Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry


^ Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics
The epochal work by Leyton {Error: Reference source not found} also solves the tremendous central time asymmetry problem of thermodynamics.

Price {29} states the problem this way Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry:

"A century or so ago, Ludwig Boltzmann and other physicists attempted to explain the temporal asymmetry of the second law of thermodynamics. …the hard-won lesson of that endeavor—a lesson still commonly Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry misunderstood—was that the real puzzle of thermodynamics is not why entropy increases with time, but why it was ever so low in the first place."

Many thermodynamicists add: “Or how Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry could it still be so low now?” Indeed, Price himself states {30}:

"…the major task of an account of thermodynamic asymmetry is to explain why the universe as we find it is so far Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry from thermodynamic equilibrium, and was even more so in the past."

Thermodynamicists have debated and fought, and sought the answer for a century, to little avail. The problem cannot be solved Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry within the Klein geometry model and approach. The answer is given by Leyton's geometry and methodology, and specifically by his hierarchies of symmetry principle. The temporal asymmetry is and was possible because Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry there do exist negative entropy processes in nature and in physics after all, due to Leyton hierarchies of symmetry. The old second law and Klein geometry only addressed the entropic half of Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry thermodynamics and ignored the excluded negentropic half.

A rather astounding fallout of Leyton’s approach is the potential for developing negentropic engineering rather than the present exclusively entropic engineering taught and Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry practiced worldwide. If one considers many or most operating system entropic losses as potentially harmful byproducts affecting the environment negatively, then the coming age of negentropic engineering will eventually allow reprocessing and Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry “recovery” of entropic byproducts into negative entropy resources once again. As the new engineering is developed together with extracting energy directly from the vacuum, the two will provide the real and final solution for the Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry ever-increasing biospheric pollution and contributions to global warming by present energy and power processes.
^ Correcting the First Law of Thermodynamics
In passing, we also found and corrected a minor error in Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry the present statement of the first law of thermodynamics. The first law presently equates the change of magnitude of an external parameter—such as the potential and the field—of the Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry system as work. If true, that would exclude gauge freedom, widely used in electrodynamics and physics.

Even in the Lorentz-symmetrically regauged Maxwell-Heaviside equations, the potential energy of a system can Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry be freely changed at will, by the gauge freedom principle. Put into concrete terms, changing the voltage (and hence the potential energy collected in the system) of an EM system—and changing Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry nothing else—is not work, nor does it require work. It merely requires work-free flowing of excess potential onto the circuit or system.
^ Correcting a Misunderstanding of the First Law Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry of Thermodynamics
We also corrected the long-prevailing but erroneous scientific perception that the first law prohibits perpetual motion. If that were true, then it would falsify Newton’s first law of motion Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry.

Newton’s first law simply states that an object, once placed into a state of motion, will perpetually remain in that state of motion unless and until acted upon by an external force Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry to change it. An isolated object not affected by net external forces thus really does exhibit perpetual motion, requiring no input of extra energy and doing no work. So either Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry one accepts perpetual motion or one gives up Newton’s first law. In that case, without any restraints, the motion of an object would be totally random from moment to moment, thereby Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry destroying any organized universe such as we observe and live in.

Inexplicably, for a hundred years a great part of the scientific community has мейд a simple error in logic, so that Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry the phrase “perpetual motion” has become a dogma evoking a knee-jerk reaction. We explain it by examining Max Planck’s statement as an example. Planck stated {31}:

"It is in no way possible, either Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry by mechanical, thermal, chemical, or other devices, to obtain perpetual motion, i.e., it is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a cycle and produce continuous Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry work, or kinetic energy, from nothing."

The statement contains two assertions and an assumption. Paraphrasing, the two assertions are: (i) “It is impossible to obtain perpetual motion,” and (ii) “It is impossible for an engine Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry to perform continuous work or energy, from nothing.” The assumption (contained in the use of the “i.e.”), is that the two assertions are identical.

The first assertion is false, since Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry it contradicts Newton’s first law of motion and common observation of the organized universe.

The second assertion is true. No source-free system can perform work or output energy, without the Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry appropriate input of the energy.

However, the second assertion has nothing at all to do with Newton’s first law of motion, or with the first assertion. The assumption that the Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry first and second assertions are identical is false. They are not even related, since an object in Newton’s first law state of perpetual motion requires no extra energy input and does no work Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry. That is not the same as a hypothetical system doing work without energy input.

Hence Planck’s statement asserts that a false assumption is identical to a true assumption, thereby proving Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry the false assumption to be true. That, of course, is a logical non sequitur.

So Planck’s statement is falsified completely, as is the prevailing scientific attitude that perpetual motion automatically means Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry a continuously working system without any energy input at all, and thereby creating energy from nothing.

The only scientists who unwittingly accept the creation of energy out of nothing at Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry all, are those who accept that all EM fields and potentials as well as every joule of EM energy in the universe, is and has been freely created out of nothing at all by Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics - Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall, and Leyton Geometry their associated source charges, without any energy being input to the charges.

sokrashennie-oboznacheniya-knig-pisaniya-5-glava.html
sokrashennie-oboznacheniya-knig-pisaniya-7-glava.html
sokrashennih-opyat-vozvrashayut-goryachaya-liniya-posobiya-za-schet-sredstv-fss.html