The entropy of systems

GD, The Universe is an infinity of organized cycles of mass in motion. In my model of reciprocal motion there is a continuous creation. Therefore, all you are seeing is continuous creation. In big bang models you have a very confussed state of affairs: Time is given a dimension which it is not in reality time [although there are domains where time is reversed in direction of motion] is just a reference of generalized motion. Entropy Model: expansion of Universe at light speed will slow down and collapse back on itself creating entropy and mass has bound energy which it has to do to maintain a singular approach to understanding a narrow view of universe with zero ftl motion. Entropy is a falicy and mass is a process, it is not solid, there is no bound energy, mass contains emmense rotations, and is a cycle on energies coming into and out of the mass from the cycling of FTL GRAVITONS!

In a galactic structure there is a fast moving center/or centers that cycle FTL gravitons, and around that is slower moving outward bound usually two large arms of mass moving in sub vortical motion trailing behind. The Graviton is moving inwards, while mass regeneration is producing Antigravitons. The Universe is organized on large to small scales around binary centers of rotation between matter and antimatter. Motion is created by the attempted collapse between matter and antimatter, however the opposite motions are accelerated and cannot collapse but continue eternally to move around centers of rotation. 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 />... The Universe is organized on large to small scales around binary centers of rotation between matter and antimatter. Motion is created by the attempted collapse between matter and antimatter, however the opposite motions are accelerated and cannot collapse but continue eternally to move around centers of rotation.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

According to you, how would you explain the merging process of matter?

Hi GD, All subscales are formed as a plasma cascade that splits into dual rotations of matter and antimatter. In the matter half of our scale the same process as shown in your opposite polarized plasmas coming together is the exact same process only without an antimatter half because we are locked in the MATTER portion of motion. Binary stars same process only it is a splitting apart rather then a merging. Why? Because the arm mass is moving outwards and is not merging. Your graphics that you supplied are correct, however the spinning motion is created by the ever cycling of GRAVITONS. FTL plasma tubes form circular paths with FTL antigravitons moving in front of this half of MATTER centers of motion towards the other half of ANTIMATTER portion of our scale. This is all new territory and I may be the first person to have discussed a GRAVITON/ANTIGRAVITON CYCLE as a potential new theory of motion as an add on to the META MODEL. As far as I know TOM was the first person to submit a model of motion based on FTL Gravitons. 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 />... Because the arm mass is moving outwards and is not merging.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My question applies also to the merging of galaxies.
How could this be possible in your model?

I found a recent article about a gas cloud which will merge with our galaxy:
space.newscientist.com/article/dn13179-g...into-our-galaxy.html
Our galaxy is an attractor for smaller systems. The same as a galaxy cluster is an attractor for our galaxy.

Also found something for the motion of the spiral arms of our galaxy:
seticlassic.ssl.berkeley.edu/newsletters/newsletter10.html

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by GD</i>
[br...his equations contained only fundamental parameters, such as Newton's gravitational constant, Plank's constant, the charge and entropy quanta, and the binding energy of deuteron (a form of hydrogen)... the equations dealt with 99% of the known matter in the universe...

Their calculations showed that as long as you set the temperature precisely it was quite possible to match the proportions of hydrogen and helium in the universe."

Fred Hoyle found how the 1% of complex elements were produced: through the evolution of stars.

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

Hello Stoat,

What would George Gamov think about dark matter and dark energy if he was still alive today?

Here is how we perceive the contents of the universe today:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
see Universe (contents)

George Gamov included temperature and entropy in his equations. His equations reflected the constant evolution (or transformation) of the universe with time.
Somehow this information was dismissed: the "missing matter" of the universe is still of actuality.

What should we make of this?

Hi GD, the last time I talked about this,, it was met with howls of derision. Before we can talk about Gamow, we need to look at Rutherford's experiment, where he fired alpha particles at a thin sheet of gold. A few of them bounced back!! he likened it to a sixteen inch shell bouncing off a tissue paper. He wasn't being poetical here. When an alpha particle bounced straight back it was undergoing a force equivalent to a weight of ten to the twenty four tonnes on one kilogram. So take a small sun and stick it top of an alpha particle, then roll it off and lo and behold the alpha particle is still there good as new! Wow!!!

Now onto Gamow, we imagine a plain that's covered in volcanos. This is all well and good but really we should see these things as being very thin volcanos. We fire alpha particles along the plain. Our alpha particles are doing about 0.7 c. When they hit the "foothills" of a volcano they have to decelerate. They do it this at many times the speed of light.

This seemed to confuse a few people. So I said that if someone offered the U.S. Marine Corps a jump jet that was a hundred miles an hour slower than the harrier but could do nought to 600 in a billionth of a second, they'd take your arms off for it.

Once in a while an alpha particle runs straight up the almost vertical wall of a volcano. It runs round the crater rim and back down the way it came. Or, it falls into the crater. Well, that sounds good, the outer wall is electromagnetic repulsion, which is incredibly strong at short distances. So what's this crater then? It's the strong force, about 137 times stronger than the electromagnetic force. The extremely odd thing about it is that it's a force directly proportional to the radius, rather than inversely.

That is seriously weird. Our alpha particle must emit gravitons as it decelerates in the foothills, then grab them back as it falls into the crater. In terms of the Le Sage shadow we have to think of it as being both a shadow and a very real wire. It's my view that we have to consider that the inertial mass of our alpha particle is going to be outside of the volcano. It cannot see it. It's as if the hem of its coat has snagged on the volcano and it has to go back to release it. It tugs it free and we call that quantum tunnelling.

At the bottom of the crater our alpha particle shouldn't be able to move at all. Yet it can quantum tunnel through the volcano and come out with a lower energy. A note here, it was Houtermans that reversed the tunnelling idea to explain how the sun could transmute elements at such a low core temperature.

On the temperature issue. It may sound very strange but you and I radiate more heat per unit volume than the sun does. It's hot because its surface area to volume is so low. Babies radiate more than adults for the same reason.

I've talked a lot about the idea that there's a two km ball of negative refractive index at the centre of our sun. I think that this thing would be electromagnetically very cold but gravitationally very "hot".