On Monday, 26 September 2016 22:18:47 UTC+1, Col wrote:
On 26/09/2016 21:26, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 18:33:35 UTC+1, Col wrote:


I don't however understand Alastairs's behaviour though, this thread
popped up again out of nowhere and he could have ignored it. People
(especially Asha) have attempted to debate with him reasonably, and most
certainly not abusively, yet he still flounces off.

Col,

I responded to Asha because she said she was not taking sides
But you accused her of taking sides!

Only when she refused to accept my answer to her question.

and I assumed she had an open mind.
Even 'open minds' have to come to a conclusion though.

Not before they have heard the evidence and then ignore it.

But it became clear that she wanted me to choose between two questions, which if I answered yes to either would have made me appear a fool,

much like the old standard. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" If you answer yes or no you are still admitting you are a wife beater.

Not content with employing the fallacy of the excluded middle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma she then accused me of not understanding logic.

It was obvious to me that wasn't going to give me any credit for my
knowledge logic or science so it seemed pointless to continue into a
slanging match.

Is that so bad?

There was never going to be any slanging match, the whole debate seemed
to be going perfectaly amicably.

That is why I ended it there.

She *disagreed* with you, that's all.

And told me I did not understand logic.

I have no intention of trawling through what she wrote to decide whether
what you say is justiiable. Her words, not mine. If she wants to come on
here and defend herself then fine but from what I recall she conducted
herself perfectly reasonably.

That's right. You have made up your mind I am in the wrong. You are quite content to ignore what I wrote. Your mind is made up.

Anyway I am about to flounce off again. We are now off the topic of cold radiation, and I have better things to do with my time than respond to insults such as "flouncing off."


If you seriously consider a term such as 'flouncing off' to be an insult
then I suggest you must be a very dainty thing who can't take the merest
hint of criticism. How you have survived this long on Usenet is a
mystery to me.

Well I have not been kept here by your friendly manner.

On Monday, 26 September 2016 23:34:51 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 6:08:52 PM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:

Who has approached this wih an open mind?

You are all convinced, wrongly, that the 2nd law states that there is only a flow from hot to cold. That only seems to be true when a cup of coffee cools in a room. It cools to room temperature. But that is because the room is so massive that its cooling effect on the coffee is overwhelming. In fact, following the law of conservation of energy, the coffee actually warms the room, but only inperceptively.

So the coffee is emitting warm radiation and the room cold radiation.

But I guarantee you will not accept this because no one is ever willing to change their beliefs. Now prove me wrong :-)


=========

It's not my job or anyone else's to disprove. I cite Russell's Teapot. It's your job to prove your extraordinary claim, which you singularly haven't.. I could argue equally that you are not willing to change your belief in "cold radiation". Right? What's the difference? I'm not going to change my knowledge that the Earth is more-or-less a sphere either unless there is convincing evidence.

Actually the difference is that everyone has read what you have written with an open mind, considered it, been unconvinced by it and taken time out of their days to explain why.

Now, I again suggest you write a paper for peer review and see if you get it published. Geophysical Research Letters or nature or something. How about that?

Stephen
Indianapolis IN

I wasn't suggesting that you prove that cold radiation does not exist. I have heard enough spurious arguments already. I was challenging you to change your mind and accept that there are two flows of radiation which can sensibly be labelled hot and cold, just as when water at different temperatures is mixed it is called hot and cold.

Or do you not accept that radiation flows from cold bodies? Answer yes or no and don't claim the fallacy of the excluded middle. It does not apply here.

"David Mitchell" wrote in message
...
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.

LOL people who visit me in my home always feel cold. Dunno why! :-)

Will
--
" Some sects believe that the world was created 5000 years ago. Another sect
believes that it was created in 1910 "
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On Monday, 26 September 2016 23:34:51 UTC+1, wrote:

Now, I again suggest you write a paper for peer review and see if you get it published. Geophysical Research Letters or nature or something. How about that?

Well I have been thinking about that over night, but I have come the conclusion that it woud be rejected on the grounds that it was saying nothing new.. This concept was explained about 200 years ago by Count Rumford who called cold radiation frigorific rays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjam...ific_radiation

I don't think a new name for an old well established concept is really grounds for a paper in a journal like Nature.

The other explanation for Pictets experiment was by Prevost (1790) who proposed what is now called Prevost's theory of exchanges which states that each body radiates emits to and receives from other bodies free radiant a very rare fluid, rays of which, like light rays, pass through each other without detectable disturbance of their passage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_equilibrium

Those two concepts correspond to the wave particle duality of light.

You need look no further than Wikipedia :-)

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 08:49:24 UTC+1, wrote:
"David Mitchell" wrote in message
...
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.

LOL people who visit me in my home always feel cold. Dunno why! :-)

Will
--
" Some sects believe that the world was created 5000 years ago. Another sect
believes that it was created in 1910 "
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

That cant't be true, Will. Surely they are warmed by your sunny personality.

OTOH, I had my central heating on for two hours last night, but partly to dry the washing :-)

Raining yesterday and today here in Wimborne.

"Asha Santon" wrote in message ...

Perhaps you think the reason a scientist searches for the cure for cancer
is to save people from the condition?

Fortunately it's a (reasonably) free country and you're at liberty to parade
your ignorance and prejudices for all to see!

"Alastair" wrote in message
...

The other explanation for Pictets experiment was by Prevost (1790) who
proposed what is now called Prevost's theory of exchanges which states that
each body radiates emits to and receives from other bodies free radiant a
very rare fluid, rays of which, like light rays, pass through each other
without detectable disturbance of their passage.
==================

Whatever happened to Mr Occam?

Those two concepts correspond to the wave particle duality of light.

In which way exactly?

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 09:39:44 UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message
...

The other explanation for Pictets experiment was by Prevost (1790) who
proposed what is now called Prevost's theory of exchanges which states that
each body radiates emits to and receives from other bodies free radiant a
very rare fluid, rays of which, like light rays, pass through each other
without detectable disturbance of their passage.
==================

Whatever happened to Mr Occam?

He died long before the wave particle duality of electromagnetic radiation was an issue.


Those two concepts correspond to the wave particle duality of light.

In which way exactly?

Rumford proposed to two rays of waves; Prevost proposed two rays of a physical fluid.

"Alastair" wrote in message
...

Whatever happened to Mr Occam?

He died long before the wave particle duality of electromagnetic radiation
was an issue.

Curious then that the validity of eg the Theorem of Pythagoras didn't cease
when he pegged it?

Those two concepts correspond to the wave particle duality of light.

In which way exactly?

Rumford proposed to two rays of waves; Prevost proposed two rays of a
physical fluid.

I'm struggling to parse the first clause of your reply, but at a guess
you're suggesting that the common factor is simply the word 'two'. Hardly a
compelling argument, I'd suggest.

Agreed, my reply was not very good :-( I'll try again.

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 14:38:14 UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message
...

Whatever happened to Mr Occam?

He died long before the wave particle duality of electromagnetic radiation
was an issue.
Curious then that the validity of eg the Theorem of Pythagoras didn't cease
when he pegged it?

OK, how about this?

In my scheme: a cold body radiates cold radiation which on hitting another warmer body cools it.

In the meteorological scheme: a cold body emits radiation which hits a second body. Since the radiation from the first body is less than the radiation emitted by the second warmer body, then the second body cools because it is emitting more radiation than it is absorbing.

Which scheme do you think Mr Occam would choose?

Those two concepts correspond to the wave particle duality of light.

In which way exactly?

Rumford proposed to two rays of waves; Prevost proposed two rays of a
physical fluid.

Rumford proposed two 'rays' of waves; Prevost proposed two 'streams/rays' of a physical fluid.

I'm struggling to parse the first clause of your reply, but at a guess
you're suggesting that the common factor is simply the word 'two'. Hardly a
compelling argument, I'd suggest.

No, I was trying to say that both schemes are the same, except in Rumford's scheme the rays are waves and in Prevost's scheme they are particles.

What I am describing is standard physics. It is just that, strangely, nobody seems to have used the term cold radiation to describe radiation from a cold body before.