Einstein's Spacetime and Clausius's Entropy: Deadly Malignancies of Civilization
Add Reply
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-10 08:59:36 UTC
Raw Message
I am stationary on Earth, you move past me at great speed and check your clocks against mine. What will you discover? Time speeds up or slows down for you?

According to Einstein's special relativity, time for you SPEEDS UP - you discover that my clocks are slow and your clocks are FAST. Yet Einsteinians teach the opposite:

Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you slows down."

Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion."

"This is the easiest and most practical way to get to the far future - go really fast. According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, when you travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, time slows down for you relative to the outside world."

John Gribbin: "Einstein's special theory of relativity tells us how the Universe looks to an observer moving at a steady speed. Because the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow..."

Brian Cox (2:25) : "Moving clocks run slowly"

This is not an ordinary lie - in a sense, it is not a lie at all. It is an idiocy, and the sad thing is that the "truth" - time for you SPEEDS UP - is an idiocy as well. All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, validly or invalidly deduced, are idiotic.

Einstein did not receive his Nobel prize for producing such idiocies. He received it for speculations involving the entropy concept. Were those speculations less idiotic?

Entropy is not a state function. This means that any statement involving the term "entropy" is not even wrong. If you define the entropy S as a quantity that obeys the equation dS=dQrev/T, you will find that, so defined, the entropy is a STATE FUNCTION FOR AN IDEAL GAS. Clausius was very impressed by this statefunctionness and decided to prove that the entropy (so defined) is a state function for ANY system. So "Entropy is a state function" became a fundamental theorem in thermodynamics. Clausius deduced it from the assumption that any cycle can be disintegrated into small Carnot cycles, and nowadays this deduction remains the only justification of "Entropy is a state function":

"Carnot Cycles: S is a State Function. Any reversible cycle can be thought of as a collection of Carnot cycles - this approximation becomes exact as cycles become infinitesimal. Entropy change around an individual cycle is zero. Sum of entropy changes over all cycles is zero."

"Entropy Changes in Arbitrary Cycles. What if we have a process which occurs in a cycle other than the Carnot cycle, e.g., the cycle depicted in Fig. 3. If entropy is a state function, cyclic integral of dS = 0, no matter what the nature of the cycle. In order to see that this is true, break up the cycle into sub-cycles, each of which is a Carnot cycle, as shown in Fig. 3. If we apply Eq. (7) to each piece, and add the results, we get zero for the sum."

The assumption on which "Entropy is a state function" is based - that any cycle can be subdivided into small Carnot cycles - is obviously false. An isothermal cycle CANNOT be subdivided into small Carnot cycles. A cycle involving the action of conservative forces CANNOT be subdivided into small Carnot cycles.

Conclusion: The belief that the entropy is a state function is totally unjustified. The part of thermodynamics based on the entropy concept is not even wrong.

"My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it 'information', but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it 'uncertainty'. When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, 'You should call it entropy, for two reasons: In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-10 10:49:08 UTC
Raw Message
Dead science:

"Look, my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now."

Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

George Ellis and Joe Silk: "This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue - explicitly - that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical."

Adam Frank, professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester, and Marcelo Gleiser, professor of physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College: "A Crisis at the Edge of Physics. Do physicists need empirical evidence to confirm their theories? You may think that the answer is an obvious yes, experimental confirmation being the very heart of science. But a growing controversy at the frontiers of physics and cosmology suggests that the situation is not so simple. (...) ...a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given the field its credibility."

Frank Close, professor of physics at the University of Oxford: "In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is "scientific" be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space for their views."

Huw Price, Time's Arrow and Eddington's Challenge, p. 122: "A lot of time and ink has been devoted to the question how entropy should be defined, or whether it can be defined at all in certain cases (e.g., for the universe as a whole). It would be easy to get the impression that the puzzle of the thermodynamic asymmetry depends on all this discussion - that whether there's really a puzzle depends on how, and whether, entropy can be defined, perhaps."

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. (...) 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."

"From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics is a disaster. As the authors rightly state in the introduction, many aspects are "riddled with inconsistencies". They quote V.I. Arnold, who concedes that "every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an elementary course in thermodynamics". Nobody has eulogized this confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford Truesdell. On page 6 of his book "The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics" 1822-1854 (Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics "a dismal swamp of obscurity". Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make sense of the writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur, Casimir, and Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is "something rotten in the (thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries" (see page 134 of Rational Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969)."

Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."

Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science (...) The scientific method is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew "belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all, curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes this capacity to disappear by adolescence. (...) Do I think there is any hope for UK? I am really not sure."

"But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?"

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave. [...] 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."

"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."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-10 15:32:57 UTC
Raw Message
Both special relativity and thermodynamics are essentially deductive (even though some arguments are invalid) and therefore false axioms must be at the origin of their devastating nature. In the case of special relativity the falsehood is embodied by Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, and the stunning thing is that this falsehood is OBVIOUS:

When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ. This means that either the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity, or the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light - from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v). The latter scenario is idiotic - the motion of the observer is obviously unable to change the wavelength of the incoming light.

Conclusion: The speed of light is different for differently moving observers (varies with the speed of the observer), in violation of Einstein's relativity.

The constancy of the speed of light relative to the moving observer is such a nonsense, so alien to human mind, that sometimes Einsteinians themselves inadvertently refute Einstein's relativity by showing that the speed of light does vary with the speed of the observer (receiver):

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. [...] Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

Loading Image... (stationary receiver)

Loading Image... (moving receiver)

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: 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." [end of quotation]

Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Four is greater than three, isn't it?

Can Einsteinians see the obvious falsehood of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate? No - they are victims of brainwashing. In their early education they are forced to repeat various absurdities until in the end they become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno:

Bingo the Clowno

Here is a clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-10 17:41:03 UTC
Raw Message
The falsehood of the fundamental axiom of thermodynamics is OBVIOUS as well - even Sadi Carnot was close to seeing it (but died prematurely). In 1824 Carnot deduced the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics from a postulate that eventually turned out to be false:

Carnot's (false) postulate: Heat is an indestructible substance (caloric) that cannot be converted into work by the heat engine.

Consequence (prototype of the second law of thermodynamics) : As the heat engine produces work, A COLD BODY IS NECESSARY.

That is, since the heat is not converted into work in the heat engine (in accordance with the false postulate), a cold body is necessary to finally accept all the heat taken from the warm body. Although "A COLD BODY IS NECESSARY" is a consequence, not an axiom, in Carnot's work, in modern thermodynamics it is regarded as an axiom - the Kelvin-Planck version of the second law of thermodynamics:

"The Kelvin-Planck statement (or the heat engine statement) of the second law of thermodynamics states that it is impossible to devise a cyclically operating device, the sole effect of which is to absorb energy in the form of heat from a single thermal reservoir and to deliver an equivalent amount of work. This implies that it is impossible to build a heat engine that has 100% thermal efficiency."

Unpublished notes written in the period 1824-1832 reveal that, after realizing that his postulate was false, Carnot started to doubt the necessity of the cold body:

Sadi Carnot, REFLECTIONS ON THE MOTIVE POWER OF HEAT, p. 225: "Heat is simply motive power, or rather motion which has changed form. It is a movement among the particles of bodies. Wherever there is destruction of motive power there is, at the same time, production of heat in quantity exactly proportional to the quantity of motive power destroyed. Reciprocally, wherever there is destruction of heat, there is production of motive power." p. 222: "Could a motion (that of radiating heat) produce matter (caloric)? No, undoubtedly; it can only produce a motion. Heat is then the result of a motion. Then it is plain that it could be produced by the consumption of motive power, and that it could produce this power. All the other phenomena - composition and decomposition of bodies, passage to the gaseous state, specific heat, equilibrium of heat, its more or less easy transmission, its constancy in experiments with the calorimeter - could be explained by this hypothesis. But it would be DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN WHY, IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOTIVE POWER BY HEAT, A COLD BODY IS NECESSARY; why, in consuming the heat of a warm body, motion cannot be produced."

Generally, a cold body is not necessary, that is, the second law of thermodynamics is false. The cold body is only TECHNOLOGICALLY necessary as it makes heat engines fast-working. Heat engines working under isothermal conditions (in the absence of a cold body) are possible but are too slow and impuissant to be of any technological importance. They do violate the second law however. Consider the contractile polymer shown in Figure 4 here:

A. KATCHALSKY, POLYELECTROLYTES AND THEIR BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS, p. 15, Figure 4: "Polyacid gel in sodium hydroxide solution: expanded. Polyacid gel in acid solution: contracted; weight is lifted."

Mineral acid (hydrogen ions, H+) is added to the system and "the polymolecule contracts and lifts the attached weight through a distance ΔL". Then the acid can be removed and the macromolecule resumes its initial stretched state, ready to lift another weight. The work involved in adding and removing (electrochemically) hydrogen ions, if performed reversibly, is virtually zero, while the net work extracted from contracting and stretching is obviously positive - the system is cyclically lifting weights at the expense of heat absorbed from the surroundings, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Adding H+ to the system and then removing it can be performed by using a reversible concentration cell (the polymolecule is immersed in one of the half-cells) - the work involved in the two steps is virtually zero (e.g. the work gained in "adding" is lost in "removing"):

"A concentration cell is a limited form of a galvanic cell that has two equivalent half-cells of the same composition differing only in concentrations."

Loading Image...

More examples of pH-sensitive perpetual-motion machines of the second kind:

"pH sensitive or pH responsive polymers are materials which will respond to the changes in the pH of the surrounding medium by varying their dimensions. Such materials increase its size (swell) or collapse depending on the pH of their environment."

"Here we see a pH-responsive polyacrylic acid hydrogel contained within an unbound carbon fibre braid. The artificial muscle (McKibben style) actuates when placed in a solution with high pH..."

"When the pH is lowered (that is, on raising the chemical potential, μ, of the protons present) at the isothermal condition of 37°C, these matrices can exert forces, f, sufficient to lift weights that are a thousand times their dry weight."

Pentcho Valev