Hi Skeptics,

I've come across Vanquish Opprobrium, a second law denier who makes their case across three blog posts:

The 1st, titled "Hydrostatic Lapse" makes the case for a hydrostatic body of gas having a reduced temperature in its upper portions if subject to gravity.

The 2nd, titled "The Gemini Cycle" states that hydrostatic lapse conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics

The 3rd, titled "The Isothermal Elevator" states that perpetual motion would be possible if a hydrostatic gas is uniform in temperature throughout the body.

There isn't a lot floating around on this topic at all. Doesn't even appear to be any empirical testing of hydrostatic gases to check if they will vary in temperature. There is however this blog post titled " Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rate" by Robert G Brown of Duke University, who makes the case for uniform temperature, due to the conflict between hydrostatic lapse and the second law.

Left with limited information to defend the second law, I put together a spreadsheet to test the math of the 1st and 3rd articles and no errors seem to be apparent.

will greatly appreciate skeptics who have a deep knowledge of thermodynamics assisting with debunking 2nd law denial.

There is no such thing as a "hydrostatic gas", and the atmosphere is not in complete thermodynamic equilibrium in any case.
EDIT: In short, this is a classic case of pseudoscience.

"The Gemini Cycle is entropy reducing, in defiance of The Second law of Thermodynamics."

The 2nd states no such thing.

Physics fail.

They always seem to ignore the energy source, don't they? Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a gigantic ball of burning motherfucking hydrogen!!!!!

DavidMcC wrote:the atmosphere is not in complete thermodynamic equilibrium in any case.

None of the blog posts refer to the actual atmosphere. All the conditions are idealised.

campermon wrote:"The Gemini Cycle is entropy reducing, in defiance of The Second law of Thermodynamics."

The 2nd states no such thing.

Physics fail.

Ahh, so hydrostatic lapse doesn't defy the 2nd law.

Does that mean the isothermal elevator wouldn't produce excess energy because temperatures up higher are cooler?

moatilliatta wrote:

campermon wrote:"The Gemini Cycle is entropy reducing, in defiance of The Second law of Thermodynamics."

The 2nd states no such thing.

Physics fail.

Ahh, so hydrostatic lapse doesn't defy the 2nd law.

Does that mean the isothermal elevator wouldn't produce excess energy because temperatures up higher are cooler?

The problems occur becuase the author treats these systems as isolated. This is not the case (see Prof. Lak Lak's previous post).

moatilliatta wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:the atmosphere is not in complete thermodynamic equilibrium in any case.

None of the blog posts refer to the actual atmosphere. All the conditions are idealised.

And yet:

Criminal Clouds wrote: While not noticeable at a small scale, these properties become evident when dealing with large bodies of gas, such as the atmosphere.

How do you square these two statements?

I deny the second law. It might only work for one universe.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I deny the second law. It might only work for one universe.

Good point! ... ...

DavidMcC wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I deny the second law. It might only work for one universe.

Good point! ... ...

Hmmm......

I think that maybe that in a 'multiverse' context, the 2nd law could be a fundamental for all i.e. in its 'role' of given a direction to how any universe might evolve with time.



Back ontopic - the lnkies that the OP'er posted seem to point to some sort of 'free' energy / perpetual energy nutbar. Had a close read of the stuuff today - it's all bollocks camouflaged in some genuine physcs. If i can be arsed tomorrow, I'll point out the glaring errors. In the meantime - Mines a nce glass of wine!

campermon wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I deny the second law. It might only work for one universe.

Good point! ... ...

Hmmm......

I think that maybe that in a 'multiverse' context, the 2nd law could be a fundamental for all i.e. in its 'role' of given a direction to how any universe might evolve with time.



Back ontopic - the lnkies that the OP'er posted seem to point to some sort of 'free' energy / perpetual energy nutbar. Had a close read of the stuuff today - it's all bollocks camouflaged in some genuine physcs. If i can be arsed tomorrow, I'll point out the glaring errors. In the meantime - Mines a nce glass of wine!

Sure, I even agree with you. But, ATM [perhaps for all time], we only have one example to prove the law. It is not scientific to posit whether 2nd law will work in others universes, because even if they exist, we cannot observe them. However, an agnostic metaphysics would suggest that nature uses the same tricks over and over again, so the second law may hold, except of course it may be time reversed from our POV.

With the same agnostic/atheistic metaphysic, we can I think, seriously consider the multiverse as a possibility. To me, at least quantum behaviour seems to imply it. And it would complete the trilogy of natural creation: Natural selection of universes [magical or inconsistent universes collapse], chemical selection for the origin of life, and natural selection for biology. Probably bollocks, but it has a symmetry, or "beauty" about it.

^Aye! I'll drink to that!

campermon wrote:
Back ontopic - the lnkies that the OP'er posted seem to point to some sort of 'free' energy / perpetual energy nutbar. Had a close read of the stuuff today - it's all bollocks camouflaged in some genuine physcs. If i can be arsed tomorrow, I'll point out the glaring errors. In the meantime - Mines a nce glass of wine!

Great, looking forward to seeing how this crackpot is clearly wrong!

DavidMcC wrote:

moatilliatta wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:the atmosphere is not in complete thermodynamic equilibrium in any case.

None of the blog posts refer to the actual atmosphere. All the conditions are idealised.

And yet:

Criminal Clouds wrote: While not noticeable at a small scale, these properties become evident when dealing with large bodies of gas, such as the atmosphere.

How do you square these two statements?

When actual physics comes out it's all in ideal circumstances. That start bit is all just mere puffery on this crackpots part, trying to make the whole thing simpler than it really is.

moatilliatta wrote:

campermon wrote:
Back ontopic - the lnkies that the OP'er posted seem to point to some sort of 'free' energy / perpetual energy nutbar. Had a close read of the stuuff today - it's all bollocks camouflaged in some genuine physcs. If i can be arsed tomorrow, I'll point out the glaring errors. In the meantime - Mines a nce glass of wine!

Great, looking forward to seeing how this crackpot is clearly wrong!

Which you've already been shown in several ways.

kennyc wrote:

Which you've already been shown in several ways.

Can you please repeat these several points?

moatilliatta wrote:

campermon wrote:
Back ontopic - the lnkies that the OP'er posted seem to point to some sort of 'free' energy / perpetual energy nutbar. Had a close read of the stuuff today - it's all bollocks camouflaged in some genuine physcs. If i can be arsed tomorrow, I'll point out the glaring errors. In the meantime - Mines a nce glass of wine!

Great, looking forward to seeing how this crackpot is clearly wrong!

A quick one; in the 'gemini cycle', the 'sync' is thermally connected to the two columns of gas. At the point of connection, the temp is at T1. There will be no net flow of heat between any these components as they are all in thermal equilibrium - yet to make the system 'work' the author fudges that this possible. I suspect that by considering Q flow between these components leads to an erroneous value for S.

Right. Off for a bike ride in torrential rain! BBL.

That rain wouldn't exist in an atmosphere that is in equilibrium.

The_Metatron wrote:That rain wouldn't exist in an atmosphere that is in equilibrium.

Damn that orb in the sky!