The entropy of systems

A note about saying your definitions out loud - you will need to do this more than once.

Few people will take the time to re-read your old posts to see if you have previously stated a new definition of a particular word (at least not until they begin to sense that your ideas are worth studying). Each time you use a word with a different meaning than your audience expects, your audience tends to turn off.

That means that few people will sense that your ideas are worth studying. And that means your ideas go nowhere.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />
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.

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

So the main difference on what we are saying is:
I would tend to say that orbital speed of the electron varies continually and you are saying that it varies some of the time.

I think we are pretty close there also.

I am going to come back on the equilibrium definition if you don't mind.
Give me a few more days.

When an electron emits a photon its orbit changes, or it can flip over. Now that's an acceleration. Then there's the point that the sub shells of a particular shell, can take eleptical obits, and the further out from the nucleus they are the greater the eccentricity. An acceleration, or increased fuzzyness, depending on how you want to think of the electron.

Let's go back to that atom, sitting as an isolated system in space at absolute zero. It ingests its electrons in a pretty vicious implosion. Now I think it would be rather nice if it stopped at hydrogen. Now I can't apply thermodynamic laws to the proton of this atom as a particle but I can assign it a temperature as a matter wave. Then see how it compares to my entropy curve. If it's a close fit, I can then alter my assumed speed of gravity.

Of course this would simply turn an ugly duckling into a pretty toy. Hold a pretty toy up to the universe and it just smiles, shakes its head and blows a patronising smoke ring or two at you[8D][]

(Edited) Ah, I've just noticed that Robert Carroll believed the spin of the photon to be one half, rather than an integer spin. he explains this by stating that the wave is one half longitudinal and one half transverse. I'll need to take a look at that, to see if i need to alter my notion of the spin of a light speed graviton to be two.

I'm surprised that no one has asked, if we live in a complex universe, which bit are we in? A terrible blow to my fragile ego but I think we live in the imaginary bit.

Is it not a fact that entrophy is a concept that developed out of the ideal gas rules? Didn't Boltzman invent entrophy to explain how a gas reacts to thermal forcing? Or something like that.

Tell you the truth Jim, I've no idea who coined the term entropy. We say 1 / 2 MV^2 = KT Putting that in its matter wave form, we get MV^2 = hf = 2KT So, half of thr energy of a system is available as thermal radiation, the other half involves cohesive forces.

I'm tempted towards the idea that a 20 billion c graviton is a phonon. A longitudinal wave. As a "sound" wave it can establish standing waves, which would be related to resonant effects at the light speed boundary. It's still a half baked idea but maybe slight nodal shifts could create the conditions for a planet to explode.

Hi Sloat, You are using an invention(entrophy) as if you know what it is and yet you don't even know it was manmade? You use mosels and real events without even knowing the difference?