In his 1917“Treatise on Thermodynamics” Planck acknowledges that there are two ways to formulate thermodynamics. 1): “We may take for granted the correctness of the mechanical view of nature, and assume that all changes in nature can be reduced to motions of materials points between which there act forces which have a potential. Then the principle of energy is simply the well-known mechanical theorem of kinetic theory, generalized to include all natural processes.” Or 2): As is traditionally done; “leave open the question concerning the possibility of reducing all natural processes to those of motion, and start from the fact which has been tested by centuries of human experience and repeatedly verified ”…”no way possible to have perpetual motion”,
Of course by following 2 we have crafted (wrongly?) the second law into the supreme postulate!
In order to preserve the integrity of the second law numerous concerns are ignored,thus at times enshrining the science with conviently ignored problematic concerns. In this article I accomplishes two things. Firstly, it ensures that we are on the same page concerning terminology and concepts. Secondly it brings to light some of these concerns, opening your eyes to the prospect that the science needs to be rewritten based upon constructive logic i.e. the other way that being Planck’s previously stated 1).
In order to understand why traditional thermodynamics is so problematic perhaps it is best to download and then read the pdf
to the right, which is taken from Chapter 1
of my book: " New Thermodynamics: Say no to entropy"