- #1
J-H-C
- 7
- 0
Hi, I am also having problem with the assumption Entropy makes about the movement of molecules in a 3D space. Does it assume that gas molecules could have equal chance of going in any direction? If so then how is it possible outside a free-fall lab as Gravity bias would always make all the molecules point (orient) the same way and give all of them the same final direction and hence their movement could be predicted with 100% accuracy and precision if needed. Einstein predicted the trajectory of photons because of the bias Gravity created for photons so I am sure molecules trajectories could also be predicted and there should be no need to calculate probabilities at all. Entropy states "as we do not know " hence let's "assume equal probabilities".
What if equal probabilities does not exist? That would invalidate Entropy conclusions completely, wouldn't it?
How can 6N have equal probabilities in presence of Gravity?
Why assume equal probabilities to build conclusions upon when there is a universal bias present (Gravity) which could easily explain both the creation of all order we are seeing (e.g. stars, light, planets, moons, galaxies, solar systems, oceans etc) and working of the universe e.g ice floating, hot air rising, oil floating on water, rain, rivers, ships sailing, leaves falling, day and night etc single handedly.
What am I missing?
Does SM really assume absence of bias when building it's conclusions!
What if equal probabilities does not exist? That would invalidate Entropy conclusions completely, wouldn't it?
How can 6N have equal probabilities in presence of Gravity?
Why assume equal probabilities to build conclusions upon when there is a universal bias present (Gravity) which could easily explain both the creation of all order we are seeing (e.g. stars, light, planets, moons, galaxies, solar systems, oceans etc) and working of the universe e.g ice floating, hot air rising, oil floating on water, rain, rivers, ships sailing, leaves falling, day and night etc single handedly.
What am I missing?
Does SM really assume absence of bias when building it's conclusions!