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


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 26th 12, 05:15 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,078

Recently scientists in Hong Kong published perhaps the most serious challenge ever made to the second law of thermodynamics:

Self-Charged Graphene Battery Harvests Electricity from Thermal Energy of the Environment, Zihan Xu et al: "Moreover, the thermal velocity of ions can be maintained by the external environment, which means it is unlimited. However, little study has been reported on converting the ionic thermal energy into electricity. Here we present a graphene device with asymmetric electrodes configuration to capture such ionic thermal energy and convert it into electricity. (...) To exclude the possibility of chemical reaction, we performed control experiments... (...) In conclusion, we could not find any evidences that support the opinion that the induced voltage came from chemical reaction. The mechanism for electricity generation by graphene in solution is a pure physical process..."

Amazingly, the authors did not even mention the second law of thermodynamics. Neither did the few journalists who commented on the event:

"Researchers at Hong Kong Polytechnic University claim to have invented a new kind of graphene-based "battery" that runs solely on ambient heat. The device is said to capture the thermal energy of ions in a solution and convert it into electricity."

(PhysOrg.com) -- "Scientists in Hong Kong have reported, in ArXiv, their experiments to make a graphene battery that they say generates an electrical current by drawing on the ambient thermal energy in the solution in which it is immersed."

Thermodynamics has been dead for quite some time. Einstein's relativity is quickly moving in the same direction. Ten years ago it was still possible to make career and money by challenging fundamental principles:

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

Nowadays even explicit claims that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) VARIES with the speed of the observer produce no excitement at all:

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (....) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Albert Einstein Institute: "As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses [that is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c]."

Pentcho Valev

Old April 26th 12, 06:50 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
external usenet poster
Posts: 1

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Recently scientists in Hong Kong published perhaps the most serious
challenge ever made to the second law of thermodynamics:

Self-Charged Graphene Battery Harvests Electricity from Thermal Energy of
the Environment, Zihan Xu et al: "Moreover, the thermal velocity of ions can
be maintained by the external environment, which means it is unlimited.

Then it doesn't challenge the second law, you dork.
FREE unlimited electricity from the external environment!
Sometimes you are a total pillock, Valev.

Old April 27th 12, 06:00 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,078

"Physicists have built a graphene battery that harvests energy from the thermal movement of ions in solution. (...) When an ion smashes into the graphene strip, the collision generates enough energy to kick a delocalised electron out of the graphene. The electron then has two options: it can either leave the graphene strip and combine with the copper ion or it can travel through the graphene strip and into the circuit. It turns out that the mobility of electrons is much higher in graphene than it is through the solution, so the electron naturally chooses the route through the circuit. It is this that lights up the LED. "The released electrons prefer to travel across the graphene surface...instead of going into the electrolyte solution. That is how the voltage was produced by our device," say Zihan and co. So the energy generated by this device comes from ambient heat. These guys say there were able to increase the current by heating the solution and also by accelerating the copper ions with ultrasound. They even claim to have kept their graphene battery running for 20 days on nothing but ambient heat. But there's an important question mark. One alternative hypothesis is that some kind of chemical reaction is generating the current, just as in an ordinary battery. However, Zihan and co say they ruled this out with a couple of control experiments."

So if the current is not generated by a chemical reaction, this is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics par excellence. Is it so unnatural that some particular ions easily kick a delocalised electron out of the graphene? Perhaps not - it seems that, for graphene, the process is easy in general:

"For example, it [the graphene] has an ideal "internal quantum efficiency" because almost every photon absorbed by graphene generates an electron-hole pair that could, in principle, be converted into electric current."

Pentcho Valev

Old April 27th 12, 08:34 AM posted to sci.astro
Martin Nicholson
external usenet poster
Posts: 235

Pentcho - If your evidence is so overwhelming why don’t you submit it
to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Once accepted and published
your discoveries would then receive vastly more coverage than they
will ever receive by you posting here.

Old April 27th 12, 11:07 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,078

Dead science is neither right nor wrong insofar as, of all the official scientists, not one could think of a reason why the truthfulness of the axioms or the consistency of the consequences should be discussed. Yet Lee Smolin needs more evidence of science's death and sets a decisive experiment: "Would FQXi pay me if I suddenly declare that Divine Albert's Divine Theory is deeply wrong? If they do and if there is no other reaction, then this science couldn't be more dead!"

Smolin's experiment proved successful:

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

Pentcho Valev

Old April 27th 12, 03:23 PM posted to sci.astro
external usenet poster
Posts: 2

The first law of thermodynamics is: energy is conserved. That does
not mean created, it cannot be created, but it can be extracted from
potential energy to do useful work.
The second law of thermodynamics is: energy is dissipated with
each interaction.
That doesn't mean destroyed, it cannot be destroyed, but it does
mean lost, it can no longer do useful work.
For example, burning coal to heat steam to drive a turbine to
produce electricity to light a lamp means the energy in the coal
is dissipated as heat when the steam cools, as heat when the
turbine cools, as heat that the transformer radiates, as heat
that the light radiates, and all this heat eventually radiates into
space. The coal was trees, sunlight provided the energy for
the trees to grow. All energy on Earth (except nuclear energy)
came from the sun and all energy on Earth eventually radiates
into space. There is not one single example of energy being
created and not one single example of 100% efficient conversion
of one form of energy to another.
Your persistent attempts to have a widget operate at 100%
efficiency are total nonsense.

Old April 27th 12, 06:04 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,078

Proving that false science is false is difficult; proving that dead science is dead is impossible. Those who try sooner or later find themselves in Mr. Praline's situation:

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Mr. Praline: No, I'm sorry! I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!
[end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev

Old April 28th 12, 03:35 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,078

Albert Einstein (1909): "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory."

One of those properties is the variability of the speed of light - the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does. This means that, if light is considered as a continuous field of waves, one may be misled into believing that its speed is independent of the motion of the light source. In 1954 Einstein suggested that this false belief (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) had in fact killed physics:

Albert Einstein (1954): "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."

Clues showing that "field concept" and "continuous structures" are implicit references to Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev

Old April 29th 12, 06:38 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,078

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, like Lee Smolin, needs more evidence of science's death and sets a decisive experiment: "Would I become the most famous Einsteinian in France if I suddenly declare that Einstein's 1905 second (light) postulate is obsolete? Brothers Einsteinians in France and all over the world, let me inform you that the speed of light could be variable (the light postulate could be false) and yet Divine Albert's Divine Theory would remain unaffected, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!":

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 en évidence 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 procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle invalidée ? 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 économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la condition de l'exploiter à fond."

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Supposez que demain un expérimentateur soit capable de vraiment mettre la main sur le photon, et de dire qu'il n'a pas une masse nulle. Qu'il a une masse de, mettons 10^(-60)kg. Sa masse n'est pas nulle, et du coup la lumière ne va plus à la "vitesse de la lumière".. Vous pouvez imaginer les gros titres dans les journaux : "La théorie de la relativité s'effondre", "Einstein s'est trompé", etc. Or cette éventuelle observation ne serait en rien contradictoire avec la théorie de la relativité ! Einstein a certe construit sa théorie en analysant des échanges de signaux lumineux propagés à la vitesse limite. Si on trouve que le photon a une masse non-nulle, ce sera que cette vitesse n'est pas la vitesse limite, et la démonstration initiale s'effondre donc. Mais ce n'est pas parce qu'une démonstration est erronée que son résultat est faux ! Quand vous avez une table à plusieurs pieds, vous pouvez en couper un, elle continue à tenir debout. Et heureusement, la théorie de la relativité a plusieurs pieds."

Lévy-Leblond's experiment proved successful: He did become the most famous Einsteinian in France and concluded that science couldn't be more dead:

Ideology of/in Contemporary Physics, Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "In this way, major advances in modern physics, especially in relativity and quantum mechanics, have paradoxically fed an intensely irrational current. (...) Modern physics appears as a collection of mathematical formulae, whose only justification is that 'they work'. Moreover, the 'examples' used to 'concretise' the knowledge are often totally unreal, and actually have the effect of making it even more abstract. Such is the case when the explanation of special relativity is based on the consideration of the entirely fictitious spatial and temporal behaviour of clocks and trains (today sometimes one speaks of rockets . . . it sounds better . . . but it is as stupid!). (...) A closed arduous, forbidding education, which stresses technical manipulation more than conceptual understanding, in which neither past difficulties nor future problems in the search for knowledge appear, perfectly fulfils two essential roles: to promote hierarchisation and the 'elite' spirit on behalf of a science shown as being intrinsically difficult, to be within the reach of only a few privileged individuals; and to impose a purely operational technical concept of knowledge, far from a true conceptual understanding, which would necessarily be critical and thus would reveal the limits of this knowledge."

"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve, je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... (...) Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."

Pentcho Valev

Old April 29th 12, 02:33 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,078

Julian Barbour also needs more evidence of science's death and sets a decisive experiment: "Would FQXi pay me if I suddenly declare that the simultaneity is absolute (not relative as Divine Albert taught) and that the cosmological redshift is not due to an expansion of the universe? If they do pay me and if there is no other reaction, then this science couldn't be more dead!"

Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"


Barbour's experiment proved successful:

Julian Barbour: "In 2008 I received funding from the Foundational Questions Institute (fqxi.org) for my two-year research proposal Machian Quantum Gravity. The detailed proposal is here (pdf). In January 2011 I received further research funding for another two-year period for the project The Nature of Time and the Structure of Space (pdf). This new project follows on naturally from the first project, bulding on results obtained in it."

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
EINSTEINIANA DEAD? (Was: Who wrote "Reflections on relativity"?) Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 June 16th 09 07:08 AM
FWD: He's Dead Jim! Saddam Hussen hanged until he was dead, dead, dead! OM Policy 80 January 9th 07 04:33 AM
FWD: He's Dead Jim! Saddam Hussen hanged until he was dead, dead, dead! OM History 50 January 4th 07 06:33 PM
LIST OF DEAD AND/OR BRAIN-DEAD ANTHROPOLOGISTS -- Glaring Proof on eBay. Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 January 2nd 06 12:52 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.