|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 03:16 AM |