrote:
On Sunday, 25 September 2016 16:04:23 UTC+1, Col wrote:
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

Cold radiation? In the face of every physicist on earth and established scientific law, accepted by all in science? Cue flat earthers? Do they not deserve ridicule? Or how about creationists? You wouldn't ridicule either of those points of view? Really? All these people are entitled to their opinion, but I can assure you they receive ridicule in scientific circles, as they have in this newsgroup. I'd always defend someone's right to their point of view, bit I'd always laugh at good comedy - as do others. That's why he has received ridicule on here - and certainly not just from me.

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

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 18:01:50 UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, 25 September 2016 16:04:23 UTC+1, Col wrote:
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

Cold radiation? In the face of every physicist on earth and established scientific law, accepted by all in science? Cue flat earthers? Do they not deserve ridicule? Or how about creationists? You wouldn't ridicule either of those points of view? Really? All these people are entitled to their opinion, but I can assure you they receive ridicule in scientific circles, as they have in this newsgroup. I'd always defend someone's right to their point of view, bit I'd always laugh at good comedy - as do others. That's why he has received ridicule on here - and certainly not just from me.

Thanks Dawlish. I was just meditating on the attacks I have made on you and realising that Jesus was sternly admonishing his followers from committing ad hominem attacks when he said we are not to describe anyone abusively.

I had been contemplating the downer of the day of having to apologise to a **** like you. But there wouldn't be much point to it, since he also instructed us to tell the truth.

Odd his opponents never realised that conundrum. Maybe they were like you; unable to see clearly because of the wool over their eyes.

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 17:30:38 UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
"Col" wrote in message ...

You don't have to mock the person you disagree with.

Agreed. But Alistair is a particularly persistent repeat offender on this
issue despite extensive exposure to all the contrary evidence - it's
scarcely surprising if exasperation sets in.

What I'm curious about is what the (negative?) energy transfer agent of any
putative cold radiation could conceivably be? We have EM radiation for
normal energy transfer by radiative means. What's the corresponding
wave/particle/whatever for 'cold radiation'?

The problem could easily be resolved without recourse to finding out:
Imagine a spherical light box made with the most reflective substance known....
(or a number of said boxen with a variety of highly reflective linings -just to act as controls since we don't know what is permeable to this radiation's frequency)
....placed in a perfect vacuum (free-falling in Space perhaps) the contents if ice would reach super-cool temperatures without losing any heat.

Except for the fact as Alan has just said, the ice under discussion has a different energy level, being a mere 20C more or less below room temperature..

A point that seems to have escaped the original researchers, in a time before anyone was able to understand the concept of absolute zero, is that if they kept replacing the ice, the temperature at the thermometer; that mirror's focal point, would have reached 0C.

One wonders why they never thought of that or/and why the phenomenon was largely forgotten. Physicists are never too busy for physics. Which is why none of them are at work on the solution just now; obviously. Baaah!

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 19:02:49 UTC+1, Col wrote:
On 25/09/2016 18:01, wrote:
On Sunday, 25 September 2016 16:04:23 UTC+1, Col wrote:
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

Cold radiation? In the face of every physicist on earth and established scientific law, accepted by all in science? Cue flat earthers? Do they not deserve ridicule? Or how about creationists? You wouldn't ridicule either of those points of view? Really? All these people are entitled to their opinion, but I can assure you they receive ridicule in scientific circles, as they have in this newsgroup. I'd always defend someone's right to their point of view, bit I'd always laugh at good comedy - as do others. That's why he has received ridicule on here - and certainly not just from me.

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

Mockery? Hardly. It's simply astonishment and laughter from those of us that see Alastair proposing to change the laws of physics to suit his beliefs. When his arguments fail - as, of course, they always do - he takes the sulk road and attempts to end the conversation because he feels he's being picked on, as no-one believes him. It's happened every single time he's proposed cold radiation. Oddly, people really do laugh then!

I think he just can't grasp the concept and can't admit that he doesn't understand this physical law. If he did, he wouldnt try to push what he does.

I have every sympathy with Alistair on this. Science, physics, whatever have their place and can't be argued with on this issue. (But should really, as that's what science is about).

However, sometimes in life there are ways of explaining things that challenge the accepted definition and I totally understand his point and it's actually a very interesting idea. Wrong but interesting. But it actually gets the point across well.

Scientists will not comprehend that at all, but those with open minds will get it.

Incidentally, I have cold radiators.

Dawlish discussed the science for once and brought a point which I think is what is confusing everyone.

He wrote "'...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_law_of_thermodynamics#Intuitive_meaning_of_ the_law"

But the sentence actually reads "FOR EXAMPLE, heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies ...". That is not a statement of the second law, it is an example. Another example is that cold always flows from a colder to a hotter body unless external work is performed on the system e.g a refigerator.

Putting it another way hot objects always cool and cold objects always warm e.g, cup of coffeee and an ice cube. But hot cups of coffe are so common it is easy to forget about cold ice cubes. (Thanks Asha for reminding me.)

Moreover, as I have already explained, the difference in temperature between and ice cube and room temperature is much less than that between a boiling kettle and room temperature. It is only when you have a tray of ice cubes and you use the back of your hand that you can sense the cold radiation.

Pictet used a sensitive air thermometer and had cooled his ice with nitric acid when he discovered cold radiation. Count Rumford, the famous physicist, could not reproduce the experiment until he was shown how in Edinburgh.

In article ,
says...
Mockery? Hardly. It's simply astonishment and laughter from those of us that see Alastair proposing to change the laws of physics to suit his beliefs.


What about Christians, or Muslims, or anyone who believes in a
supernatural overseer? Would you mock them too?

Not rhetorical. Serious question.

--
Alan LeHun