The entropy of systems

If you would understand what I am saying, you (and most people)would not be a happy bunny. This is why I have decided not to continue with this mental torture.

[GD] "Are we understanding this yet?"

I don't know - lets see.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that, according to the Non Equilibrium Theory, my body is always accelerating relative to the nucleus. And this is why I fall through my chair when I try to sit down.

LB

I wouldn't give up on it GD. I think you looked at the stuff on thermodynamics and went straight to the crux of it, which is that of an ideal gas. That shows insight into the problem. people have told you to learn physics, adding that it's easy. As you distrust the subject, I would suggest that you approach the subject from the history and philosophy of it. Grab a copy of "mathematics in western culture" by Kline, maybe "the Sleepwalkers" by Koestler. It should give you an insight into how science is advanced by people tearing up the rule book from time to time.

Larry:
If I understand you correctly you are saying that, according to the Non Equilibrium Theory, my body is always accelerating relative to the nucleus.
GD:
NO, I am saying the electrons speed varies relative to the nucleus in your body.
What is so different from constant speed which you think is happening?


Larry:
And this is why I fall through my chair when I try to sit down.
GD:
NO, this is why you will fall from your chair when you will finally understand.

GD, you hint at something rather dark and disturbing to do with your ideas. What?

(edited) Why I think what you are talking about is important. The Le Sage theory of gravity was rejected, at the time, not because of relativity theory but for thermodynamic reasons.

I think that you've jumped to the crux of the matter with regard to an ideal gas. Then I think that you've thrown out everything that modifies the ideal gas, as mere "bolt ons", a compounded error.

But, an ideal gas is just that, it never existed in the real world. It would have to spread to infinity and have no cohesive forces. To be fair to it, the concept of the photon didn't exist at the time, and in order for "heat" to flow downhill we need the agency of a photon.

Now, we can talk about the temperature of a thermal photon. That has to be of some help to you. Plus, a thermal photon is a large diffuse element, it will overlap a large number of atoms. Energy densities will average out to a fair aproximation of the temperature but only upto about one hundredth of the speed of light. Adding into the mix a faster than light graviton, has to alter the notion of entropy. If we have a complex universe, i.e. one that has a "real" and an "imaginary' part to it, gives us an entropy curve that suggests an energy resevoir to space. Energy plus zpe? Or is this the energy that we call zpe? No idea[8D]

It was a joke GD. A rather obvious one, I thought, but then we are having some communication problems. So the real answer to your question is "no".

As it happens I have no problem with the idea that the "orbital" speed of an electron can change. In fact, I think changes in the orbital speed of electrons is a part of the mainstream model of the atom.

Never-the-less, the atom is still, in general, an equilibtium system. But we have been over that before. Your definition of equilibrium is not the same as everyone else's definition. In fact, your definition of a lot of words is not the same as everyone else's. And that is why you have so much trouble communicating your ideas to others.

If you would change the words you use to talk about your non-standard concepts, things would become easier for you. Of course you would also have to say out loud what the difference is between the standard-word definition and the GD-word definition.

(I really am trying to help. I'm just not sure how, and I'm also not sure that you actually want to be helped, since you have never attempted to apply any of our suggested remedies.)

LB