"Vidcapper" wrote in message news
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.
=======================================

1. Your example dates from the time when science was little different from
religion;

2. But it became clear that 'the Earth being at the centre of the universe'
did _not_ explain all the available observations;

So, all in all, not a very helpful parallel.

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 18:14:08 UTC+1, Col wrote:


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

My ideas are based on the science and common sense. Yours are based on your gut feelings. You wrote:
"There aren't two separate streams, one warm and one cold, somehow
battling it out for supremacy."

But all objects emit radiation based on their temperatures - scientific fact. If you have two objects then there will be two sets of radiation - common sense. The hotter object will emit hot radiation and the cold object will emit cold radiation - common sense. The hot radiation will warm the cold object and the cold radiation will warm the hot object - simple science.

There is no Nobel Prize waiting for me for pointing this out. It has been known for over 200 years :-(

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

That is true, but please understand that I am being continually provoked (stalked) by Dawlish, and I find remarks which side with him extremely irritating.

As far as accusing him of being an idiot, it is a term that he has used himself on many occasions as I am sure you are aware.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 6:54:30 AM UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:
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

Well, quite the opposite. To agree actual observations with the Earth being at the centre of the universe involved an indredibly complex explanation.

Once it was accepted that the Earth was in orbit of the sun, and the moon in orbit of the Earth - then it became simple.

Graham
Penzance

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 8:36:27 AM UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
"Vidcapper" wrote in message news
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.
=======================================

1. Your example dates from the time when science was little different from
religion;

2. But it became clear that 'the Earth being at the centre of the universe'
did _not_ explain all the available observations;

So, all in all, not a very helpful parallel.

Ah, I just replied to Paul in a similar vein, before spotting your reply, which is rather better as it brings the religious aspect in.

I think Alistair's almost religious obsession with cold radiation is forcing him toward a complexity in much the same way.

Graham
Penzance

In article ,
says...
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.


What goes around...

The idea that we are at the center of the universe came back in vogue
with Einstein, so probably not the best example.

--
Alan LeHun

On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 09:16:02 UTC+1, Graham Easterling wrote:

I think Alistair's almost religious obsession with cold radiation is forcing him toward a complexity in much the same way.

Graham,

"All objects emit radiation based on their temperatures - scientific fact. If you have two objects then there will be two sets of radiation - common sense. The hotter object will emit hot radiation and the cold object will emit cold radiation - common sense. The hot radiation will warm the cold object and the cold radiation will warm the hot object - simple science."

What is complex about that? It is about as simple as you can get.

It is Dawlish's obsession with making me look a fool which is in partly driving me to try and clear my name, not some religious idealism. However, only the very brightest here seem capable of accepting simple arguments like that above.

It seems as if this newsgroup seems is driven by a herd mentality led by Dawlish.

"I can't believe it."

"Alastair" wrote in message
...

It seems as if this newsgroup seems is driven by a herd mentality led by
Dawlish.

Forget Dawlish - most of the rest of do and ignore him and his posts most of
the time. Just focus on the scientific argument.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 10:05:21 AM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 09:16:02 UTC+1, Graham Easterling wrote:

I think Alistair's almost religious obsession with cold radiation is forcing him toward a complexity in much the same way.

Graham,

"All objects emit radiation based on their temperatures - scientific fact.. If you have two objects then there will be two sets of radiation - common sense. The hotter object will emit hot radiation and the cold object will emit cold radiation - common sense. The hot radiation will warm the cold object and the cold radiation will warm the hot object - simple science."

Many people have tried to explain to you, but let me try another, non technical, way.

If I walk down into the sea for a surf, the pools on the beach fell cold. After being immersed in the colder ocean, on the way back up the beach the pools feel warm.

They haven't flipped to a new type of radiation, nothing has changed except that I have cooled. Your cold radiation neither exists nor is needed. The idea came about simply by our bodies perceptions of the environment. We perceive the ground as solid in fact it is virtually nothing. Brian Cox's The Quantum Universe: Everything that can happen does happens' is a good and relatively easily understood read, which perhaps you should consider.

Graham
Penzance




It is Dawlish's obsession with making me look a fool which is in partly driving me to try and clear my name, not some religious idealism. However, only the very brightest here seem capable of accepting simple arguments like that above.

I think you should review that statement.

Graham
Penzance

On 28/09/2016 08:36, JohnD wrote:
"Vidcapper" wrote in message news
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.
=======================================

1. Your example dates from the time when science was little different
from religion;

Yes, that was my point - but we're still not free of incorrect ideas, as
Alistair proves.


2. But it became clear that 'the Earth being at the centre of the
universe' did _not_ explain all the available observations;

So, all in all, not a very helpful parallel.

But that incorrect notion *was* backed up by force by the church, though...


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On 28/09/2016 08:53, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 6:54:30 AM UTC+1, vidcapper
wrote:
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

Well, quite the opposite. To agree actual observations with the Earth
being at the centre of the universe involved an indredibly complex
explanation.

Once it was accepted that the Earth was in orbit of the sun, and the
moon in orbit of the Earth - then it became simple.


Exactly - Occam's Razor.



--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham