Is It That Modern Science Has Followed Peter Pan into Never Never Land?

Have you noticed that the Scientist being turned out by all the major Universities cannot think, cannot solve problems, cannot even bring to bare the appropriate scientific principles?

I have notices it and I wonder what could have caused this effect. Is it the focus of modern education to find answers rather than to solve problems? Is it the focus of today's students to look up answers in text books and the internet to compete and get top marks, rather than to do the problem on their own and learn from their mistakes?

Whatever the reason, it is unfortunate that Universities have lost their focus and value in today's internet world. It would appear that today's Scientists are more concerned with making a name for them selves, even using voodoo science, than reaching an understanding of the issues and problems they are suppose to know so much about. Is this because 21 century Scientists are not properly trained and their ignorance and arrogance create such self delusion that they totally overlook their inadequacies? Here are a few examples that caused me to reach this conclusion.

If after reading this you have examples or comments please email me. I plan to start a blog on this topic.

Example One: The Grossly Miss Educated Environmental Scientists (all of them).

So when did the Environmentalists move from science into voodoo science? Let me show you. Should you go to a web site were scientists try to explain their ignorance of the green house effect. You will find that they invented a new nonexistent force called "Radiative Forcing" to rationalize their lack of proper research. Then they come up with the following half cocked explanation of this imaginary force and its impact on the green house effect. From web site.

http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/education/scienceofclimatechange/ understanding/greenhouse_gases/index_e.html

"The Earth's temperature and climate system can be thought of as a heat engine driven by energy from the sun. There is an energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiative energy that is partially regulated by the concentrations of GHG gases in the atmosphere. Referred to as "Radiative Forcing". Climate change occurs when the total amount of the sun's energy absorbed, does not equal the amount of energy released , causing an imbalance in the radiative exchange."

So where did our vaulted scientist go wrong? In their ignorance of thermodynamics they were unable to analyze the heat source and sinks which are the Earth. In my opinion this voodoo science called "Radiative Forcing" was developed out of sloth and ignorance and a lack of creative problem solving ability which is becoming all too common among our vaulted scientist.

Let us do a quick identification of some of the sources and sinks and let the thermodynamics engineers fill in the numbers.

Heat Sources and Sinks on Mother Earth.

Sources

• Sunlight, radiant heat from sun
• Solar electromagnetic radiation i.e. sunspots etc
• Earth's molten core i.e. lava flow
• Forest fires
• Heat engines
• Nuclear & Hydro power
• Population; ( human & animal) both breath in O2 and exhale CO2 + heat.
• Heat released by Oceans and Glaciers

Sinks

• Space, radiation from the earth into space
• Forest & vegetation which convert CO2 into C and O2 - (consuming, heat in the air).
• Volcanic eruptions that create a particle umbrella in the atmosphere
• Heat absorbed by Oceans and Glaziers

I have, with little thought, identified twelve possible sources and sinks. Our collective and taunted Environmental Scientist could only identify one sink and one source, sunlight and reflected sunlight. No wonder they had to invent a new voodoo force to balance the equation. Yet why scientists would assume that the equation from the sun's radiation should be in balance is a monument to their inability to reason.

Yet the question which sill boggles my mind is why, did Environmental Scientists use statistics rather then thermodynamics to do their analysis? A hammer is not a substitute tool for a saw! How stupid can a collective group of overeducated Environmental Scientists be? Well now we know!

Example Two: The Play on Words with No Experience

In my application for a Canadian Patent, I encountered a scientifically trained patent agent and a bureaucracy who have never done a thermodynamic calculation of a refrigeration system. They apply the two laws of thermodynamics as a series of words with pseudo logic with no clue as to the reality of a refrigeration system. Here are their objections as to the inability of my engine to run. These objections sound plausible enough but they are totally bogus.

Objection One: The laws of thermodynamics require two temperature sources.

ANSWER wrong! No where do the laws of thermodynamics require two temperature sources.

If fact, you can take a window air-conditioning unit outside and it will produce cool air on one side and hot air on the other side, both from one temperature source, ambient air. Recently some idiots by the name of Kevin and Plank thought that they could become famous scientists by formulation such a statement. These idiots have found their way into thermal dynamics text books. Here is the NEW BULL SHIT SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS by Kelvin-Plank * Kelvin-Plank statements :

"It is impossible to construct a device which operates in a cycle and produce no other effects than the production of work and exchange of heat with a single reservoir . " Here is the web reference. http://202.113.227.136/grzy/fsong/Teaching/thermodynamics/HeatPPT-English/Chapter7.ppt.

In all my thermodynamics texts I cannot find a Kelvin-Plank statement. Granted my most recent text was published in 1991 or earlier. I had to look up this idiotic statement in Wikipedia. I again find the intelligence level of modern scientists totally lacking.

Objection Two: The laws of thermodynamics state that you cannot get more energy out then you put in.

ANSWER Wrong! In the pre 1990 texts there is no such statement in the two laws of thermodynamics nor is there such a statement in the law of conservation of energy. In fact every refrigeration system, gives you more energy out than you put in without violating the law of conservation of energy.

The thermal efficiency of a refrigeration system has been given a special name because it always produces more useful energy then you put in. This name is called the Coefficient of Performance and varies between 3 and 7. Let me be clear on these numbers for the flippant of mind, that is 300% to 700%. In lay terms for every kilowatt of power you put into the compressor you move 3 to 6 kilowatts of heat from point A, the evaporator, to point B, the condenser.

Example : The Clausius statements of the second law is another Classic Idiot and product of our 2 1 Century Scientific Education. * Clausius statements :

"It is impossible to construct a device which operates in a cycle and whose sole effect is to transfer heat from a cooler body to a hotter body."

Your local refrigeration man even knows better than this. He will sell you a device which will take heat out of the cold outdoors and transfer it into your warm house. It is called a HEAT PUMP, and is used in many homes in America and has been perfected for about 100 years.

Next Example: The Sooth Sayers and Debuggers

Then of course the Patent bureaucracy went to the debuggers to disqualify my invention. Guess what the sooth sayers came up with? The Kelvin-Plank statement and the Clausius statements of the second law of thermodynamics. Both of these idiots reached the conclusion that power and heat are not interchangeable. This is their most brilliant revisionism of the second law.

Lets us try to follow these idiots for a little fun. They use the second law to formulate a new law of thermodynamics that states that power and heat are not interchangeable. Now the engineering definition of power is work per second. So they have reached the conclusion that work and heat are not interchangeable. Voila! They have used the second law to disprove the first law of thermodynamics. How Brilliant! How idiotic! How stupid! How circular! Let us give these idiots the Nobel Peace Prize for Propaganda! For those of you who do not know the first law of thermodynamics. Here is the first part of it. Work and Heat are interchangeable.

Example Another: Thermodynamic Text Books Complete With Voodoo Science

In 1994, Cengel, Yunus and Boles were dumb enough to write a so called modern thermodynamic text book that included all of the above mistakes. Now Universities can teach voodoo science to their Engineers. How tragic! More important what does this say about the Text Book publishing industry and the University Engineering communities. Now we will have a future generation of University trained Engineers who cannot do engineering. What will this do for the future of Engineering!

Example, so large I lost count: Scientific Publication

After I wrote a paper on the Theoretical Calculations on the Feasibility of my Engine, I thought to publish the paper. In my cursory attempt to publish, I quickly found that publishers of scientific papers only select a few authors who are highly rated among their peers. A little thing called peer review. Not being in this select and small group all it takes is for one of their group of reviewers to say no to disqualify any paper. This does make some sense, it eliminates the bogus writers.

Example Another: The Other Extreme is Web Publication on a web sites. In many cases pure propaganda ! Reader Beware!

The web was originally intended to share scientific ideas and comments. Web pages have degenerated into three categories. These three categories are: ONE excellent / good; TWO, half truths; and THREE propaganda. Propaganda is easily identified, and is intended for the "true believers" and conversion of the near believer.

It is the half truth's, which redirect science and the public down false paths and dead end alleys which are the most dangerous lies. These half truths have allowed many false premises to be accepted by scientist, writers of text books, academia, politician and the public as factual. The classical examples are Kevin, Plank and Clausius , all previously mentioned.

This insidious threat is the great infection that could well destroy Science from the inside out. If this happens, Science will become nothing more than a multitude of religious sects, each with a slightly different set of beliefs. History does repeat itself, only the names change.

The reader should note that all the above examples illustrate this problem.