With respect, I cannot agree at all the scientists do not have open minds. They have to.

I don't agree either that "cold radiation" communicates anything well either! As it does not exist it muddles the matter, IMHO, by introducing an unnecessary concept, and I think that Alistair is actually proposing a new radiation paradigm rather than finding a way to describe what already exists.


Stephen
Indianapolis IN

OK Stephen, open minds was the incorrect term, as not to have an open mind would not be helpful! I should have paid more heed to this discussion and been more careful with terminology, as it seems to confuse.
What I'm suggesting, at risk of being ridiculed and speaking as a total non-scientist baffled by much of the science under discussion, is that from an artistic point of view, the way Alistair describes cold radiation is an interesting description, maybe more understandable to some than some of the science.
As a result, this understanding may appeal to some, but not scientists because their understanding is at a scientific level and this description appears nonsensical, hence their minds would be more likely to be closed to the concept.
3c last night, so considering applying a bit of heat to my cold radiators and will watch the results carefully.

"David Mitchell" wrote in message
...

OK Stephen, open minds was the incorrect term, as not to have an open mind
would not be helpful! I should have paid more heed to this discussion and
been more careful with terminology, as it seems to confuse.
What I'm suggesting, at risk of being ridiculed and speaking as a total
non-scientist baffled by much of the science under discussion, is that from
an artistic point of view, the way Alistair describes cold radiation is an
interesting description, maybe more understandable to some than some of the
science.
===========================================

David, I don't think that you need to be a scientist to understand what lies
behind this continuing challenge to Alistair, because at heart it's about
one basic principle: Scientific theories and explanations can be complicated
enough even for professional scientists. So there's a basic tenet that you
always look for the simplest theory that might apply, consistent with
explaining all the known observations. If you do have a simple theory that
appears to work then there's no need to look for a different or alternative
but more complex explanation. Indeed, it's actually counterproductive to
start introducing extra theories where none is needed because they just
serve to confuse and waste everyone's time rather than to clarify the issue,
as is amply demonstrated by this and previous similar threads.

(Of course, if the simple theory does _not_ explain all the known
observations then that's a different matter and new theories may be welcome.
In this scenario good scientists should be very open minded or receptive to
potential new theories. But that's not where we are with this particular
topic.)

So in the context of understanding simple heating and cooling effects as
they apply to radiative transfers, this is all perfectly well explained by
the conventional understanding of energy transfer by electromagnetic
radiation (visible light, infrared etc). There is just no need to introduce
alternative and more complex theories, especially if - as in Alistair's
case - there is not the slightest attempt to explain how 'cold radiation'
might conceivably work, ie what would be the corresponding agent for
mediating such transfers, eg what's the 'cold' equivalent to infrared
radiation?

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 17:21:47 UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
"David Mitchell" wrote in message
...

OK Stephen, open minds was the incorrect term, as not to have an open mind
would not be helpful! I should have paid more heed to this discussion and
been more careful with terminology, as it seems to confuse.
What I'm suggesting, at risk of being ridiculed and speaking as a total
non-scientist baffled by much of the science under discussion, is that from
an artistic point of view, the way Alistair describes cold radiation is an
interesting description, maybe more understandable to some than some of the
science.
===========================================

David, I don't think that you need to be a scientist to understand what lies
behind this continuing challenge to Alistair, because at heart it's about
one basic principle: Scientific theories and explanations can be complicated
enough even for professional scientists. So there's a basic tenet that you
always look for the simplest theory that might apply, consistent with
explaining all the known observations. If you do have a simple theory that
appears to work then there's no need to look for a different or alternative
but more complex explanation. Indeed, it's actually counterproductive to
start introducing extra theories where none is needed because they just
serve to confuse and waste everyone's time rather than to clarify the issue,
as is amply demonstrated by this and previous similar threads.

(Of course, if the simple theory does _not_ explain all the known
observations then that's a different matter and new theories may be welcome.
In this scenario good scientists should be very open minded or receptive to
potential new theories. But that's not where we are with this particular
topic.)

So in the context of understanding simple heating and cooling effects as
they apply to radiative transfers, this is all perfectly well explained by
the conventional understanding of energy transfer by electromagnetic
radiation (visible light, infrared etc). There is just no need to introduce
alternative and more complex theories, especially if - as in Alistair's
case - there is not the slightest attempt to explain how 'cold radiation'
might conceivably work, ie what would be the corresponding agent for
mediating such transfers, eg what's the 'cold' equivalent to infrared
radiation?

?!

On 26/09/2016 23:47, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 22:18:47 UTC+1, Col wrote:
On 26/09/2016 21:26, Alastair wrote:



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.

No!
Open minds are prepared to consider the evidence, but sometimes to
disagree with it and then ultimately reject it.


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.

I have not ignored what you wrote, I just disagree with it!
es my mid is made up, but the so is yours. So what's the difference?


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.

I have conducted this discussion in a perfectly civil & courteous
manner. Un;ike you I've not called anybody an 'idiot' for example.

--
Col

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

On Monday, 26 September 2016 20:58:52 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 18:50:02 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 12:43:48 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
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.

Utter bilge. The net flow is always from warmer to cooler. Get a grip.

Idiot!

The net flow (by definition) is made up of at least two flows: a warm flow and a cold flow.

But the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not, as you seem to think, that every thing always gets colder. Have you never noticed that there is a main lead going into your refigerator to make it colder? The 2nd law states that entropy increases, and unless you can show that you understand the concept of entropy I think you ought to avoid pretending you are fit discuss the science. Just continue with the insults and inuendo. That is what you are good at.

But thanks all the same. I dont think I would have got this clear in my own mind without your help :-)

Still trying to argue that black is, in fact, white. Simply ridiculous. Please keep digging. Your labours are hilarious.

PS I'll be the first to congratulate you when the Nobel prize committee comes calling. 😂😂😂😂😂

On Monday, 26 September 2016 21:04:00 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 18:59:32 UTC+1, Col wrote:
On 26/09/2016 09:05, David Mitchell wrote:
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.

I'm pretty sure that last time this was discussed I drew an analogy with
phlogiston:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
Quite an elegant theory that explained the experimental results but
ultimately turned out to be back to front, when materials burned they
didn't lose phlogiston, but *gained* oxygen!

Yes and your thinking is still dominated with the idea that heat is like caloric. The theory that had to be abandoned when Pictet discovered cold radiation.

Picket didn't discover anything. His experiment is so easily explained. A simple google search will put you right, but I fear you will continue to believe in the face of over a century of science that says you are hopelessly wrong. 😂😂😂😂

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 20:29:03 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 20:58:52 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 18:50:02 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 12:43:48 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
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.

Utter bilge. The net flow is always from warmer to cooler. Get a grip..

Idiot!

The net flow (by definition) is made up of at least two flows: a warm flow and a cold flow.

But the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not, as you seem to think, that every thing always gets colder. Have you never noticed that there is a main lead going into your refigerator to make it colder? The 2nd law states that entropy increases, and unless you can show that you understand the concept of entropy I think you ought to avoid pretending you are fit discuss the science. Just continue with the insults and inuendo. That is what you are good at.

But thanks all the same. I dont think I would have got this clear in my own mind without your help :-)

Still trying to argue that black is, in fact, white. Simply ridiculous. Please keep digging. Your labours are hilarious.

PS I'll be the first to congratulate you when the Nobel prize committee comes calling. 😂😂😂😂😂

I won't get a Nobel Prize for stating the obvious.

Idiot.

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 21:26:35 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 20:29:03 UTC+1, wrote:

His experiment is so easily explained

Idiot.

Pity you said that. I was going to enjoy learning how he easily explains the Pictet results.

But now I realise he doesn't know what he is talking about. Baa.

On 27/09/2016 17:21, JohnD wrote:


David, I don't think that you need to be a scientist to understand what
lies behind this continuing challenge to Alistair, because at heart it's
about one basic principle: Scientific theories and explanations can be
complicated enough even for professional scientists. So there's a basic
tenet that you always look for the simplest theory that might apply,
consistent with explaining all the known observations.


Unfortunately that leads to ideas like the Earth being at the centre of
the universe - but far worse is when such erroneous notions are backed
up by force by whoever is in charge at the time.

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 02:21:10 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 21:26:35 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 20:29:03 UTC+1, wrote:

His experiment is so easily explained

Idiot.

Pity you said that. I was going to enjoy learning how he easily explains the Pictet results.

But now I realise he doesn't know what he is talking about. Baa.

Good point WL.

Well Dawlish, how do you explain Pictet's result?