eclectic`

Historically - - - Planck: We have now to seek a physical quantity whose magnitude shall serve as a general measure of the preference of nature for a given state. ...... R. Clausius actually found this quantity and called it "entropy". ..... Conduction of heat to a body increases its entropy, and , in fact, by an amount equal to the ration of the quantity of heat given the body to its temperature. Simple compression, on the other hand, does not change it entropy. ......In the limiting case, a reversible isothermal cyclical process, the sign of the (heat) equality holds, and therefore the work consumed is zero, and also the heat produced. This law plays a leading role in the applications of thermodynamics to physical chemistry. ..... The second law of thermodynamics imposes further limitations to the first law, allowing only certain types of transformations subject to certain conditions. in accordance with this law, the some of Q/T is equal to or greater than zero. Heat is produced and work is consumed. In the limiting case, the work consumed is zero, the produced is zero, and the equality holds." Q = heat. Planck's equation for the general law of entropy is S - (U + pV)/T = phi = dU +pdV where phi is the phase of the system and is linear and homogenous in S, U and V. S in the entropy, and U is the energy. Entropy is "... a measure of the preference of nature for a given energy state". Planck used this concept to define the energy states of chemical reactions, which was the foundation of the development of his radiation equation. It is not clear to me as to how you can apply the concept of entropy to an engine.

What is "classical physics"? That is a very good question, and I have yet to find a good answer. As to the role of h or har, n my opinion, the work of Max Planck in developing his radiation equation was all based on classical physics. There was no other physics at that time as far as I know. Therefore, his radiation equation was developed using classical physics. His model of the atom was based on the atom as an "oscillator", and the concept of energy states was based on chemical reactions and thermodynamics. Your last sentence is probably the best definition, which relates to the Minkowski interpretation of "space/time". Certainly, the concept of time and space varying as a function of the velocity of an observer is not easily analyzed using classical physics.

Electrons flow through a perfect vacuum unimpeded. The difference with air is that it is filled with oxygen, nitrogen and other gases that impeded the flow of electrons. To make electrons flow through non-conducting substances, a sufficiently high voltage is required to draw an electron from an atom. Add up the number of atoms an multiply by the voltage of ionization for each atom, and you will have the overall ionizing voltage to create lightning. Once that occurs, you now have a conducting path for the lightning, and a very high current is generated during discharge.

Excellent question! Einstein's theory of relativity was based on spherical radiation. I question that assumption, but for spherical radiation, there is a radius and and angle that affects what you see at various points along the frame. In addition, this variation is not constant but varies with distance.

The field of an electric dipole exists throughout all space. When you vibrate a dipole, a very strange effect occurs. You can prove this to yourself by considering the zero-field plane of the dipole, which must change shape with vibration.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Considering that the sum of dQ/T = 0 for a given temperature, then there is no heat loss nor any work yielded. In this case ∑[(ΔQ)/T)] is also zero, as is ∮dQ/T=0, ∮dW/T=0 and ∮dE/T=0. This means that ∑(Q) = 0 for any isothermal cyclic process. No heat is produced and no work is consumed, so this is a reversible process, such as the charging of a capacitor or inductor. Why do you claim that this is "untenable"? Ref: "Planck's Columbia Lectures", 2005 (ISBN 0-9659176-3-0)

I am a retired engineer/scientist who has practical experience in various fields of science. Graduate degrees, former professor, and worked for various companies large and small. Have spent the last 23 years in trying to solve some of the great mysteries of science and written five books on the subject. Would like to debate some of these important subjects with those who are interested and even those who think they know better and claim that it is "pseudoscience" (a word that most of them cannot define).