C Squared

GD,

Gyeah, it's the most logical explanation I could come up with on short notice.

Jim,

Sorry for taking so much space in your forum.
Seems like I'm the only one willing to do this dirty work.

If the entropy theory is right, then Newton's 1st law of motion would now read:

The energy state of the atom is never at rest and varies according to its position in a system. Its position also defines its acceleration and entropy. The center of the system (the lowest potential) defines the curved path the atom will take.
(i.e. The curved path of a colliding particle is defined by the very center of that same particle - 1st moment of inertia. Since a system is not in equilibrium, other motions are according to 2nd, 3rd moment of inertia, etc...)

(The potential energy or "timing" of the atom varies with its position in a system, then space and time are now dependent upon each other and should be referred to as "space-time".)

Newton's 2nd law: F=ma is true. For the motion of the planets and gravity, F= dP/dt= E/dt= entropy.

Newton's 3rd law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This law is true if you consider the total collapse of the universe as "action", and the following Big Bang as "reaction".
Although, at maximum entropy for matter, no action and reaction is possible.-At maximum entropy the universe is accelerated to close to the speed of light.-

GD, Thanks for the sorry card. The use of entrophy when describing events like the ones you have posted makes no sense. Entrophy is not the end all be all you and others seem to believe. Put entrophy on a graph and see what it is-a line in the sand and little more than that.

Fellas,

I have to agree with Jim regarding your entropy theory GD. Although I do believe it deserves further study I don't see how for the planets and gravity that F=(S=Q/T). I mean it's obvious we all believe entropy exists and that things tend to go from a lower entropy to higher entropy but I don't understand how this broadens our views of the universe any differently from what they are now. Personally I'm an analytical type of guy so it's easier for me to understand something if I can see the hardcore mathematics behind it.

Have I gone wrong in these explanations?
I am guessing that if you define gravity as something else than a divine force, you will have your answers to why matter accelerates.

I am not talented with hardcore mathematics, hence this "visionary" type of explanation.
Also, I would not want people to think this is MY theory, but A theory.

In case this theory is wrong, -sorry to have misled anyone-.

A good way of defining this stuff is unavailable even though we all know it when we see it. There are two forces(gravity and electromagnetic). Entrophy gets involved when matter is put into the mix. Electromagnetic force(EMF) interacts with matter and the product we see as heat is what entrophy relates to. There are other products that have nothing to do with heat when EMF and matter interact. And gravity is a different force all together. It seems to me focus on detail is needed to get any kind of understanding of this stuff.