In article ,
says...
It is similar to the case of active satellite imagery where there is
radiation passing in both directions. People don't seem to be able to grasp
that it is the net radiation transfer which dictates heat flows from hot to
cold. Radiation is still passing from cold to hot.

Now going for my lunch, and hoping I will not need to return to this again

You can do whatever you wish. By now the laughter surrounding your ridiculous proposition will be audible to even you, as you eat..


Again. His only mistake seems to be that he has said 'grasp' instead of
'teach me', but even then it's beginning to look as though we have
achieved even that.



--
Alan LeHun

On Sunday, 9 August 2015 19:02:26 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
It is similar to the case of active satellite imagery where there is
radiation passing in both directions. People don't seem to be able to grasp
that it is the net radiation transfer which dictates heat flows from hot to
cold. Radiation is still passing from cold to hot.

Now going for my lunch, and hoping I will not need to return to this again

You can do whatever you wish. By now the laughter surrounding your ridiculous proposition will be audible to even you, as you eat..


Again. His only mistake seems to be that he has said 'grasp' instead of
'teach me', but even then it's beginning to look as though we have
achieved even that.



--
Alan LeHun

Alan,

So you think, like Dawlish, that the radiation from a cold object will not cool a warmer one?

In article ,
says...

So you think, like Dawlish, that the radiation from a cold object will not cool a warmer one?


Yes. That is an absurd proposition.

Take the cold object. It is cold but it is still cooling. It does this
by radiating energy. That which you call 'cold' radiation. This
radiation (which contains thermal energy from the cold object) then
strikes a hot object. Your proposition is that the thermal energy that
radiation contained from the cold object simply evaporates into
nothingness, taking with it some of the thermal energy from the hot
object.

This is a direct contradiction of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Imagine a universe that contains only two objects. A cold one and a hot
one, that are fairly close to each other. Both objects will cool by
radiating energy. My position is that if you increase the distance
between the objects, both objects will cool quicker. If you remove one
object, the other object will cool quicker.


--
Alan LeHun

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:34:06 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 19:02:26 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
It is similar to the case of active satellite imagery where there is
radiation passing in both directions. People don't seem to be able to grasp
that it is the net radiation transfer which dictates heat flows from hot to
cold. Radiation is still passing from cold to hot.

Now going for my lunch, and hoping I will not need to return to this again

You can do whatever you wish. By now the laughter surrounding your ridiculous proposition will be audible to even you, as you eat..


Again. His only mistake seems to be that he has said 'grasp' instead of
'teach me', but even then it's beginning to look as though we have
achieved even that.



--
Alan LeHun

Alan,

So you think, like Dawlish, that the radiation from a cold object will not cool a warmer one?

On this issue, the whole of science thinks like Dawlish.

You don't, which is a pity, really. *))

On Sunday, 9 August 2015 21:43:38 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:34:06 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 19:02:26 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
It is similar to the case of active satellite imagery where there is
radiation passing in both directions. People don't seem to be able to grasp
that it is the net radiation transfer which dictates heat flows from hot to
cold. Radiation is still passing from cold to hot.

Now going for my lunch, and hoping I will not need to return to this again

You can do whatever you wish. By now the laughter surrounding your ridiculous proposition will be audible to even you, as you eat..


Again. His only mistake seems to be that he has said 'grasp' instead of
'teach me', but even then it's beginning to look as though we have
achieved even that.



--
Alan LeHun

Alan,

So you think, like Dawlish, that the radiation from a cold object will not cool a warmer one?

On this issue, the whole of science thinks like Dawlish.

The whole of this news group seem to think like you, but that is because we have not been told what you think. Everyone, imagines you beleive that same as them.

Does a cold object cool a hot one? See my four questions. You have not answered them yet.

You don't, which is a pity, really. *))

On Sunday, 9 August 2015 21:37:01 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,

Take the cold object. It is cold but it is still cooling. It does this
by radiating energy. That which you call 'cold' radiation.

No, "cold radiation" is radiation which cools a (hot) body. It can be at any temperature, but it must be less than that ot the (hot) body, which can also be at any temparature.

This
radiation (which contains thermal energy from the cold object) then
strikes a hot object. Your proposition is that the thermal energy that
radiation contained from the cold object simply evaporates into
nothingness, taking with it some of the thermal energy from the hot
object.

No, what happens is that the "cold" energy is added to that of the warm body, which is emitting blackbody radiation. That will contain more energy than the blackbody radiation emitted by the cold body so the warm body will cool. The net energy for the warm body is negative.

This is a direct contradiction of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Yes, but that is not what happens.

Imagine a universe that contains only two objects. A cold one and a hot
one, that are fairly close to each other. Both objects will cool by
radiating energy. My position is that if you increase the distance
between the objects, both objects will cool quicker. If you remove one
object, the other object will cool quicker.

Yes, because the background radiation is the main cold radiation in that case. If your universe has no background radiation then the cold radiation is zero, and you can claim that it does not exist, but only in the hypothetical case of universe without background radiational. Cold radiation still exists in all other real cases.

Please, try to understand what I am saying rather than trying to find extreme scenarios where you think it does not apply.

Cheers, Alastair.

In article ,
says...

No, what happens is that the "cold" energy is added to that of the
warm body,

Thank you. This is a fundamental point. The "cold" energy, which is
still energy is *added* to the warm body. Or any body that absorbs it
for that matter. Irrespective of its energy level.

which is emitting blackbody radiation. That will contain more energy
than the blackbody radiation emitted by the cold body so the warm body
will cool. The net energy for the warm body is negative.

This is a direct contradiction of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Yes, but that is not what happens.

Imagine a universe that contains only two objects. A cold one and a hot
one, that are fairly close to each other. Both objects will cool by
radiating energy. My position is that if you increase the distance
between the objects, both objects will cool quicker. If you remove one
object, the other object will cool quicker.

Yes, because the background radiation is the main cold radiation in that case. If your universe has no background radiation then the cold radiation is zero, and you can claim that it does not exist, but only in the hypothetical case of universe without background radiational. Cold radiation still exists in all other real cases.


I will claim that the remaining body will continue to cool, without it
absorbing any radiation from any source whatsoever, and indeed, will
cool at its fastest possible rate.

Please, try to understand what I am saying rather than trying to find extreme scenarios where you think it does not apply.


This was /not/ an extreme scenario. Quite the opposite. It is a scenario
which eliminates all other influences which you seem to hook onto to
muddy the waters and claim phantom support of your case. As you have
done again with background radiation.

Yes, background radiation makes a difference and that is why we
eliminate it from our experiment.

If we have just two bodies, and the energy that they radiate, then it is
easier to see what is happening. If you have to re-introduce external
variables in order to make your case then that is evidence that your
case is flawed. Which it is.



I'm giving up on this now.


--
Alan LeHun

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 10:05:41 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 21:43:38 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:34:06 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 19:02:26 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
It is similar to the case of active satellite imagery where there is
radiation passing in both directions. People don't seem to be able to grasp
that it is the net radiation transfer which dictates heat flows from hot to
cold. Radiation is still passing from cold to hot.

Now going for my lunch, and hoping I will not need to return to this again

You can do whatever you wish. By now the laughter surrounding your ridiculous proposition will be audible to even you, as you eat..


Again. His only mistake seems to be that he has said 'grasp' instead of
'teach me', but even then it's beginning to look as though we have
achieved even that.



--
Alan LeHun

Alan,

So you think, like Dawlish, that the radiation from a cold object will not cool a warmer one?

On this issue, the whole of science thinks like Dawlish.

The whole of this news group seem to think like you, but that is because we have not been told what you think. Everyone, imagines you beleive that same as them.

Does a cold object cool a hot one? See my four questions. You have not answered them yet.

You don't, which is a pity, really. *))

Read my first reply to you instead of bleating.

The answers are contained in the second law of thermodynamics - which does not need re-writing, following your silliness about 'cold radiation'.

On Monday, 10 August 2015 08:10:34 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 10:05:41 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 21:43:38 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:34:06 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 19:02:26 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
It is similar to the case of active satellite imagery where there is
radiation passing in both directions. People don't seem to be able to grasp
that it is the net radiation transfer which dictates heat flows from hot to
cold. Radiation is still passing from cold to hot.

Now going for my lunch, and hoping I will not need to return to this again

You can do whatever you wish. By now the laughter surrounding your ridiculous proposition will be audible to even you, as you eat..


Again. His only mistake seems to be that he has said 'grasp' instead of
'teach me', but even then it's beginning to look as though we have
achieved even that.



--
Alan LeHun

Alan,

So you think, like Dawlish, that the radiation from a cold object will not cool a warmer one?

On this issue, the whole of science thinks like Dawlish.

The whole of this news group seem to think like you, but that is because we have not been told what you think. Everyone, imagines you beleive that same as them.

Does a cold object cool a hot one? See my four questions. You have not answered them yet.

You don't, which is a pity, really. *))

Read my first reply to you instead of bleating.

The answers are contained in the second law of thermodynamics - which does not need re-writing, following your silliness about 'cold radiation'.

Answer the four questions with YES of NO. Stop trying to wriggle out of it, by mentioning the second law of thermodynamics. You don't understand that.

I'm afraid and unfortunately for you, I understand it perfectly. My answer is contained in my first reply to you and that's all you need. Now take on board the comments of so many and at least show you are prepared to retract and make an attempt to understand basic thermodynamics.

You have made a complete fool of yourself Alastair and you have compounded that with your lack of understanding about centrifugal force - as *many* have pointed out; me being just one of them, though I admit to my guilt in forcing you out of hiding with this.