1，The image comes from the scientific classic "the propeties of Gases and Liquids"
The picture is a screenshot of the literature: 1. It illustrates the Crabelon equation derived from the second law of thermodynamics: the calculated heat of vaporization does not match the experiment.
2，The more precise the experiment, the more obvious the inconsistency between the second law of thermodynamics and the experiment.
3，Even in the face of such facts, scientists still confidently persist.
4，The second law of thermodynamics does not conform to experiments, and scientists use it to make money is a scam.
The claim that the second law of thermodynamics does not conform to experiments and that it is used as a scam by scientists for monetary gain is a significant and serious accusation.
where your evidence?
assuming this is not a trolling exercise …
It's important to critically assess such claims and understand the broader context of how scientific laws are applied and validated.
The second law of thermodynamics is a fundamental principle of physics that states, in simple terms, that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. It's one of the most well-tested and robust theories in the scientific community. The law plays a crucial role in various fields, including chemistry, engineering, and thermodynamics.
1. Discrepancies in Experimental Data: It's not uncommon for specific experimental data, like the heat of vaporization calculations mentioned, to show discrepancies when compared to theoretical predictions. These discrepancies can often be due to experimental limitations, the complexity of the system being studied, or approximations used in theoretical models. The Clausius-Clapeyron equation, derived from the second law, is indeed used to estimate changes such as the heat of vaporization, but it relies on certain idealized assumptions which might not hold in all conditions. Scientists continually refine these models based on new data and understanding.
2. Scientific Rigor and Honesty: The scientific community thrives on skepticism and peer review. Claims and theories are rigorously tested and only sustained if they repeatedly withstand scrutiny. The suggestion that the continued use of the second law, despite known experimental discrepancies, is a scam for financial gain misrepresents how science works. Scientific theories are not a source of direct income but are fundamental tools used to understand, predict, and manipulate physical phenomena. Researchers are motivated to correct and refine theories, not uphold incorrect ones for profit.
who exactly is making money from it??
3. The Role of the Second Law: Despite any discrepancies in specific applications, the second law of thermodynamics has been incredibly successful in describing and predicting the behavior of systems in thermodynamics, chemistry, and even in emerging fields like information theory and cosmology. Its applications range from engines and refrigerators to black holes and the early universe, demonstrating its wide-reaching relevance and accuracy.
The view that the second law is a scam is not supported by the broader scientific community. If you are interested in a deeper understanding of how discrepancies between theoretical predictions and experimental results are handled in science, it might be beneficial to look into more detailed scientific discussions or textbooks on thermodynamics. A good resource could be "Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics" by Moran and Shapiro, which provides a thorough introduction to the principles of thermodynamics, including the second law and its applications.
Hiw dies that prove that itbis a scam?
Im not following tour logic here even with tegards to that image.
What exactly is tour logical connection to the awwwoing statements toure making?
one experiment disprove it ?
any number of things could be a factor here
from faulty equipment to incorrect set up.
the second law works well with all experiments I’ve seen and plenty of data.
what is your alternative to second law?
do you have a mathematical formula and mathematical reasoning ?
do you have experiment data supporting your claim?
was that f peer reviewed?
can you share experiment set up that proves second law is a scam?
Bo, you’re very confused and simply wrong about quite a few things here.
please read the bellow carefully, it could help you understand things abit better;
The argument presented in the document you've shared appears to critique the second law of thermodynamics by suggesting that gases absorbing and radiating energy cannot reach thermal equilibrium, which in turn would imply a violation of the second law. Let's break down the concepts and assess the validity of these claims:
1. Understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics: This law states that in any closed system, the total entropy (a measure of disorder or randomness) cannot decrease over time. It fundamentally implies that heat will spontaneously flow from a hotter object to a cooler one until thermal equilibrium is reached.
2. The Radiation and Absorption Argument: The document suggests that due to differences in the rates of radiation and absorption within a gas, there will always be a net heat transfer which results in changes in temperature, implying that thermal equilibrium (and thus the second law) is violated. It essentially argues that the system will constantly experience fluctuations in temperature due to energy transfers.
3. Critical Assessment:
- Local vs. Global Equilibrium: The key misunderstanding here may lie in confusing local fluctuations in temperature with overall system equilibrium. While local temperature variations can occur due to radiation and absorption differences, over time and in a sufficiently large system, these will statistically average out to maintain equilibrium.
- Statistical Nature of Thermodynamics: Thermodynamics laws, especially the second law, are statistical in nature. They describe what happens on average and over time, not necessarily instantaneously at every point in the system.
- Experimental and Theoretical Support: The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most tested and validated principles in physics. Its predictions align closely with experimental data across a vast range of systems. Claims of its invalidity would need to be backed by extensive experimental evidence showing consistent, repeatable violations, which is not the case here.
4. Misinterpretation and Misapplication: The scenario described in the document might be a misinterpretation or misapplication of thermodynamic principles. The equations provided seem to consider idealized or simplified models which may not fully capture the complexities of real-world systems, including non-ideal effects, multi-body interactions, and external influences.
5. The Role of Peer Review: Scientific theories are constantly tested, challenged, and refined. The validity of such a claim against the second law would need rigorous peer review and experimental verification. Without broad scientific consensus or a significant body of evidence to support such claims, they remain speculative.
In conclusion, while it is crucial to critically examine and challenge scientific theories, the claim that the second law of thermodynamics is a "scam" based on the presented argument does not hold up against the overwhelming amount of empirical evidence supporting the law. Misunderstandings or misrepresentations of how radiation and absorption affect thermal equilibrium do not constitute a valid disproof of the law. For a more comprehensive understanding, I recommend consulting more detailed texts on thermodynamics, such as "Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics" by Moran and Shapiro, which could clarify how these processes are accounted for in classical and statistical thermodynamics.
Gas diffuses into vacuum, dQ=0, thermodynamic entropy dS=dQ/T=0. The second law of thermodynamics cannot be calculated.Please refer to the attached diagram for details。
"Ds=dQ/T" is defined as a reversible process that can be used, but an irreversible process that cannot be used. This violates the universality and consistency of natural science.
Solution to this one:
- expansion into vacuum has a dW
- 1st LoT: dW=-dQ
- So dQ is not 0
So once more you have shown that if you violate the first law, you also violate the second law.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers