I am what you would call a dissident physicist. Not because I have a bad attitude towards the sciences but because things stopped making sense. There will always be those who will claim that since I am not part of their mainstream science then I have no right to do as I do. Perhaps there is some validity to this.  But for anyone to self proclaim that as members of institutions that only they can think logically is perverse at best.

 

   I have not been paid,  nor financed by anyone, hence the costs of publication of my several papers, all of which were put through the excruciating peer review process, has come out of my shallow pockets. So yes I certainly have felt the pain without any gratitude bestowed upon me. Call it my contribution: Paying it forward to the world. I only say this so that those who hide behind their university office doors understand that real science often come from those with the least to gain, in this propaganda driven world. 

 

   So even though this started as an expensive hobby; I was the first person to actually determine the energy required to form a bubble in my first peer reviewed paper entitled:  “Energetics of Nucleation”. Although, it is certainly something to be proud of, it is certainly nothing to be overly boastful about.  All I did was employ simple logic A.K.A. common sense, something too often lost by the powers at hand. One must understand that all that shuffling of partial differentials, and diverse probability functions employed in the name of science, has often resulted in non-sensible conceptualizations, which can be best displayed in traditional poorly conceived nucleation theory.

 

   Call me naïve, but after the indignity of dealing with the peer review process, I actually thought that showing the world that nucleation theory can be partially resolved by an independent mind would make a difference.  Well it has been over a decade of nothing.

No matter if there was something beneficial, it was that there was something wrong with traditional thermodynamics.  But what?

 

 My 2006 paper “Work in mechanical systems” was not a great paper but it did discuss that we must equally consider work in terms of VdP as PdV.  You see previously work was illogically only considered in terms of isobaric volume change (PdV),  mainly because of our traditional assertion of entropy i.e. entropy signifying randomness and work being limited to:  W = TdS.

 

 I pondered, poked and prodded as I rewrote the essence of my book on thermodynamics for the 10th time.  No matter how I wrote it. I ended up with illogical circular arguments. Then in 2009 I realized that the whole problem was entropy based. In hindsight, I should have realized that basing a science’s foundation, upon a parameter without clarity was a recipe for disaster. But in 2009 I still could not let go of my indoctrination.

 

 I was so terrified to confront entropy that I allowed my 2011 paper “Improving our thermodynamic perspective” to be published without any direct attack upon entropy. Even so two vital points came out in of this paper:

 

1)  Work is done through a system’s walls rather than traditional travesty of into a system’s walls!

 

2)  Work cannot be done onto a vacuum!

 

 During this time I was rewriting thermodynamics and I experienced the joy of the science becoming a clear, simple logical constructive science for the first time.  Yes that is right my 11th rewriting of thermodynamics actually was beginning to make sense. All because I had thrown out entropy.

 

  In doing so I realized how misguided other elements of the sciences had become. In my 2013 paper “Latent heat and critical temperature” I discussed some of the issues with how probability functions are taught and how poorly conceived the accepted probability for latent heat was.

 

 One must realize that such probabilities are exponential functions that are normalized. Moreover the normalize process can make the probability equation fit the empirical data reasonably well even if the wrong exponential function is employed. Although some may claim this as the power of exponential functions i.e. Boltzmann’s factor, it is actually the function’s Achilles’ heel. Note: Although I am still pondering this, in my book I do discuss that the kinematic number for the latent heat of vaporization should be 8.5 rather than the 9 stated in “Latent heat and critical temperature”. 

 

 After having rewritten the science a couple of time, I was confident that I could take on both entropy and the second law, as I had arrived at the following realizations:

 

1) The persistent use of entropy as the foundation of thermodynamics even though it’s true identity lacked clarity was a complete catastrophe.  Entropy was nothing more than a mathematical contrivance that was employed by too many scientists for the wrong reasons.  E.g. if you asked 100 experts in 100 different realms of science the true meaning of entropy, you are liable to get 99 different answers.

 

2) The second law is limited to closed systems wherein no energy is exchanged with its surroundings.  That is right the second law in its fundamental conscript is limited to absolutely useless systems. Yet

strangely,  like entropy it has grown to explain so much, all based upon various misconceptions.

 

What is important is to realize that all that has been explained in terms of entropy and it accomplice the second law, can now be explained in simpler logical terms allowing for the creation of a constructive science.

 

   So like Einstein’s relativity changed our perception of space-time, this author is attempting to alter our thermodynamics perspective. My 2015 paper’s titled “Second Law and Lost Work” and “Entropy: An ill-conceived mathematical contrivance” use simple logic to demonstrate that both entropy and the second law have weak logical foundations. Certainly there is no way one can simply expunge such demigods, without providing a basis for renewal.  Hopefully this author’s book will provides a foundation for the future. It must be stated that the book: “Changing our Perspective Part 1: a New Thermodynamic” is not perfect, but at least it provides a starting point for a simpler constructive science. A science those future generations may actually be able to understand.

 

 My only real regret is that in those two papers I did not show how the logarithmic structures, so dear to thermodynamics come into play if we remove entropy from the sciences. This may hamper those who have employed entropy without a second thought, into doubting what I write. I will discuss this in my future papers and also do so in my book.

 

In 2014 my paper titled: "Does tradiational thermodynamics apply to cosmology?" was accepted for publication by the journal  Galilean Electrodynamics, but after waiting over a year a fear that they may be a bankrupt journal. This paper is in my list of papers and does show the logarithmic structure for work. It does not however specifically spell out the correlation of this to work. 

 

  Simply put: if you goal is simply to score an “A” in a traditionally taught thermodynamics course then my book is not for you.  However, if you goal is to actually make sense of the macabre science, then the above stated book forms the perfect beginning.