http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../00/engtot.pdf
"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."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity is false."
Einstein: "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."

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0511...7068-705a.html
http://www.nyas.org/publications/Upd...sp?UpdateID=41
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspi..._crossroa.html
http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...steins_th.html

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Pentcho Valev

you frigging idiot

Cranks Reply wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

Pentcho Valev

you frigging idiot

It's like that episode of "Twilight Zone" where Dennis Weaver wakes up
from a dream where he's sentenced to death, every morning, forever.

You know, intelligent people get tired of mindless repetition, Pentcho.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../00/engtot.pdf

"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."

Intesting stuff. Did a demon get a hold of you about 6 lines from the
bottom? Or did you cut the quotes too liberally?

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity is false."
Einstein: "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."

Einstein was overstating the case, obviously.

I applaud your effort to find a new demon to share the stage with
Einstein. Clausius? Who would have thought it.

"Edward Green" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
|
| http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../00/engtot.pdf
|
| "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."
|
| Intesting stuff. Did a demon get a hold of you


Hey ****head! He's quoting. Maybe you are too ****ing stupid
to see that, or even to spell "interesting". Got back to school and
learn English, both spelling and comprehension.

Androcles.

Sorcerer wrote:

"Edward Green" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
|
| http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../00/engtot.pdf
|
| "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."
|
| Intesting stuff. Did a demon get a hold of you


Hey ****head! He's quoting. Maybe you are too ****ing stupid
to see that, or even to spell "interesting". Got back to school and
learn English, both spelling and comprehension.

What's the matter? Tired of the abuse heaped on you by others?

(1) Obviously my slip of the fingers is a slip of the fingers, although
I have been known to misspell other words, but even so, (2) spelling
flames and insults, especially unprovoked ones, are considered a mark
of the lame, and (3) equally obviously, the entire passage was a quote,
but (4) the tone of the quote changes bizarrely at about the point I
noted, so that it no longer sounds like the voice of the original
passage, whereas counting quotation marks it should be, whereas (5) you
snipped the second part of my comment, which mentioned the possibility
that quotation marks were missing, or else (6) he started ranting in
the middle of his own quoted passage.

As for you, my friend (7) people who live in monofilm houses should not
throw bricks, or even speak too loudly, and (8) although I have not
partaken in the verbal pummeling you invite and apparently so deserve
(9) I will so far fall from ideal net behavior as to keep a special eye
open for your foolishness now.

I don't expect to have to wait very long.

Sorcerer wrote: ...

Second thought, looking over your obscenity laced tirades, I'd be a
fool to waste more time on you.

"Edward Green" wrote in message
ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| "Edward Green" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| |
| | Pentcho Valev wrote:
| |
| | http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../00/engtot.pdf
| |
| | "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."
| |
| | Intesting stuff. Did a demon get a hold of you
|
|
| Hey ****head! He's quoting. Maybe you are too ****ing stupid
| to see that, or even to spell "interesting". Got back to school and
| learn English, both spelling and comprehension.
|
| What's the matter? Tired of the abuse heaped on you by others?


Nah, I ignore that.

|
| (1) Obviously my slip of the fingers is a slip of the fingers, although
| I have been known to misspell other words, but even so, (2) spelling
| flames and insults, especially unprovoked ones, are considered a mark
| of the lame,


Then you are lame, aren't you? Did a demon get a hold of you?
That phrase is clearly a flame and intentional insult, you are convicted
by your own utterance.


and (3) equally obviously, the entire passage was a quote,
| but (4) the tone of the quote changes bizarrely at about the point I
| noted, so that it no longer sounds like the voice of the original
| passage, whereas counting quotation marks it should be, whereas (5) you
| snipped the second part of my comment,

I snipped after your lame flame.
Have a nice flame:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/flame.gif

| which mentioned the possibility
| that quotation marks were missing, or else (6) he started ranting in
| the middle of his own quoted passage.

Did you read the quotation?

"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).

This manifest inability of the physical community to reach consensus about
the

formulation and meaning of a respectable physical law is truly remarkable.
......"

Seems to me that Pentcho put in enough to draw attention to it, but
wasn't trying to hide that fact because he quoted a source anyone
can check on.
He does have the failing of not following up on his posts, though.

|
| As for you, my friend (7) people who live in monofilm houses should not
| throw bricks, or even speak too loudly, and (8) although I have not
| partaken in the verbal pummeling you invite and apparently so deserve
| (9) I will so far fall from ideal net behavior as to keep a special eye
| open for your foolishness now.
|
| I don't expect to have to wait very long.

Did Einstein kill physics?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...minoEffect.GIF

I don't call reversal of direction a "constant velocity."
I do not claim that light traveling from A to A in time t'A-tA defines
the velocity of light. I say c is UNDEFINED, and Einstein was a lunatic.

http://www.schulphysik.de/physik/perihel/Perihel.htm
I do not leave out Jupiter in the computation of the advance of perihelion
of Mercury, and neither would Newton or Butikov,
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Proje...llection1.html
only a ****head would do that.
I will so far fall from ideal net behavior as to keep a normal eye
open for your foolishness now. I expect to wait a long time.
Surprise me my saying something that isn't foolish.
Androcles.

"Edward Green" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote: ...
|
| Second thought, looking over your obscenity laced tirades, I'd be a
| fool to waste more time on you.

**** off, then, fool.

Androcles

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:50:53 -0700, Edward Green wrote:


Sorcerer wrote: ...

Second thought, looking over your obscenity laced tirades, I'd be a
fool to waste more time on you.

Obscenity is not the only metric that can be used against Sorcerer. I'm
not even sure it's the most effective.

But he does have a mildly interesting take on the question of what the
average speed of an object (say, a turtle) is as it traverses a path from,
say, Atlanta to Boston, then back to Atlanta.

I can't say it's *accurate* or *useful* -- just interesting. :-P

Regrettably for Einstein it's not helpful that he used a German word that
could be translated as either "velocity" or "speed". Most individuals
take it as "speed", and evaluate the formula v = 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) at face
value. However, this formula isn't quite correct; it's more along the
lines of (AB+BA)/(t'_A - t_A), which leads to the same value if one
contemplates speed (in isotropic space), since speed is always
positive, but to 0 if one contemplates velocity (ditto), since velocity is
inherently directional and AB = -BA, so AB+BA = 0 as a vector.

In short, the average velocity of that tortoise is zero, regardless of
whether he's taking his sweet time, running as fast as he can (if
tortoises can run), or using an Acme Brand Jet Propelled Steerable
Tortoise-Assistance Rocket Pack (patent pending) lent to him by a
slightly disillusioned member of the Canis family[*]. He might even use
the jet pack on the way up and walk on the way back. It doesn't matter,
really.

The average *speed*, of course, is not zero; otherwise, the tortoise would
be unmoving.

One might contemplate also the speed of the Earth around the Sun, assuming
a circular orbit (it's not quite but it's close). The Earth's speed is
about 10^-4 c; its velocity is a vector, with a rotation speed of 1
revolution a year -- 90 degrees out of phase with respect to the Earth's
angular position relative to the Sun, give or take.

Whether any of this matters at all of course, is probably up to the
individual.
[*] the aforementioned individual is not totally unhappy as Acme credited
his account and then shipped his next order at half price; he is, after
all, one of their most reliable customers. Pity he hasn't caught that
Geococcyx even yet.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.