The entropy of systems

HI GD, All energy is constantly cycling in Universe. Therefore, by very definition of CYCLE it is in motion and is in equilibrium as part of an energy system. You cannot isolate one part of a system and state that it is loosing energy over time and then at the same time state that the entire system is not in balance as a whole.

For instance, take the hydrological system on Earth. Are the oceans evaporating? Yes, does this water cycle end up as rain? Yes. Is this system in balance? Yes.

Well the same goes for atomic paired motions from large to small scales. Mass is temporary and evaporates dependent upon its location near gravitational centers and is part of a graviton cycle of energy---just like the hydrological cycle! Everything is in balance and the exchange carriers causing all motion are also part of a huge cycle. The Graviton Cycle is a complete system of motion. Does gravity always exist? Yes. So, why do you not see that equilibrium is the normal state of affairs in Universe? 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,

1)All energy is constantly cycling in Universe...

2)...For instance, take the hydrological system on Earth. Are the oceans evaporating? Yes, does this water cycle end up as rain? Yes. Is this system in balance? Yes.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hello John,

1) Yes the energy is constantly cycling from "Big bang" to "Big Crunch". This is George Gamow's expanding and contracting universe.
Energy is conserved, it's entropy varies from min. to max... to min. etc..

2) This system relies on same principles and this is what causes temperature variations.
A system in balance would mean no temperature variation.
Given enough time (millions of years) these cycles will be disrupted.
I think this is what gravity is: removing degrees of freedom with time.

... I found a paper relating non-equilibrium state and degrees of freedom:

uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0510/0510723v1.pdf

There are two assumptions:

A1: timescale (t x) is larger than timescale (t T).
- which I think is <b>true</b>.

A2: "The non-equilibrium condition imposed on the system (x) does not directly affect the eliminated degrees of freedom (T)."
- which I think is <i><b>false</b>.</i>

The wave-particle duality seems to agree with this theory.

Taken from Wikipedia:

"current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature.[1] This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. In fact, according to traditional formulations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, waveparticle duality applies to all objects, even macroscopic ones; we can't detect wave properties of macroscopic objects due to their small wavelengths.[2]"

-Basically stating that all matter radiates energy. I think the trajectory in phase space changes with time from a particle to a wave.

Stoat,

Why does matter radiate energy?

What big bang? What crunch? Big Bang theories are in violation of infinities. Creating a boundary condition around an infinity is impossible. Big bang never happened period.

Next what is the source in your mind for Gravity???? John