Obligations.

Will check back when time permits.

No it isn't. Let's take a sealed and perfectly insulated (so no energy can get out) box. Inside this box we have a cylinder of a gas at high pressure. When we open the valve the gas escapes until it completely fills the box. The entropy of the system within the box has now increased, but the total energy contained within the box is exactly the same as it was at the start.

Please can you provide a definition of entropy that you can show is consistent with the mainstream definition?

You demonstrate my definition perfectly.
Consider the sealed box.
Unless you can transfer the contents of the gas from container to the box instantanously, the process took a certain amount of time.

Also note that we are comparing the box before the gas was released.
To when the gas was released and allowed to equalize.

Entropy cannot be seperated from a time value.

The universe just does not work that way.

Looking at two different instances and defining the entropy as different without considereing the process of how they got that way is an incomplete definition.

Perhaps you should re evaluate your definition of entropy.

In my definition, if we now use energy to recompress the gas back into the cylender. We will have to add more energy than we could gain releasing the gas. The system always progresses to a net lower entropy.

You're being tragically sloppy. Whenever one speaks of entropy in "a system" it is critically important to define "system" in an explicit, complete and consistent way. Carelessness here is a great way to "prove" all sorts of nonsense. In this instance, you talk casually about using energy to recompress the gas, without properly accounting for the entropy change associated with this operation. You're guilty of using Enron/Madoff-type accounting methods.

I don't think Enron/Madoff has anything to do with physics. So I do not understand the reference.

You want to evaluate an enclosed system for entropy and evaluate it as two seperate states for some instantanious value.

No where in the universe can we find a case where instantanious values fully defines how entropy changes over time, or how that accounts for net energy losses in any change in entropy. Not even in your enclosed system can we do this.

I recognize that entropy as an instantanious value has an application for evaluating an energy state. For a full understanding of the system then we have to define time/entropy as a dynamic. When accounting for the history of a system, then we have to apply the time/entropy value.

This is fuly demonstrated by attempting to reverse any process, and finding that no system can ever be fully restored to a prior state of time/entropy. You can return to the value of that instantanious entropy, but the histories of the mass/energy under consideration can never be the same.

There is a distinctive difference in entropy and time/entropy. One is an instantanious value that is imaginary for evaluation purposes.

Time/entropy is a dynamic value that accounts for actual values where all systems have a history.

What becomes emergent here is that the universe can never have the same instantanious value of entropy, as any prior time, without reversing time for the entire universe.

There is a time/entropy value that is a curve dating from the big bang onward that is irreversable.

To ignore the histories would be creative accounting indeed.

The universe's entropy cannot be determined solely by a local computation.

Enron/Madoff refers to your equivalent creative accounting.

You have only declared that entropy decreases using your characteristic haiku.

Haiku is not a substitute for science.

I take it that you disagree with the second law of thermodynamics?

Perhaps you should call your quantity something other than "entropy"?

It does not. You say that entropy is the evolution to lower energy states. In this system the total energy is the same in the initial state and in the final state, and yet the entropy has increased. Thus your claim is wrong.
An increase in entropy is frequently viewed as being related to the "arrow of time". As I showed above, entropy does not have the properties that you claim, i.e. an evolution to lower energy states. It's as simple as that.
I'm not convinced that you have any useful definition of entropy. Can you provide a definition of entropy that would allow us to calculate the change in entropy between two states?

In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how much this evening-out process has progressed.

Quote from Wikki.

Again I have not made my meaning clear.
It is a progression to a lower point on the time/entropy curve.
Applying the standard laws of thermodynamics, this would be toward a higher state of entropy.

Perhaps I should. Entropy is an emergent state, but is not the cause.

Thank you for the input, I will give it some consideration as to termonology and exact definition.

This will require careful consideration. Not a snap decision.

Indeed you continue to be unclear. You state that entropy of the universe both increases and decreases. Can you see that these mutually incompatible statements make it difficult to understand you, or even take you seriously? If you're going to redefine decrease to mean increase, you should provide us with a translation table up front.

Compare the initial condition of the big bang to the state of the universe as it is now.

Compare star birth to main sequence star evolution.

There is an evolution in progress.
Eventually there will be no more star formation.

There is no local computation that is applicable.
It has to apply over the entire time span of the universe.

On a local computation, it is what happens at the planck scale that is significant.

I have made a prediction about what is happening there, we shall see.

The LHC may give the answer.

String theory proposes that a graviton will be produced and it will simply disappear.

My prediction is that dark matter very near, but not at the planck scale, will be the smallest particle produced, it will be very hard to detect, but will not just disappear.

The gas in the bottle is at a higher energy state due to pressure.
Work is done as the pressure equalizes.
It would take an input of energy to return to the previous state.

To conform to main stram definitions of thermodynamics, the final state is at a higher entropy, but at a lower point on the time/entropy curve.

What this closed system does demonstrate is that the total energy is unchanged.

Just as the universe has a finite and unchanged energy.
On a local minimum of the time/entropy curve we can achieve higher energy states.
Across the time frame of the universe the previous state is unobtainable.

The universe is running down, evolving towards a finality.

My prediction is that all mass/energy histories will converge to dark matter.

Your model does demonstrate this.

The cylander had an input of energy to compress the gas.
This occured external to the box.
The equilibrium of pressure is internal to the box.

Previous state is not obtainable within the box.

Consider the box our time frame of reference.

Finality is the end state within the box.
This "Arrow of time" is occuring because we are inside a change of state in progress.

What emerges as usefull to us is what is occuring at the Planck scale.

I do not have a formula.

I understand the confusion. The need for this debate is obvious. Getting my termonology and thoughts consistant with what is expected.

In my conceptual analyses I view it as the "Arrow of Time" being a force of entropy. I saw this as an decreasing condition. To be more consistant with accepted termonology I will amend that to say an increase of entropy.

Changing polarity of my definitions is to become more consistant with accepted termonology only.

This "Arrow in Time" has a reason. The universe is not a steady state, though it is constant energy. Energy density was maximum at big bang. Energy density is decreasing.

Local maximums like black holes have a limited existance.

This is what would be consisitant wth the model.

We shall see what happens at the Planck scale, if the LHC can answer this.

To prove that a graviton just dissapears, it would have to be shown that some very hard to detect particle was not just accelerated out of measurement range.

If it is discovered that a dark particle with the properties I predict is produced, and not a graviton, then this would have practical applications.

This "Arrow in Time" is similar to my time/entropy definition.
However my time/entropy curve is not just an observed phenomena but is derived from the definition of what the universe actually is.

This requires that the curve is an asymptote approaching but not reaching two end points.

The big bang and finality are the end points. The curve increases exponentially near these end points. Not actually reachable or observable from within our time frame.

This is because absolute time dilation represents a discontinuity between the sub set of our universe and the set of the larger domain.

If you had a proper definition of this quantity then it would not be necessary for you to have to do this. If you throw around well understood terms, like "entropy", without knowing what it means, then you will only confuse your readers.

Point noted and taken.

How I percieve the universe has no value if I cannot communicate it to others.

I know what it means, just need to bring that meaning into the same definition others are familiar with.

Attempting to resolve those communications barriers, thank you for your input.

The problems with my clumsy presentation and non standard terminology are noted and taken as constructive criticism.

Thank you.

However I still see no fatal flaws in the conceptual model or the physics.
I think confirmation or elimination may be within the next few years.
We shall see.

I think that if an efficient process can be developed to produce dark matter it would lead to new energy and propulsion technologies.

It would also significantly alter our perceptions about Time.
Along with recognizing the limitations in our set, comes possibilities of doing more within those limitations.

Because of what the universe is, there will always be some information hidden from us.

Lack of interest and dismisal noted.

We shall see.

You keep mentioning dark matter. How do you define it in your model? There is no consensus as to what it is, what it is composed of. Some say neutrinos, some say non-baryonic matter, contains no atoms, etc. Some do not even believe it exists. The Large Hadron Collider might provide some answers.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

My definition of dark matter. A particle near the planck scale that exhibits no properties other than gravity. It is mass/energy reduced to the lowest common denominator.

No solidity - it slides through matter and other DM particles.
No temperature - or a way to add any heat energy.
No electromagnetic or nuclear forces, and no interaction with them.

A non intercative massive particle near the planck scale.

They are the lowest energy state particle possible within the set of the universe. They are single particles and cannot form bonds necessary to build atomic structure.

They are the end product that the "Arrow of Time" points to.

The energy state of matter existing as the limit before the finality event horizon on my time/entropy curve.

One of the pieces i was working on some ten years back is what this predicted about the inflationary period and the difference in the physics.

There would be knots and loops of secondary compression behind the initial expansion. An energy exchange of pressure powering the initial expansion. A wave of compression fronts because the expansion was accelerating faster and pilling things up behind the bottleneck of the expansion of space/time.
The introduction of gravitation with a big push into this space/time surface tension.

Accelerating the expansion and causing an accelerated time frame within the
knots.

Dark matter production along with black hole birth, seeding galaxy formation.

The big bang is a process on the extreme part of the asymptote of the time/entropy curve.

Waves of re-compression because the early acceleration was exerting pressure against the initial wave front.

Knots of material moving down the time/entropy curve faster than the mass/energy still expanding and still getting hotter.

Particles of dark matter created very quickly.
Expansion accelerating mass/energy but slowing down rate of progression toward finality.

In the regions of re-compression, a faster rate of progression toward finality.

Result is mass/energy with knots and strings of dark matter and black holes.

Big differences in time rate of progression during inflationary period.

Making the early universe form galaxies faster than otherwise predicted.


Seems there were no further questions.

Now throw in more for which I again have the formula.

It is something like the compression wave in an explosion where accelerating explosion is exerting more pressure on the initial expanding blast front.
It is vector lenght of the "Arrow in time" being non uniform at different spacial points.
Ripples in time rate of progression.
Just don't know how to express it any better.