No it's not. Entropy is very simplistically speaking, energy that cannot be used. A battery going dead is because of entropy. I will admit, I don't understand entropy at a high level, but I do know that your interpretation of it is incorrect. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_entropy Read the example of the teacup. The battery that is discharged has more entropy than does the battery that is charged.
How do you know that the present interpretation is the correct view? Entropy is the number of ways a system can change from my understanding ?
So, why does that EM energy device still being tested, break laws of physics? And if it does, if it turns out to be the case, what will this do to these so called physical laws? Perhaps we are not as smart as we think we are? By believing in a law, that is not a law at all? Laws do not come with exceptions, right?
Terrible video in my opinion. I explain energy density as energy density not entropy. Energy spread out is not as dense . Do you have a better video?
Laws are restrictions, limited knowledge, science improves all the time. I am sure one day we will see lots of laws ''fallen''.
Not one that can explain what you believe....You should make one since no one else will.....you might like this however:
And that is what I love about science. Although to listen to particular scientists, who unscientifically exhibit such certainty, one has to wonder about the human element involved with some scientists. ha ha Someone once said that science moves ahead at the pace of tombstones, revealing something important about scientists and accepted science. Sometimes scientists who have a personal vested interest have to take their dirt nap in order for positions to be questioned and changed.
Much better video. I explain entropy in simple terms of energy divided by volume. A change of energy density changing the volume by enthalpic decompression. Added - I suppose I am saying J/k Then must delta t = delta J/k for time dilation.
I am referring to all states of an atom and all states of secondary fields assuming an underlying primary field. Assuming a Universal summation of 0 net charge in a perfect equilibrium state, Δ S = = Δ J/k = >T = <H = > πr³ Where J is joules of energy , k is volume , T is temperature and H is enphalpic, Would you like me to CGI that for you ? I can only make it basic though.
Assumption of the unlikely or impossible instantly renders any equation unworkable and must be dismissed before even being evaluated. Though fundamentally, you have to make some assumptions about reality in order to get any system that’s intended to deal with reality. For instance, you have to assume that reality is at least somewhat predictable in order to get a result that’s predictable; if you base your “science” on the idea that invisible gnomes are grabbing things and pulling or pushing them, you can get an explanation for electromagnetism, but it won’t be predictable. Unless you have results garnered from equations they are imagined and at best hypothesis.
Well, yes and no. Newtonian physics was proven "wrong" by quantum physics, but that is only under very restricted conditions (i.e. when you approach the speed of light). For all practical purposes (i.e. on human scale), Newtonian physics is correct. The Law of Thermodynamics is not going to change for human level observations. It may when you get to extreme situations.
My null hypothesis is -0.5 q + 0.5 q = 0 q or in algebra A + B = N (neutral) . My assumption has a mathematics foundation.
Not in the context you attempt to place it in. Any Mathematics used to define physics must be unique to the described problem rather than an arbitrary equation. Confusing with descriptors is heavily frowned on and generally eliminates any validity attempted.
Well maybe my abstract is a new way to view things in the simplest possible form without extremities. Consider an atom (-e) + (+1e) = 0e Now if we were to extend that to cover an emitted electron / proton secondary field the equation stays the same (-e) + (+1e) = 0e Now if we were to extend on this even further to consider an underlying primary field (-e) + (+1e) = 0e So in simple form A + B = N covers the whole universe. Delta N = Q
If you really interested in physics, then study real physics and stop screwing around. You are just wasting your time and everyone else's. What you are posting is nonsense. I admire and completely relate to your fascination. But you can't run without first learning how to crawl, and then walk. You aren't even crawling yet.
So what makes ''you'' correct? Explain what mass is ? I explain m = q1+q2^2 You have no answer , so how can you teach me ? Can't we teach each other? I mean isn't that what science is ?
I am clearly out of my league and must bow to your advanced mental knowledge of physics and genius level theory abilities. Have A Nice Day
