🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 21, 1:45 pm, "rayoha...@yahoo.com.ar" <juanp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> mmm... u put words and meanings that I´m not intend to. also u are
> diverging with our arguments, we cannot have a constructive discussion
> if it happen, cause we´re end nowhere. I don´t want to loose my time.
>
> i´d said ¨classical thermodynamics "is a very good theory, but it has
> no sense when u try to link it with arrow time¨.

It does not matter what you say or what I say. The name of both of us
is just "Mr. Loser". In contrast, Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa and Uffink are
by no means Mrs. and Mr. Loser so what they say is important:

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 problems are: why does Sir Arthur Eddington contradict Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa and Uffink, why don't you care, why does nobody else care:

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
pvalev@yahoo.com