The Kent Papers: New Thermodynamics: The Second Law Buried by Illusions

New Thermodynamics: The Second Law Buried by Illusions
Kent W. Mayhew: 68 Pineglen cres., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Email: Kent.Mayhew@Gmail.com

Abstract
Reality involves inelastic collisions, thus one must consider both
a system's radiation and its kinematics, as part of any system's
energy. Since most closed gaseous system's energy is dominated by
its kinematic energy, one can often ignore its radiation energy. A
closed system's energy is recycled back into the system via its walls,
hence allowing statistical thermodynamics to be used as a
mathematical approximation, i.e., creates the illusion of elastic
collisions. This illusion exists in most experimental systems, thus
reenforcing traditional theory's considerations, all of which are based
upon idealistic elastic collision. In open systems there is no complete
recycling of energy. Hence, the statistical based approximations can
lose its validity. It is in open systems where perpetual motion does
not exist, which has been traditionally explained in terms of the
second law, a law whose mathematical construct is limited to systems
where the illusion of elastic collisions exists. Note that other
explanations will be presented. Other, illusions do exist. For
example, the illusion of reversibility prevents us from realizing that
the magnitude of the latent heat of vaporization is greater than that
of the latent heat of condensation. This also explains Loschmidt's
paradox. A new understanding for Boltzmann constant will be given.

Reality involves inelastic collisions, thus one must consider both
a system's radiation and its kinematics, as part of any system's
energy.

Since most closed gaseous system's energy is dominated by
its kinematic energy, one can often ignore its radiation energy.

A closed system's energy is recycled back into the system via its walls, hence allowing statistical thermodynamics to be used as a mathematical approximation, i.e., creates the illusion of elastic collisions.

This illusion exists in most experimental systems, thus
reenforcing traditional theory's considerations, all of which are based
upon idealistic elastic collision.

In open systems there is no complete recycling of energy.

Hence, the statistical based approximations can lose its validity.

It is in open systems where perpetual motion does not exist, which has been traditionally explained in terms of the second law, a law whose mathematical construct is limited to systems where the illusion of elastic collisions exists.

Note that other explanations will be presented.

Other, illusions do exist. For example, the illusion of reversibility prevents us from realizing that the magnitude of the latent heat of vaporization is greater than that of the latent heat of condensation.

This also explains Loschmidt's paradox.

A new understanding for Boltzmann constant will be given.

Into the Night wrote:
I think you covered the flaws in just the abstract pretty well.

I've also noticed that Kent likes to point to peer review to prove a theory, as if science somehow had a voting bloc in it.

As reviewer, I would flunk this paper on just the abstract alone. I would not publish it in any magazine or journal I would print.

gfm7175 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I think you covered the flaws in just the abstract pretty well.

I've also noticed that Kent likes to point to peer review to prove a theory, as if science somehow had a voting bloc in it.

As reviewer, I would flunk this paper on just the abstract alone. I would not publish it in any magazine or journal I would print.

Agreed. Based on my review of the abstract, in which every single sentence is erroneous and/or nonsensical (as IBD has already competently pointed out), I conclude that the whole abstract needs to be redone from scratch, and it's pretty safe to say that the whole paper also needs to be redone from scratch.

IBdaMann wrote:
I would like to invite everyone to discuss this paper, and I would like to ease into it by first analyzing the abstract so we can know what to expect and to more readily focus on the key concepts.

New Thermodynamics: The Second Law Buried by Illusions
Kent W. Mayhew: 68 Pineglen cres., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Email: Kent.Mayhew@Gmail.com

Abstract
Reality involves inelastic collisions, thus one must consider both
a system's radiation and its kinematics, as part of any system's
energy. Since most closed gaseous system's energy is dominated by
its kinematic energy, one can often ignore its radiation energy. A
closed system's energy is recycled back into the system via its walls,
hence allowing statistical thermodynamics to be used as a
mathematical approximation, i.e., creates the illusion of elastic
collisions. This illusion exists in most experimental systems, thus
reenforcing traditional theory's considerations, all of which are based
upon idealistic elastic collision. In open systems there is no complete
recycling of energy. Hence, the statistical based approximations can
lose its validity. It is in open systems where perpetual motion does
not exist, which has been traditionally explained in terms of the
second law, a law whose mathematical construct is limited to systems
where the illusion of elastic collisions exists. Note that other
explanations will be presented. Other, illusions do exist. For
example, the illusion of reversibility prevents us from realizing that
the magnitude of the latent heat of vaporization is greater than that
of the latent heat of condensation. This also explains Loschmidt's
paradox. A new understanding for Boltzmann constant will be given.

I'll get the ball rolling.

Every sentence in the abstract is erroneous. We're probably going to have to examine the entire 24-page paper to see if it really is nothing but total gibberish.

[spoiler: I read the document, it's all gibberish]

Let's examine the abstract, sentence by sentence:

Reality involves inelastic collisions, thus one must consider both
a system's radiation and its kinematics, as part of any system's
energy.

Does "one must consider both a system's radiation and its kinematics, as part of any system's energy" logically follow from "Reality involves inelastic collisions"?

I see the word "thus" but I don't see the connection.

At least now I know that reality involves inelastic collisions. I mean, that's something.

Since most closed gaseous system's energy is dominated by
its kinematic energy, one can often ignore its radiation energy.

What is kinematic energy? No definition seems to be given. This is not a typo. The word "kinematic" is used extensively and not the word "kinetic". I know what kinetic energy is but there is no such thing in science as kinematic energy.

By the way, no one can ever ignore any matter's radiance. Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere.

A closed system's energy is recycled back into the system via its walls, hence allowing statistical thermodynamics to be used as a mathematical approximation, i.e., creates the illusion of elastic collisions.

This one has just too many errors that need to be unpacked:

1. There is no such thing as "recycling" energy in a closed system. Energy simply neither enters nor leaves.
2. No walls are needed to have a closed system, e.g. the sun and surrounding space
3. there is no such thing as statistical thermodynamics
4. nobody uses nonexistent things to make approximations
5. fortunately the approximations were clarified as being mathematical as opposed to social, legal, perfunctory, philosophical, imaginary or spicy cinnamon.
6. approximations do not create any illusions of elastic collisions. What is likely is that Kent is trying to merge classical physics and quantum mechanics in order to shift between models as convenient.

This illusion exists in most experimental systems, thus
reenforcing traditional theory's considerations, all of which are based
upon idealistic elastic collision.

I hope we didn't send the unpacking crew home already. This one needs a modicum of heavy lifting.

1. I haven't seen any such illusions in any experimental systems.
2. I see the word "thus" again but I fail to see how "traditional theory's considerations" are somehow reinforced by such illusions were they to exist, seeing as how "traditional theory's considerations" were never defined.
3. I hate to call "No True Scotsman Fallacy" before any sort of coherence is achieved, but how does one know what constitutes an "idealistic" elastic collision.

In open systems there is no complete recycling of energy.

This "recycling of energy" is still not defined. As far as I know, energy can only change form. How is it supposedly "recycled." I'm going to bet that the answer to my question is that my lack of not knowing Kent's definition is somehow my fault, probably because I'm stupid.

I hate to call "No True Scotsman" fallacy twice before any coherence is achieved, but what constitutes "complete" recycling?

Hence, the statistical based approximations can lose its validity.

Did it ever have any validity to lose?

It is in open systems where perpetual motion does not exist, which has been traditionally explained in terms of the second law, a law whose mathematical construct is limited to systems where the illusion of elastic collisions exists.

Get the crew back here.

1. It's in closed systems that perpetual motion does not exist. In open systems, new energy can enter, forever. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only within the context of a closed system.
2. The second law of thermodynamics is not limited to systems where the illusion of elastic collisions exists.

Note that other explanations will be presented.

You haven't explained anything yet.

Other, illusions do exist. For example, the illusion of reversibility prevents us from realizing that the magnitude of the latent heat of vaporization is greater than that of the latent heat of condensation.

I'm cheating; I'm doing two sentences at the same time here.

1. What constitutes an "illusion." Nature does not lie. Our perceptions lie. Any illusions stem from our perceptions, not from nature.
2. The second law of thermodynamics tells us explicitly that time has direction and that you cannot count on reversibility.
3. What supposedly gives the illusion of reversibility?
4. There is no such thing as latent heat. This has no meaning. This must be one of Kent's misunderstandings of heat and thermal energy.
5. Oh yeah, people are always getting those two latent heats confused.

This also explains Loschmidt's paradox.

The Loschmidt's paradox is a totally moot non-value-added discussion about how time should be reversible ... except that we have the 2nd law of thermodynamics to tell us that it's not. This "paradox" is for people who want to sound smart and philosophical but who need a safe, sanitized topic that doesn't involve anything that can be shown to be incorrect.

A new understanding for Boltzmann constant will be given.

Great. We'll get to "understand" a number differently. 2023 is off to a great start.

Into the Night wrote:
I think you covered the flaws in just the abstract pretty well.

I've also noticed that Kent likes to point to peer review to prove a theory, as if science somehow had a voting bloc in it.

As reviewer, I would flunk this paper on just the abstract alone. I would not publish it in any magazine or journal I would print.

Swan wrote:Well you might start by stopping your meth snorting

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Well you might start by stopping your meth snorting

Who snorts meth? I beer-bong it.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Well you might start by stopping your meth snorting

Who snorts meth? I beer-bong it.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Well you might start by stopping your meth snorting

Who snorts meth? I beer-bong it.

Well then there is no denying that you are a meth expert

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Well you might start by stopping your meth snorting

Who snorts meth? I beer-bong it.

Well then there is no denying that you are a meth expert

Seriously, you don't know who Delta house is? I have to consider that only
2 people on the planet don't know this. Out of over 8 Billion people, you are 1 of 2.
I can't say for certain there is a 2nd person. I was being nice.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Well you might start by stopping your meth snorting

Who snorts meth? I beer-bong it.

Well then there is no denying that you are a meth expert

Seriously, you don't know who Delta house is? I have to consider that only
2 people on the planet don't know this. Out of over 8 Billion people, you are 1 of 2.
I can't say for certain there is a 2nd person. I was being nice.

First of all, delta house is not a who, it's a what, second if you really believe that all the world's population has seen Animal House, I calculate your grade point average as a whopping 0.0.

PS Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go thru life Son.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Great. We'll get to "understand" a number differently. 2023 is off to a great start.

...

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I think you covered the flaws in just the abstract pretty well.

I've also noticed that Kent likes to point to peer review to prove a theory, as if science somehow had a voting bloc in it.

As reviewer, I would flunk this paper on just the abstract alone. I would not publish it in any magazine or journal I would print.

...

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Well you might start by stopping your meth snorting

Who snorts meth? I beer-bong it.

Well then there is no denying that you are a meth expert

Seriously, you don't know who Delta house is? I have to consider that only
2 people on the planet don't know this. Out of over 8 Billion people, you are 1 of 2.
I can't say for certain there is a 2nd person. I was being nice.

First of all, delta house is not a who, it's a what, second if you really believe that all the world's population has seen Animal House, I calculate your grade point average as a whopping 0.0.

PS Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go thru life Son.

Just an FYI, okay? Fat drunk and stupid needs a comma between fat, drunk and stupid. When insulting someone, please use proper grammar. I hope it's obvious. You can't be insulting when using improper English.
You should be saying; p.s., Fat, drunk and stupid. Notice how insulting it is when using proper Engleske? Jeg ne snakke Norske. I speak tolko po Engleeskee.
Then I can speak with "real" Americains". I like speaking your language. You Americains are the best.
Tu Americain est tres magnifique. Il est vrais. Un jour, je veus etre un Americain.
Did I get my French right?

Swan wrote:Says the resident third grade grammar teacher at the school for autism who thinks that believes that Delta House was and is a person had a grade point average of 0.0 and who is going through life fat drunk & stupid.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the resident third grade grammar teacher at the school for autism who thinks that believes that Delta House was and is a person had a grade point average of 0.0 and who is going through life fat drunk & stupid.

All I know is that if you beer-bong a load of meth after beer-bonging a load of Play-Doh, your stool may come out a little weird.

Swan wrote:Keep us posted

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Keep us posted

That's what I just did.