🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 5, 3:06 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
> On Aug 5, 4:29 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >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."
>
> > > The deductive chain leading to the red herring was so biased and
> > > invalid that the final conclusion ("Entropy always increases") was
> > > just as meaningful as "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its
> > > length". So the dawn of Postscientism broke: a student who accepts the
> > > red herring is committed to accepting anything, e.g.:
>
> > > L. McGlashan, Chemical thermodynamics, Academic Press, London (1979),
> > > pp. 72-73: "For an infinitesimal change in the state of a phase alpha
> > > we write
> > > dU = T dS - p dV + SUM mu_B dn_B (1)
> > > We regard equation (1) as an axiom and call it the fundamental
> > > equation for a change of the state of a phase alpha. It is one half of
> > > the second law of thermodynamics. We do not ask where it comes from.
> > > Indeed we do not admit the existence of any more fundamental relations
> > > from which it might have been derived. Nor shall we here enquire into
> > > the history of its formulation, though that is a subject of great
> > > interest to the historian of science. It is a starting point ; it must
> > > be learnt by heart."
>
> > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> > > "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
> > > at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
> > > switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
> > > the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
> > > speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
> > > Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
> > > direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
> > > the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
> > > reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
> > > through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
> > > barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
> > > switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
> > > momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
> > > runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
> > > shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
> > > the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
> > > in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
> > > such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
> > > stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
> > > was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
> > > is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
> > > to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
> > > end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
> > > trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."
>
> > > Sir Arthur Eddington, Einstein's original worshipper, had no doubts
> > > about the paramount importance of the red herring:
>
> > >http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
> > > Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I
> > > think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone
> > > points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in
> > > disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for
> > > Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation
> > > - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your
> > > theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can
> > > give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
> > > humiliation."
>
> > Part of the idiocy involved in the red herring, "the law that entropy
> > always increases":
>
> > Peter Atkins, Physical Chemistry, 5th ed., p. 127: "Let the original
> > change in the entropy of the system when the process of interest
> > occurs be dS (this is the change we want to measure). The process need
> > not be reversible, but we suppose that we can find a path that joins
> > the same initial and final states and which is reversible."
>
> > For 140 years the above idiocy has been questioned only once:
>
>    Well, that's fiben, since when the only thing you  even know about
> paths
>    is phase-space integrals, the sane people are going to work
>    on AI, Digital Computers, and Self-Replicating Machines Anyway.
>

Yes, thermodynamici will always feel inferior to real scientists
studying silicon photonics,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb_ANsMAq5k

 scalaar electromagnetics,

http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm

 torsion physicks

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/tors/

psykotronics.

http://istina.rin.ru/eng/ufo/text/360.html

psichokintetics

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/strange.html

dowsin.

http://educate-yourself.org/dow/index.shtml

Remote viewering.

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

and cognitive dishonesty scinece.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsnews/idAFN2448454320090726?rpc=33

While the thermodynamici continue to HAARP's on about Terrarists and
mass domestic swines/human crossbreeds slaying and it's other Nionist
media Nionisms they submitted themselves to.

Their feeling of inferiority is most likely permanent and
neoconservative.

>
> >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."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -