|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
POSTSCIENTISM: THE FUNDAMENTAL FALSEHOODS
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Rudolf 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." This conclusion (the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics) is based on the assumption that the REVERSIBLE transfer of heat from a cold to a hot body, demonstrated in Clausius's thought experiment, is equivalent to a SPONTANEOUS flow of heat from a cold to a hot body. The assumption is false: the two processes are NOT equivalent and the impossibility of the latter tells us nothing about the possibility or impossibility of the former. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" 1905 Albert Einstein: "They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies." The theoretical hybrid produced by the two "apparently irreconcilable" postulates has nothing to do with Maxwell's theory. According to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys the equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the aether and v is the speed of the observer relative to the aether. This prediction for the speed of light is wrong (refuted by the Michelson- Morley experiment) but still physically reasonable. An alternative that is both physically reasonable and true is given by Newton's emission theory of light: the speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys the equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Einstein's hybrid gives a physical absurdity: the speed of light is CONSTANT (independent of the speeds of both the light source and the observer) and obeys the equation c'=c. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
POSTSCIENTISM: THE FUNDAMENTAL FALSEHOODS
Accurate descriptions of the post-scientific reality:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ Jos Uffink: "The Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the British Association for the Advancement of Science decided to appoint a special committee with the task of providing clarity about the meaning of this law. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not settle the issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher Bridgman still complained that there are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it (Bridgman 1941, p. 116). And even today, the Second Law remains so obscure that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification. A recent example is the work of Lieb and Yngvason (1999)......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' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds' (ibid. p. 8).......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.....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." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!" http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
POSTSCIENTISM: THE FUNDAMENTAL FALSEHOODS
Hypocrisy in the era of Postscientism:
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/cv.htm http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm Athel Cornish-Bowden: "Reading Mr Valev’s postings to the BTK-MCA and other news groups and trying to answer all the nonsense contained in them incurs the risk of being so time-consuming that it takes over one’s professional time completely, leaving none for more profitable activities. On the other hand, not answering them incurs the even greater risk that some readers of the news group may think that his points are unanswerable and that thermodynamics, kinetics, catalysis etc. rest on as fragile a foundation as he pretends." The non-fragile foundation of thermodynamics according to Athel Cornish-Bowden: http://www.beilstein-institut.de/boz...nishBowden.htm Athel Cornish-Bowden: "The concept of entropy was introduced to thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked, he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to scientists who need the concept for their work." Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
POSTSCIENTISM: THE FUNDAMENTAL FALSEHOODS
Typical camouflage (in this case masking the fatality of Einstein's
1905 false light postulate and bringing fame and money to some new "maverick") in the era of Postscientism: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...elativity.html Why Einstein was wrong about relativity 29 October 2008 Mark Buchanan NEW SCIENTIST "Welcome to the weird world of Einstein's special relativity, where as things move faster they shrink, and where time gets so distorted that even talking about events being simultaneous is pointless. That all follows, as Albert Einstein showed, from the fact that light always travels at the same speed, however you look at it. Really? Mitchell Feigenbaum, a physicist at The Rockefeller University in New York, begs to differ. He's the latest and most prominent in a line of researchers insisting that Einstein's theory has nothing to do with light - whatever history and the textbooks might say. "Not only is it not necessary," he says, "but there's absolutely no room in the theory for it." What's more, Feigenbaum claims in a paper on the arXiv preprint server that has yet to be peer-reviewed, if only the father of relativity, Galileo Galilei, had known a little more modern mathematics back in the 17th century, he could have got as far as Einstein did (http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1234). "Galileo's thoughts are almost 400 years old," he says. "But they're still extraordinarily potent. They're enough on their own to give Einstein's relativity, without any additional knowledge." (...) This was a problem if Maxwell's theory, like all good physical theories, was to follow Galileo's rule and apply for everyone. If we do not know who measures the speed of light in the equations, how can we modify them to apply from other perspectives? Einstein's workaround was that we don't have to. Faced with the success of Maxwell's theory, he simply added a second assumption to Galileo's first: that, relative to any observer, light always travels at the same speed. This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks. And with a little further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is not about the physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It is about whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting light onto its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum, both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in the maths - one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous. (...) The result turns the historical logic of Einstein's relativity on its head. Those contortions of space and time that Einstein derived from the properties of light actually emerge from even more basic, purely mathematical considerations. Light's special position in relativity is a historical accident. (...) The idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less than 10-49 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate, as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity." Note that this camouflage is a development of an old one: http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la condition de l'exploiter a fond." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity." http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886 Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers." http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2 Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
POSTSCIENTISM: THE FUNDAMENTAL FALSEHOODS
The mythology of Postscientism says: the second law of thermodynamics
was discovered by Sadi Carnot whereas the first law was established much later by Joule. The truth: Sadi Carnot discovered the FIRST law of thermodynamics and ended in deep frustration because that discovery made the second law groundless: Jean-Pierre Maury, "Carnot et la machine a vapeur", Presse Universitaires de France, 1986: p. 108: "Et Carnot, apres 1824? Est-il decourage par cet echec? Pourquoi ne publie-t-il pas autre chose? Bien sur, il va mourir tres tot (en 1832). Mais tout de meme, en huit ans....C'est qu'au debut de ces huit ans, il lui est arrive une chose terrible, bien plus terrible que l'echec des Reflexions; il a realise que le calorique ne se conservait pas - et pour lui, cela signifiait forcement que la base meme des Reflexions etait fausse..." p. 109: Sadi Carnot: "La chaleur n'est autre chose que la puissance motrice ou plutôt que le mouvement qui a changé de forme. C'est un mouvement dans les particules des corps, partout où il y a destruction de puissance motrice il y a en même temps production de chaleur en quantité précisément proportionnelle à la quantité de P.M. détruite. Réciproquement, partout où il y a destruction de chaleur, il y a producion de P.M." p. 111: Sadi Canot: "La ch. est donc le résultat d'un mouv-t. Alors il est tout simple qu'elle puisse se produire par la consomm-on de P.Mot. et qu'elle puisse produire cette puissance. Tous les autres phénomènes (...) pourraient s'expliquer dans cette hypothèse. Mais il serait difficile de dire pourquoi, dans le développ-t de la PM par la chal. un corps froid est nécessaire, pourquoi en consommant la chal. d'un corps échauffé on ne peut pas produire du mouvement." The first law was rediscovered by Julius Robert Mayer in 1842 whereas Joule was a person who had a lot of money and no intellect. The mediocrity Joule was just used by Kelvin against Mayer, in the same way in which, later, the mediocrity Einstein was used by Planck against Poincare. Mayer attempted suicide and was sent to a mental institution, Poincare died prematurely, the mediocrities became geniuses. Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
POSTSCIENTISM: THE FUNDAMENTAL FALSEHOODS
The fundamental question in the era of Postscientism:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/di...n-john-lennon/ "But where is all this money coming from? And who gets it?" Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
POSTSCIENTISM: THE FUNDAMENTAL FALSEHOODS
The romantic image of science is that of constant conflict between
truth and falsehood, intellect and stupidity, impartiality and prejudice. In the era of Postscientism this image is simply wrong: there is no conflict and what is called "science" exists only insofar as "scientists" are able to extract career and money from it. For instance, thanks to Gibbs, classical thermodynamics is a gold-mine for professors of chemistry; accordingly, the so-called chemical thermodynamics is a fundamental discipline. In contrast, professors of physics see no profit in classical thermodynamics; accordingly, in physics the situation is entirely different: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ "In the eyes of many modern physicists, the theory has acquired a somewhat dubious status. They regard classical thermodynamics as a relic from a bygone era... Indeed, the view that thermodynamics is obsolete is so common that many physicists use the phrase 'Second Law of Thermodynamics' to denote some counterpart of this law in the kinetic theory of gases or in statistical mechanics." Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
POSTSCIENTISM: THE FUNDAMENTAL FALSEHOODS
Oxymorons normally participate in the deductive process in the era of
Postscientism. For instance, Clausius' conclusion that the entropy always increases is based on the assumption that any irreversible process can be closed by a reversible process to become a cycle. This is tantamount to saying: "Any irreversible process is reversible" For 140 years nobody has questioned this assumption, except for Jos Uffink: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ p.39: "A more important objection, it seems to me, is that Clausius bases his conclusion that the entropy increases in a nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process on the assumption that such a process can be closed by an umkehrbar [reversible] process to become a cycle. This is essential for the definition of the entropy difference between the initial and final states. But the assumption is far from obvious for a system more complex than an ideal gas, or for states far from equilibrium, or for processes other than the simple exchange of heat and work. Thus, the generalisation to all transformations occurring in Nature is somewhat rash." Any corollary of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate can be transformed into an oxymoron: the long train is short (if trapped inside a short tunnel), the 80m long pole is 40m long (if trapped inside a 40m long barn), the bug is both dead and alive etc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search= http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html Pentcho Valev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
POSTSCIENTISM: THE FUNDAMENTAL FALSEHOODS
On Oct 30, 9:05 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Hypocrisy in the era of Postscientism: http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/cv.htm http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm Athel Cornish-Bowden: "Reading Mr Valev’s postings to the BTK-MCA and other news groups and trying to answer all the nonsense contained in them incurs the risk of being so time-consuming that it takes over one’s professional time completely, leaving none for more profitable activities. On the other hand, not answering them incurs the even greater risk that some readers of the news group may think that his points are unanswerable and that thermodynamics, kinetics, catalysis etc. rest on as fragile a foundation as he pretends." The non-fragile foundation of thermodynamics according to Athel Cornish-Bowden: http://www.beilstein-institut.de/boz...nishBowden.htm Athel Cornish-Bowden: "The concept of entropy was introduced to thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked, he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to scientists who need the concept for their work." Philosopher of science Steven French, 2005: http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/Staff/SF/Index.htm http://groups.google.com/group/fa.ph...103ac911cb9c8? Steven French: "ah, so thats why my son is turned off by science, its because thermodynamics and relativity are inconsistent! (dang, why didn't I spot that ....?)" Recent (2008) activity in Steven French's department: http://groups.google.com/group/fa.ph...be9a103a3a52f? A one-day workshop: “Is Science Inconsistent?” Saturday 21st June 2008. Organised by the Division of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds. "Recently there has been regenerated interest in inconsistency in science, sparked by Mathias Frisch’s Inconsistency, Asymmetry and Non- locality (OUP, 2005). The remarkable central claim of this book is that classical electrodynamics is an inconsistent theory. (...) However, the fact that the waker word ‘conflict’ is often used is indicative of the continuing uncertainty about what place inconsistency has in science. Similarly with use of the word ‘paradox’. Are these scientific conflicts and paradoxes cases of iconsistency as logicians understand the term? And if not, is there warrant to call them ‘conflicts’ at all? The Division of History and Philosophy of Science at Leeds has a long history of studies into inconsistency in science and belief sets generally. Past years have seen A. Bobenrieth M., Otavio Bueno and Steven French write extensively on inconsistency, both within and without science." http://groups.google.com/group/fa.ph...a56bfabe7af78? "I've now found the source of the "Einstein quote" I asked about some time ago. It's actually not a very reliable quote in the end, but here it is for those who voiced an interest: "I talked for quite a while to Albert Einstein at a banker's jubilee banquet where we both felt rather out of place. In reply to my question what problem he was working on now, he said he was engaged in thinking. Giving thought to any scientific proposition almost invariably brought progress with it. For, without exception, every scientific proposition was wrong. That was due to human inadequacy of thought and inability to comprehend nature, so that every abstract formulation about it was always inconsistent somewhere. Therefore every time he checked a scientific proposition his previous acceptance of it broke down and led to a new, more precise formulation. This was again inconsistent in some respects and consequently resulted in fresh formulations, and so on indefinitely." From the diaries of Count Kessler, quoted in Stachel, J. (1983), "Comments on 'Some Logical Problems Suggested by Empirical Theories' by Professor Dalla Chiara", in R. S. Cohen and M. W. Wartofsky (eds.), *Language, Logic and Method*, D. Reidel: 91-102." Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
POSTSCIENTISM: THE FUNDAMENTAL FALSEHOODS
Desperate attempts to get rid of idiocies taught in the era of
Postscientism: http://www.worldscibooks.com/chemist...69_preface.pdf "I believe that the time is ripe to acknowledge that the term entropy, as originally coined by Clausius, is an unfortunate choice. Moreover, it is also a misleading term both in its meaning in ancient and in contemporary Greek. On this matter, I cannot do any better than Leon Cooper (1968). Cooper cites the original passage from Clausius: in choosing the word "Entropy," Clausius wrote: "I prefer going to the ancient languages for the names of important scientific quantities, so that they mean the same thing in all living tongues. I propose, accordingly, to call S the entropy of a body, after the Greek word "transformation." I have designedly coined the word entropy to be similar to energy, for these two quantities are so analogous in their physical significance, that an analogy of denominations seems to be helpful." Right after quoting Clausius' explanation on his reasons for the choice of the word "Entropy," Cooper commented: "By doing this, rather than extracting a name from the body of the current language (say: lost heat), he succeeded in coining a word that meant the same thing to everybody: nothing." I fully agree with Cooper’s comment; however, I have two additional comments, and contrary to Cooper, I venture into taking the inevitable conclusion: First, I agree that "entropy means the same thing to everybody: nothing." But more than that, entropy is also a misleading term...." Arieh Ben-Naim Department of Physical Chemistry The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem, Israel Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF COSMOLOGY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 10 | September 17th 08 06:10 PM |
POSTMODERNISM AND POSTSCIENTISM: WHICH IS WORSE? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | June 28th 08 10:41 PM |
TWO FALSEHOODS THAT KILLED SCIENCE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 23 | December 1st 07 07:51 AM |
A fundamental Question | Researcher | Astronomy Misc | 17 | October 17th 06 04:53 AM |
THE UNIVERSE-FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION | ACE | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 1st 05 10:18 PM |