A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FALSE PREMISES AND INVALID ARGUMENTS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 10th 09, 12:20 PM posted to sci.logic,alt.philosophy,sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,955
Default FALSE PREMISES AND INVALID ARGUMENTS

In 1850 Clausius deduced (the prototype of) the second law of
thermodynamics in this way:

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Rudolf Clausius: "Carnot
assumed, as has already been mentioned, that the equivalent of the
work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter
to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished. The
latter part of this assumption--namely, that the quantity of heat
remains undiminished--contradicts our former principle, and must
therefore be rejected... (...) 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."

I have always been claiming that Clausius' premises are true but the
argument is INVALID. Here are the premises:

1. (TRUE) In the absence of irreversible changes in the surroundings
influencing the process, heat always flows from hot to cold.

2. (TRUE) Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.

In fact, there is a third FALSE premise used by Clausius which, if
explicitly added to the set of premises, makes the argument VALID:

3. (FALSE) The process Clausius considers occurs in the absence of
irreversible changes in the surroundings influencing it.

In physical sciences, invalidity of arguments can be interpreted in
terms of falsehood of premises.

Pentcho Valev

Ads
  #2  
Old December 11th 09, 12:37 AM posted to sci.logic,alt.philosophy,sci.astro,sci.math
Arindam Banerjee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default FALSE PREMISES AND INVALID ARGUMENTS

The real problem in physics is not the absurd theories of relativity (based
upon an extraordinary bungle, which will be apparent to those cursed with
honesty) but the so-called second law of thermodynamics. It too is complete
nonsense. The sun and all the stars keep on generating energy for all time,
and evidently that energy gets destroyed. So, the law of conservation of
energy is total crap.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
In 1850 Clausius deduced (the prototype of) the second law of
thermodynamics in this way:

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Rudolf Clausius: "Carnot
assumed, as has already been mentioned, that the equivalent of the
work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter
to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished. The
latter part of this assumption--namely, that the quantity of heat
remains undiminished--contradicts our former principle, and must
therefore be rejected... (...) 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."

I have always been claiming that Clausius' premises are true but the
argument is INVALID. Here are the premises:

1. (TRUE) In the absence of irreversible changes in the surroundings
influencing the process, heat always flows from hot to cold.

2. (TRUE) Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.

In fact, there is a third FALSE premise used by Clausius which, if
explicitly added to the set of premises, makes the argument VALID:

3. (FALSE) The process Clausius considers occurs in the absence of
irreversible changes in the surroundings influencing it.

In physical sciences, invalidity of arguments can be interpreted in
terms of falsehood of premises.

Pentcho Valev



  #3  
Old December 11th 09, 01:35 AM posted to sci.logic,alt.philosophy,sci.astro,sci.math
M Purcell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default FALSE PREMISES AND INVALID ARGUMENTS

On Dec 10, 3:37*pm, "Arindam Banerjee" wrote:
The real problem in physics is not the absurd theories of relativity (based
upon an extraordinary bungle, which will be apparent to those cursed with
honesty) but the so-called second law of thermodynamics. *It too is complete
nonsense. *The sun and all the stars keep on generating energy for all time,
and evidently that energy gets destroyed. *So, the law of conservation of
energy is total crap.


Conservation of energy applies to a closed system and most of the
energy from stars is dissipated. And I know of no contradictions to
relativity or the second law.
  #4  
Old December 11th 09, 04:57 AM posted to sci.logic,alt.philosophy,sci.astro,sci.math
Arindam Banerjee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default FALSE PREMISES AND INVALID ARGUMENTS


"M Purcell" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 3:37 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" wrote:
The real problem in physics is not the absurd theories of relativity
(based
upon an extraordinary bungle, which will be apparent to those cursed with
honesty) but the so-called second law of thermodynamics. It too is
complete
nonsense. The sun and all the stars keep on generating energy for all
time,
and evidently that energy gets destroyed. So, the law of conservation of
energy is total crap.


Conservation of energy applies to a closed system and most of the
energy from stars is dissipated. And I know of no contradictions to
relativity or the second law.

AB: Relativity results from a ridiculous bungle. Conservation of energy
applies only where "internal force effects" do not apply. Throwing out
both, will give us vimans powered with Internal Force Engines. We can go to
the moon in a matter of hours, with such engines. I have been saying this
for years, but no one listened. Now at last I have got experimental
validity. The rail gun does not produce reaction like conventional guns -
the reaction is orthogonal. This brilliant work proves my theories, first
stated in my book "To the Stars!".
In short, all relativity is nonsense. The law of conservation of energy is
at best a special case. Throwing it out, we can make an entirely new kind
of engine, with such updated physics. Recently, I have written a book "The
Principles of Motion" which extends Newtonian thought, by incorporating the
new and basic scientific discoveries made since Newton.
Thanks for your interest,
Arindam Banerjee.


  #5  
Old December 11th 09, 05:16 AM posted to sci.logic,alt.philosophy,sci.astro,sci.math
Arindam Banerjee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default FALSE PREMISES AND INVALID ARGUMENTS


"Arindam Banerjee" wrote in message
news

"M Purcell" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 3:37 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" wrote:
The real problem in physics is not the absurd theories of relativity
(based
upon an extraordinary bungle, which will be apparent to those cursed with
honesty) but the so-called second law of thermodynamics. It too is
complete
nonsense. The sun and all the stars keep on generating energy for all
time,
and evidently that energy gets destroyed. So, the law of conservation of
energy is total crap.


Conservation of energy applies to a closed system and most of the
energy from stars is dissipated. And I know of no contradictions to
relativity or the second law.

AB: Relativity results from a ridiculous bungle. Conservation of energy
applies only where "internal force effects" do not apply. Throwing out
both, will give us vimans powered with Internal Force Engines. We can go
to the moon in a matter of hours, with such engines. I have been saying
this for years, but no one listened. Now at last I have got experimental
validity. The rail gun does not produce reaction like conventional guns -
the reaction is orthogonal. This brilliant work proves my theories, first
stated in my book "To the Stars!".
In short, all relativity is nonsense.


Sorry, here what I meant was "all the theories of relativity by Einstein and
its derivates are complete nonsense." I add below what I wrote recently, to
make myself more clear.

****

Needless to add, when the first postulate (about the speed of light being
invariant with respect to the speed of the emitter) of relativity falls
flat, gets ground into dust, the WHOLE STRUCTURE OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
BECOMES RIDICULOUS NONSENSE.

"Arindam Banerjee" wrote in message
...
To make matters more clear, the speed of light c is c+v when emitted by
an emitter travelling at speed v with respect to an inertial frame of
reference. It is c-v when emitted in the opposite direction of travel.
As the emitter is moving at speed v, it covers space vt in the time the
light reflects and back. The reflector is also moving at v, so it covers
an extra distance of vt/2 for the light to hit it. So in the forward
journey the light at higher speed covers an extra distance, while in the
return journey the light at lower speed covers a lesser distance. Thus the
times match, and no nulls are obtained. Exactly as it should be.
Taking these facts into consideration, the nulls that the MMI experiment
got, had to happen.
This is putting it briefly. I have talked about this in greater detail,
and with diagrams, over the past few years in Usenet.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.


****

The law of conservation of energy is
at best a special case. Throwing it out, we can make an entirely new kind
of engine, with such updated physics. Recently, I have written a book
"The Principles of Motion" which extends Newtonian thought, by
incorporating the new and basic scientific discoveries made since Newton.
Thanks for your interest,
Arindam Banerjee.



  #6  
Old December 11th 09, 05:54 AM posted to sci.logic,alt.philosophy,sci.astro,sci.math
M Purcell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default FALSE PREMISES AND INVALID ARGUMENTS

On Dec 10, 7:57*pm, "Arindam Banerjee" wrote:
"M Purcell" wrote in message

...
On Dec 10, 3:37 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" wrote:

The real problem in physics is not the absurd theories of relativity
(based
upon an extraordinary bungle, which will be apparent to those cursed with
honesty) but the so-called second law of thermodynamics. It too is
complete
nonsense. The sun and all the stars keep on generating energy for all
time,
and evidently that energy gets destroyed. So, the law of conservation of
energy is total crap.


Conservation of energy applies to a closed system and most of the
energy from stars is dissipated. And I know of no contradictions to
relativity or the second law.

AB: Relativity results from a ridiculous bungle. *Conservation of energy
applies only where "internal force effects" do not apply. *Throwing out
both, will give us vimans powered with Internal Force Engines. *We can go to
the moon in a matter of hours, with such engines. *I have been saying this
for years, but no one listened. *Now at last I have got experimental
validity. *The rail gun does not produce reaction like conventional guns -
the reaction is orthogonal. *This brilliant work proves my theories, first
stated in my book "To the Stars!".
In short, all relativity is nonsense. *The law of conservation of energy is
at best a special case. *Throwing it out, we can make an entirely new kind
of engine, with such updated physics. *Recently, I have written a book "The
Principles of Motion" which extends Newtonian thought, by incorporating the
new and basic scientific discoveries made since Newton.
Thanks for your interest,


You have mentioned nothing that would contradict relativity,
thermodynamics, or conservation of energy. And if you wish to replace
modern physics with your theories I suggest you build that engine but
it sounds like nonsense to me. Where would I find your books?
  #7  
Old December 11th 09, 09:05 AM posted to sci.logic,alt.philosophy,sci.astro,sci.math
Nomen Publicus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default FALSE PREMISES AND INVALID ARGUMENTS

Arindam Banerjee wrote:
The real problem in physics is not the absurd theories of relativity (based
upon an extraordinary bungle, which will be apparent to those cursed with
honesty) but the so-called second law of thermodynamics. It too is complete
nonsense.


The sun and all the stars keep on generating energy for all time,
and evidently that energy gets destroyed.


No and no. Have you observational evidence for your claim?

So, the law of conservation of
energy is total crap.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
In 1850 Clausius deduced (the prototype of) the second law of
thermodynamics in this way:

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Rudolf Clausius: "Carnot
assumed, as has already been mentioned, that the equivalent of the
work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter
to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished. The
latter part of this assumption--namely, that the quantity of heat
remains undiminished--contradicts our former principle, and must
therefore be rejected... (...) 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."

I have always been claiming that Clausius' premises are true but the
argument is INVALID. Here are the premises:

1. (TRUE) In the absence of irreversible changes in the surroundings
influencing the process, heat always flows from hot to cold.

2. (TRUE) Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.

In fact, there is a third FALSE premise used by Clausius which, if
explicitly added to the set of premises, makes the argument VALID:

3. (FALSE) The process Clausius considers occurs in the absence of
irreversible changes in the surroundings influencing it.

In physical sciences, invalidity of arguments can be interpreted in
terms of falsehood of premises.

Pentcho Valev




--
A God who kept tinkering with the universe was absurd; a God who interfered
with human freedom and creativity was tyrant. If God is seen as a self in a
world of his own, an ego that relates to a thought, a cause separate from
its effect. he becomes a being, not Being itself. An omnipotent, all-knowing
tyrant is not so different from earthly dictators who make everything and
everybody mere cogs in the machine which they controlled. An atheism that
rejects such a God is amply justified. -- Karen Armstrong
  #8  
Old December 24th 09, 08:31 AM posted to sci.logic,alt.philosophy,sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,955
Default FALSE PREMISES AND INVALID ARGUMENTS

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articl...us-Rudolf.html
"By the 1850s a major problem had arisen in heat theory: RESULTS WERE
ACCEPTED, BUT while he [Clausius] believed correctly that, when a heat
engine produces work, a quantity of heat ‘descends’ from a higher to a
lower temperature, he also believed that it passed through the engine
intact. The First Law of Thermodynamics, largely due to , visualizes
some heat as being lost in a heat engine and converted into work. This
apparent conflict was solved by Clausius, who showed in 1850 that
these results could both be understood if it is also assumed that
'heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder to a hotter body' (the
Second Law of Thermodynamics)."

Clausius replaced Carnot's false premise to the effect that heat
"passed through the engine intact" with a true one: "heat does not
spontaneously pass from a colder to a hotter body", and obtained
Carnot's original precious result that was to convert him and Kelvin
into bright deities that only Divine Albert was to overshadow to some
extent.

For many years I have been trying to show that the combination "false
premise, true precious result" is impossible when the prior
probability of the result is zero. I still think so but now I see that
any effort at rectification is pointless. No one to understand, no one
to care. The backward transition from Postscientism to Science will
not take place.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

In 1850 Clausius deduced (the prototype of) the second law of
thermodynamics in this way:

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Rudolf Clausius: "Carnot
assumed, as has already been mentioned, that the equivalent of the
work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter
to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished. The
latter part of this assumption--namely, that the quantity of heat
remains undiminished--contradicts our former principle, and must
therefore be rejected... (...) 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."

I have always been claiming that Clausius' premises are true but the
argument is INVALID. Here are the premises:

1. (TRUE) In the absence of irreversible changes in the surroundings
influencing the process, heat always flows from hot to cold.

2. (TRUE) Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.

In fact, there is a third FALSE premise which, if explicitly added to
the set of premises, makes the argument VALID:

3. (FALSE) The process Clausius considers occurs in the absence of
irreversible changes in the surroundings influencing it.

In physical sciences, invalidity of arguments can be interpreted in
terms of falsehood of premises.

Pentcho Valev

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Things for sale on eBay, some very rare - if the response is Invalid Item, please contact me [email protected] Space Shuttle 0 April 21st 06 03:29 PM
Things for sale on eBay, some very rare - if the response is Invalid Item, please contact me [email protected] Policy 0 April 21st 06 03:19 PM
Things for sale on eBay, some very rare - if the response is Invalid Item, please contact me [email protected] History 0 April 21st 06 03:05 PM
Things for sale on eBay, some very rare - if the response is Invalid Item, please contact me [email protected] History 0 April 21st 06 02:54 PM
telescope arguments mikeS Amateur Astronomy 12 February 17th 04 04:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.