Time and Absolute Zero - Page 3

the one, most simple and correct rebuttle to that statement is as follows:

no there wasn't

CORRECT REBUTTAL? YOUR NOT EVEN OFFERING EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS FOR YOUR CLAIM.

lastresort, how could you say that about gravity? Do you know about temperature verses movement? Something that is absolute zero, has no internal energy, it emits on radiation, but it is still capable of moving through external forces, such as gravity, which is a bend in time/space caused by an objects mass. Even if something has no energy, it still has mass, thus creates a gravity effect.

Don't believe a student of science such as myself? Talk to your teacher, or perhaps even do a Google search on gravity. Please don't just retort with uneducated guesses.

what is mass?

P.S. trancend please move your pinky the 1/16th on an inch to turn off caps lock

Google it. Trust me, you don't even need to buy text books these days, everything you need to know about physics is on the net these days, and you can get a sample of EVERY theory, not just the commonly accepted ones like that which they force feed you in high school.

nono, i know what mass is... however im asking you to by a skeptic...

now what is mass?

You're trying to lure me into a debate over semantics. I don't jive like that.

You want clarity? By mass I meant substance, physical representation. Everything, even something at absolute zero has a physical form, a structure which effects time/space.

So please tell me exactly what makes you think that debating over the meaning of a word changes that fact?

we have not the faintest idea what mass is. that's why.

for all we know, mass is caused from the movement of the atom ( note how ice, an object with less molecular movement, is less dense then water. )

I think the thing about absolute zero and time, is the idea behind cryogenic freezing, if u could freeze something down to absolute zero, it would not be affected by time to the extent that it would not change until it was brought back up to a temperature above absolute zero. thus u are effectively in stasis. time would not stop, but its effects would cease to bother us.

Xanodool, we are talking about a hypothetical situation here, so by stopping we assume 'the whole universe has stopped'. Reasonings of gravity taking effect etc are obvious, but over here we are just trying to discuss the nature of time.

Ok, so I think everyone agrees that internal time is simply a result of our minds?- though external time which is not dependant on human perception is another matter.

quote:

---

First there was time, then came the sensation of time, then the idea of time, and finally the word "time". Flow of time involves

---

ya, I like that. First there was time, which is probobly true external time, regardless of whether some one observes it or not, then the sensataion of time for animals etc, then the awareness for humans. But for animals to feel the sensation of time, they must be aware as well, so I don't think simple organsims such as ants or rats have any sensation or awarenss of time. Dogs etc are a different matter, as they seemingly have an awareness of time: if you hit them, then next day they'll 'remember' and not be friendly with you. But their memory system is probably very different from ours. As they cannot be aware of themselves, they cannot willingly remember events as we can, rather it's somewhat unconcious-like us unconciously hating someone even though we'v forgotten the reason.
But again, all this is regarding time which is the result of our ability to compare two different events. Even so, saying that time is a result of us comparing two differently spaced events itlsef assumes that time exists externally. For our mind to compare these two different events, they must be happening at different intervals, thus meaning that time exists apart from our perception of it.

Now, the universe freezing effectively means that it no longer exists, along with time. After the universe has frozen, then time and and the universe will only exist for an independant entity...?

Regarding mass, I don't know what the textbooks say by defination, but probably everything which occupyies space is mass, meaning that part of that gas is mass, part of that coke is mass, and the majority of that iron brick is also mass.

lastresort, ice has less density than water because of the shape of the molecule and the way each water molecule interacts with other water molecules. The same reason why water at room temperature should be a gas, but still retains liquid properties.

Again, do some research... PLEASE. I'm all up for insightful debate, but only with those who have done the appropreate reading first.

As far as that mass question goes, atoms generate a field of non passability(What I'm calling it coz I can't be bothered quoting from a whole chapter in my text books) which in turn creates the bubble in time/space that, for one, makes it exist to us, but secondly, makes a gravitational effect. Absolute zero does not stop this effect.

Angel, yes, the nature of time, well you tell us when you've figured it out... of course, I'm talking about how absolute zero cannot stop time... That WAS the initial question, unless you're thread jacking again!

that's einstiens theory, and quite frankly, i dont believe much of the stuff he said.

Einstein? I stopped listening to that old kook long ago. But even Stephrn Hawking, foremost physicist of our time supports the theories behind atomic separation.

So, if you will, do some reading. If it's comprehension that's troubling you, I seem to have a nack for turning complex ideas into simple ones through the choice of the words I use.

But a discussion into the principles of time/space and quantum mechanics does require a fair bit of reading. I'll try and find some sites for you.

please dont

quantum mechanics is bs i've read enough on it

time / space relation is bs i've read enough on them.

steven hawkins, however smart he may be, often contradicts himself. he is most noted for black holes, which is one of the few solid things hes done.