Here are four questions with the answers.

Do hot bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that hot radiation.
Do cold bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that cold radiation.

If a cold body absorbs hot radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will warm.
If a hot body absorbs cold radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will cool.

Cold radiation is a simple as that despite what Dawlish would like you to think.

I have now spent nearly two days trying to explain this and I really must get on with other things. So please forgive me if I don't respond to your objections. Just try and work out how I would respond if I had the time.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 4:04:40 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
Here are four questions with the answers.

Do hot bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that hot radiation.
Do cold bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that cold radiation.

If a cold body absorbs hot radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will warm.
If a hot body absorbs cold radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will cool.

Nothing 'absorbs' cold radiation. Bodies simply emit more than it receives from its environment. The heat flow always travels from warmer to colder; **never** the other way (The second law of thermodynamics states this very clearly). There's your basic problem. you are ignorant of this, even though half a dozen people have explained it to you. There is no such thing as 'cold radiation'.

Cold radiation is a simple as that despite what Dawlish would like you to think.

Dawlish is 100% right. It's not his fault that you can't understand the physics laughing


I have now spent nearly two days trying to explain this and I really must get on with other things. So please forgive me if I don't respond to your objections. Just try and work out how I would respond if I had the time.

You've written some posts in a newsgroup, trying to justify a physical impossibility and have, of course, failed miserably, receiving more replies than you probably deserved from a host of very patient people......and me.

Cold radiation simply doesn't exist. It is impossible, is one of the most stupid things ever expressed in a .sci newsgroup and you would have to re-write the second law of thermodynamics if you wish it to exist. You don't seem to be alb to do that. laughing again


Cheers, Alastair.

So you ask these 4 rather silly questions and provide daft answers yourself.. Nice one.

Just hilarious.

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 11:04:40 AM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:
Here are four questions with the answers.

Do hot bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that hot radiation.
Do cold bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that cold radiation.

If a cold body absorbs hot radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will warm.
If a hot body absorbs cold radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will cool.

Cold radiation is a simple as that despite what Dawlish would like you to think.

I have now spent nearly two days trying to explain this and I really must get on with other things. So please forgive me if I don't respond to your objections. Just try and work out how I would respond if I had the time.

Cheers, Alastair.

======

The same four assertions as before with the same problem:

Non-defined terms.
Faulty syllogisms.
Begging the question.

By the way, if you have three bodies where A has a higher initial temperature than B, and B a higher temperature than C, then is B emitting what you call "hot radiation" or is it emitting what you call "cold radiation"?

Stephen.

In message ,
Alastair writes
Here are four questions with the answers.

Do hot bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that hot radiation.
Do cold bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that cold radiation.

Let's not. They are emitting a smaller amount of exactly the same sort
of radiation that hotter bodies are emitting. "Hot" and "cold" are
relative terms, not absolute. My own body would be a hot one if I was at
the South Pole but a cold one if I was transported to the Sahara at
noon. Yet the type of radiation that my body was emitting wouldn't have
changed.


If a cold body absorbs hot radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course
it will warm.
If a hot body absorbs cold radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course
it will cool.

Sigh! As has been explained, it cools because it is emitting more
radiation than it is receiving from its cold surroundings.



Cold radiation is a simple as that despite what Dawlish would like you
to think.

Dawlish can be objectionable, but that doesn't mean that he isn't right
on this occasion.

I have now spent nearly two days trying to explain this and I really
must get on with other things. So please forgive me if I don't respond
to your objections. Just try and work out how I would respond if I had
the time.

Judging by your responses so far to those attempting to explain your
misconception, I think we can guess easily enough.
--
I'm not paid to implement the recognition of irony.
(Taken, with the author's permission, from a LiveJournal post)

On 08/08/2015 16:04, Alastair wrote:
Here are four questions with the answers.

Do hot bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that hot radiation.
Do cold bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that cold radiation.

If a cold body absorbs hot radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will warm.
If a hot body absorbs cold radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will cool.

Cold radiation is a simple as that despite what Dawlish would like you to think.

I have now spent nearly two days trying to explain this and I really must get on with other things. So please forgive me if I don't respond to your objections. Just try and work out how I would respond if I had the time.

Cheers, Alastair.




Here's a fairly easy one for you to ponder over.

Fact: The sun is hot.

Fact: Space is cold.

So why hasn't the sun absorbed the cold of space, since there is a lot
more space than there is sun? If your assumption is correct, 4.5 billion
years ago the sun should never have been able to heat up since it would
have absorbed more cold than any heat it could possibly have generated
in its youth.

HEAT ALWAYS TRANSFERS FROM HOT TO COLD. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

jim

"Alastair" wrote in message
...
Here are four questions with the answers.

Do hot bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that hot radiation.
Do cold bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that cold radiation.

If a cold body absorbs hot radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it
will warm.
If a hot body absorbs cold radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it
will cool.

Cold radiation is a simple as that despite what Dawlish would like you to
think.

I have now spent nearly two days trying to explain this and I really must
get on with other things. So please forgive me if I don't respond to your
objections. Just try and work out how I would respond if I had the time.

Cheers, Alastair.

If one body as at some temperature above absolute zero, and it is surrounded
by a body that is at absolute zero, the hotter body will cool, not because
it is receiving cold radiation (a body at absolute zero emits none) , but
because it is loosing energy by emitting radiation. Similarly, if the hotter
body is surrounded by one at a lower temperature above absolute zero, it
will still cool because it is losing energy by emitting radiation, and the
cooler body will gain energy by absorbing radiation from the hotter one. The
hotter one loses energy at the expense of the cooler one until both are at
the same temperature.

--
Bernard Burton

Wokingham Berkshire.

Weather data and satellite images at:
http://www.woksat.info/wwp.html



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Saturday, 8 August 2015 16:33:28 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

Bodies simply emit more than it receives from its environment.

And how does it do that, pray? Doesn't that conflict with the with the First Law of Thermodynamics, the conservation of energy. But it would work if it is recieving radiatiton from a colder surface and its temperature was falling. In other words it was being cooled by cold radiation.

Great, problem solved. Thanks for that.

Cheers, Alastair.



The heat flow always travels from warmer to colder; **never** the other way (The second law of thermodynamics states this very clearly). There's your basic problem. you are ignorant of this, even though half a dozen people have explained it to you. There is no such thing as 'cold radiation'.

Cold radiation is a simple as that despite what Dawlish would like you to think.

Dawlish is 100% right. It's not his fault that you can't understand the physics laughing


I have now spent nearly two days trying to explain this and I really must get on with other things. So please forgive me if I don't respond to your objections. Just try and work out how I would respond if I had the time.

You've written some posts in a newsgroup, trying to justify a physical impossibility and have, of course, failed miserably, receiving more replies than you probably deserved from a host of very patient people......and me.

Cold radiation simply doesn't exist. It is impossible, is one of the most stupid things ever expressed in a .sci newsgroup and you would have to re-write the second law of thermodynamics if you wish it to exist. You don't seem to be alb to do that. laughing again


Cheers, Alastair.

So you ask these 4 rather silly questions and provide daft answers yourself. Nice one.

Just hilarious.

"Bernard Burton" wrote in message
...

If one body as at some temperature above absolute zero, and it is
surrounded by a body that is at absolute zero, the hotter body will cool,
not because it is receiving cold radiation (a body at absolute zero emits
none) , but because it is loosing energy by emitting radiation.

That is the exception that proves the rule. There will be no cold radiaition
in that case, but there is in every other.

Similarly, if the hotter body is surrounded by one at a lower temperature
above absolute zero, it will still cool because it is losing energy by
emitting radiation, and the cooler body will gain energy by absorbing
radiation from the hotter one. The hotter one loses energy at the expense
of the cooler one until both are at the same temperature.

That is what I am saying. The radiation from cooler body is called cold
radiation.

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
:-).

Cheers, Alastair.

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 12:16:07 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Saturday, 8 August 2015 16:33:28 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

Bodies simply emit more than it receives from its environment.

And how does it do that, pray?

Read this and learn. For goodness sake cure your ignorance as you have become a laughing stock - as many others have already told you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

Because you believe differently from everyone else on the planet who has studied this subject , does not make you the genius, I can assure you.
Cheers, Alastair.



The heat flow always travels from warmer to colder; **never** the other way (The second law of thermodynamics states this very clearly). There's your basic problem. you are ignorant of this, even though half a dozen people have explained it to you. There is no such thing as 'cold radiation'.

Cold radiation is a simple as that despite what Dawlish would like you to think.

Dawlish is 100% right. It's not his fault that you can't understand the physics laughing


I have now spent nearly two days trying to explain this and I really must get on with other things. So please forgive me if I don't respond to your objections. Just try and work out how I would respond if I had the time..

You've written some posts in a newsgroup, trying to justify a physical impossibility and have, of course, failed miserably, receiving more replies than you probably deserved from a host of very patient people......and me.

Cold radiation simply doesn't exist. It is impossible, is one of the most stupid things ever expressed in a .sci newsgroup and you would have to re-write the second law of thermodynamics if you wish it to exist. You don't seem to be alb to do that. laughing again


Cheers, Alastair.

So you ask these 4 rather silly questions and provide daft answers yourself. Nice one.

Just hilarious.

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 1:00:15 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"Bernard Burton" wrote in message
...

If one body as at some temperature above absolute zero, and it is
surrounded by a body that is at absolute zero, the hotter body will cool,
not because it is receiving cold radiation (a body at absolute zero emits
none) , but because it is loosing energy by emitting radiation.

That is the exception that proves the rule. There will be no cold radiaition
in that case, but there is in every other.

Rubbish.

Similarly, if the hotter body is surrounded by one at a lower temperature
above absolute zero, it will still cool because it is losing energy by
emitting radiation, and the cooler body will gain energy by absorbing
radiation from the hotter one. The hotter one loses energy at the expense
of the cooler one until both are at the same temperature.

That is what I am saying. The radiation from cooler body is called cold
radiation.

Rubbish

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..

Cheers, Alastair.