AJ2884 on Nostr: When you say that temperature can't be understood until..., are you saying that ...
When you say that temperature can't be understood until..., are you saying that currant understandings are wrong, or is this meant to be a new definition? Similarly, given that entropy has multiple definitions and equations, are you trying to add to the list, or are you saying that all the others are wrong in this one should supersedes them?
Also, if you want this to be taken seriously as potentially overturning or changing our understandings of accepted physics, you're going to have to show how you can rigorously derive observed experimental results, otherwise it's simply going to be read as speculative philosophy and, I suspect, not taken seriously in the way you presumably want. Without doing showing lots of math, it looks like you're just making hand wavy analogies, and at that point, there's no reason to assume depth or significance to what's being said.
Also, if you want this to be taken seriously as potentially overturning or changing our understandings of accepted physics, you're going to have to show how you can rigorously derive observed experimental results, otherwise it's simply going to be read as speculative philosophy and, I suspect, not taken seriously in the way you presumably want. Without doing showing lots of math, it looks like you're just making hand wavy analogies, and at that point, there's no reason to assume depth or significance to what's being said.