🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 6, 12:33 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: "The Second Law made its appearance in physics around
> 1850, but a half century later it was already surrounded by so much
> confusion that the British Association for the Advancement of Science
> decided to appoint a special committee with the task of providing
> clarity about the meaning of this law.

  The meaning of the second law is quite trival.
  It's the ultimare non-sensical extrolation of infintesmal calculus
  that physics cranks have ever discovered.
  Which doesn't mean that it's a law of anything, other than
  a law of calculus.
  And it's doesn't mean that the "law" is true or even relevent
  about anything in the entire univese other than statistical
temperature scales,
  as applied to ground planes,
  Which is obviously why Maxwell quite immediately violated
  the moron law, by simply predicting the speed of light
  for the thermodynamics cranks.








 However, its final report
> (Bryan 1891) did not settle the issue. Half a century later, the
> physicist/philosopher Bridgman still complained that there are almost
> as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions
> of it (Bridgman 1941, p. 116). And even today, the Second Law remains
> so obscure that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification.
> A recent example is the work of Lieb and Yngvason (1999)......The
> historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made a detailed study
> of the historical development of thermodynamics in the period
> 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present state, as
> 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime example to
> show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds' (ibid.
> p. 8).......Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no
> sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of
> philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment ; a
> century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
> the unclean.....Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
> follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked
> and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot understand.......A
> more important objection, it seems to me, is that Clausius bases his
> conclusion that the entropy increases in a nicht umkehrbar process on
> the assumption that such a process can be closed by an umkehrbar
> 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.......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.39
> 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. We must conclude that in the
> work of Clausius and Kelvin the connection between the second law and
> irreversibility is extremely fragile. Kelvin claimed that the
> irreversibility of all processes in nature is a necessary consequence
> of his principle, but gave not a shred of argumentation for this
> claim. His later versions of the second law were even completely
> disconnected from the arrow of time. Clausius does give argumentation,
> but it is so untransparent and dependent on implicit assumptions that
> his famous general conclusion (all processes in nature proceed in the
> 'positive' direction, i.e. the direction of entropy increase) cannot
> be considered as established......Conclusion: the goal of Planck's
> approach is to take the phenomenon of irreversibility of natural
> processes as the essential element of the second law. But his claim to
> have derived a formulation of universal generality cannot withstand
> scrutiny. Besides, this emphasis on irreversibelity and the universal
> validity of the second law actually remains sterile in Planck's own
> work. The final part of his book, which is devoted to applications of
> the second law, only discusses equilibrium problems......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."
>
> This "RED HERRING" destroyed, roughly speaking, half of theoretical
> science. The demolition has been completed by Divine Albert and his
> criminal cult:
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a...
> Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
> be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
> Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
> theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
> physics."
>
> http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpghttp://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htmhttp://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3
>
> Pentcho Valev