Pentcho Valev

Imagine a theoretician who has obtained the result Y and is proud of that. He also claims he has deduced Y from the premise X (and possibly other premises) which is some assertion about physical reality. How should fellows theoreticians react? If they are realists (in the philosophical sense), they should try to find out if X is true or false – if it is false, Y should be abandoned. If they are rationalists, they should check the deductive path leading from X to Y – if the deduction is invalid, Y should be abandoned.

Needless to say, the critical attitude described above presupposes some courage. Unfortunately, theoreticians and philosophers of science are not courageous in this way. They believe in the pessimistic induction – since theories in the past have been rejected as false, all theories, both past and future, are false, including the one harbouring the deduction of Y from X. They also believe in the thesis of increasing verisimilitude – in the historically generated sequence the theories are increasing in verisimilitude; that is, in the degree to which they are approximately true. Accordingly, since the theory harbouring the deduction of Y from X is the last in a sequence, it is relatively the truest one known so far. Then why should theoreticians and philosophers of science bother about details such as the truth or falsehood of X or the validity of the deductive path leading from X to Y? Isn’t it much more advantageous to sing dithyrambs and worship at the portrait of the author of the truest theory?

In so far as logic undoubtedly belongs to the heart of theoretical science, the established tradition based on the abuse or neglect of logic can be named "Postscientism". This tradition was born in 1850 when Clausius invalidly deduced "All heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same maximal efficiency" from "Heat spontaneously flows from hot to cold". Below will be given some important milestones in the development of postscientism. My sketch will be cursory. The intention is only to give a flavour of the postscientific hoaxes that have been (or will be) followed up in greater detail elsewhere.

(A) Heat is an indestructible substance (caloric).

(B) Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.

Therefore, (C) all heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same maximal efficiency.

The premise A proved wrong in the end. Still the conclusion C remained and was transformed into one of the versions of the second law of thermodynamics.

2. Clausius’ hoax:

(D) Heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold.

Therefore, (C) all heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same maximal efficiency.

The conclusion C is not a corollary of the premise D.

(E) Any cycle can be dissected into small Carnot cycles.

Therefore, (F) the entropy is a state function.

The premise E is false.

(G) Any irreversible process connecting some initial and final states can be replaces by a reversible process connecting the same initial and final states. In other words, any irreversible process can be closed by a reversible process to become a cycle.

(H) ∫dQ/T ≤ 0 for any cyclical process.

Therefore, (I) the entropy always increases (never decreases).

The premise G is false whereas the premise H should be proved for cycles involving heating at constant volume.

By definition, (J) the entropy change is the change in the heat absorbed as the system passes through a succession of equilibrium states, provided the heat exchange between system and surroundings occurs when their temperatures are equal.

In practice, the concept of entropy is applied to systems distant from equilibrium and/or exchanging heat with hotter (colder) surroundings. A whole scientific discipline – chemical thermodynamics – is entirely based on this particular abuse.

(K) Principle of constancy of the speed of light.

(L) Principle of relativity

Therefore, (M) Lorentz transforms.

The premise K is false and, even if it were true, M does not follow from K and L alone (more premises are needed). In the insane postscientific atmosphere such "deductions" are signs of genius, not of plagiarist and cheater.

How long is the periphery of the rotating disk as judged from the non-rotating frame? Ehrenfest says (N) the periphery is shorter than 2πR, Einstein says (O) it is longer than 2πR, others demonstrate their moderation by saying that (P) the length of the periphery is equal to 2πR.

A fourth party build careers by writing long papers where the numerous confusions and contradictions are "analysed".

(K) Principle of constancy of the speed of light.

K is false. Einstein: "A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case." Einstein again: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

(M) Lorentz transforms.

Therefore, (Q) a non-rotating clock undergoes time contraction relative to a clock situated on the periphery of a rotating disk.

Q does not follow from M.

(K) Principle of constancy of the speed of light.

Therefore, (R) the redshift factor.

In fact, R is inconsistent with K – it is a corollary of Newtonian ballistic c+v principle of the speed of light.