Time and Absolute Zero

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.

"\WHEN YOU CANGE THE WAY YOU LOOK AT THINGS THE THINGS YOU LOOK AT CHANGE"

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.

"Always give to the left, coz the right way is the wrong way."

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.

"Always give to the left, coz the right way is the wrong way."

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?

"Always give to the left, coz the right way is the wrong way."

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.

"I tried coding in cocoa but it ran between the keys and shorted my pc"

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.

"I'll heal ur woundz I'll set u free, I m jesus christ on xtacy"

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

---

"I'll heal ur woundz I'll set u free, I m jesus christ on xtacy"

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!

"Always give to the left, coz the right way is the wrong way."

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.

"Always give to the left, coz the right way is the wrong way."

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.