🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 4, 23:51, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> srwen...@verizon.net wrote:
> > In particular it seems that there is no agreement on how
> > temperature would transform between inertial observers.
>
> The problem is as much related to the definitions of words as to the
> underlying physics.
>
> Note, for instance, that in classical thermodynamics "temperature" is
> essentially undefined except for systems in equilibrium.

Roberts Roberts 15 years ago you applied for a Government grant and
became a famous relativist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w
Tom Roberts (15 years ago): "Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd
like to obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think
that with Government backing I could make it very silly."

Now you want to become a famous thermodynamicist but there is a test
you should undergo Roberts Roberts. First you should read the
following paper:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

As you read it, you should note the following two opinions and try to
find some difference between them:

A. Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, - the second law
of thermodynamics - 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 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."

J. 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."

If you see no difference between Eddington's and Uffink's opinions,
you CAN become a famous thermodynamicist Roberts Roberts. All famous
thermodynamicists see no difference between the two opinions and for
that reason never mention Uffink's opinion. However if you see the
slightest difference Roberts Roberts then you CANNOT become a famous
thermodynamicist and should remain a famous relativist. The test is
difficult but fair Roberts Roberts.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com