🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 5, 11:01 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Open Letter to: Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society
>
> Copy to: Professor John Pethica, Physical Secretary and Vice-
> President, Professor Sir Michael Berry, Sir Peter Williams CBE,
> Treasurer and Vice-President, Professor Lorna Casselton, Foreign
> Secretary and Vice-President
>
> Dear Dr. Rees,
>
> Classical thermodynamics has been dead for a long time so when in 2001
> a respected scientist, Jos Uffink, declared that a version of the
> second law of thermodynamics ("Entropy always increases") is a RED
> HERRING, this sounded like an epitaph officially putting an end to any
> further discussion:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: "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' and 'a prime example to show
> that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds'. He is
> outright cynical about the respect with which nonmathematicians treat
> the Second Law: "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." From this anthology it emerges that although many
> prominent physicists are firmly convinced of, and express admiration
> for the Second Law, there are also serious complaints, especially from
> mathematicians, about a lack of clarity and rigour in its formulation.
> At the very least one can say that the Second Law suffers from an
> image problem: its alleged eminence and venerability is not perceived
> by everyone who has been exposed to it. What is it that makes this
> physical law so obstreperous that every attempt at a clear formulation
> seems to have failed? Is it just the usual sloppiness of physicists?
> Or is there a deeper problem? And what exactly is the connection with
> the arrow of time and irreversibility? Could it be that this is also
> just based on bluff? Perhaps readers will shrug their shoulders over
> these questions. Thermodynamics is obsolete; for a better
> understanding of the problem we should turn to more recent,
> statistical theories. But even then the questions we are about to
> study have more than a purely historical importance. The problem of
> reproducing the Second Law, perhaps in an adapted version, remains one
> of the toughest, and controversial problems in statistical
> physics.....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."


Clausius had ruined physics. Now we have BB religion. Bigbangers will
kill us all very soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. If I use “errors” of Euler about pressure and density and of
Loschidt/Tsiolkovsky about gravitational temperature gradient, I will
see that black holes are impossible. To understand this you must train
to work with my program. http://darkenergy.narod.ru/arc.exe Some
results you can see at the quoted page about the "Overheated Emptiness
inside the Earth" and at http://darkenergy.narod.ru/arc.html Pay
attention at the growth of temperature under the diminishing of the
objects radius under the same mass.

2. The “error” of Loschidt/Tsiolkovsky now has the solid experimental
evidence. Consequently, we have the error of Clausius in physics. He
said “Energy in Universe conserved. Entropy of Universe grows.” This
biggest error of physics leads to several other errors:
a/ The thermal death of Universe is error.
b/ Big Bag model of Universe is error.
c/ Stars have eternal sources of energy. These sources give NOW 2/3 of
Solar energy out put. The nuclear sources give NOW the rest, - 1/3 of
Solar energy output. The experiments with solar neutrino confirm this
conclusion; - we did see exactly this part the neutrino deficit.
d/ But BB religious physicist invented neutrino oscillation and
continue to lie, as if 2/3 of solar neutrino are oscillate and we can
not see them. Lie!
e/ In fact the formula of Loschidt/Tsiolkovsky coincides with formulae
of Unruh/Hawking for temperature, if we consider it, as a gradient
(look my earlier message here). Unruh/Hawking formula, in fact,
describes the stellar energy output. Consequently there is no process
of “black hole evaporation”.

So, there are no black holes; there is no process of black holes
evaporation.
But cosmic observations of gamma-bursts say us, that there are some
types of collapses.

What collapses did occur in the Universe? How did they start?
Magnetic at first stage; gravitational at the second stage without any
BH creation, but accompanied by gamma-burst.
Magnetic collapse can start at proton collisions at collider.

The Earth will be exploded soon. Physicist from CERN will never say
that they were wrong.
They want to see at the first seconds of their Big Bang Dogma!
Ha-ha-ha! They will kill all of us. They will kill their mothers and
children. It is pity, but we can not save them. We are hostages of
this deadly game, the Big Russian Roulette. Now, at 3.5 TeV energy per
proton, the Roulette has three bullets and rest three cells are empty.
Compute the probability of our survival.

PS: To “errors” of Euler and Loschidt/Tsiolkovsky I came myself,
somewhere about 2000, and I knew about the same results of Euler and
Loschidt/Tsiolkovsky several years later.