The entropy of systems

Hi GD, I simply don't know. Newton worried all of his life about inertia and never did come up with a satisfactory answer. he was a genius, so being as thick as a short plank I can happily sleep and let other people do all the work.

I'm not too sure about your use of the word "naturally." If we took an onion and stuck a cocktail stick in it, then pushed a cherry half way along the stick we can call it a hydrogen atom. The cherry picks up the energy from a photon, It jumps from the middle of the stick to the end of the stick, then it emits the photon and jumps back. Now it does this very fast. Could we design a camera to catch it in the middle of its jump? The answer seemingly is no! It doesn't accelerate, then decelerate, it ceases to exist across its jumping distance.

I think that its electromagnetic mass is absorbed into its gravitational mass, which can move faster than light, then it rebalances its books when it gets to the end of the stick.

Yeah, this is all woolly thinking, I could claim to be an expert in woolly thinking. Though it's against my principles to be good at anything [][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 />picks up the energy from a photon, It jumps from the middle of the stick to the end of the stick, then it emits the photon and jumps back. ... it ceases to exist across its jumping distance.

I think that its electromagnetic mass is absorbed into its gravitational mass, which can move faster than light, then it rebalances its books when it gets to the end of the stick.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Wow.. this is very well said!!

Let me get back to you on this.

Hi GD & Stoat,

Let's take a look at mass accelerations, the graviton cycle, and electric field coupling. Now if you take two flywheel's and place them 1/16 of an inch apart and spin the top one with a motor in one direction the other flywheel will begin to spin in the opposite direction on its own at the same speed! Does the system exhibit any increased disorder? NO. If anything, the increased energy input has exhibited increased order by a multiplicative number!!! How can the Universe energy dynamic add additional energy to the system????

Part of the problem in addressing entropy of a system is that we look at Mass as a unique self contained quantitative state of energy, whereas it is just the opposite the mass is in constant regeneration from outside source of energy. Most astrophysicists fail to recognize that there is a GRAVITON pressure gradient that operates beyond the speed of light and powers the Universe. Much like a hose with water pressure, the higher the spin motion the greater the GRAVITON stream, e.g., the center of our galaxy moves at 4.4 million mile per hour and is cycling GRAVITONS at extreme pressures [gravitons are the cause of this motion]. This constant stream of GRAVITONS absorbs light speed energy backwards and forwards creating eddys of atomic structure---Stoat hinted at this in his last post. All Matter and Antimatter are but these same flywheel arrangements coupled to this graviton flow.

Supernovas, chaos, exploding stars, all of these systems that run down over time are driven by GRAVITON greater cycling of energy outside of that system. No system, atom, or mass is an isolated body. All electromagnetic reactions, forces, electric fields are an outpouring of energy from this greater GRAVITON CYCLE. John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />Hi GD & Stoat,

Let's take a look at mass accelerations, the graviton cycle, and electric field coupling. Now if you take two flywheel's and place them 1/16 of an inch apart and spin the top one with a motor in one direction the other flywheel will begin to spin in the opposite direction on its own at the same speed! Does the system exhibit any increased disorder? NO.

....
Supernovas, chaos, exploding stars, all of these systems that run down over time are driven by GRAVITON greater cycling of energy outside of that system. No system, atom, or mass is an isolated body. All electromagnetic reactions, forces, electric fields are an outpouring of energy from this greater GRAVITON CYCLE. John
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Hello John,
Does your example take into account energy conservation laws? Are you saying that more energy is being added to the universe?

John: "No system, atom, or mass is an isolated body."
GD: That's what I have been saying, except that - no energy is being added to the universe-.

How many motors (and energy to run them) is required to turn the flywheel indefinitely?

The graviton is a hypothetical particle which is required to keep a system in equilibrium according to conservation of momentum & energy, which implies conservation of mass. Is this the case?

A system which accelerates is not in equilibrium.

I think the graviton is a misinterpretation of a time/energy event.

Maybe one question to answer is: how many stars are born at the center of galaxy clusters? If the universe is in equilibrium, then there should be an equal amount irrespective of position or time in a system such as the universe.

What rules the changing position and distribution of matter in the universe?

Stoat,
I am trying to get some info on the physical state of systems and their relationship with time. I think Enrico Fermi had something on this.
I'll be back...

Thanks John for your input!

Remember the great debate about whether the sun was made of coal? Bishop usher had worked out the age of the universe by adding up all the ages of the biblical patriarchs, it came out out at about 5000 years, and the world was created on a tuesday! oddly it was a bunch of english vicars who questioned this. As gentlemen amateur geologists they reasoned that the land formations they looked at had to be millions of years old.

Physics at the time only knew of chemical energy, so they modelled a sun made of the finest anthracite and came to the same conclusion as the good bishop. Nuclear power saves the day. The sun can burn for billions of years, it throws out energy in copious amounts, yet that energy release in tiny given its energy reserves. Now we are talking about nuclear energy being ridiculously small in comparison the energy that is implicit in ftl gravity.

Some aspects of the eighteenth century debate are still present now. Learned clerics would pass their hands through a candle flame and then ask how, if there was all this extra energy, their hand wasn't instantly burnt off.

Oddly the victorians actually built a gyroscopic tram using two counter rotating flywheels. It worked, and was used in the building of at least one railway line. It could travel along just the one rail, and thus transport men and materials to help lay the other rail. I love the victorians; not the fuddy-duddy prigs of popular imagination at all. By day they would build impossible things, and in the evening debate radical new ideas in science, politics and philosophy.

I suppose the ultimate double gyro has to be the Cooper pair. A very odd animal indeed, some force (Bernouli?) overcomes the charge repulsion to keep the two electrons apart, so that we have a boson.

Hi GD, I can't recall the mean rate of star formation but I know that it's part of the Drake formula for a guestimate of how many civilizations there might be. I think it was in the region of a couple of hundred stars born per second.

On that "beer mat" maths of the speed of gravity tied in with the coupling constant of electro v gravity. I sent it to my physics guy and here's his quote,
"I'm not convinced that the speed of gravity is anything but c. See attached. Your numerical results may still be of significance, however!"

Well, that's fairly noncommittal but the exclamation mark suggests that it might be worth a closer inspection. I've still got a bit of a problem with taking the cube root at the end. With k = 4pi * the permittivity of free space, we have a start, it suggests the surface of a sphere. I think we have to be talking about a spherical volume of space with an altered refractive index.

Oh, that quote, I don't think it's very polite to give a name from an e mail but suffice to say that he knows his stuff. Cosmicsurfer does know who I'm talking about, so I'll ask him. "John, on the strength of that, admittedly fairly noncommittal quote, should metaresearch give a little time to checking it out?

Now it's probably a load of old rubbish, a maths artefact, but it at least should be discounted, as being exactly that, before it gets lost in the history of the message board.