weitere Rubriken
PhilosophieTräumeOrteEsoterikLiteraturAstronomieHelpdeskGruppenGamingFilmeMusikClashVerbesserungenAllmysteryEnglish
Diskussions-Übersichten
BesuchtTeilgenommenAlleNeueGeschlossenLesenswertSchlüsselwörter
Schiebe oft benutzte Tabs in die Navigationsleiste (zurücksetzen).

# 2.Thermodynamische Hauptsatzt negiert

15 Beiträge ▪ Schlüsselwörter: Physik, Thermodynamik ▪ Abonnieren: Feed E-Mail
Diese Diskussion wurde von Lepus geschlossen.
Begründung: Uralte Threads werden nur wieder ausgegraben, wenn man auch was sinnvolles dazu beitragen kann den Thread wiederzubeleben.
Seite 1 von 1
gesehen Diskussionsleiter
ehemaliges Mitglied

Lesezeichen setzen

25.04.2005 um 20:19
Von Thomas E. bearden:

ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM

The self-triggering of each exchange force appearance produces an excess
burst of force and energy186 input into the system from its active
supersystem environment. Thus, repeatedly the system is momentarily
converted (in each exchange force burst) into an open system in
disequilibrium in its energy exchange with its active environment, freely
receiving excess energy from it. Because the exchange force "input energy
burst" is short, multiple such "input bursts" must be used in a single
rotation cycle so that the total energy input by all of them is significant.
In that case, COP>1.0 performance is permitted by the laws of physics,
thermodynamics, and nature. Conservation of energy is not violated.
Classical equilibrium thermodynamics with its infamous second law does
not apply to the Johnson system, since the system is periodically an open
system far from equilibrium and receiving excess energy from its active
environmental exchange. A priori the Johnson system has increased its
negentropy overall, and that negentropy (increased order or increased
potential energy) can then be dissipated (disordered) to produce free shaft
horsepower if the bursts of exchange force are properly coherent in
direction and timing.
We diverge for a moment: As is well known, the equilibrium condition in a
system is the condition of maximum entropy in the system; any
disequilibrium condition reduces the entropy a priori because it is an
excited state of the system containing additional potential energy. It is
worth rigorously clarifying the infamous second law of thermodynamics.
Quoting Lindsay and Margenau {437}:
"[The]...statement of the second law: (a) the entropy... is
a variable of state, (b) Its value, for a closed system, can
never decrease."
... "Non-equilibrium conditions cannot be specified by
variables of state, and their entropy cannot be computed.
...the condition of equilibrium is the condition of
maximum entropy."
186 Technically speaking, the exchange force is not a magnetic field force, but a force
that arises independently due to quantum mechanical considerations. Nonetheless, it
is a real force arising in magnetic materials and affecting magnetic materials, as in
permanent magnets.
350
ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM: CONCEPTS & PRINCIPLES.
In the first statement, the reader should note the assumption of a closed
system in the first subparagraph, and the absolute requirement that the
calculated entropy be a variable of state.
Also, the quotation can be falsified. Oddly, the "closed system" in classical
thermodynamics is defined (illogically) as a system that does not exchange
mass across its boundary, but may and often does exchange energy across
it.

=========================================
We negate any absoluteness of that statement by Lindsay and Margenau
=========================================
by citing a counter example of a "closed" system with continuously
increasing energy, fed by transfer of energy from the environment, and
with no escape of the energy or very little escape of it. A specific example
is a photon absorption by a mass particle. This system achieves increasing
energy (order) as the process continues, hence achieves negentropy. This
may be considered a fluctuation, of course, but it still places severe
limitations on this law of thermodynamics and in fact negates any
absoluteness of it. For such reasons, in this book we have redefined
"closed system" as one that exchanges neither energy nor mass with its
environment, and we recognize that there are no such systems in the
universe. We have defined an "open system" as a system that exchanges
either energy or mass or both across its boundary, so that we do not
encounter the problem of the counter example cited. Further, general
relativity requires an increase in the mass of any system that increases its
potential energy, and a decrease in the mass of any system that decreases
its potential energy
. Hence energy exchange at all with the system,
involves mass exchange since mass and energy are the same thing. The
classical thermodynamic definition of a "closed system" has thus been
falsified since 1915, with the definition becoming only an approximation
rather than a generally valid definition.
In the second subparagraph of that first statement by Lindsay and
Margenau, the reader should note that the closed-system assumption must
be violated a priori if the entropy does decrease, and vice versa. If the
system is broken into a set of subsystems, then the only way the entropy of
the overall closed system to decrease is for one or more of the subsystems
to be open (new definition!) and energy (order) to pass out of the system.
Then an interesting thing emerges: For order (energy) to remain in the
system as such, the subsystems taken as a whole must produce as much
negentropy as they do entropy. Energy from an ordered subsystem can be
emitted in disordered form, but then it has opened that subsystem and has
entered the space between parts (subsystems) of the overall system. In
other words, in a closed system, any increase in entropy requires the
subsystems to become open subsystems. Again, the statement of this law of
351
ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM: CONCEPTS & PRINCIPLES.
thermodynamics eats itself. To stay in the overall system, this scattered
energy outside the subsystems must then interact totally with another part
of the system, and so on. This introduces disorder to the succeeding parts
that interact. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics itself internally
violates its own "closed system" assumption because, to operate at all, the
law requires continuing interaction between the active local vacuum
environments and the subsystem components. In short, it requires a very
special kind of overall or average equilibrium in an unavoidable energy
exchange between the local vacuum and all the parts of the system. The
source charge problem already demonstrates the universal violation of the
second law and the thermodynamic definition of "open system", but both
classical electrodynamics and classical thermodynamics have ignored this
source charge problem for more than a century. Our solution to it was
published in 2000.
Quite simply, there is no such thing as a truly closed system in the first
place. Kondepudi and Prigogine come close to this statement in the
following quotation187:
'Anyway, equilibrum thermodynamics covers only a small
fraction of our everyday experience. We now understand
that we cannot describe Nature around us without an
appeal to nonequilibrium situations. The biosphere is
maintained in nonequilibrium through the flow of energy
coming from the sun, and this flow is itself the result of
the nonequilibrium situation of our present state in the
universe."
In short, all systems on the planet — and we ourselves — are immersed in
a nonequilibrium state a priori. Rigorously there is no such thing as an
absolute equilibrium state on the planet, except as an approximation.
Now consider a perfectly insulated system, so that no heat can pass from
the system outside it. An interesting constraint then exists on those "open
subsystems" producing disorder (entropy). Unless equal reordering occurs
in the subsystem-to-subsystem reactions, then disordering (heat) grows a
priori. But this is not observed to happen in well-insulated systems
approximating our theoretically perfect example! Otherwise, the
temperature of a well-insulated system would increase until system rupture
and failure. And experimentally that does not happen.
187 Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat
Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, 1998, p. xii.
352
ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM: CONCEPTS & PRINCIPLES.
It follows that, to maintain the internal equilibrium between subsystems
and a constant internal temperature, a negentropic process is clandestinely
involved. We submit that this process is revealed in our discovery of giant
negentropy of the negative charge, and what may be said to be the giant
entropy of the positive charge — i.e., in the discovery of the common "
4-circulation" of energy surrounding a dipole from the time domain to the
negative charge of a point dipole in 3-space (thereby entering 3-space once
emitted by the negative charge), thence to the positive charge of the point
dipole, and thence back to the time domain. For a single charge, the wellknown
vacuum polarization provides virtual charges of opposite sign, to
convert the "isolated charge" into a set of composite dipoles, as previously
explained.
The second law of classical thermodynamics, considered in a more modern
light, appears to conceal hidden giant negentropy and hidden giant
entropy, in the ongoing 4-circulation of EM energy in the supersystem. It
is not possible to eliminate the supersystem or the interchange between its
parts; particle physics told us in 1957 that there is no equilibrium of any
system without this ongoing exchange. Any thermodynamics attempting to
discard the supersystem exchange (which involved both mass and energy)
is at best an approximation for special "reasonably well-behaved"
situations.
If the entire system is not in net equilibrium with the external environment
(i.e., if there exists disequilibrium between the separated parts of the
supersystem), then classical thermodynamics does not absolutely apply to
that system. The system is no longer absolutely describable by "variables
of state".
Those objecting to COP>1.0 in an EM system on the grounds that it would
violate the second law of thermodynamics (which already violates itself),
would be well-advised to restudy the very notion of the second law and the
thermodynamics definition of open system. Compare relativity's equating
mass as energy. Then ponder the thermodynamics of open systems far
from equilibrium with their active environment. Every system in the
universe is open, and it has an ongoing exchange with its proven active
environment (local active vacuum and curved spacetime). This exchange
Includes and exchange with every particle in the system. As pointed out by
Lee: 188
188 T. D. Lee, Symmetries, Asymmetries, and the World of Particles, U. Wash. Press,
Seattle, 1988, p. 46-47.
353
ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM: CONCEPTS & PRINCIPLES.
"...symmetry implies conservation. Since our entire
edifice of interactions is built on symmetry assumptions,
there should be as a result a large number of conservation
laws. The only trouble is that almost all of these
conservation laws have been violated
experimentally. "... "...this difficulty could be resolved by
introducing a new element, the vacuum. Instead of saying
that the symmetry of all matter is being violated, we
suggest that all conservation laws must take both matter
and vacuum into account. If we include matter together
with vacuum, then an overall symmetry could be
restored. "
The system itself is always in disequilibrium; only the supersystem can
exhibit equilibrium. The second law of thermodynamics specifically does
not and cannot apply to a system far from equilibrium, because of its
implicit assumption of overall equilibrium without the active vacuum
exchange. Also, a deeper balance is required between the hidden
asymmetries existing between the subsystems and their local vacuum (and
local spacetime curvature.
Indeed, one cannot even calculate the entropy for a system that — overall
— is far from net equilibrium with its active environment. We quote
Lindsay and Margenau even more strongly {438}:
"Equilibrium states are the only ones that are capable of
explicit analysis in thermodynamics... "
And again {439}:
"... variables of state have meaning only if they define an
equilibrium state. Hence the quantity we are seeking will
be meaningless unless it refers to equilibrium states. "
While we are at it, let us also address a serious flaw in the first law of
thermodynamics. We again use Lindsay and Margenau for a succinct
statement of the First Law {440}:
"First law of thermodynamics. A complete statement of
the first law comprises two assertions: (a) heat is a form
of energy, (b) Energy is conserved. "
All that really says is that energy is conserved. It does not state that it is
conserved in an object. It states that, whether the system is in equilibrium
or not, energy is conserved. If heat is taken as disordered energy, then it
354
ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM: CONCEPTS & PRINCIPLES.
merely states that overall the energy is conserved, whether ordered or
disordered with respect to some ordering criterion. It does not state that the
disordering is conserved, and it does not state that disordering must
increase or decrease. But it does implicitly assume that all energy at some
most basic level is ordered, else it cannot be energy (order). So it assumes
that, at higher levels, energy can be disordered (incoherent). However, at
the underlying basic level, it is and remains perfectly ordered — else it
could not remain "energy and could not be conserved. As an EM example,
in so-called "heat", every scattered photon retains its perfect order; it is
only the photon ensemble that is "disordered".
In short, each "basic piece" of energy is perfectly ordered, but the
ensemble of the pieces may be disordered. Therefore, entropy applies only
at a level higher than the basic energy quantum. Contrary to the
assumptions of classical (macroscopic) thermodynamics, processes which
directly engineer the basic energy quanta189 — more exactly, the action
quanta, consisting of energy x time, since energy cannot be "engineered"
or changed in 3-space without also being engineered "in time" as well —
are time-reversible. Hence they can be negentropic — simply because
every observable system is "open" to, and in continuous energy exchange
with, its active time environment (and also its active vacuum
environment). Also, no system changes its spatial energy in any fashion,
including ordering or disordering, without interacting with spacetime and
spacetime curvature dynamics. It also changes its time-energy.
So in our view the notion of "disordering" and "disordering of energy"
must be carefully reconsidered, as to exactly what is and is not being
disordered, when the assumed "disordering" occurs, at what level it occurs,
where and how the compensating reordering occurs, etc. We also point out
that the simple discovery of giant negentropy {12} as the solution to the
long-vexing source charge problem already removes the "absoluteness" of
classical thermodynamics. Giant negentropy already violates the
assumptions of classical thermodynamics at the elemental level in every
physical system. Indeed, every charge in the universe already falsifies any
"absoluteness" of the assumptions of classical thermodynamics.
This problem in the old classical thermodynamics has long been indirectly
solved in particle physics, with the discovery of broken symmetry. As Lee
states so clearly {441},
189 Actually, energy is discretized, not quantized. Energy x time (i.e., action) is
quantized.
355
ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM: CONCEPTS & PRINCIPLES.
"As we expand our observation, we extend our concepts.
Thus the simple symmetries that once seemed self-evident
are no longer taken for granted. Out of studies of different
kinds of interactions we are learning that symmetry in
nature is some complex mixture of changing plus into
minus, running time backward and turning things inside
out."
We point out that a symmetry involves a conservation law, such as are
stated in classical thermodynamics, and a broken symmetry involves a
broken conservation law. So the discovery of broken symmetry in physics
was a profound change affecting all physics, including the staid old
classical thermodynamics. Lee further points out the new complexity of
concepts {442} such as symmetry (which is behind every conservation
law, including the first law of thermodynamics):
"At present, it appears that physical laws are not
symmetrical with respect to C, P, T, CP, PT and C.
Nevertheless, all indications are that the joint action of
CPT (i. e., particle «-» antiparticle, right «-» left and past
«-» future) remains a good symmetry. "
So unless the first law is stated in terms of modern CPT symmetry, it does
not absolutely apply! Further, every charge is changing time-energy into
spatial energy or vice versa. Yet there is nothing about time-energy and its
transduction into spatial energy, or vice versa, in the present textbook
statements of the thermodynamics. The term "heat" does not refer to the
presence of energy at all, but to the scattering (disordering) and escape of
energy.190
Considering heat as "energy of the system", or "heat energy" of the system,
is a grand non sequitur. Rigorously, "heat" refers to the reduction of higher
levels of ordering of energy, and since the gist of energy is ordering,
reduction of ordering is the very antithesis of energy! "Heat energy" thus
is an oxymoron. Before the "escape", there is no "heat energy" (ugh!) in
190 Think closely: We never take the temperature of a "system"! We take the
temperature of the disordered energy (heat) leaving that system or its subsystems.
We do measure the effect of the emitted disordered energy. But that has already left
the system and is in the local vacuum (a second component of the supersystem).
Thermodynamics might be usefully redone more exactly in terms of the supersystem.
We leave that task to some budding young future thermodynamicists for a
recommended doctoral thesis.
356
ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM: CONCEPTS & PRINCIPLES.
the system at all. The energy is present in the system not as disordering,
but as ordering, a priori. If it were in the system, it would not have
escaped nor would it be escaping from the system. More energetic
molecular motion, e.g., is actually more energetic ordering, simply at an
excited state (of greater energy!).
We stress again (and strongly advise the researcher to read) Romer's strong
objection to the use of heat as a noun {443}, and we suggest that the entire
subject of classical thermodynamics needs a thorough revision to tighten
up its terminology, correct its definition of closed system, eliminate its
conflict between the first and second laws, and remove its inappropriate
consideration of heat as "energy". Otherwise, the presentation and general
interpretation of thermodynamics itself will continue to be one of the great
confusion factors one encounters in trying to think clearly about extracting
EM energy from the active vacuum environment to produce and utilize

melden
25.04.2005 um 21:23
eigentlich schon interessant, aber schon seit 2 Jahren vom Tisch...

Soylent Grün ist Menschenfleisch! Menschenfleisch!

melden
25.04.2005 um 21:36
Ich verstehe kein Wort

melden
25.04.2005 um 21:39
Nice copy´n´paste.

Jede Signatur die länger ist als meine ist SPAM!

melden
26.04.2005 um 01:24
also den viel zu viel streß alles durchzulesen, aber was soll an entropie falsch sein ?

Guck dir dein Zimmer an :)

Die Furcht des Herrn ist der Weisheit Anfang.

melden
21.02.2020 um 18:39
es ist so selbst die maschine die für sich ein geschlossenes system darstellt steht in einem offenen system der raum in dem sie steht

darum ist es jederzeit möglich wenn die maschine als offenes system konzipiert wird oder besser sich in die offenheit einfügt mehr energie zu gewinnen als ursprünglich zur verfügung steht da das system jederzeit energie bereit stellt
es ist nur eine frage des winkels oder der freqenz oder der phase

der satz ist also an und für sich richtig
die maschine muss jedoch als offenes system in einem offenen system gesehen werden

21.02.2020 um 18:55
Abovetheclouds schrieb:darum ist es jederzeit möglich wenn die maschine als offenes system konzipiert wird oder besser sich in die offenheit einfügt mehr energie zu gewinnen als ursprünglich zur verfügung steht da das system jederzeit energie bereit stellt
es ist nur eine frage des winkels oder der freqenz oder der phase
@Abovetheclouds

Das verstehe ich nicht, erkläre es doch mal bitte.

Edit: Leichenschändung unterstützt;)

melden
21.02.2020 um 18:58
@mightyrover
mein blog testatika dann runter zu 2ter hauptsatz
das will ich nicht nochmal schreiben
da ist auch ein kugelstoß versuch den wir gemacht haben der den haupsatz astrein wiederlegt oder besser richtig stellt

21.02.2020 um 19:06
Abovetheclouds schrieb:da ist auch ein kugelstoß versuch den wir gemacht haben der den haupsatz astrein wiederlegt oder besser richtig stellt
Ok, vielen Dank. Mehr muss ich dann auch nicht wissen, sondern werde mir den Blog ansehen. Dort wird das ganze sicherlich mit mehr Formeln und Substanz erklärt, mit mehr "Mathe", wenn man so will, als in diesem Text des Diskussionsleiters.

21.02.2020 um 19:07
mightyrover schrieb:Dort wird das ganze sicherlich mit mehr Formeln und Substanz erklärt, mit mehr "Mathe", wenn man so will, als in diesem Text des Diskussionsleiters.
Nicht wirklich. 🤯

melden
21.02.2020 um 19:10
es wird so erklärt, dass man es als versuch selbst nachvollziehen kann

21.02.2020 um 19:11
Abovetheclouds schrieb:es wird so erklärt, dass man es als versuch selbst nachvollziehen kann
@Abovetheclouds

Finde den Blog tatsächlich nicht, hast du mal einen Link?

pluss ehemaliges Mitglied

Lesezeichen setzen

21.02.2020 um 19:13
Abovetheclouds schrieb:mehr energie zu gewinnen als ursprünglich zur verfügung steht
Mit Verlaub, die Behauptung ist ebenso unsinnig wie:

"Ich habe zwar nur einen Keks in der Tüte, kann aber trotzdem mehr als einen aus der Tüte nehmen."

melden
21.02.2020 um 19:13
Abovetheclouds schrieb:das will ich nicht nochmal schreiben
Nein, tu das bitte nicht!
Einmal war mehr als genug.

melden
21.02.2020 um 19:24
mightyrover schrieb:Finde den Blog tatsächlich nicht, hast du mal einen Link?
Hab ihn gefunden. Sehr viel Lesestoff, alle Achtung.

melden

Dieses Thema wurde von Lepus geschlossen.
Begründung: Uralte Threads werden nur wieder ausgegraben, wenn man auch was sinnvolles dazu beitragen kann den Thread wiederzubeleben.