|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?
In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the (prototype of the) second law of
thermodynamics from two axioms; one of them turned out to be false in the end: The false axiom: "Heat is an indestructible substance that cannot be converted into work in the heat engine." There are texts in Carnot's book showing that in 1824 the false axiom had already become suspicious to him. So there can be no doubt that Carnot would have dispensed with it if he had seen the slightest opportunity. There was no opportunity and any analysis of Carnot's 1824 argument would unequivocally show that. Then how can a FALSE axiom be INDISPENSABLE for the deduction of a (presumably) true conclusion? How about the following argument: Premise: A false axiom CANNOT be indispensable for the deduction of a true conclusion. Conclusion: The prototype of the second law of thermodynamics deduced by Carnot in 1824 is false. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?
There is nothing wrong with the second law of thermodynamics. empirically correct! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?
The prototype of the second law of thermodynamics deduced by Carnot in
1824 was false but on the other hand it was a breathtaking universal proposition: the infinite set of unlimitedly various heat engines able to work between the temperatures T1 and T2 had to have EXACTLY the same efficiency. Generations of grateful professors were to make career and money by teaching the metastases of the falsehood - their historic triumph was expressed by Arthur Eddington in the following way: http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/o...und/index.html Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." Later Einstein's "theory" swept up all remnants of rationality in science so nowadays selected professors are allowed to make career and money even by saying awful things about the second law of thermodynamics: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ Jos Uffink: "Snow stands up for the view that exact science is, in its own right, an essential part of civilisation, and should not merely be valued for its technological applications. Anyone who does not know the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and is proud of it too, exposes oneself as a Philistine. Snow's plea will strike a chord with every physicist who has ever attended a birthday party. But his call for cultural recognition creates obligations too. Before one can claim that acquaintance with the Second Law is as indispensable to a cultural education as Macbeth or Hamlet, it should obviously be clear what this law states. This question is surprisingly difficult. 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." Pentcho Valev wrote: In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the (prototype of the) second law of thermodynamics from two axioms; one of them turned out to be false in the end: The false axiom: "Heat is an indestructible substance that cannot be converted into work in the heat engine." There are texts in Carnot's book showing that in 1824 the false axiom had already become suspicious to him. So there can be no doubt that Carnot would have dispensed with it if he had seen the slightest opportunity. There was no opportunity and any analysis of Carnot's 1824 argument would unequivocally show that. Then how can a FALSE axiom be INDISPENSABLE for the deduction of a (presumably) true conclusion? How about the following argument: Premise: A false axiom CANNOT be indispensable for the deduction of a true conclusion. Conclusion: The prototype of the second law of thermodynamics deduced by Carnot in 1824 is false. Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?
Many of Kelper's ideas were just fantasy and they were wrong...
but the led Kepler to this three laws of planetary motion. The laws are validated by observation. The second law of thermodynamics -- Background (do have a read) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?
Future theoreticians and philosophers of science will have to expose
and somehow put an end to to the postscientific practice of integrating the absurd consequences of a false axiom (Einstein's 1905 false light postulate in this case) into a powerful ideology that destroys not only rationality in science but also human rationality as a whole: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880 Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78 Peter Hayes: "In the interwar period there was a significant school of thought that repudiated Einstein's theory of relativity on the grounds that it contained elementary inconsistencies. Some of these critics held extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic views, and this has tended to discredit their technical objections to relativity as being scientifically shallow. This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. The implications of this argument are examined with respect to Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper's accounts of the philosophy of science. (...) The prediction that clocks will move at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified, highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading popular accounts of the theory. (...) The argument for complexity reverses the scientific preference for simplicity. Faced with obvious inconsistencies, the simple response is to conclude that Einstein's claims for the explanatory scope of the special and general theory are overstated. To conclude instead that that relativity theory is right for reasons that are highly complex is to replace Occam's razor with a potato masher. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts? Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory. The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. (...) The argument that Einstein fomented an ideological rather than a scientific revolution helps to explain of one of the features of this revolution that puzzled Kuhn: despite the apparent scope of the general theory, very little has come out of it. Viewing relativity theory as an ideology also helps to account for Poppers doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given experimental results in quantum mechanics and Einsteins questionable approach to defining simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to the other branch of the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the special - to try and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary scientist. According to the view proposed here, this only indicates how special and general theories function together as an ideology, as when one side of the theory is called into question, the other can be called upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will take the slightest notice of them." The major problem facing future theoreticians and philosophers of science will be this: getting rid of the false axiom and its absurd consequences will establish 18th century science as the only reasonable alternative to Einsteiniana's powerful ideology; psychologically this is extremely difficult to accept: http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule...WR_2006_10.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light -- which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-1833) and François Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect, is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian context." http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison théorique à ce que la vitesse de la lumière ne dépende 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 lumière se comporte autrement - quant à sa trajectoire - qu'une particule matérielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la lumière ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer à la lumière toute la théorie newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes, opticiens, philosophes de la nature à la fin du XVIIIème siècle. Les résultats sont étonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux. (...) Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel, Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther." http://www.passiondulivre.com/livre-...ravitation.htm "Étrangement, personne n'est jamais vraiment allé voir ce que l'on en pensait «avant», avant Einstein, avant Poincaré, avant Maxwell. Pourtant, quelques savants austères et ignorés, John Michell, Robert Blair et d'autres encore, s'y sont intéressés, de très près. Newtoniens impénitents, ces «philosophes de la nature» ont tout simplement traité la lumière comme faite de vulgaires particules matérielles : des «corpuscules lumineux». Mais ce sont gens sérieux et ils se sont basés sur leurs Classiques, Galilée, Newton et ses Principia où déjà l'on trouve des idées intéressantes. À la fin du XVIIIe siècle, au siècle des Lumières (si bien nommé en l'occurrence !), en Angleterre, en Écosse, en Prusse et même à Paris, une véritable balistique de la lumière sous-tend silencieusement la théorie de l'émission, avatar de la théorie corpusculaire de la lumière de Newton. Lus à la lumière (!) des théories aujourd'hui acceptées, les résultats ne sont pas minces. (...) Les «relativités» d'Einstein, cinématique einsteinienne et théorie de la gravitation, ont la triste réputation d'être difficiles... Ne remettent-elles pas en cause des notions familières ? Leur «refonte» est d'autant plus nécessaire. Cette préhistoire en est un nouvel acte qui offre un autre chemin vers ces théories délicates. Mais ce chemin, aussi long soit- il, est un raccourci, qu'il est temps, cent ans après «la» relativité d'Einstein, de découvrir et d'explorer." http://www.larecherche.fr/content/re...ticle?id=10745 Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Un siècle après son émergence, la théorie de la relativité est encore bien mal comprise - et pas seulement par les profanes ! Le vocable même qui la désigne (« relativité ») est fort inadéquat. Ses énoncés courants abondent en maladresses sémantiques, et donc en confusions épistémologiques. Paradoxe majeur, cette théorie, présentée comme un sommet de la modernité scientifique, garde de nombreux traits primitifs. Or, de récentes recherches montrent éloquemment qu'un sérieux approfondissement de ses concepts et de ses formulations peut résulter du retour à ses origines, avant même Einstein. Déjà le principe de relativité se comprend mieux si on le détache de la forme nouvelle qu'il prit après Lorentz, Poincaré et Einstein, pour le ressourcer chez Galilée et Descartes. Mais surtout, l'examen de nombreux travaux des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, injustement oubliés, met en évidence une théorie particulaire de la lumière, en germe dans la physique newtonienne, qui ouvre des voies d'approche négligées vers la théorie moderne. Ces considérations contrebalancent utilement le point de vue ondulatoire traditionnel, et allègent ses difficultés." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?
Nowadays it is universally accepted that Carnot's 1824 axiom ("Heat is
an indestructible substance that cannot be converted into work in the heat engine") is false but the conclusion deduced from it (the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics) is more than true - its developed form holds "the supreme position among the laws of Nature", to quote Arthur Eddington. Of all the theoreticians and philosophers of science, not one could think of a reason why this should be discussed any further, let alone regarded as an anomaly. Rather, anyone questioning the second law of thermodynamics automatically becomes a "perpetuum mobile of the second kind" constructor, that is, he is just as mad as people trying to extract energy out of nothing. The defence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate is much less efficient. In 1850 Carnot's false axiom was declared obsolete: Clausius rededuced the precious conclusion from another axiom, obviously true this time: 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." Of all the theoreticians and philosophers of science, not one could think of a reason why the validity of Clausius' 1850 argument should be verified. Pentcho Valev wrote: In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the (prototype of the) second law of thermodynamics from two axioms; one of them turned out to be false in the end: The false axiom: "Heat is an indestructible substance that cannot be converted into work in the heat engine." There are texts in Carnot's book showing that in 1824 the false axiom had already become suspicious to him. So there can be no doubt that Carnot would have dispensed with it if he had seen the slightest opportunity. There was no opportunity and any analysis of Carnot's 1824 argument would unequivocally show that. Then how can a FALSE axiom be INDISPENSABLE for the deduction of a (presumably) true conclusion? How about the following argument: Premise: A false axiom CANNOT be indispensable for the deduction of a true conclusion. Conclusion: The prototype of the second law of thermodynamics deduced by Carnot in 1824 is false. Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?
Clausius' famous conclusion "Entropy always increases", a conclusion
that holds, according to Arthur Eddington, "the supreme position among the laws of Nature", was also deduced from an "indispensable false axiom": http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ Jos Uffink: "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." Uffink is too lenient here - the fact that irreversible processes don't have reversible replicas is obvious. I used to fuss vigorously over the issue ( http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/643/430/1 ) but in the end I realized I was alone - even Uffink had abandoned the dangerous (for one's career) topic. In the era of Postscientism indispensable false axioms eventually become obsolete and the conclusion starts living all on its own. "Who cares about Clausius' archaic deduction?" - would reply the mainstream theoretician - "After all, the law of entropy increase has proved empirically correct. You don'y expect air molecules to spontaneously assemble in the corner of the room do you?" Sometimes indispensable false axioms produce absurd conclusions but the absurdities automatically become "paradoxes" that gloriously illustrate the scope of the respective "theory". In the era of Postscientism there is nothing embarrassing about an 80m long object safely trapped inside a 40m long container, or about a bug that is both dead and alive: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...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. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the reference frame of a stationary observer.....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. The runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html "The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved." Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?
On Aug 3, 9:58*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Many of Kelper's ideas were just fantasy and they were wrong... but the led Kepler to this three laws of planetary motion. The laws are validated by observation. The second law of thermodynamics -- Background (do have a read) * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics As usual all "Wormley" knows how to do is promote bogus tradition and erroneous concepts spoon-fed to Freshman using highly questionable sources. {hey, if it's on the Internet you KNOW it has to be true!] Wikipedia is well known for censoring any and all issues that move outside of the traditionally accepted "science". But nevertheless, IF you might want to learn more about the rather bogus issues of entropy, HERE is the wikipedia article you need to read and UNDERSTAND! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy You get up in the same league as these guys and nobody can get in your way. Or you can be like "Wormley" and just keep repeating that "entropy is increasing" over and over and over... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?
On Aug 2, 4:56*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the (prototype of the) second law of thermodynamics from two axioms; one of them turned out to be false in the end: The false axiom: "Heat is an indestructible substance that cannot be converted into work in the heat engine." It is not a false axiom. Entropy can be considered a substance in the most general sense. Temperature is the pressure exerted by this substance. Entropy is also indestructible, as described by the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is an extensive property. Therefore, it has a density associated with it. The amount of entropy in a volume is proportional to a spatial integral of the entropy density in that volume. Just like a fluid. The equations of entropy are analogous to those of an ideal gas. Carnot often used the French word "caloric" for what we would call today "entropy". His work was an extension of the caloric theory. Your misunderstanding is not completely your fault, for once. Science teachers since 1910 have been teaching that the caloric theory had been disproved. This is not true. The caloric theory as developed by Sadi Carnot is healthy. Rumors of the death of caloric theory have been highly exaggerated. You like to quote references that are ancient. I sometimes do the same thing. Some of the older books have addressed some of your concerns. I suggest you obtain, any way possible, the following article: "Entropy in the Teaching of Introductory Thermodynamics," by Hans U. Fuchs in American Journal of Physics Volume 55 Issue 3 on March 1987. This article describes in great deal how the teaching of thermodynamics has been messed up. Fuchs places the blame on a H. L. Callendar, a professor of physics who in 1911 wrote an essay that has been mindlessly copied into many textbooks. Reference: "The Caloric Theory of Heat and Carnot's Principle," by H. L. Callender in Proceedings of the Physical Society of London Volume 23 from December 1910 to August 1911. If you direct your rants and raves to Callendar instead of Einstein, I would be forced to agree with you. Oddly, there is no crank who rants and raves against Callendar. You will break new ground, and may actually do some good. For another look at how teachers have messed up introductory courses in physics, I suggest you get a copy of: "The Teaching of Physics," by J. W. Warren (London Butterworths 1965). The reference above pretty much started the twisted way teachers introduce thermodynamics. Physics students and physicists who work in the field, constantly, learn the real stuff by working out example after example. However, laymen generally never get past the Callendar model of thermodynamics. The common use of the language really originated with Callendars articles and books. I don't know how one science writer could mess up science education so bad. Another book that describes how introductory physics was messed up is: "The Teaching of Physics" by J. W. Warren (London Butterworth 1965). Chapter 6 of this book (pages 42-58) describes how thermodynamics is not taught well. These are old references, but I think they are still valid today. You may try to invest a little money buying these articles and books. Then read them. You will find plenty of real stupidity to rant against. However, there is something you have to keep in mind. The problem is not with the theory of thermodynamics the way experience physicists use it. Thermodynamics has been tested again and again. Thermodynamics is one of the main pillars of physics. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
INDISPENSABLE FALSE AXIOMS?
"Darwin123" wrote in message ... | On Aug 22, 12:22 pm, "Androcles" | wrote: | | - Hide quoted text - | - Show quoted text - You lying *******, you wrote that. Here, I'll write it for you. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
POSTSCIENTISM: FALSE AXIOMS AND ABSURD AXIOMS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 13th 09 07:57 PM |
GR THEORY IS NOT EVEN FALSE! | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 29th 08 07:26 PM |
GR THEORY IS NOT EVEN FALSE! | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | April 25th 08 07:55 PM |
Indispensable space history books? | Michael Turner | History | 2 | April 28th 07 03:47 PM |
false info | bob | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | November 3rd 05 01:53 AM |