Cosmic entropy is perhaps the main characteristic and foundation in cosmic structuring.
Since cosmic space is completely filled and occupied by cosmic energy, it behaves like a fluid inside a container, in such a way that it always tends to have the same density in all places in the container.
If it happened that in a certain place a greater concentration of energy (fluid) is produced, a pressure force would immediately arise towards the outside to redistribute the energy with the same density as in other places.
And this is what happens in the Cosmos, since its three-dimensionality causes concentric or gravity or concentric forces to be born that try (and do) to unite the energy in points and increasing accumulations of this energy, to end up creating the matter, which is nothing more than an accumulation and condensation of cosmic energy.
Well, once large accumulations of matter are created, with great energy density, this produces the aforementioned magnetic forces that have to solve the problem created.
For this, the magnetic forces give an acceptable solution, (although not perfect) consisting of the creation of positive orbits around the material nuclei, and on them attract and place orbitals (ie. electrons) with which the system as a whole increases enormously in volume and lowers its density to a permitted extent.
And this is the whole continuous fight of electromagnetic forces against gravity, in building stable orbital systems with the appropriate energy density, by grouping unstable particles to form stable systems with them.
And this also happens at a low level, or thermal level.
If a system, for example an atom, it is left without energy due to a chemical reaction, because thermal magnetism supplies it with this energy from outside.
In the same way, if two compounds are at different temperatures and close together, the hotter one gives up energy to the other, to equalize its energy density

An example of the capture of energy for its leveling and acquisition of the average density (DA) required by the Cosmos, is clearly observed in our solar system if we look at the enormous amount of particles (asteroids) that fill the entire system and mainly on the outer Kuiper belt.
Well, the same happens in atoms that are filled with energetic particles until they achieve that average energy density that they need and that we name as cosmic entropy.
To this magnetic force that captures these particles we can name as thermal magnetism.

Untropy: positive and negative

As we have seen, and from the energy and thermal point of view, entropy is the average energy density that the cosmos as a whole would have, and to which all systems (atoms, stars, etc.) and cosmic compounds tend due to energy that fills the cosmos behaves like a fluid in a container that tend to maintain this average energy density in all places.
Then, how we could name this imbalance of energy density.
I call it untropy, because it is easy to express and write and would mean the opposite of entropy, that is, imbalance or unevenness of the energy that all cosmic systems tend to.
The question here would be, but does that state really exist in a clear and forceful way?
Yes, clearly.
To begin with, I could say that one of the faces of untropia could be chaos, that is, a form of cosmic behavior that tries to move and interrelate all the elements of it to find symbiosis between these chaotic elements, and in the end with the symbiosis find the desired entropy, that is, balance and peace with the entropy between the elements.
But in addition to this basic and almost philosophical explanation, there is also a purely energy balance level between the elements of the cosmos.
In this sense it could divide the untropy, positive untropy and negative antropy.
It would be positive untropy if a cosmos element has more energy than necessary for its average density, and on the contrary it would be negative untropy, if an element has less energy than necessary to cover its average density.
And this is basic and visible in some physical concepts of energy.
That is, positive charges are due to positive untropy, more energy than the average that a cosmic system or element has to have.
And negative charge is when a system or cosmic element has less energy than it should have.
- A proton is positively charged because it has more energy than its small size as particle, and would therefore be positive untropy.
- An electron (with its neutrino) is negatively charged because it has less energy than its volume needs (electron + neutrino).
- A positive ion lacks a busy orbit, and therefore it has positive untropy.
- A negative ion will be overloaded by having one too many orbit occupied, and therefore its energy density is negative, and it will be of negative untropy.
The same would happen with thermal energy.
If something is very hot, we can say that its state is of positive untropy, and if it is too cold it will be of negative untropy.

Untropy levels.

Once we see that untropy is an imbalance or unevenness of energy density in the cosmos, we could ask ourselves: how much unevenness or energy imbalance can the cosmos afford?
Well, looking at the elements that exist and are well known, I understand that this maximum unevenness is perfectly visible in many systems and cosmic elements, although for this I have had to discard others that are not very clear and are possibly only physical theories not realities.
I observe that between cosmic systems such as atoms and stars, the maximum differential between the mass of these systems can be expressed by a simple formula (2Pi)^3, referred to their atomic number, 1 for hydrogen.
Therefore, the large atoms will be destroyed when reaching values close to 248.
And it also seems to be the case in stars, where the difference between the smallest and the largest would be 248 times.
And what happens when this level of untropy is reached, since systems are destroyed to form smaller ones, as occurs in atoms larger than uranium and in supernovae.
Well, here comes the problem of this theory, that neither black holes nor neutron stars can be accepted as existing, because according to the current theory, these two cosmic elements would greatly exceed the average density of untropy allowed by the Cosmos.
Now, and logically, I understand that there are indications that these elements (black holes and neutron stars) do not exist, and I put two:
In the first place, if black holes existed, all the great supernovae that explode would not do so, but because of their great gravitational mass they would collapse into black holes.
Black hole theorists say that sometimes the interior debris of these supernovae generate black holes, but it is illogical that when there is a greater amount of matter and gravity these black holes do not occur, and when gravity decreases they do occur.
On the other hand, if black holes existed in the center of galaxies, where stars crowd and compress each other, then here these supermassive black holes would be capturing stars and would end up with most of the galaxies, and as we see this never happens.
Apart from the great concentration of stars in the center of the galaxies, there is the large amount of interstellar dust and the creation of huge numbers of new stars, which removes the possibility of the existence of supermassive black holes.

Thanks you friends.