🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 21, 5:32 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 11:59 am, "rayoha...@yahoo.com.ar" <juanp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 3:52 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 21, 4:46 am, "rayoha...@yahoo.com.ar" <juanp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote in sci.physics:
>
> > > > On Jan 20, 10:21 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 18, 2:58 pm, blackboab <blackb...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > sci.physics:
>
> > > > > > The second law of thermodynics says that the direction of time is
> > > > > > dictated by the increase of entropy,.
>
> > > > > Does it? Why don't you read Jos Uffink's paper:
>
> > > > >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."
>
> > > > > Jos Uffink:http://www.phys.uu.nl/igg/jos/
>
> > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > > > i had looked that article. it is interesting, but any consideration of
> > > > thermodynamics that not relate this to statistical mechanics seems to
> > > > me out of target. and it get lost in mathematical considerations about
> > > > things as for example
> > > > when a process is irreversible or not. it get lost, because if you not
> > > > look at the microscopic level, then you cannot look for a basis from
> > > > which assume good sense. take a look to the article and u will see
> > > > that.
>
> > > You mean there is no "good sense" in classical thermodynamics?
> > > Ironically, the alleged STRENGTH of that science was that it was
> > > PHENOMENOLOGICAL, that is, it did not have to deal with the
> > > microscopic level and yet it could give, through rigorous deduction,
> > > valuable results. But you can verify this. Take a look at Clausius
> > > 1850 deduction of the original version of the second law of
> > > thermodynamics: "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.":
>
> > >http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
> > > "Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Clausius: "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."
>
> > > If Clausius deduction is invalid (try to discover why it IS invalid),
> > > then you are right: there is no "good sense" in classical
> > > thermodynamics.
>
> > > Pentcho Valev
> > > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > no, classical thermodynamics has sense, it is a very good theory, but
> > it has no sense when u try to link it with arrow time, that is another
> > story, I had expressed wrong (the word this sings to a preferred arrow
> > time direction, sorry for that), and u then had a bad interpretation,
> > it is my fault, read entirely what i´d writed.
>
> Let me translate yout statement that classical thermodynamics "is a
> very good theory, but it has no sense when u try to link it with arrow
> time" in the following way: The version of second law saying perpetuum
> mobile of the second kind is impossible is correct; the version of the
> second law saying the entropy always increases is nonsense. I disagree
> with the first part (perpetuum mobile of the second kind IS POSSIBLE)
> but this disagreement of mine is irrelevant for the moment.

I responded 4 hours earlier to let you know I had already been there
18 years ago. Please let us hear your version. DWH


 If the
> principle of entropy increase is really nonsense, the devastation
> suffered by science and caused by this particular nonsense is much
> greater than the devastation caused by Einstein's 1905 false light
> postulate. Just remember this:
>
> http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
> "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." Sir Arthur
> Eddington (The Nature of the Physical World, 1915)
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -