Hi Time/02112,
I'm going to answer here, not because I fear a possible reply from any of these guys, but simply because I don't feel like subscribing to yet another forum like there are 1000's of a kind (sciforums is quite unique, that's why I like it and why i dislike others
).
Anyway, here goes for the reply:
Within theories themselves illogical facts abound: In classical physics the branch thermodynamics which treats heat and work as two incompatible entities, is in blatant contradiction with the same classical physics branch of kinetic interpretation of heat.
Wrong. There's no contradiction whatsoever, there's even a connection between thermodynamics and the classical Newtonian physics, and this connection is called statistical mechanics.
Some history for the folks that don't know about this branch of physics: Newton developed his theory of mechanics in the 1600's. However, until the late 1800's, scientists were unable to describe things like "temperature" and "heat" in the Newtonian framework, so they created a new theory called "thermodynamics" to describe effects like metals expanding when heated etc etc... At that time, the two theories seemed unconnected - the reason why scientists weren't able to connect them was because the mathematics weren't advanced enough to do so.
Somewhere around the 1900's (a bit earlier really), the mathematical theory of statistics was formulated/perfected, and physicists used this theory to describe large collections of particles in a gas. It then turned out that the results for large collections of particles were related to the already known thermodynamical properties of gasses. So using statistics, the link between Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics could be made (that's why this area of mechanics is called "statistical mechanics"). Statistical mechanics therefor links the microscopic world of particles with the macroscopic world of temperatures, heat, ... (these are all macroscopic variables). Probably one of the most famous results in statistical mechanics is the relation between the
average kinetic energy of a particle in a gas and the temperature of a gas:
(1/2) * m * v^2 = (3/2) * kB * T
Here m is the mass of the particle, v the velocity, kB the Boltzmann constant and T the macroscopic temperature of the gas.
So you see, no contradiction, but a perfect match.
The theory of ligth as a wave, riding in absence of any media, is in blatant contradiction with the very defintion of a wave which intrinsic entity is the variation of a media.
This is exactly why scientists have long believed in the existence of ether: an invisible medium where light and other electromagnetic waves propagate in. However, since the Michelson-Moreley experiment the believe in ether has weakened, and nowadays most scientists differentiate between two types of waves: electromagnetic waves (that don't need a medium to propagate in, these consist of pure energy) and mechanical waves (oscillations of a medium).
Absolute motion, and theory of relativity surprisingly cohabit
Now this is funny: the most fundamental concept in the theory of relativity is that every kind of motion is relative, and not absolute
.
At this time it is not backed by any mathematics, but even if that happens it will never compete on either theory of relativity nor quantum theory as far as description of physical events is concerned, because in the absolute motion theory the concept of ‘position’ of a point or of an object has no meaning.
... rendering the theory completely useless as a physical theory, since physicists in the end always want to know the position of an event or object! That's what all of quantummechanics, relativity, newtonian mechanics is about in essence: how can we describe the motion of a given object. And to know the motion, the position is ofcourse a requirement.
Bye!
Crisp
