area_51

Look in any 1st year thermodynamic text and you will see the same type of word salads. The thing is, this salad only has one ingredient- thermal dynamics. Any other theories of superconductivity that I have seen involve a much more complex word salad of strong force, weak force and EM dynamics all tossed together.

Thanks for a reply. I thought it presumptuous of the moderator to call my post baseless science and random speculation. I admit that I stated it according to my own understanding but the idea of gravitational attraction, expressed in thermal/entropic dynamics is not fringe. Call me an early adopter. Anyhow, Verlinde's work in a number of different areas helped me along. A paper of his- "On the Origins of Gravity and the Laws of Newton" (early 90's?), was one of the first of which I am aware to give credible arguments regarding the thermal/entropic nature of gravity. I disagreed with his conclusions but liked his approach- associating mutual degrees of freedom between thermal processes and gravitational attraction. Since the early-mid 90's there has been growing momentum (a sense, if I may wax philosophical) in the physical sciences to approach the laws of thermodynamics more pedantically. There does seem to be thermal/entropic dynamics tying all systems together. It may not be a G.U.T. (yet) but entropic dynamics can function as a Rosetta Stone, a framework- giving quantumists the ability to communicate with the relativists and the string people. Not trying to be funny, it's literally what I mean. I have been working on this a long time. I have not been in a position in my life where I could settle in and really focus on it- work, rent, women, kids,etc. Now, at 51, I see a lot of the same ideas I have tinkered with for the last 30 years becoming others' ideas also. Here's the fun part. If one can conceptually and mathematically defend the argument that gravitational attraction is the result of thermal/entropic dynamics, it is not much of a leap to hypothesize it as the fundamental nature of other interactions/phenomena that have been puzzling us. I've been working on using pedantic thermodynamic expressions to explain the nature of energy, motion, matter, quantum properties, string properties, the constancy of c, all sorts of phenomena. My own opinion is that it works. But that is fringe. I put my gravity post up originally because it is, at the very least, a mainstream consideration in regard to the nature of gravity.

If the medium is at thermal equilibrium within itself and the specific entropy of the medium is higher than the electron, the medium will not tend to energetically interact with the electron. Supercooling forces the medium to dump all the photons possible, proportional to its macroscopic temperature, spreading the remaining energy of the system/medium as evenly as possible throughout other dynamics within. The medium is at thermal equilibrium with itself. It will not have a tendency to absorb energy from its environment as this would decrease its entropic state. The electron continues on without any force acting upon it.

How many other names does this bird have? In any language?<br /><br />I only know of one other conceptual equivalence- acceleration. And it, thus far, has only been expressed as an effective field theory which becomes invalid at the edges.<br /><br />This does not become invalid at the edges.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

Gravity is the resultant dynamic of entropic field interaction(s). Energetic systems are propagated through space and time along entropic potential geodesics, energetically attracted to and falling into states of favorable higher entropy. I have a field theory and everything.