The entropy of systems

Sloat, The point I want to make is this stuff is mostly invented and you need to distingush between what is being studied and what is used to do the studying. Math is not found in nature and neither are all the other things you assume are. We use inventions to better observe natural events and then conclude the invention is the real deal and the natural event is just what the invention ordains. The invention of the electron is a classic example of how silly this process has become during the past century. It hops, flows, leaps and does any sort of magic trick any science guy wants it to do and yet does not exist in nature at all. There are other examples; I made a few of them before.

Jim, Isaac Newton invernted the graviton, because he had problems with the notion of "action at a distance." To understand how a graviton might work he had invent calculus. Even if our models are total inventions they still have tremendous value.

Thinking some more about the speed of gravity. In a complex universe, i.e. it involves the square root of minus one, we have a medium of incrdible rigidity, which has plastic properties at below light speed. Playing a hunch I picked 31 billion c as a nice possibility. It gives a multiple of c, and its not that far off the value of a multiple of pi. In electrial engineering the square root of minus one, is just an instruction to rotate ninety degrees.I think that shows promise. The discrepancy would be down to the stress and strain of the medium being out of phase.

As a pure invention, it barely alters our entropy curve but it does create a fibrous topology to matter space. In that the Le Sage "shadows" are horribly strong little animals.

Yeah it needs work but I think it shows promise with regard to inertia as well. A body in uniform motion would be drawing on energy from a visco elastic ether. Whether a proportion, or all of that, is what we call zpe, I don't know.

Anyway, the way I see it Jim, is that this is just a superior form of crossword puzzle [][8D]

Sloat, I'll agree you do show some promise but it would be good to unlearn some of the BS you have aquired. No one here is going to play the game you want so dropping the flimflam would be useful. Newton did not invent the gravitron or any of the ideas that flow from that falsehood.

The article below was taken (again) from Wikipedia:


"Is gravity like the other forces?
Some question the analogy which motivates the introduction of the graviton. Unlike the other forces, gravitation plays a special role in general relativity in defining the spacetime in which events take place. Because it does not depend on a particular spacetime background, general relativity is said to be background independent. In contrast, the Standard Model is not background independent. In other words, general relativity and the standard model are incompatible. A theory of quantum gravity is needed in order to reconcile these differences. Whether this theory should itself be background independent, or whether the background independence of general relativity arises as an emergent property is an open question. The answer to this question will determine whether gravity plays a "special role" in this underlying theory similar to its role in general relativity."


<b>- A theory which describes the changing energy state of the atom would not need gravitons and is background dependent.</b>

GD, there's no need of a graviton in GR, because spacetime is curved and an object will follow the line of lowest energy. Why? Because of matter's inertia. Mass and inertia are said to be equivalent. Good for planets but when we talk about atoms we have to talk about a spacetime which is so flat we have in effect a classical model.

Okay, there's a guy on a space ship, and he's on a holodeck. The ship is accelerating at 1g and is free of the Earth's space. he thinks he's on the Earth. My question is, when does he think he's on the Earth? I would say that the entropy of the ship has to change. The refractive index of the hull's insulation will have to be constantly adjusted by the ship's crew. A year into the experiment, the ship is doing a hefty proportion of the speed of light after all. If space time contractions occur in aggregate matter, then there has to be a change in entropy. Even allowing for the crew's secret alterations of the ship's conditions, I think this guy would know that he's not on Earth.

Entropy, inertia and mass are related but I simply cannot accept the notion of spacetime. Time is invariant.

Jim, we need to write a comedy series about Newton and his, might have been, patent litigations.

(Edited) Monkeying about with the idea that the speed of gravity is about pi times ten billion light speed. I wondered if that ratio might tie in with any of the obvious constants. Divide it into G and I got 2.07 Of course that might be down to finding significant figures in the proportions of the Giza Great Pyramid but who knows.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />
Entropy, inertia and mass are related but I simply cannot accept the notion of spacetime. Time is invariant.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


For me, spacetime implies the varying energy state of a system (or universe) with time.

In other words the universe has been changing continually during the past 14 billion years and this process is continuing now.

You can count time as long as the state of the universe permits you to do so.

The clustering of galaxies is an indication of an ordered state of the universe becoming disordered.

A 20 galaxy cluster probably has no life form within it, since the unstability of the atom in such a mass does not allow complex and structured atomic bonds.

With time, 20 galaxy clusters will become 50 ... 100... etc..

Do you see this motion versus energy resulting in an increase in entropy?

-Apart from this spacetime notion, I think you are the first one who understands what I am talking about.