shufeng-zhang

What could you do when you want to get a physics paper,when you didn't subscribe the Journal? ( Several days ago, a professor of Europe asked for my paper "title and publication deleted" via E-mail, I send this paper to him. url and email deleted) no advertising of speculations subjects outside of speculations

I post the paper here, I want other can read it and think alone, that's all. Thanks for your participation please close this thread.

Debate can't solve the problem, I have said, just do as you please. You are argueing in a circle. Debate can't solve the problem. Thanks for your " suggest closing the thread " , I'm tired of debate. What I want to say is: Thermodynamics and statistical physics, from this, Physical chemistry, will be rebuilt, believe it or not.

1) I have answered their questions. 2) I didn't insult him, I only crack a joke with John Cuthber, if this caused misunderstanding, I say sorry. 3) Some questions such as "explain spontaneous endothermic reactions" is unrelated with this theme, I don't think I have to answer any question someone posed. 4) I think I have spoken clearly, but sometimes they could not understand. 5) I would like to answer anyone question RELATED to this theme, but if he could not understand, what to do next?

I have answered questions, if you can not understand it, I have nothing to say. In fact, my paper ( the newest version ) has expounded very clearly. I do don't think one should put forward question when he is Confused and don't know what is said, Attention, I never said " "This Paper" explain spontaneous endothermic reactions? " !!! what I said is: " I have said "what you said is remote from the subject !" You ( or others ) can raise interminable irrelevant questions as this one, surely it doesn't mean that I ( or others )should answer it. certainly, I can answer this question, but this relates to another paper, I don't want to release this paper now. " I sincerely suggest you read this three lines of words again and again, when you really think you know its meanings, then, you can continue to talk here.

would you like to read this paper ( the newest version ) carefully? if you are interested in this theme. I think only you are Back To Original, you may understand ! Why? Because you have been filled with the pre-existing content, and you are firmly convinced. sometimes, theory is not only science but also belief. In fact, to a wrong theory, there is also many evidences and applications, otherwise they couldn't exist long time, e.g., caloric theory,phlogiston theory,and so on. I hope you can read this paper thoroughly, cast aside preconceived ideas, I think you can distinguish right from wrong. The present study has demonstrated the non-existence of Clausius entropy, which simultaneously denies the Boltzmann entropy. In statistical physics, the attempt to directly deduce entropy is untenable. On one hand, it involves a key step to translate infinitesimal into differential, which doesn’t hold. On the other hand, the unit (J/K) of entropy (Boltzmann entropy) in statistical physics is transformed from Clausius entropy. So, if Clausius entropy does not exist, there will be no transformation source for the unit (J/K) of Clausius entropy. As a result, the entropy in statistical physics is only a pure digital, with no physical meaning. In addition, even if we do not consider the issue regarding the unit, from a pure probability point of view, in the equation S = klnΩ, Ω is the so-called thermodynamic probability, and the calculation of Ω involves the phase cell division in surpassing space μ. The phase cell is 2i-dimensional and i the total freedom degree of the molecules within the system. The essence of Ω calculation is the discretization of the continuous μ space and the generation of objective meaning. In fact, this approach does not work, and there will be no objective conclusion regardless of the amount of previous work people have done. This is due to the lack of objective, physically meaningful criteria for phase cell division, that is, Ω has no objective meaning in physics. Together the Liouville theorem and our conclusions indicate that Boltzmann entropy can be taken as a technique for displaying the irreversibility from a purely probabilistic point of view.

I have said "what you said is remote from the subject !"，if you talk about THIS PAPER, maybe I have intereste, but you said is beside the mark. so much for this, just do as you please.

I have said "what you said is remote from the subject !" You ( or others ) can raise interminable irrelevant questions as this one, surely it doesn't mean that I ( or others )should answer it. certainly, I can answer this question, but this relates to another paper, I don't want to release this paper now.

Just do as you wish. Debate can't solve problem, to me, so much for this. You can discuss with other, if you have interest in this paper.( you really read this paper carefully?) what you said is remote from the subject !

You didn't discuss this paper, continuing such debate will be unmeaning but a waste of time, may be, "entropy" is important to you, just do as you wish! so much for this.

It seemed that you didn't answer these two questions here, you are honest, but I really don't think you are suit for discussing this thesis. "Free fall theory" had Aggression-Reigned over Europe more than 2000 years, although it is wrong. What I said "I think only you are Back To Original, you may understand " means that when you cast aside preconceived ideas and get back to the time before Clausius "deduced" the concept "entropy", and you know this paper, could you still think " Clausius entropy" is right ?

Liouville's theorem is that the sum of phase cell getting in and out a phase space is always zero, that is to say, H theorem [ so is Kln(W)] is a skill to display the irreversibility from a purely probabilistic point of view BUT NOT Physics principle. Moreover, this paper have strictly demonstrate that the so-called theory of entropy is wrong, then, 1、 what is Kln(W) ？ 2、 why the factor is k ?

The Liouville theorem and my conclusions indicate that Boltzmann entropy [ so H theorem(dH>0)] can be taken as a technique for displaying the irreversibility from a purely probabilistic point of view. The present study has demonstrated the non-existence of Clausius entropy, which simultaneously denies the Boltzmann entropy. In statistical physics, the attempt to directly deduce entropy is untenable. On one hand, it involves a key step to translate infinitesimal into differential, which doesn’t hold. On the other hand, the unit (J/K) of entropy (Boltzmann entropy) in statistical physics is transformed from Clausius entropy. So, if Clausius entropy does not exist, there will be no transformation source for the unit (J/K) of Clausius entropy. As a result, the entropy in statistical physics is only a pure digital, with no physical meaning. In addition, even if we do not consider the issue regarding the unit, from a pure probability point of view, in the equation S = klnΩ, Ω is the so-called thermodynamic probability, and the calculation of Ω involves the phase cell division in surpassing space μ. The phase cell is 2i-dimensional and i the total freedom degree of the molecules within the system. The essence of Ω calculation is the discretization of the continuous μ space and the generation of objective meaning. In fact, this approach does not work, and there will be no objective conclusion regardless of the amount of previous work people have done. This is due to the lack of objective, physically meaningful criteria for phase cell division, that is, Ω has no objective meaning in physics. Together the Liouville theorem and our conclusions indicate that Boltzmann entropy can be taken as a technique for displaying the irreversibility from a purely probabilistic point of view. I think only you are Back To Original, you may understand ! Why? Because you have been filled with the pre-existing content, and you are firmly convinced. sometimes, theory is not only science but also belief. In fact, to a wrong theory, there is also many evidences and applications, otherwise they couldn't exist long time, e.g., caloric theory,phlogiston theory,and so on. I hope you can read this paper thoroughly, cast aside preconceived ideas, I think you can distinguish right from wrong. thanks for your participation, you are welcome. OK, lets me try. thank you! From what you say as abovementioned, I think you misunderstood this paper, would you like to read the paper( The newest version ) again carefully?

hello everyone, please read the paper carefully and understand what does the paper say before making conclusion. thanks a lot!