The entropy of systems

Can we agree there is a unit of charge and a photon and both are equal in mass/energy?(or whatever you wish to call these things) I don't see any need for a positron or a huge mass electron. The rest of the items you are constructing here should be sent to the patent office after doing a search to be sure someone hasn't done so. Its the only way to reap the benefits from what you have.

<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 />[]
At the top of Mount Everest my cup of tea will boil at a pretty low temperature.

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


Mount Everest is approximately 28000 ft above sea level. This is a very small distance. I want to show how the atom behaves by changing its position relative to a center of mass(lets say 1 Earth mass).
. or by changing the mass of the object (from 1 Earth mass to 1 million Earth-mass).



Lets try this example: An elevator is used to move the cup of tea in two directions: 1) from sea level to 100 Km into space, & 2) from sea level towards the center of the Earth. What physically happens to the liquid?

I would say nothing is left in the tea cup in both cases. How did the forces holding the nuclei and keep the electrons moving manage to do this trick? what happened to all this energy?
Lets say you had 1 zillion atoms before the experiment, now you have 1 zillion minus one cup of atoms on this Earth after the experiment.

A system which is in equilibrium does not have energy loss.
How do these lost atoms find their way back in a system which is in equilibrium?

Jim, Mother Nature holds all the patents on maths and physics. I don't know who invented patents; did he/she take out a patent on the idea[][8D] anyway it was a wise move. I can imagine Newton spending all his time in court over the "invention" of calculus. Then we have the crisis in physics, which was sticking plastered by Einstein. He wouldn't have got any money at all, as far as I'm concerned. E =MC^2 wasn't his idea.

Anyway, I've not said anything here that isn't in the literature. Mass can be converted to energy and vis versa. Two photons whack into each other and produce a photon. I've no doubt that positrons exist, they bend the other way in a magnetic field.

Another little aside. Let's say that the entropy curve is a hyperbola. I can write it as ( -1 / x + 10^22) that's with a guestimate for the speed of gravity as 20 billion times c. Well, fools rush in, maybe that 10^22 should be simply c^3.

(Edited) [] Hmm... push it toward c^3 and the speed o gravity falls very rapidly. Push it towards c^2 and the speed of gravity becomes closer to infinity, so bin that little notion. Of course it's playing guessing games but a nice ratio would be some multiple of c. 10E 13 gives me 3.335E-22 as the entropy value where the curve crosses the y axis. That in turn gives a value for the speed of gravity at 3.107E 10c. Then again, I might be just becoming drunk with the wonders of my calculator.



GD, I'll have to think about this. Some things to consider. Graphite and diamond have different entropies, different refractive indexes (It might sound odd to talk about the r.i. of something one can't see through but everything has an r.i. which is expressed in terms of its permitivity and permeability)

Then there's the rare earths. They all look like peas in a pod, because inner sub shell are being filled as we go up the periodic table. Think of the sub shells of the "m" shell as having eliptical quantum orbits. The orbit can then overlap the inner "n" shell's orbits. A very expensive camera lens makes use of this, by doping with rare earth elements. It's a tuned entropy device. Actually I'd love to have a camera lens with doping from the radiocative rare earths but only NASA and the NSA have those.

Next we have the idea that matter creates its own space. The energy density of this being GM^2 / 4 pi r^4

So, for an electron, do we consider the space or surface radius as our boundary? Bear in mind that radiation can take a contracted form in the space of matter. ( a good candidate for the explanation of red shift, light loses energy in the space of matter)
A sudden thought here, does a toroidal electron have a toroidal space? Incedible energy densities in the hole of the doughnut in that case. God must like eating "Cheerios" for his breakfast [8D]

The last thing to give some thought to, is inertia. On this one I think we should get Larry to do all the work [] let him have the nobel prize and we'll share out the cash among everyone in this thread[][8D][][8D]

<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 />GD, I'll have to think about this. Some things to consider. Graphite and diamond have different entropies, different refractive indexes (It might sound odd to talk about the r.i. of something one can't see through but everything has an r.i. which is expressed in terms of its permitivity and permeability)

Then there's the rare earths. They all look like peas in a pod, because inner sub shell are being filled as we go up the periodic table. Think of the sub shells of the "m" shell as having eliptical quantum orbits. The orbit can then overlap the inner "n" shell's orbits. A very expensive camera lens makes use of this, by doping with rare earth elements. It's a tuned entropy device. Actually I'd love to have a camera lens with doping from the radiocative rare earths but only NASA and the NSA have those.

The last thing to give some thought to, is inertia. On this one I think we should get Larry to do all the work [] let him have the nobel prize and we'll share out the cash among everyone in this thread[][8D][][8D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Interesting... about the elliptical orbit of rare earth elements.
What could be causing this?

So, correct me if I'm wrong:

- The stability of the atom is limited by the number of bonds its nucleus has.

- It is affected by the number of bonds between atoms in molecules.

- It is also affected by changing its position versus a mass such as the Earth for example.

- And passing time alone has an effect on the atom here on Earth since the solar sytem's position is changing continually.

I would say its a miracle that we are here talking about this!

Concerning inertia, I would say that it varies with the stability of the atom.
For the "cup of tea" example, the atoms' inertia varied as rapidly as it was to move the elevator.
For certain atoms in the sun, (depending on their position), these would vary within a fraction of a second from a mass to massless.
For atoms at the surface of the Earth, I would approximate anywhere between 500 million to one billion years before they become massless. (this would depend where we are in the galaxy).

That of course, is if this theory holds true.

You've lost me again GD. So I'll take that as a sign from the gods, to go off sea fishing[]

I might just do the same...

Lets scrap this whole thread.