Originally Posted by

**Ken G**
Yes, what is unclear from the above are:

1) why do you find this interesting? Introductory comments like that are generally used when introducing topics. I'm not saying it isn't interesting, I'm saying it's hard to tell.

2) why do you regard it as new, or even do you regard it as new? The physics being used appears to be standard, so is it merely a repackaging of what can be found in more carefully written sources, or are their insights here which are claimed to be new? New insights are of great value, but that only stresses the importance of clarifying what is in fact new here, and if nothing is new, why it is important to draw attention to what is getting missed.

3) why do you use language where you talk about "energy" when your expressions are those of "energy flux"? For example, your second equation is not, as claimed, an expression for "heat energy density" as made obvious from the fact that a huge constant T leads to zero in that expression. Indeed, many of your expressions use language that suggests they are changes in energy, but actually they are rates of changes of energy, making it hard to follow when the language that describes the equations does not correctly connect to what the equations say. So are you making errors here, or are you just being imprecise with your language? Then you appear to mix up a change in entropy with expressions that involve rates of change of energy, which doesn't make sense. Finally, at one point you appear to take a 1/T from outside an integral to inside the integral, but T is not constant and you have not stated that the integral is intended to be over an infinitesmal volume (indeed, if over an infinitesmal volume, what would be the point of using integral notation in the first place?)

Having answers to these questions would make casual readers, like myself, more likely to spend the necessary time to understand the comments, and even to believe they are correct.