🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 21, 10:26 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
> pva...@yahoo.com

quote:
{ 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: }

u think it about u, i don´t think in that way.

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

they contradict, because the look the answer in classical
thermodynamics only, they both where wrong, and that´s the reason why
nobody cares. if u want the answer u must look in statistical
mechanics, u must enter into microscopic considerations, not details
(as for example a particular hamiltonian), but it´s important the
connection between classical thermodynamics, and its foundation from
statistical mechanics. details don´t matters because, the important
thing is about to note differences between canonical (or grand
canonical) and microcanonical ensembles. the answer comes from what is
adiabatically isolated and its effects from the microscopic point of
view.

best regards
rayohauno