TWO FALSEHOODS THAT KILLED SCIENCE

The second law of thermodynamics (original version):

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 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."

Einstein's second postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" 1905 Einstein:
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
: The second law of thermodynamics (original version):
:
: http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
: "Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 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."
:
: Einstein's second postulate:
:
: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" 1905 Einstein:
: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
: c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

The second is clearly false, but what's wrong with the first?
Steam turbines drive generators and provide electricity, don't they?
Ideally the quantity of heat the coal or oil gives up is equal to the
heat from a radiator connected to the supply... in practice heat is
lost to atmosphere through the cooling tower and resistance in
the electrical path of the generator, transformers, overhead conductors
etc. If you replace the radiator with a super conducting motor and
superconductors to operate an elevator then the work out is as good
as from a steam engine, so electricity is as good as steam in transferring
heat to work, the nature of the substance is immaterial.

On Nov 26, 1:36�pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The second law of thermodynamics (original version):

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 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."

Einstein's second postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" 1905 Einstein:
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Pentcho Valev

EINSHTEIN I SCHMACKA YOURA FACE

**************

Good luck.

You'll have to swat at the atmosphere.

On Nov 26, 5:36 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
...

http://www.ntoddblog.org/photos/atriots/asshat.jpg

On 26 Nov, 15:36, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The second law of thermodynamics (original version):

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 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."

Einstein's second postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" 1905 Einstein:
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

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.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."

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://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev

TWO FALSEHOODS THAT KILLED SCIENCE

*************************************

VIDEO KILLED THE RADIO STAR

On Nov 27, 2:36 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The second law of thermodynamics (original version):

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 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."

Einstein's second postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" 1905 Einstein:
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Pentcho Valev


"|" strike two.

one more strike and I'm outahere.

There are a number of axioms in the first order that are either
incomplete, or have other inferences that don't belong to that order.

On Nov 27, 12:36 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[...]

Einstein's second postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" 1905 Einstein:
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Pentcho Valev


The alternative version of the second postulate, that
I have argued, is:

A photon always has a focus of propagation, with a definite
velocity, c, in any inertial frame, that is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body.

That is, a photon has different foci of propagation, at the
same time, in different inertial frames.

Alen

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:36:08 -0800 (PST), Alen wrote:

On Nov 27, 12:36 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[...]

Einstein's second postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" 1905 Einstein:
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Pentcho Valev


The alternative version of the second postulate, that
I have argued, is:

A photon always has a focus of propagation, with a definite
velocity, c, in any inertial frame, that is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body.

That is, a photon has different foci of propagation, at the
same time, in different inertial frames.

Why should it?
A photon moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt the moving observer. There is
absolutely no evidence that suggests otherwise.

Alen



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm