The entropy of systems

Would it make sense to say F=E/S. The time required to force energy to do whatever it does determines how how force and energy hookup in our math system. You get more for your buck if force is introduced which is a detail now missing in QM or so it seems to me. This way a photon has constant energy reguardless of its frequency.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Would it make sense to say F=E/S. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sorry Jim, I am a bit dumb concerning equations. What do you mean by "S" (entropy?). If this is the case, I think it is a step in the right direction. "S" would vary with time.

Let's say we call matter: Energy (low entropy): E(S:low)
and light: Energy (high entropy): E(S:high)

then E=mc^2 would look something like this: E(S:h)= E(S:l)c^2

F=ma could be: F= E(S:l)tends to E(S:h)
note: no need to multiply by "a" since this action causes acceleration.

Or maybe F= E(S:l)a ... if "S" increases very slowly.

Also, "F" should decrease as "S" increases...
(the reason for stars to turn super nova)

Heck, I don't know how to get an equation out of this!

I found this video about the differences in the interpretation of accumulated data concerning the faith of the universe. Unfortunately I could not read the arxiv article on the subject since I have not been able to upgrade my "pdf reader" (my computer hangs when I try to download the latest version).

Here is a brief description shown at the right of the video:

"In 1939 Erwin Schroedinger proved that all quantum wave functions evolve with the Friedmann Universe. This proved that the Hubble redshift now observed implies that the Universe is collapsing"

The full article is found at:
arxiv.org/abs/astro_ph/0503161
(I tried the link... does not seem to work, you will need a bit more investigation to find the article!)

Therefore, the equation we are trying to find should not have physical constants, but rather should have a variable such as "S" which varies with time.

Or maybe find how varying "S" changes physical constants.

GD, In this topic entrophy does no exist-we covered this several posts back. By E=FS; F=force; E=energy; S=the total time the force is applied in units of seconds. Force would have units in watts and energy units in joules. The standard linkage is E=FxM where M is distance in meters(not mass). If you want to define symbols in some other way why post a list of symbols and what they mean? For my part entrophy is just a manmade function of value within a closed system and is not an influence in the universe.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />...entrophy is just a manmade function of value within a closed system and is not an influence in the universe.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would like to show the contrary, that the universe is changing with time (irreversible change).

E= Force with time, E= Force with distance

Jim, how is the force produced? Is it by varying the energy level?
Do you mean "E" or "varying E"?

Hi GD, sorry Im late in responding, I blame Cosmicsurfer. He was talking about guitars, whilst I was on about carpets. Result, instead of coming back from the shops with a hoover, I came back with a stratocaster.

Perhaps if we take a look at how Einstein derived that most famous of equations it might help us to think of the problems it might raise.

We start with Einsteins version of the Lorentzian. M = M / sqrt ( 1 - v^2 / c^2 )
We can write this as
M = M ( 1 - v^2 / c^2 )^ -0.5
in this form it can be expanded by the binomial theorem. That gives us
( 1 - v^2 / c^2 )^ -0.5 = 1 + 0.5 v^2 / c^2

Putting that into the Lorentzian we get
M = M ( 1 + 0.5 v^2 / c^2 ) = M + 0.5 v^2 / c^2

0.5 v^2 / c^2 is the kinetic energy of a moving body. Letting us put the letter e, for energy, in place of the 0.5 v^2

That gives us M = M + e/ c^2
Or, M - M = e / c^2

The increase in mass due to motion ( M - M ) can be represented by m, so
m = e / c^2 which of course is e = m c^2

I have a lot of trouble with this.

Take the Lorentzian
M = M / sqrt ( 1 - v^2 / c^2 ) and the same equation but for it being in terms of a much faster than light, speed of gravity.
M = M / sqrt ( 1 - c^2 / b^2 )
Here I use b for the speed of gravity term. Now I believe that the ratio here becomes (1 - h) Plancks constant, when the velocity is c^2.

Incidentally, the number one in each equation, means that we have an assumed one to one correspondence. In actual fact, the one in the first equation is c^2 /c^2 and in the second b^2 / b^2

This totally alters the total amount of energy in an electron lets say. It has an electromagnetic energy and it also has a much larger gravitational energy.

I would argue that a particle at rest is half kinetic energy and half potential energy. Mass does not increase with motion but the total energy is redistributed. Think of it as a see saw, one side goes up, the other down.

The energy of a particle, measured in Joules, is the work done in creating it. Work is Force times extension, in metres. We write this as W = Fs The s is distance moved in the direction of the force. We can also write Work as Newton metres, means the same thing. The symbol t is used for time, in seconds.

Those symbols are agreed, simply to stop confusion. However we cant mix units! The Imperial system is no longer used in physics. We use the S.I. system of units. On the face of it the cgs system should be easily transposed into the S.I. system but they use different formulae!!

Sorry to digress there but we cant use Watts and Joules together but we could change between them if we knew the conversion factor. I know people that do this, because they think in old units and need a feel for whats going on.

Ill leave it there for now. Later Ill post on the problems of acceleration in regard to Einsteins equation.

If I had to push a broken down car, at first it wont budge. It then starts to move slowly, then it gets easier and easier to push. At time zero its acceleration is infinite and its velocity is zero. After that its velocity goes up and it acceleration goes down. Thats the case only if it starts to move. If it doesnt move at all, then I havent done any work.

Do not point this fact out to your wife or girlfriend, if she is pushing your car. Another law of physics would then come into play, and be painful!!

Obviously that little domestic situation becomes problematic when pushing cars at the speed of light. The mass is supposed to increase to infinity. If you get caught laying against a wall, when you should be working, tell your boss that youre stopping everyone from being crushed by a wall trying its hardest to move at light speed [][8D]