[[ Check out my Wordpress blog Context/Earth for environmental and energy topics tied together in a semantic web framework ]]

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Voodoo Science

More voodoo science here; like a bad hot dog, this fusion stuff keeps on coming back. Robert Park has fought this stuff for what seems years on end.

A guy that keeps regurgitating his scientific cud, one Dr. Randell Mills, has also suffered from Park's pointed skewers. I find Mills' work the ramblings of a lunatic. He essentially claims two major breakthroughs, one theoretical and one experimental.
  1. 'The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics'
  2. A new source of power, direct plasma-to-electricity-power -conversion systems, a new class of chemistry, new chemical processes, new light sources, and powerful new laser media.
Now, I could buy the fact that he made some discovery in one or the other area, but both? And in that second one, claiming multiple discoveries pushes him over-the-top. The guy suffers from grand delusions and has suckered a bunch of people along for the ride.

Mills puts on a fascinating game face; he actually composes lots of well structured derivations of physics. I often forget how hard you have to work to formally debunk an elliptically argued set of equations that don't differ much from the readily accepted math. I looked up his version of diffraction theory (PDF) on his website and it didn't look much different from what I have used, apart from the snaky argumentation with weird diversions into hand-wavy abstractions.
Furthermore, each electron only goes through one slit classically, but it is imprinted with the wave character of the photon that it creates across both slits due to its interaction with the slit. An electromagnetic wave exits.
The end result doesn't differ much from arguing with a wing-nut. The wing-nut complains of his opponent's hand-waving, where the reality shows that the wing-nut projects his own inadequacies into the discussion.
Quantum mechanics reproduces the mathematics that
corresponds to this physical electromagnetic wave by invoking a nonsensical waving probability. Thus, it is stuck with the unfortunate result that the "wave-particle duality is unlike anything in our common everyday experience". Physics can now be reinstated over mysticism for this simple experiment based on an understanding of the physical nature of fundamental particles.
Mills has published papers in reputable journals. I should note that just because something gets published in the bulletin of the American Physical Society doesn't mean it has any credibility. If you paid your dues, you could put your abstract with the 4-point typeface into the 2"-by-2" box and they would publish it. The yearly compendium of abstracts from the APS meeting gave lots of physics grad students amusement. I remember vividly one guy that would always submit his pet zany theory of plate tectonics; he would basically fill the box with a topographic map.

I dug around and found out the truth behind why the APS allowed the wackos in. From the alumni news of Winona State University (a cool campus, located below the bluffland banks of the Mississippi River):
At the 50th anniversary of the murder of his friend and co-worker, Winona State University alumnus Tom Baab, '48, of Park Ridge, Ill., established the Eileen Fahey Memorial Scholarship. Fahey, a secretary at Columbia University, was shot and killed at her desk on July 14, 1952.

While earning his master's degree in American letters at Columbia, Tom worked part-time for the American Physical Society (APS), headquartered at the Pupin Physics Laboratory on the Columbia campus in New York City. Fahey, a 20-year-old secretary, was sitting at her desk reading a letter from her fiance, a Marine serving in Korea, when Bayard Peakes entered the office and emptied a clip of .22 caliber pistol shots into Fahey, killing her. Peakes then fled the campus.

In the weeks that followed, Tom was among those questioned by police for possible leads and motives. Peakes was finally traced through a letter written to him by Karl K. Darrow, head of Bell Labs and secretary of the APS. Darrow had declined to accept a paper Peakes wanted to present at the next APS meeting. Peakes's paper proposed the non-existence of the electron and Darrow rejected it, suggesting that Peakes might ruin his career in physics with such a theory.

At his arrest, Peakes said he wanted to kill a man at the APS since his rejection letter had come from a male. Fahey was the only person in the office and the shots were directed at her instead. Peakes was tried and sentenced to the Rockland County Asylum for the Criminally Insane.
Boots: quaking.



Update: The latest Bob Park ruminations:
2. BELOW THE GROUND STATE: BEFORE SPRING THERE IS MARCH MADNESS.
On March 23, 1989 in Salt Lake City, the University of Utah held a press conference to announce the discovery of cold fusion, but the story had already been leaked to the world's most influential financial dailies, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. Both papers continued to print unfailingly optimistic reports for weeks. Among those lured into the swamp was Randell Mills, a 1986 graduate of Harvard Medical School. Two years later Mills held a press conference of his own to announce that it wasn't fusion. It was better! Hydrogen atoms can shrink into "hydrinos," releasing energy. With the 17th anniversary of cold fusion approaching, both papers are now running credulous stories about Mills and his company, BlackLight Power. BLP, which has never produced anything, is rumored to be preparing an IPO.

26 Comments:

Professor Anonymous eric blair said...

A guy that keeps regurgitating his scientific cud, one Dr. Randell Mills,

I really don't care if Mr. Mills is right or wrong, so much as I care to see him deliver on his product claims or be called out on 'em. During the 1998/1999 press flury, Mills was claiming a battery in 2007. It is 2006.

Where are the people standing on his head about his claimes in the last century?

(As to his hydreno idea - the whole thing doesn't make sense from a heat cycle idea. )

6:18 AM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

DID EINSTEIN PREDICT THE DEATH OF PHYSICS?

The following two quotations are extremely important:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"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. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

Einstein at the end of his career:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

So Einstein knew what had happened. Perhaps at that time (1954) the death of physics was still reversible. Now there is no hope. This civilization seems to be suicidal.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

5:10 AM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

EINSTEIN'S SYCOPHANTS AND THE NOBEL PRIZE

You would not win the Nobel prize in physics unless you worship Divine Albert in the right way. Here is a list of candidates:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_einstein06/my_einstein06_index.html

Note that the present winner George Smoot had to change his dithyramb in the right way recently (otherwise someone else from the list would have taken the money):

"Aesthetic arguments, while useful as development tools, especially when there are no observations to guide the effort, made me uneasy—seemed a throwback to Greek reasoning about the celestial spheres. MORE RECENTLY, I CAME TO REALIZE that Einstein based special relativity not on pure thought alone but....."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

1:28 AM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

THE LAST SEANCE IN EINSTEIN'S ZOMBIE WORLD

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2404678,00.html :

"PROFESSOR Stephen Hawking, Britain's world-renowned physicist, is to switch from theories of multidimensional space to the three dimensions of the Imax cinema by starring in a film that sets out his ideas on the origins and fate of the universe.....His aim is to popularise science, but for many the appeal could also lie in the ability of an Imax 3D film to make Hawking and his wheelchair appear to come right out of the screen into the audience....Hawking has become a scientific icon, playing himself in episodes of The Simpsons and Star Trek....He is approached by Olivia, a reporter covering religious affairs for The Times, sister paper of The Sunday Times. She is writing a story about cosmology and the meaning of existence to commemorate the work of Albert Einstein and his special theory of relativity.... Mlodinow said that it would also include dramatised interviews with Einstein and other famous physicists such as Richard Feynman. "It will be like Groundhog Day meets Star Trek," he said....One aim of the film will be to silence the critics who point out that although A Brief History of Time sold millions of copies, few people actually get beyond the first few pages."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

12:14 AM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

EINSTEIN MAKES FUN OF THE ZOMBIE WORLD

Einstein knew all along that the speed of light in a gravitational field is variable and obeys the formula c'=c(1+V/c^2), and that the gravitational redshift f'=f(1+V/c^2) is a direct consequence of this variability. However Einstein was looking for fun and performed an experiment. He offered two questions and two answers to the zombie world:

Question 1: Is there any relation between the variable speed of light c'=c(1+V/c^2) and the gravitational redshift f'=f(1+V/c^2)?

Question 2: The gravitational redshift f'=f(1+V/c^2) is a direct consequence of what?

Answer 1: Who cares.

Answer 2: Gravitational time dilation.

The zombie world had to find an answer for either question. It did it successfully and Einstein had a lot of fun.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

11:08 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

EINSTEIN'S HYPNOTISTS PROVE 5=4

One of Einstein's crucial discoveries is the fact that, if the quantity

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

is replaced by its Taylor approximation 1-v^2/2c^2, Einstein's lies about gravitational time dilation can be camouflaged to some extent. If Einstein had not made this discovery, that is, if the original quantity (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) had remained unchanged, the malignancy called relativity theory would not have killed theoretical science (perhaps).

Einstein's hypnotists do know about the crucial discovery and always replace (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) with 1-v^2/2c^2. Consider Problem 3 "Circular motion", (a) and (b), on p. 15, solution on p. 19, in

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf

From the solution on p. 19 we have

(a) t_B = t_A (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

(b) t_A = t_B (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) (1+v^2/c^2)

Accordingly

t_A = t_A (1-v^4/c^4)

In other words, Einstein's theory can only be true if 5=4.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

12:04 AM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

EINSTEIN'S ZOMBIE WORLD: BIOLOGISTS WILL TEACH PHYSICS

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1881487,00.html

"[We will look at] whether we should be training biology teachers, so that they can become specialist teachers in chemistry and physics."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

12:24 AM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

WHY EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS INCOMPARABLE

In Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" Einstein claims that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light "varies with position". This means that photons can have speed 300000km/s in position 0, 300001km/s in position 1, 300002km/s in position 2 etc. Even without any analysis the expression "varies with position" should cause some embarrassment in Einstein's world. It does not. The inhabitants of Einstein's world do not care.

One of the reasons is that, according to the English translation of Einstein's book, it is "velocity", not "speed", that "varies with position". So Einsteinians raise an argument: "Velocity varies but speed does not. Where is the problem? You don't understand the difference between velocity and speed?"

Then, at the height of their triumph, Einsteinians admit it is speed that varies and so the situation of heretics who don't understand the difference between velocity and speed becomes even graver:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."

Of course, the velocity/speed trick is a low level one, designed to influence relatively weak intellects in Einstein's world. For relatively stronger intellects Einsteinians have prepared relatively stronger arguments, e.g. the speed of light is variable in general relativity but constant in special relativity, the speed of light is variable globally but constant locally etc.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

11:24 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

MUONS AND RELATIVITY FRAUD

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/cosmic_rays.html
"Some secondary muons have such high energies that they are able to penetrate the Earth to depths of more than 3.2 km (2 miles)."

http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/Neutrino/HAMF/ADLER%20Home%20Page.htm
"The energy loss of a muon in the atmosphere is about 2 GeV and therefore the muons which contribute to the low energy neutrino flux do not reach the ground."

Relativists' confessions (on sci.physics.relativity):
"Yes indeed: a low energy muon incident on the top of the earth's atmosphere will lose energy quickly due to interactions with the air, will penetrate the atmosphere only a small distance, and will live only a short time. A high energy muon will lose some of its energy due to interactions with the air, but will still have a considerable energy when it reaches the ground, and it will penetrate the ground (perhaps several kilometers); on average it will live a much longer time than the low energy muon. Yes, the low energy muon had a shorter "lifetime" than the high energy muon (both measured by an observer at rest wrt the earth). Yes, this is NOT due to time dilation."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

12:20 AM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

EINSTEIN'S PRINCIPLE OF VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT

Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), where c' is the speed of light as measured by an observer, c=300000km/s is the initial speed of light relative to the light source and V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where light is emitted, proves the validity of the following principle:

Since the probability that V=0 is virtually zero, light NEVER travels in space with speed c=300000km/s; its speed is either higher or lower than that value (V>0 or V<0).

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

11:45 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

THE MONEY-SPINNER OF RUDOLF CLAUSIUS

Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot. In Clausius' 1850 language this statement would take the form:

X: It is impossible, without any expenditure of force or any other change, to transfer heat from a cold to a hot body.

X is a true statement and therefore its negation, not-X, is false:

Not-X: It is possible, without any expenditure of force or any other change, to transfer heat from a cold to a hot body.

If not-X is a corollary of the statement Y, then Y is false and not-Y is true. So in 1850 Clausius deduced a version of the second law of thermodynamics:

Not-Y: Reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency. (Y: Reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have different efficiencies.)

The problem was (and still is) that not-X is NOT a corollary of Y. Clausius did not deduce anything. He just laid the foundations of the huge edifice of irrationality that crushed science but proved extremely profitable for the builders.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

11:41 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

DANGEROUS BUSINESS IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT

Classically, Einstein's criminal cult extracted their billions from miracles deduced from Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light. However a few years ago Einsteinians realized in horror that taxpayers were not excited anymore about a twin that sees his brother's clock running slow but then returns and proves younger etc. That was the end of the constant speed of light affair and a natural beginning of the variable speed of light affair.

The new business is dangerous for two reasons: first, variable speed of light could wipe out Einstein's criminal cult altogether; second, variable speed of light per se is unable to produce miracles and therefore excitement among taxpayers is by no means guaranteed. So new business plans involve the following tasks. First, the meaning of "variable" should be confused: the attention should shift from "depending on the speed of the light source" to something different, e.g. "faster in the past, slower now". Second, the variability of the speed of light should be served in fantastically small portions, so fantastically small that excitement is unavoidably restored and, what is even more important, Einstein's theory remains essentially correct:

http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-04/features/testing-the-limits/?page=1
"Testing the Limit of Einstein’s Theories....IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT CONSTANT?....If you compare a lot of high-energy photons with a lot of relatively low-energy ones, you should find that on average, after a billion-year race, the high-energy ones reach GLAST’s detector sooner—by about a millisecond. He and other quantum gravity theorists are pretty excited by that possibility, which just goes to show what they’re up against."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

10:59 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

HOW CLAUSIUS INTRODUCED THE SECOND LAW IN 1850

In 1850 Rudolf Clausius introduced the second law of thermodynamics in the following way:

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

"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."

If Clausius had been honest, he would have mentioned unavoidable changes in the operator that carries out the process, e.g. in the following way:

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. Changes will occur, on the one hand, 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, and on the other hand in the state of the operator that carries out the process. 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. However in "the other relations of heat" temperature differences can be equalized spontaneously, in the absence of an operator, whereas the process we consider is only possible in the presence of an operator unavoidably undergoing changes. Therefore we can draw no analogy between the process we consider and "other relations of heat" and always have to bear in mind the possible existence of "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".

The disciples of Clausius made the second law of thermodynamics both absolute and eternal by coining the curse "Perpetuum Mobile of the second kind" meaning that scientists trying to test the second law are just as mad as people trying to extract energy out of nothing.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

11:55 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

EINSTEINIANS AS CONVULSIONISTS

The miraculous corollary of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light - length contraction - allows Einsteinians to see through opaque bodies: see Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47 (solution on p. 54), in

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf

Seeing through the opaque stick is exciting but Einsteinians experience something even more exciting. After having moved towards the wall the rear end of the stick starts moving backward from the wall in an attempt to restore the proper length of the stick. Einsteinians do see that backward movement and ask questions: What is its speed? What is its energy? Sometimes Einsteinians believe the energy of the backward movement of the rear end is infinite. If it were not, they argue, some pawl would be able to prevent the stick from restoring its proper length but no, no, nothing can prevent the stick from restoring its proper length. Therefore in its backward movement the rear end of the stick is able to break ANY pawl.

So much excitement makes Einsteinians go into convulsions. Spasms are regularly interrupted by ecstatic singing. "Divine Einstein" fills the space:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

10:31 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

HYPNOTISTS AND ZOMBIES IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT

Members of Einstein's criminal cult are either hypnotists or zombies but it is extremely difficult to know who is what because both groups repeat the same idiocies and zombies are often much more active - write bestsellers etc. Still there are simple criteria that work sometimes. For instance, hypnotists do know that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms both Newton's particle model of light and the respective principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light: speed of light is c relative to the light source and c+v as measured by the observer, where v is the relative speed of the source and the observer. So hypnotists would drop a brick:

Tom Roberts wrote in science.physics.relativity:
> John Kennaugh wrote:
> > By far the simplest explanation of the Null result of the MMX is that
> > light is made up of particles whose speed is c relative to the source -
> > a result of the physical process which generates it.
>
> Perhaps. But Einstein was NOT trying to "explain the MMX result"....

Zombies never drop a brick - they know something that is both simple and absolute: the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light:

Stephen Hawking:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

11:59 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

VERY SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND VERY LITTLE FALSEHOOD

Relativists have always claimed Divine Albert rigorously deduced his special relativity from two postulates and countless experimental confirmations of the theory are in fact confirmations of the truth of the postulates. Yet lately relativists seem to have discovered countless violations of the theory but somehow forget to relate them to the problem of the truth or falsehood of the postulates. So Nobel prizewinners have found some Lorentz violation and have dared (those that are not Nobel prizewinners would never dare) to challenge Divine Albert and "rewrite the rules of Einstein's special theory of relativity":

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325871.400
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvL..97b1601C

Perhaps in Very Special Relativity Einstein's false second postulate will prove Very Little False. Perhaps not. Who knows.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

11:26 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

DOUBLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY (EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS)

In order to camouflage the falsehood of Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"

Einsteinians would do anything. They have already created Very Special Relativity, Doubly Special Relativity etc.:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0406/0406104.pdf

"The constancy, or otherwise, of the speed of light" Daniel J. Farrell & J. Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, England. "Since the Special Theory of Relativity was expounded and accepted, it has seemed almost tantamount to sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper of 1911 [1] that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

4:25 AM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

ZOMBIES AND HYPNOTISTS IN THERMODYNAMICS

If a relativist wholeheartedly believes that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's second postulate), he/she is a relativity zombie. Relativity hypnotists know Einstein's second postulate is false and work hard on various forms of camouflage - Very Special Relativity, Doubly Special Relativity, Deformed Special Relativity etc.

Similarly, if a thermodynamicist wholeheartedly believes that irreversible processes have reversible alternatives that join the same initial and final states (a falsehood introduced by Clausius), he/she is a thermodynamics zombie:

Peter Atkins, Physical Chemistry, 5th ed., p. 127: "Let the original change in the entropy of the system when the process of interest occurs be dS (this is the change we want to measure). The process need not be reversible, but we suppose that we can find a path that joins the same initial and final states and which is reversible."

Thermodynamics hypnotists (I. Prigogine) managed to camouflage Clausius falsehood 60-70 years ago but did not abandon it completely since this falsehood is essential for the derivation of the idiocy "Entropy always increases".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

5:58 AM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

POINCARE, EINSTEIN, CONTRACTION DES LONGUEURS

www-drfmc.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?class=std&file=Seminaires/342/t342_1.pdf
Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji, EINSTEIN ET LA REFONDATION RELATIVISTE DE LA PHYSIQUE:

"Chez Poincare, la contraction des longueurs et la dilatation des durees SONT REELLES......Chez Einstein, la contraction des longueurs et la dilatation des durees NE SONT PAS REELLES..."

The relativist seems to be lying. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47 (solution on p. 54), in

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf

Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which, released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If one sees the mark, one sees the erection of the pawl and then the trapped stick as well. Yes the relativist is lying. In Einstein's relativity length contraction is REAL too.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

11:43 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

BURSTS OF CONSCIENCE IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0406/0406104.pdf :

"The constancy, or otherwise, of the speed of light" Daniel J. Farrell & J. Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics,University of Hull,Hull HU6 7RX, England. "Since the Special Theory of Relativity was expounded and accepted, it has seemed almost tantamount to sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper of 1911 [1] that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential.....Moreover, photons of low energy travel at ‘c’ while photons above a threshhold energy can have varying values, faster than ‘c’, which are proportional to their energy.....For accepted cosmological theories to be valid, it is required that the universe is composed of 5% ordinary matter, 25% dark matter and 70% dark energy. It seems more realistic to believe in a varying speed of light via the mechanisms discussed above, rather than invent abstract conceptions simply because they happen to balance familiar cosmological equations."

One day conscience in Einstein's criminal cult will be fully restored and Einsteinians will draw all the consequences of Einstein's 1911 discovery that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential. They may even find that this is equivalent to c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer in the absence of a gravitational field. For the moment bursts of conscience die down as soon as Einsteinians imagine what money-spinner they are going to lose.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

7:34 AM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

SUBTLE FRAUD IN THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

Initially Kelvin and Clausius offered the following equivalent versions of the second law of thermodynamics:

Kelvin: It is impossible for a self-acting machine, UNAIDED BY AN EXTERNAL AGENCY, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature.

Clausius: Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body WITHOUT SOME OTHER CHANGE, connected herewith, occurring at the same time.

Both statements are true but trivial: no interesting conclusion can be deduced from them. So Kelvin and Clausius implicitly replaced them with and in fact used the following non-trivial but false versions:

It is impossible for a self-acting machine, EVEN AIDED BY AN EXTERNAL AGENCY, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature.

Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF SOME OTHER CHANGE, connected herewith, occurring at the same time.

The false versions naturally produced a false conclusion:

False conclusion: All reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency.

The false conclusion was in fact the so-called Carnot theorem; Carnot had deduced it from the false premise:

Carnot false premise: Heat engines do work without any consumption of heat.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

11:02 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

TWIN PARADOX AND WORSHIPPING DIVINE ALBERT

Einsteinians stopped worshipping Divine Albert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx35zMyFJ94
http://www.physicsforums.com/blog/2006/03/16/albert-hubo-an-einstein-robot/
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm

because they discovered in 1918 Divine Albert had explained the twin paradox in an obscure way:

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/63304
2007 APS March Meeting Monday-Friday, March 5-9, 2007; Denver,
Colorado Session X21: General Theory Abstract: X21.00005 : Einstein's Obscure 1918 Special Relativity Paper Author: Tom Morton (Northrop Grumman Corp)

In his "obscure 1918 special relativity paper" Divine Albert said the asymmetrical aging was due to acceleration experienced by the travelling twin. Why did Divine Albert say so? Later Einsteinians discovered the twin paradox had nothing to do with acceleration - see Problem 19, "Modified twin paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf

True, science and science education have been irreversibly destroyed

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23384875-details/Science+and+maths+degrees+in+'irreversible+decline'/article.do

and scientists would learn by rote and then teach anything: "due to acceleration", "not due to acceleration" and even "both due to acceleration and not due to acceleration". They would learn by rote even this:

http://www.physorg.com/news90697187.html
"LSU professor resolves Einstein's twin paradox. Subhash Kak, Delaune Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at LSU, recently resolved the twin paradox, known as one of the most enduring puzzles of modern-day physics....Kak’s findings were published online in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, and will appear in the upcoming print version of the publication. “I solved the paradox by incorporating a new principle within the relativity framework that defines motion not in relation to individual objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation to distant stars,” said Kak."

Bravo Kak! If your discovery had come a few months ago, Einsteinians would not have stopped worshipping Divine Albert.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

11:42 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

THE IDIOCY IN THE WORLD OF EINSTEIN

http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=47047&src=site-marq
"In the experiment a beam of light was passed through a specially prepared caesium atomic chamber. The beam of light arrived at the far end 62 nanoseconds sooner than would be expected under normal conditions. "Our experiment is not at odds with Einstein's special relativity, but it does show that the generally held misconception that nothing can move faster than the speed of light is wrong," the laboratory reported. "The statement only applies to objects with a rest mass. Light can be viewed as waves and has no mass. Therefore, it is not limited by its speed inside a vacuum."

In the world of Einstein, except for a few "crackpots", nobody would see anything idiotic in the above quotation. Rather, Einsteinians would resume their endless discussion about group and phase velocity and, after disentangling some initial confusion, would reach again the most important conclusion:

"In sum: phase and group velocity may exceed c, but frontal velocity cannot exceed c."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

11:32 PM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

INTELLIGENCE IN THE RELATIVITY CULT AND PHYSICS EDUCATION

Not very clever Einsteinians believe that the Michelson-Morley experiment CONFIRMED Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light and teach accordingly:

http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/einsteins_special_relativity Paul A. Heckert: I am a university professor who has been teaching physics and astronomy for over 25 years. I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics and specialize in observational astronomy. My work has led to numerous published research articles in various astronomical journals: "Rather than trying to understand why the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't work, Einstein assumed that it did work and asked what the unexpected result was telling us about nature. Einstein took the result as his starting point. He made the basic assumption that the speed of light is a fundamental constant in the universe and that all observers in any reference frame that is not accelerating will measure the same value for the speed of light. His assumption that any observer moving at any constant velocity will measure the same value for the speed of light led to special relativity. Basically if the speed of light can't change for different observers moving at different speeds, some other things, such as length and time, must change. Einstein found a number of surprising consequences to this assumption."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, SHOWED THAT LIGHT ALWAYS TRAVELLED AT A SPEED OF ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND MILES A SECOND, no matter where it came from."

Clever Einsteinians know the Michelson-Morley experiment REFUTED Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light and teach accordingly:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

For the last 100 years physicists have been constantly exposed to both teachings.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

1:56 AM  
Professor Anonymous Pentcho Valev said...

TWO TRUE AND ONE WRONG EQUATIONS IN RELATIVITY

Relativists love and fiercely teach the equation

f' = f(1 + V/c^2) /1/

which shows how the light frequency (f) varies with the gravitational potential (V). Relativists do not love but still admit the truth of the equation

f = c/L /2/

where c is the speed of light and L is the wavelength. Finally, relativists hate and often declare wrong the equation

c' = c(1 + V/c^2) /3/

although this particular equation is perhaps Einstein's greatest discovery (made in 1911) and is an obvious corollary of the true equations /1/ and /2/.

Why are relativists behaving so mysteriously? Equation /3/ shows how the speed of light varies in the presence of a gravitational field. In the absence of a gravitational field Einstein's equivalence principle converts equation /3/ into

c' = c + v /4/

where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Equation /4/ acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon: on seeing it, relativists get petrified. They do not wish this to happen and, for that reason, declare Einstein's greatest discovery, the 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), wrong.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

7:37 AM  
Professor Anonymous Anonymous said...

"His aim is to popularise science, but for many the appeal could also lie in the ability of an Imax 3D film to make Hawking and his wheelchair appear to come right out of the screen into the audience....Hawking has become a scientific icon, playing himself in episodes of The Simpsons and Star Trek...."

The Pope recently met Hawking, and, almost deliberately it seemed to me, ignored his mathematical rat maze and commented on the wonderful technology that enabled him to communicate with other people. I wonder if the Pope realizes that the true physicist actually invents and builds useful things instead of abstracting himself straight out of reality.

7:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


"Like strange bulldogs sniffing each other's butts, you could sense wariness from both sides"