THE FALSE START OF DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE
Pentcho Valev
thermodynamics:
All reversible heat engines working between two fixed temperatures
have the same efficiency.
from two premises:
1. Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.
2. Heat is conserved (cannot be converted into work by the heat
engine).
Then the second premise was officially declared false but the
conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics,
remained gloriously true. More precisely, the glory was introduced by
Clausius who, in 1850, managed to convince the world that the false
premise should be forgotten and replaced by a true one:
2'. Heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold.
Theoreticians and philosophers of science have never seen any problem
in the fact that, originally, a false premise was ESSENTIAL in the
deduction of a true conclusion. At least they should have considered
the following hypothesis:
The conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics, is
false as well; Clausius' 1850 ad hoc deduction was invalid.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Juan R.
You do not understand thermodynamics.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
too recently along the earth, as an accuracy along the measurements that
even were a possible, as along that matter was found that the fine structure
constant was always almost the same as at would be as follows:
alpha (z = 1.95 ) / alpha ( z = 0 ) = 0.97 +_ 0.05
However, as it has had been observed by the same meaning that a pair of an
oxygen emission lines which has appeared along the spectra as along a five
galaxies, which would also emit a waves, located along an average redshift
of 0.2, from longtime and produced as a result with no charge at all, any
time along the fine structure constant that was almost a ten times stronger,
whith it would be as follows :
alpha ( z = 0.2 ) / alpha ( z = 0 ) = 1.001 +_ 0.002
Therefore, along that matter, were the ratio would be also as follows :
alpha ( z = 0.2 ) / alpha ( z = 0 ), which is a definitely has had to be
along 0.8, all along, a definitely as a matter a fact...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez" <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> kirjoitti
viestiss�:pan.2009.06...@canonicalscience.com...
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
too recently along the earth, as an accuracy along the measurements that
even were a possible, as along that matter was found that the fine structure
constant was always almost the same as at would be as follows:
alpha (z = 1.95 ) / alpha ( z = 0 ) = 0.97 +_ 0.05
However, as it has had been observed by the same meaning that a pair of an
oxygen emission lines which has appeared along the spectra as along a five
galaxies, which would also emit a waves, located along an average redshift
of 0.2, from longtime and produced as a result with no charge at all, any
time along the fine structure constant that was almost a ten times stronger,
whith it would be as follows :
alpha ( z = 0.2 ) / alpha ( z = 0 ) = 1.001 +_ 0.002
Therefore, along that matter, were the ratio would be also as follows :
alpha ( z = 0.2 ) / alpha ( z = 0 ), which is a definitely has had to be
along 0.8, all along, a definitely as a matter a fact...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez" <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> kirjoitti
viestiss�:pan.2009.06...@canonicalscience.com...
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
too recently along the earth, as an accuracy along the measurements that
even were a possible, as along that matter was found that the fine structure
constant was always almost the same as at would be as follows:
alpha (z = 1.95 ) / alpha ( z = 0 ) = 0.97 +_ 0.05
However, as it has had been observed by the same meaning that a pair of an
oxygen emission lines which has appeared along the spectra as along a five
galaxies, which would also emit a waves, located along an average redshift
of 0.2, from longtime and produced as a result with no charge at all, any
time along the fine structure constant that was almost a ten times stronger,
whith it would be as follows :
alpha ( z = 0.2 ) / alpha ( z = 0 ) = 1.001 +_ 0.002
Therefore, along that matter, were the ratio would be also as follows :
alpha ( z = 0.2 ) / alpha ( z = 0 ), which is a definitely has had to be
along 0.8, all along, a definitely as a matter a fact...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez" <juanR...@canonicalscience.com> kirjoitti
viestiss�:pan.2009.06...@canonicalscience.com...
glird
>
< In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the prototype of the second law of
thermodynamics: All reversible heat engines working between two fixed
1. Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.
2. Heat is conserved (cannot be converted into work
by the heat engine).
Then the second premise was officially declared false but the
conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics,
remained gloriously true. More precisely, the glory was introduced by
Clausius who, in 1850, managed to convince the world that the false
premise should be forgotten and replaced by a true one:
2'. Heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold.
Theoreticians and philosophers of science have never seen any problem
in the fact that, originally, a false premise was ESSENTIAL in the
deduction of a true conclusion. At least they should have considered
the following hypothesis:
The conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics, is
false as well; Clausius' 1850 ad hoc deduction was invalid. >
The second law of thermodynamics is based on a false premise that
remains present. It is Clausius's 1850 deduction: Heat flows
spontaneously from hot to cold. It should be replaced by a true one:
As written in "The Anpheon" by G. Lebau,
____
Look at some water. Believe your senses rather than what you were
taught. Water is a fluid continuum. No empty spaces in it. Matter is
exactly what it appears to be at any level of magnification at all,
when you understand what you are looking at. It is an easy, almost
automatic step from there to conclude that just as you can splatter
myriad drops of water out of the ocean even though no such drops as
such were there to start with, you can splatter out myriad different
sized macromolecules as well; the smallest and only the smallest of
which would be H2O. It is equally easy to understand that you can
splatter myriad drops of matter out of an atom even though none of
them existed as separate drops to start with, either.
Next time you go swimming, believe that the water fills the pool.
Next time you sit at a desk, believe that what it looks like is really
there. Our senses, honed by billions of years of survival of the
fittest, are far more accurate than our present scientific theories.
The Smoke Experiment
In trying to work out a theory of how gravity works I had begun to
play with jars of smoke, with magnets and things placed around the
jars. One night I decided to make some coffee while playing. The stove
on which I set a pot of water to boil was at least ten feet from the
dinette table on which my jars rested. Returning to the jar of smoke I
suddenly noticed that the smoke layer's top was aslant! It angled up
toward one side. Moved the magnet elsewhere, but the smoke ignored it.
After searching all about for a cause, I noticed that the upward slant
was in the direction of the kitchen. Yes, it was the hot pot. When I
brought it over and put it on the other side of the jar, the smoke
followed. It moved in the direction of the pot when I moved the pot.
The first effect, however, was from a distance of over ten feet away.
Even a very slight temperature gradient will do!
An article by H. Milnes in the July, 1989 issue of the Toth Maatian
Review presents experimental results that show similar affects using
electrical charges instead. On page 4048 it says,
"Before voltage was applied a gentle smoke rose through the
chimney ... The power supply was then connected as in (b) with the
negative side above the positive at first. ... a change in the flow
pattern of the smoke was instant. ... The direction of polarity was
then reversed ... The effect was just as pronounced and certain: all
flow from beneath the hood stopped immediately and the smoke was now
ejected upwards through the flue".
The long-ago question, which we will address in later chapters, had
been: How does heat cause dust to move to it? It was a simple step to
realize that as the temperature goes up, the heat waves get shorter,
the frequency increases, so the size of the particles or parts of
particles that will enact the wave motions thus changes. Thus the
places where the "dinsity bridges" will break also change. The outer
shell layer [the matrix] that surrounds the atoms and forms them into
given molecular groupings is susceptible to splitting. (In general
these were the very items that sired the macromolecule idea.)
This mechanism explains why the pressure increases when temperature
is increased. When macros split, the number of molecules in a chamber
increases and the length of the pendulant path per member decreases.
The shorter it is the briefer the period will be, thus the greater the
frequency of vibration. This accounts for increased temperature; but
for the net momentum to increase, so as to explain why the pressure
increases, we have to take into account that the split ponitrons
[circumnuclear clouds of matter] release exther [extrinsic matter]
into the field. This increased local density [quantity of matter per
unit volume, whether or not it has weight] will spread through the
mix. The resulting ontropically increased resistance between member
particles will shorten their pendulant path, thereby increasing the
velocity per unit thus the net momentum. The ontropically released
pressure from the freed ether [continuous aspect of a local material
field, whether or not particles are part of it] thus converts into
motion of the particles, which thereby increases the kinetic energy
[ability to do work] and thus the pressure.
The splitting of outer ponitronic micro chains swarming in a common
direction as a heat wave passes through offers another mechanism by
which huge numbers of mini-molecules could suddenly and collectively
hit suspended grains so as to cause Brownian motion:
When the molecules split, some of a macromolecular group's common
outer shell material is released into the general matrix. Since the
outer shell may be made of millions, even billions of smaller
molecular groups, such a sudden release in a given direction would act
as a macro-quantum burst, a 16 inch broadside directed right into the
belly of an intruding pollen grain. That, then, coupled with the macro-
changes of direction of attraction and repulsion as heat waves
circulate, would explain Brownian motion on a gross, pollen grain
level.
Our theory suggests that if the matrix "melted", i.e. the density
decreased to a level equal to or lower than that of the proximate
shell-layers, a solid thereby melted too by allowing smaller
macromolecules that fit the shorter heat waves to flow away. As the
heat waves shorten and the temperature thus increases in a liquid with
its fluid matrix compared to the frozen matrix of a solid, the sizes
of the macromolecules slowly change, so the number of component H20
members decreases per unit-grouping within common shared outer shells,
as shown in the prior figures that helped explain molecules.
The emerging theory then allows that once a macromolecule splits down
to the smallest component's size, one H2O molecule, this one fits the
wavelength trying to transmit and then its own internal density
gradient would refract that sized heat wave into a locked in pattern.
That would convert this portion of exergy [extrinsic energy] into
inergy [intrinsic energy] of the molecule itself. It would convert
"heat" into "chemical energy". Thus, for reasons to be examined later,
this molecule radically expands and flies out of the mix in a gaseous
condition. In each such procedure during a heating process, some of
the outer common shells escape or rearrange their matter and energy
configurations, releasing some of the material to become part of the
field environment, thus part of the matrix itself. The gas then has a
much wider matrix, freely shared though always constrained into
equilibrium patterns with the gaseous molecules that are transiently
present at any portion of the given field.
The role of temperature now comes into play. It doesn’t measure the
amount of heat energy in a body, since different elements have
different amounts of intrinsic heat at a given temperature. It
measures the frequency of vibration of component units of a
continuum. At a given temperature, units of different mass [quantity
of matter] that vibrate at a common frequency have different amounts
of kinetic energy, in proportion to their masses. If the frequency
changes, so does the wavelength since they are each others
reciprocal. As the wavelength decreases and the frequency increases,
such two-way vibrations fit differently into given macromolecules.
Depending on the structure per macro, at various frequencies
(temperatures) the waves will split various macros and variable
numbers of smaller molecules will thus exist per unit volume.
Page 416 of "The World of the Atom" presents an article, "The
Discovery of the Electron" by J. J. Thomson. After discussing some of
the experimental history from which it is known that cathode rays'
paths are bent by a magnetic field, Thomson reported,
"Under the action of the magnetic field the narrow beam of cathode
rays spreads out into a broad fan-shaped luminosity in the gas. The
luminosity in this fan is not uniformly distributed, but is condensed
along certain lines. The phosphorescence on the glass is also not
uniformly distributed; it is much spread out, showing that the beams
consist of rays which are not deflected to the same extent by the
magnet. The luminosity on the glass is crossed by bands along which
the luminosity is very much greater than in the adjacent parts."
Although there can be other explanations, this certainly fits the
idea that electrons, posnegs and pons come in different multiples of
each other hence deflect differently even though emitted under a
constant voltage by one platinum element whose atoms are supposed to
be identical, and even though the magnetic field remains identical for
all such emitted entities.
The Internet defines the 2nd law of thermodynamics thus: Energy
spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if
it is not hindered from doing so. Taking heat as the lowest form of
energy and stipulating that energy always flows from a higher to a
lower form, Physics concluded that this will eventually end in “the
heat death” of the universe, in which all forms of energy would have
converted into heat and from then on the universe will endlessly
expand and the heat level will steadily decrease. However, the
discovery that heat attracts particulate matter converts the 2nd law
into an endless circle instead of a sentence of depth. As written in
the orb ["The Nature of Matter and Energy", by G. Lebau]
"Science holds that heat represents the bottom of the ladder of
secondary forms of energy. We asserted that all such forms are
equivalent, then demonstrated that all of them, including heat, have
the ability to attract matter. Then we showed that heat is not free to
dissipate equilaterally through a featureless, void cosmic space; but
instead is concentrated into certain pre-existing paths governed by
dinsity gradients that steepen with the approach to any given galaxy.
Since the accumulating heat then attracts matter there, this
demonstrates that the anatomy of the galactic units is the organizing
factor which, by causing the accumulation of matter so as to ensure
the gradual development of gravitational fields, stars, planets,
people – endlessly recreates the initial conditions that represent
entropy's starting zero-point. It is thus seen that matter is
indestructible and that energy is durable, wherefore the conditions
for a steady cyclic-state universe – in which units come and go from
time to time in place after place – do exist. The fact that energy
dissipates asymmetrically in response to pre-existing galactic dinsity
patterns ensures an ultimate reversal of entropy at every step of the
way.
"We insist, in short, that the stellar release of ether and what
eventually becomes heat from the intrinsic energy source of atomic
nuclei must provide the physical conditions which will ensure the
organization of other matter-units later on and elsewhere. The heat
death of field 1 is balanced by the heat birth of field 2, and the
universe will go on as infinitely long in the future as it has already
persisted forever. Though the parts may come and go, the cosmos
endures forever. And so do its basic items."
Confirmation of the orb’s conclusions appeared in the following
article from the December 11, 1987 issue of the NY Times.
"Radio telescopes Discover 'Maternity Ward' of Stars"
"New observations by radio telescopes strongly support the theory that
stars form from collapsing gas clouds and indicate for the first time
that the process is spawning dozens of new stars at once, scientists
reported yesterday. Examining one of the hottest and most luminous
regions of our galaxy, the scientists discovered a ring of young stars
and cascades of gases falling at 40,000 miles an hour from a
collapsing gaseous cloud to form new stars. The ring of more than a
dozen new stars is gigantic, with a diameter of five light years and a
mass 50,000 times the mass of the Sun. The hottest point in this
region of turbulent creation is one of the galaxy's brightest stars, a
young star more than a million times brighter than the Sun, scientists
estimated. ... According to widely accepted theory, individual stars
form from the collapse of the gas clouds that are seen swirling across
the galaxy. …
"Intense Heat in Gas Clouds
"Observations by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite disclosed regions
of intense heat inside some gas clouds, which astronomers said were
probably stellar 'maternity wards'. ... The sheer size of the ring of
stars enabled the scientists to detect what they called 'the first
clear evidence' that a gas cloud is collapsing inward to create the
ring. The large-scale motions of the gases were detectable only in the
relatively short radio waves picked up by the Hat Creek observatory.
Differences between the wavelengths of radiation emitted and absorbed
by the moving gas indicated that the gas was falling in from both the
near and far sides of the ring."
The free-hand drawing that accompanied that article portrays gases
flowing toward a central zone, in which about 10 clusters of forming
stars are present. Since the drawing was not from sophisticated
scientific instruments we shall content ourselves with the reported
data. The orb’s 1965 conclusions and the 1987 data are placed together
for your own independent judgment as to whether the orbic
constructions predicted and even drew incredibly accurate pictures of
what the heavens have since revealed.
____
As written in that book, "the discovery that heat attracts
particulate matter converts the 2nd law into an endless circle"; and
as proved in "The Universe" by G. Lebau, 2009, converting the 2nd law
into an endless circle instead of a sentence of death rules out the
Big Bang theory as well.
glird
Dirk Van de moortel
39752b77-ca28-4b4c...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com
Imbecile.
Believe your eyes rather than that what your /non/senses
teach you:
http://images.google.be/images?&q=tunneling%20microscope
Dirk Vdm
Uncle Al
>
> In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the prototype of the second law of
> thermodynamics:
>
> All reversible heat engines working between two fixed temperatures
> have the same efficiency.
>
> from two premises:
>
> 1. Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.
>
> 2. Heat is conserved (cannot be converted into work by the heat
> engine).
Vacuum tube. Pointy emitter is coated with Type IIb diamond whose
work function into vacuum is negative. Planar collector is maximum
vacuum work function like osmium (5.9 V). External conducting wire to
close the circuit (through a load). Runs forever off any ambient
temperature above absolute zero and violates no conservation law or
equilibrium thermodynamics while doing it.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Pentcho Valev
> In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the prototype of the second law of
> thermodynamics:
>
> All reversible heat engines working between two fixed temperatures
> have the same efficiency.
>
> from two premises:
>
> 1. Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.
>
> 2. Heat is conserved (cannot be converted into work by the heat
> engine).
>
> Then the second premise was officially declared false but the
> conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics,
> remained gloriously true. More precisely, the glory was introduced by
> Clausius who, in 1850, managed to convince the world that the false
> premise should be forgotten and replaced by a true one:
>
> 2'. Heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold.
>
> Theoreticians and philosophers of science have never seen any problem
> in the fact that, originally, a false premise was ESSENTIAL in the
> deduction of a true conclusion. At least they should have considered
> the following hypothesis:
>
> The conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics, is
> false as well; Clausius' 1850 ad hoc deduction was invalid.
Why Clausius' 1850 ad hoc deduction is invalid: Clausius' claims given
below in capitals: "THE ONLY CHANGE" and "WITHOUT ANY EXPENDITURE OF
FORCE OR ANY OTHER CHANGE" - are false:
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Rudolf Clausius: "Carnot
assumed, as has already been mentioned, that the equivalent of the
work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter
to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished. The
latter part of this assumption--namely, that the quantity of heat
remains undiminished--contradicts our former principle, and must
therefore be rejected... (...) It is this maximum of work which must
be compared with the heat transferred. When this is done it appears
that there is in fact ground for asserting, with Carnot, that it
depends only on the quantity of the heat transferred and on the
temperatures t and tau of the two bodies A and B, but not on the
nature of the substance by means of which the work is done. (...) If
we now suppose that there are two substances of which the one can
produce more work than the other by the transfer of a given amount of
heat, or, what comes to the same thing, needs to transfer less heat
from A to B to produce a given quantity of work, we may use these two
substances alternately by producing work with one of them in the above
process. At the end of the operations both bodies are in their
original condition; further, the work produced will have exactly
counterbalanced the work done, and therefore, by our former principle,
the quantity of heat can have neither increased nor diminished. THE
ONLY CHANGE will occur in the distribution of the heat, since more
heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to B, and so on the
whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By repeating these two
processes alternately it would be possible, WITHOUT ANY EXPENDITURE OF
FORCE OR ANY OTHER CHANGE, to transfer as much heat as we please from
a cold to a hot body, and this is not in accord with the other
relations of heat, since it always shows a tendency to equalize
temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder
bodies."
In fact, the process considered by Clausius and essential for his
deduction presupposes the constant action of an OPERATOR; this
operator constantly and unavoidably undergoes CHANGES, changes that
are absent when heat spontaneously "shows a tendency to equalize
temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder
bodies".
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the prototype of the second law of
> thermodynamics:
>
> All reversible heat engines working between two fixed temperatures
> have the same efficiency.
>
> from two premises:
>
> 1. Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.
>
> 2. Heat is conserved (cannot be converted into work by the heat
> engine).
>
> Then the second premise was officially declared false but the
> conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics,
> remained gloriously true. More precisely, the glory was introduced by
> Clausius who, in 1850, managed to convince the world that the false
> premise should be forgotten and replaced by a true one:
>
> 2'. Heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold.
>
> Theoreticians and philosophers of science have never seen any problem
> in the fact that, originally, a false premise was ESSENTIAL in the
> deduction of a true conclusion. At least they should have considered
> the following hypothesis:
>
> The conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics, is
> false as well; Clausius' 1850 ad hoc deduction was invalid.
The false second premise used by Carnot could have been:
(1) MISLEADING. Then the conclusion, the prototype of the second law
of thermodynamics, is FALSE.
(2) REDUNDANT. Carnot would have realized that and would not have used
it.
(3) INDISPENSABLE for the deduction of the TRUE conclusion.
How can a FALSE premise be INDISPENSABLE? (1) seems to be the only
reasonable solution.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Benj
> [snip crap]
>
> Vacuum tube. Pointy emitter is coated with Type IIb diamond whose
> work function into vacuum is negative. Planar collector is maximum
> vacuum work function like osmium (5.9 V). External conducting wire to
> close the circuit (through a load). Runs forever off any ambient
> temperature above absolute zero and violates no conservation law or
> equilibrium thermodynamics while doing it.
>
> idiot
Holy crap Al! You really had me going there for a minute. I almost
thought that you had joined the high density atomic Jews per m^3 by
inventing perpetual motion! But then I looked up the emission of type
IIb diamond and found it takes about 2 volts/um field (positive not
negative) to get a current. <sigh> Better luck next time.
Idiot.
Pentcho Valev
> > thermodynamics:
>
> > All reversible heat engines working between two fixed temperatures
> > have the same efficiency.
>
> > from two premises:
>
> > 1. Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.
>
> > 2. Heat is conserved (cannot be converted into work by the heat
> > engine).
>
> > Then the second premise was officially declared false but the
> > conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics,
> > remained gloriously true. More precisely, the glory was introduced by
> > Clausius who, in 1850, managed to convince the world that the false
> > premise should be forgotten and replaced by a true one:
>
> > 2'. Heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold.
>
> > Theoreticians and philosophers of science have never seen any problem
> > in the fact that, originally, a false premise was ESSENTIAL in the
> > deduction of a true conclusion. At least they should have considered
> > the following hypothesis:
>
> > The conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics, is
> > false as well; Clausius' 1850 ad hoc deduction was invalid.
>
Encouraged by his 1850 successful introduction of a new logic of
science (when a precious conclusion follows from a false premise, you
are allowed to abandon the premise and rededuce the precious
conclusion from another premise, true this time), later Clausius
gloriously introduced the concept of entropy. Yet consider:
http://www.me.umn.edu/education/courses/me3331/modules/3331-Mod-28.pdf
more precisely "The Clausius Theorem" and the assumption entitled
"Equivalent reversible and irreversible processes" according to which
any "Irreversible Process" can be closed by a reversible process (in
this case consisting of a "Reversible Adiabat", "Reversible Isotherm"
and "Reversible Adiabat") to become a cycle. Is the assumption
correct? If it is not, what remains of the concept of entropy?
This is one of the most dangerous questions in thermodynamics. For 140
years it has been asked only once, by Jos Uffink:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
p.39: "A more important objection, it seems to me, is that Clausius
bases his conclusion that the entropy increases in a nicht umkehrbar
[irreversible] process on the assumption that such a process can be
closed by an umkehrbar [reversible] process to become a cycle. This is
essential for the definition of the entropy difference between the
initial and final states. But the assumption is far from obvious for a
system more complex than an ideal gas, or for states far from
equilibrium, or for processes other than the simple exchange of heat
and work. Thus, the generalisation to all transformations occurring in
Nature is somewhat rash."
That is, again, a possibly false premise has given a precious
conclusion. The answer to the dangerous question is implicit in
Uffink's statement:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."
At the end of his career Clausius, just like Einstein, became somewhat
honest but it was too late:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
"On many occasions Clausius was criticised by his contemporaries. I do
not know If, in his own time, he was criticised in particular for his
famous formulation of the second law as the increase of the entropy of
the universe. However, Kuhn (1978, pp. 13-15, p. 260) has pointed out
the remarkable fact that in the book (Clausius 1876) he eventually
composed from his collected articles, every reference to the entropy
of the universe and even to the idea that entropy never decreases in
irreversible processes in adiabatically isolated systems is deleted!
The most general formulation given to the second law in this book,
which may be regarded as the mature presentation of Clausius’ ideas,
is again the relation (10), where the system is supposed to undergo a
cycle, and entropy increase is out of the question."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> thermodynamics:
>
> All reversible heat engines working between two fixed temperatures
> have the same efficiency.
>
> from two premises:
>
> 1. Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.
>
> 2. Heat is conserved (cannot be converted into work by the heat
> engine).
>
> Then the second premise was officially declared false but the
> conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics,
> remained gloriously true. More precisely, the glory was introduced by
> Clausius who, in 1850, managed to convince the world that the false
> premise should be forgotten and replaced by a true one:
>
> 2'. Heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold.
>
> Theoreticians and philosophers of science have never seen any problem
> in the fact that, originally, a false premise was ESSENTIAL in the
> deduction of a true conclusion. At least they should have considered
> the following hypothesis:
>
> The conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics, is
> false as well; Clausius' 1850 ad hoc deduction was invalid.
Carnot's conclusion was a law, and the prior probability of any law is
zero. That is, if the efficiency of the heat engine A (working
reversibly between the temperatures T1 and T2) is a, and if the
efficiency of the heat engine B is b, the probability one should
assign to a=b BEFORE THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE is zero. Since Carnot's
first premise ALONE is obviously no evidence, one is forced to accept
that in 1824 the false second premise was crucial for establishing a
law whose prior probability was zero. If one refuses to accept such an
absurdity, one should move to the only reasonable alternative: THE LAW
IS FALSE as well. Violations of the second law of thermodynamics are
discussed in this (not very well written) paper of mine:
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.htm
BIASED THERMAL MOTION AND THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
It would be reasonable to define a class of conditionals (if P then Q)
such that the prior probability of the conclusion (Q) is zero:
If P then Q: If heat is conserved, then all reversible heat engines
working between two fixed temperatures have the same efficiency.
So far, by definition, the truth-table of ANY conditional was:
P...................Q.....................if P then Q
true................true.................true
true................false................false
false...............true.................TRUE
false...............false................true
For the class of conditionals just defined, the correct truth-table
is:
P...................Q.....................if P then Q
true................true.................true
true................false................false
false...............true.................FALSE
false...............false................true
Note that the correct truth-table, although formally identical to that
of the biconditional, does not convert the conditional whose
conclusion has zero prior probability into biconditional.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> thermodynamics:
>
> All reversible heat engines working between two fixed temperatures
> have the same efficiency.
>
> from two premises:
>
> 1. Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.
>
> 2. Heat is conserved (cannot be converted into work by the heat
> engine).
>
> Then the second premise was officially declared false but the
> conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics,
> remained gloriously true. More precisely, the glory was introduced by
> Clausius who, in 1850, managed to convince the world that the false
> premise should be forgotten and replaced by a true one:
>
> 2'. Heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold.
>
> Theoreticians and philosophers of science have never seen any problem
> in the fact that, originally, a false premise was ESSENTIAL in the
> deduction of a true conclusion. At least they should have considered
> the following hypothesis:
>
> The conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics, is
> false as well; Clausius' 1850 ad hoc deduction was invalid.
The 1824 pattern:
TRUE PREMISE: Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.
FALSE PREMISE: Heat is conserved (cannot be converted into work by the
heat engine).
FALSE BUT MIRACULOUS CONCLUSION: All reversible heat engines working
between two fixed temperatures have the same efficiency.
Einstein studied thermodynamics very carefully:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein 1905: "We will raise this conjecture [TRUE PREMISE]
(the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of
Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another
postulate [FALSE PREMISE], which is only apparently irreconcilable
with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of
motion of the emitting body.....From this there ensues the following
peculiar consequence [FALSE BUT MIRACULOUS CONCLUSION]. If at the
points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the
stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved
with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B
the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B
lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to
magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in
the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent that this result still
holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and
also when the points A and B coincide. If we assume that the result
proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved
line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A
is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained
at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2
second slow."
http://kea.princeton.edu/che246/organization.htm
Albert Einstein wrote of thermodynamics: "A theory is the more
impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises is, the more
different the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended is its
area of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical
thermodynamics made upon me. It is the only physical theory of
universal content concerning which I am convinced that, within the
framework of applicability of its basic concepts, it will never be
overthrown."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com