Bignose

Nope. True for all processes, not just cyclic. You asked for the mathematical definition. I'm sorry that it is complicated. Entropy is not a very intuitive thing, I agree. But that it is the mathematical definition.

Mathematically, a process is reversible if the before and after entropies are the same. A process is irreversible if the final state entropy is greater than the before state.

You seem to keep missing the point that in science, the 'best' option is the one that makes the most accurate predictions. Big Bang at the moment is doing a pretty good job, and it seems to be continuing. See the BICEP2 data that recently came out http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/CMB/bicep2/science.html But, in the exact same way, science is always looking for that next thing, and there are some that question these results: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140514-bicep2-physics-rumors-science-big-bang/ Either way, the point is is that prediction and agreement with observed data is by far the main metric by which scientific ideas are judged. It is fine to talk about outside universes, universes with no beginning or end, and so on, but the real question is: what predictions can be made with these ideas? And how do those predictions agree with what is actually measured? Without predictions, these ideas are just story telling. Which can be fun in its own way -- I personally enjoy reading sci-fi novels -- but it really isn't very scientific. These ideas are often the kernel of an idea that leads to predictions, but themselves are just ideas. So, my point is that best is answerable. That what we need is predictions from these ideas to actually evaluate them and not just speculative chit-chat.

My understanding was that advection was the conveyance of stuff (heat, material, etc.) due solely due to a forced fluid flow. This is meant to differentiate between a natural convection situation wherein fluid flow carries heat, the flow occurs due to density differences, and that density difference is due to the heating source. In math terms, I've always heard the [math]\mathbf{u} \cdot \nabla \phi[/math] part called the advection part of the conservation equation.

The one exception to this seems to be IT. People in that industry seem to be very highly mobile, jumping from job to job almost on a project by project basis. There are probably other jobs like this, but my main point is that the last two answers have been true in general, but as with darn near everything else in life, there are exceptions.

'nondimensional' would be the word I think he's looking for,and no, the area of a square (inside or outside of any circle) would not be nondimensional, it would have dimensions of length squared, like all areas.

Perhaps you should review with your chemistry teacher exactly what 'burning' is, and why 'burning in a vacuum' doesn't make much sense. Hint: 'burning' requires the presence of something else...

When it is less than or equal to the cost of mining ores and minerals from earth. Despite the great sci-fi stories that are based on this, I wouldn't expect this to happen any time soon. Quite simply, it is orders of magnitude more expensive to go to space and get stuff than to get it on earth. We'll be mining our landfills for the stuff we threw away before we mine asteroids or Mars.

There aren't 'physics police' out there who are going to kill you because your idea is different. The only reason your idea would 'die' is if you fail to back it up with evidence. There is what happens to all ideas without supporting evidence. As I wrote above, it isn't personal. Science takes nothing simply at its word. Everything needs to be supported. And that's how we've gotten to the best ideas we have today -- they agree the most with the evidence. If you are serious about this pursuit, then basically all of your effort should be going into showing how closely your idea's prediction agree with what is already known.

That's fine, just saying that it contradicts with what we know today about gravity where 'orbiting' and 'falling down' are both the same thing. As I wrote above, add it to the list of things you will need to provide extraordinary evidence to support.

Then why the word choice previously to distinguish between "crushing" gravity and "orbital" gravity? If they are the same thing, there was no reason to call them out separately, was there? More to the point, in the future, please be more cognizant of your word choices. And maybe even more to the point, had you used an equation here, your word choices wouldn't be questioned like this.

So now, in your model, there are 2 different types of gravity, too? Please add this to the growing pile of extraordinary claims that you need to provide extraordinary evidence to support. Because our current one type of gravity model makes pretty good predictions as is.

You don't get to say whether it is successful without comparing your predictions to known data. That hasn't shown up yet. Furthermore, since you have a cutoff distance, it fails to take into account known measurements. Pluto affects the earth's trajectory. Albeit a small amount, but definitely not a zero amount. How can you claim that after a certain distance, gravity doesn't affect it anymore when the very, very, very well verified formula shows gravity extends an infinite distance? Once again, THIS is how science works. The theory that makes the best predictions win. You have made very, very few predictions, and this one you just made about gravity is wrong based on known measurements. You need to modify your idea if you want to be taken seriously.

It isn't the difference in opinion that makes one come across as 'stupid'. And no one who follows the rules here will call you stupid. But, you are ignorant of what the current best models and observations say. As noted above, dark energy is needed because in every other situation we know, energy is conserved. So, we assume that even on the level of the entire universe, energy is conserved. We just don't seem to see it at the moment. Hence, dark energy needed to balance our books. You keep writing things like "i think dark energy can orbit arround [sic] anything", but you don't explain this at all. Firstly, how can energy orbit something? Secondly, what causes energy to orbit? Thirdly, how does this orbiting cause it to be unseen by our current best observation techniques? Fourthly, what tests should we perform to validate or invalidate this idea? Correlative to that, when we perform this test, what values should our measurements take (i.e. numerical prediction)? All these questions, and more (e.g. see the rest of this thread), need to be answered before you really have a scientific idea. Otherwise, we're back to story telling again. Please don't take that personally. Science doesn't accept things just at anyone's word. Every single idea about dark energy is asked the exact same questions, and science asks the person who came up with the idea to demonstrate that his idea is the best. If you want to participate in scientific research, you better get used to lots of different people asking you lots of different questions about your idea.

ok, these are steps in the right direction. Now, start putting estimates in and see if you are right. This is what I meant when I wrote above, provide your calculations in explicit detail. You have equations now, start actually using them to compare with what is known.

To expand little on swansont's point on why words alone don't work in answering this question. Say I walked into your room, carrying a box, set it down, and said "whew, that box is heavy." What does that really mean? What if I were someone who lifted weights every day, like an Olympic Weightlifter? What if I never exercise? What if am a man, or a woman? What if I am very young, middle aged, or older? Etc. The point is, words alone "that is heavy" really takes on very different meanings to very different people. Compare that with "that box weights 30 kg." Now, since everyone has agreed to what a kg is, everyone knows how heavy that box is to them, whether they be young or old or strong or weak. Taking this one step further, if you had a model that predicted the box would weigh 26 kg and I had a model that predicted it would weigh 14 kg... yours is obviously better. Because the difference between actuality and prediction is less. And if a third model came along that predicted it would weight 29.6 kg, well that one's even better. This is how science works. The model that makes the best prediction is considered the best. It is a very objective measure of how good a model is. There is no need to quibble about word choice, how 'logical' it is, the pedigree of the person saying it, and so on. This is why math is asked for. We're trying to be as objective as possible about your idea. And quite simply, if your idea makes more accurate predictions, then it will be listened to. If it makes less accurate predictions, then we're going to stick with the current idea that makes better predictions. So you need to show us that your prediction is more accurate. But, just using the words you've used so far is the same as saying "that box is heavy." Help us out by making your predictions more objective. Probably easiest done with math, but not absolutely necessarily. You need to demonstrate why several of the effects you are claiming haven't been detected today, too, for example.

Believe it or not, this is exactly right. Newtonian gravity made predictions that did not agree with the measurements. The precession of Mercury, for example. This is what led scientists to the theory of special relativity and then to the theory of general relativity. And, here's the thing, general relativity makes a lot of really good predictions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity as an overview, and http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072 for more detail. I hope, in particular, that you take a close look at the second link above, because this is the kind of thing people are asking of you. We want to see a plot of the observation, the prediction made by GR, and the prediction made by you (calculated in explicit detail). If you want people to accept your ideas, we need to see that your predictions have less error than the current best ones. Look, there is hope. GR isn't perfect. This is known. Conceptually, the hurdle you have to jump is very easy: just make better predictions than what currently exists. However, per the links above, the predictions made by GR are very, very good. In this way you have a very high hurdle to jump. Lastly, again I hope you look at that second link in detail, and note how little of its presentation is actually words and how much of it is mathematics. Mathematics isn't the whole of science, but it is a very large part. Writing paragraphs with explanations don't really count as predictions. Because words have different meaning to different people. If I say something is 'big' what does that really mean? But, if I say something is 5m big, then everyone knows exactly what that is. This is why the math is so important. For example, you can just say 'energy is released'... we want to know exactly how much, at what time, under what circumstances, etc. Then with that prediction, we can create that set of circumstance and measure it -- create experimental data. Then compare with how good or poor the prediction was. This is the core of science. Matching up prediction and observation.

yes, that's quite nice, but it doesn't support sunshaker here needs to show that the sun is a magnet and the planets are the coils -- implying that it is an electromagnetic force keeping planets in orbits and not gravity.

Just because two things look the same, that doesn't mean they are the same. A bowl of banana-strawberry yogurt is pink, but that doesn't make it the same as a flamingo. You need more that just 'looks the same' here. A lot more. Because you are essentially asking us to set aside the theory of gravity, one of the most verified theories we know today.

Conveniently added the word 'solar' in there in front of day. Obviously, a solar day is different that just day. Using correct words is supremely important when discussing these things.

really? are you sure about this? no matter what hemisphere you are in, the day can't be longer in both June and December... I think that the tilt of the axis explains the changes in day length pretty well. No changes in radius or speed necessary. If the earth were changing in radius or speed, I think there would be some rather obvious consequences that we would have noticed.

Granted using imprecise words like "anywhere near" does allow a range of interpretations, but it is my opinion that less than 1 nanoKelvin is somewhere near: http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2003/cooling and http://ltl.tkk.fi/wiki/LTL/World_record_in_low_temperatures depending on the exact definition of temperature one is using (there is that precise use of language necessary for science, again!) even some negative temperatures have been achieved: http://www.livescience.com/25959-atoms-colder-than-absolute-zero.html pretty sure WAG stands for 'wild ass guess'. In other words, on this forum, we expect even speculations to be somewhat rooted in known observations and confirmed theories. You're not allowed to just post anything you want and try to claim it is scientific. In other words, you can't just make wild ass guesses.

but, before you start using words like temperature in a scientific concept then you need to take it upon yourself to actually know what it means. In short, temperature is a measure of the movements of the particles. Mathematically it is related to the distribution of the average velocity of all the particles and the variation of each individual particle from that average. Higher temperatures correspond to distributions where more particles have velocities away from the mean and/or the variation of particles from the mean value is higher. In light of this definition, you see that it is pretty meaningless to try to define a gravity temperature. What is the average velocity of gravity? What is a 'particle' of gravity? How can you tell if one particle's velocity is different than another, and so on. Now this is a different thing. 2 things here... Firstly, you need to be cognizant of the differences between temperature and heat. Your statement here conflates the two of them, I think. And I think you could see how gravity can be responsible for slowing things down. Consider a universe that contains nothing but massive particles that collide inelastically. The particles are massive, so they have a gravitational attraction to one another. And because they collide inelastically, energy is dissipated with each collision, typically resulting in lower velocities post-collision than pre-collision. Also typically, lower velocities tend to not have as large or as varied a distribution -- and with some assumptions (binary only collisions and the inelasticity is a constant not a function of velocity) one can show that the distribution of velocities will eventually be a perturbed Maxwellian and over time as more and more energy is dissipated, the variation in that distirbution does indeed get smaller. I.e. the temperature goes down. But again, that is the temperature of the particles. Not the temperature of gravity. When discussing things in science, one must be sure to pick the words with the exact definitions you intend. There are colloquialisms in science, but generally they are much, much less frequent that everyday language use.

This was my first thought too. I do this all the time with my laser rangefinder on the golf course. It reports to a tenth of a yard, though that is absolutely overkill for the level of my game...

So, it appears you're at a crossroads. I'd suggest before you irritate more members, that you take what (if anything) you've learned from here and reflect on it yourself. What I mean by this is, if you are convinced you are right, then you probably ought to start building a prototype and testing it. I don't think any software is really going to help you today, as per the many replies you've gotten, no code based on the currently accepted mathematics will give you the answer you want, and frankly, given your stated position about the mathematics, even if you write your own code, it won't be accepted because it will be suspected that you didn't code the mathematics correctly. (I can write you a code to 'predict' anything you want, doesn't mean it will be right.) So, I think you're at the point where if you believe in it, you need to be making a physical prototype and testing it. That would probably be your best use of your time, because you really aren't going to gain any more traction here. It is obvious you aren't going to change your mind, and it is also obvious that you aren't going to change the many forum members' mind. I just hope that you will come back and show us what happens when you build it. I am on the side of sticking with the tried and accepted physics, but I still encourage you to build your prototype and learn from it. I think in all likelihood you're going to get the result that most everyone who has written to you here has said, but then hopefully that will still foster some learning.