The entropy of systems

Jim,

I noticed the units (meters & feet)which differ from your comments and mine.
I did a bit of searching on the web: the thickest glaciers are in Antarctica: 4.8 Km (wow!) but the average thickness is 2 Km. I would need to approx. double the numbers I gave above (for a 2000 meter glacier).
Also, the glaciation period could have lasted longer: estimates are between 50000 to 80000 years.

The thing is: there has been ice on Antarctica for millions of years. How much melts away during warming cycles is not well understood. But there is alot happening right now: the collapse of a 1250 sq. mile section of the Larsen ice shelf in 2002 , and a gigantic iceberg 180 miles by 25 miles sheared off the Ross ice shelf in 2001.

<b>I think these are natural events.</b> (Human activity is only a contributing factor.)

You mentioned that the dynamics alone are not responsible for this, and I agree: when the orbit of the planets become more elliptical, this means the potential energy of the solar system is also changing:

solar system accelerating = more elliptical orbit of planets = more energy output from the sun = global warming.
- The solar system accelerates because it enters a higher entropy region of space -

solar system decelerating = more circular orbit of planets = less energy output of the sun = global cooling.
- The solar system decelerates, because it enters a lower entropy region of space -

The solar system's acceleration is an indication of its entropy. Therefore its position in the galaxy is important.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br /> Do the math and see how much energy needs to be shifted to cause ice to form 3,000 meters thick over the polar zones of Earth. Then figure out how much energy would be shifted by orbital changes that are modeled. It will not balance.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The thing is: we do not know what will be the maximum energy output of the sun at maximum entropy. If we reach this maximum in a few decades, this will be an easy ride. On the other hand if this happens only in another 1000 years ...

Yet again, this might be my imagination working overtime.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Just to be clear here you are suggesting entrophy is slowing down the solar system and the atom-right or wrong? As you know from prior posting on entrophy my opinion is that entrophy is not a force. Since what you are suggesting requires force it is false or else you have a way of slowing anything without force. I may be confused about this.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hello everyone,

I would have to agree that energy states of Universe becoming scattered and less organized, or as suggested in Big Bang theory the Universe is entropic and will eventually run down hill to zero is incorrect. If anything the Universe is Regenerative and I believe that for the most part the Universe systems are negative-entropic. Here are some examples:

1. Mass gains atomic spin and polarity alignment from gravitational waves forms through constant bombardment at FTL speeds.

2. Gravitational Electromagnetic Fields surround all Mass and Interact with FTL gravity wave transmissions that create shock waves of photons.

3. All life on earth has evolved to utilize a regenerative oxygen carbon cycle from photosynthesis that produces oxygen to production of CHO sugars, and energy conversion at cellular levels completing the cycle and releasing carbon dioxide.

4. For Time to exist in forward motion, a mirror of this Time wave must also exist in a reverse direction and in this case again we see a balanced and very highly organized non-entropic system of which I believe to be a Matter and Anti-Matter Universe.

In conclusion, the Universe is highly organized and is non-entropic because the energy dynamics are constant and appear to be cyclical but highly organized which is the opposite definition of entropy. Also, as you stated GD in one of your comments that the sun appeared to be giving off more energy now. Well, again this points to possible dimensional and extra solar system interactions that as Rousejohnny stated may be part of a gravitational wobble or higher energy states generated by increased energy levels in this section of space with in the Orion's Arm of our Galaxy.

John

Ice ages last for about 100,000 years or so, but, they come and go much faster since the last max was less than 20,000 years ago and maybe was nearer to 10,000 years ago. That change from max to min in the amount of ice on the surface of Earth takes a lot of energy. Where does that energy come from and where does it go? There also needs to be a change in temperature for ice to form and melt so why is there no indication of a temperature change in the oceans during the cycle of an ice age? It seems to me a change of temperature will change everything in the ocean.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I completely agree that plasma is a high energy state of matter but it is also in a high entropy state. If you had a choice between taking liquid hydrogen or plasma to feed a rocket engine, you would use liquid hydrogen since it has more potential (free) energy.Plasma has less potential(free) energy, it is almost all energy. Do you agree ?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">[/quote]

GD

the thing is that hydrogen IS plasma,it is just plasma in a lower energy state(cooler).

look...take the time to view these sites, theuniverse.ws and plasma.org you will find things there i'm sure that will amaze you or anybody for that matter,if your open minded enough. which most of us are on Tom's site, thats why we are here.the plasma site can lead to possible understandings that otherwise might be missed.

for example with myself, on another site they were talking about GRBS(gamma ray bursts). and what produces them. someone on the site suggested that two neutron stars get together(collide)causing these bursts(i think they were talking of short bursts,apparently milliseconds in duration).

however my suggestion was this, first it is known that wherever gamma and for that matter x-rays are so is high energy plasma. also that neutron stars magnetic lines are extremely close together. now the free electrons that are present in these magnetic lines are at about 1 million degrees(plasma territory). now to me what actually happens is that the two neutron stars magnetic fields make contact and when they do, they cause a burst of gamma rays.

i'm i right,don't know, thats not the point but the question of where will the understanding of Cosmic Plasmas take YOU(anybody) that IS THE POINT!!

i would just like to say something of Tom's theory in this. to me at this point there is no reason to think that gravitons,elysium and other mediums could not actually exist, to me what Tom has done is to describe different forms of plasma!! so not only they plausible but perhaps even probable!!

i would at this time like to thank Tom first because of his willingness to keep an open mind, for without it, i would not have come across the info i now have. and secondly to cosmicsurfer(john) and jeromy there discussion on antigravity(the site where i looked through and came up with the site on Cosmic plasma) thanks for sharing sites.

its cutting edge physics people, really!!

if you go ENJOY!!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br /> Where does that energy come from and where does it go?


-I am assuming the sun's varying activity is the most important factor and the one responsible for the temperature variations the Earth has experienced in the past and today.-

There also needs to be a change in temperature for ice to form and melt so why is there no indication of a temperature change in the oceans during the cycle of an ice age? It seems to me a change of temperature will change everything in the ocean.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

-The oceans are affected by these temperature variations. I believe around 1998, the coral reefs in a few locations around the world took a beating. Ocean temperatures were above normal then.

Some drastic events happened in the past(50 million years ago)where the amount of methane in the atmosphere had increased considerably.
Here is the link:
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/paleo/
You will have to go to the appropriate article on the right hand side.
This article mentions that a good part of this methane originated from the ocean floor.
Something must have happened to the ocean's ecosystem.