![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the (prototype of the) second law of
thermodynamics from two axioms; one of them turned out to be false in the end: The false axiom: "Heat is an indestructible substance that cannot be converted into work in the heat engine." There are texts in Carnot's book showing that in 1824 the false axiom had already become suspicious to him. So there can be no doubt that Carnot would have dispensed with it if he had seen the slightest opportunity. There was no opportunity and any analysis of Carnot's 1824 argument would unequivocally show that. Then how can a FALSE axiom be INDISPENSABLE for the deduction of a (presumably) true conclusion? How about the following argument: Premise: A false axiom CANNOT be indispensable for the deduction of a true conclusion. Conclusion: The prototype of the second law of thermodynamics deduced by Carnot in 1824 is false. Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
POSTSCIENTISM: FALSE AXIOMS AND ABSURD AXIOMS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 13th 09 07:57 PM |
GR THEORY IS NOT EVEN FALSE! | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 29th 08 07:26 PM |
GR THEORY IS NOT EVEN FALSE! | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | April 25th 08 07:55 PM |
Indispensable space history books? | Michael Turner | History | 2 | April 28th 07 03:47 PM |
false info | bob | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | November 3rd 05 01:53 AM |