Pentcho Valev claimed:
>There is a paradox - this group is "thermodynamic" by definition and yet
>it is reluctant to discuss thermodynamic problems.
I see no evidence for this supposed reluctance. If anyone raises a cogent
point about biological thermodynamics I believe the readers of this group
will be more than ready to discuss it. The points that Pentcho raised seven
or eight months ago were discussed at very great length, and several
regular contributors (I'm thinking especially of Guy Brown, but there were
others) went to a lot of trouble to explain the errors in the purported
paradoxes, but it was like arguing with a brick wall. There was a constant
reliance on thought experiments even for matters where normal wet
experiments were perfectly feasible. When -- eventually -- Pentcho was
persuaded to do a wet experiment he found that it went the way his critics
said it would go and not the way his cogitation had led him to expect.
However, to judge from the latest contribution this doesn't seem to have
convinced him that the problems are not with classical thermodynamics but
with his understanding of it.
It's perhaps worth pointing out that one half of the group's name refers to
biological thermodynamics, not to thermodynamics in general. I don't see
anything especially biological about the question now raised. Of course,
I'm not saying that that non-biological questions in thermodynamics can't
be raised, only that people whose primary interests are biological
shouldn't feel particularly embarrassed about leaving them unanswered. Are
there no groups on chemical thermodynamics for raising such questions?
Athel
Email: athel at ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr
Home page: http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/lcbpage/athel/homepage.htm
MCA FAQ: http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/lcbpage/athel/mcafaq.htm
MCA chapter from my book:
http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/lcbpage/athel/mcai.htm
