Guest Guest Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 If matter is at a temperature of absolute zero, then all atomic motion ceases. It is logical to question if temperature has something to do with gravity. Absolute zero- no motion- no gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Darby Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Chris, You can't attain absolute zero temperature. This is a central concept of the Uncertainty Principle. All particles have some minimum temperature (which is really just another way of stating it's momentum). Another problem that you run into with absolute zero is inertial frames. If temperature is just another way of stating momentum (mv^2/2) you have to state the velocity relative to some other frame (the observing frame). If the temperature (thus velocity) was absolute zero you'd be stating that the particle is at rest relative to every other object in the universe. The fact that the universe is expanding, the galaxies are in motion relative to each other and the Earth orbits the Sun precludes such a preferred state of rest. There is no "absolute zero" temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Darby Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Chris, Continuing the previous thought: A particle at rest, so long as it retains mass, will have an associated gravitational field. This assumes that the particle has intrinsic mass...unlike a photon which has (theoretically) no rest mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 Hello, From the specific perspective of zero itself, all motion occurrs as a changeless entity. A 1/infinity point can be mathematically extended as a field that can match every point in a magnetic field, or every point in a gravitational field with one specific difference, a spherical field that is divided by an infinite number of diameters is seen to have a constant density regardless of how much the field expands. This is because regardless of the length of any segment whether it be a circular segment, or a linear segment, contains an infinite number of points that are supposed to be infinitely small. Note: 1/infinity does not equal zero, for 0 is equal to some quantity minus itself, and it can be shown below that 1/infinity is greater then the sum of two equal opposite quantities. Observe. infinity/infinity=1 infinity-infinity/infinity=0/infinity infinity-infinity+1/infinity=0+1/infinity=1/infinity. As it is seen, if 1 is equal to x, then 1 can be written either as x, or as x/x. Thus 1=x=x/x. So 1=1=1/1 if x is equal to 1. In all other cases, 1=x'/x' for all numbers >1 and possibly including infinity(even though infinity is not a number value, but is sequence, indeed it can be shown that even finite numbers are not truelly specific in vallue, and are thusly sequences, also. And here is where we stand, that addition and mathematics is not a measure of quantity and cannot truelly describe quantity accurately, but instead, mathematics is the language of sequence, for every point in the number line is set to be either before or after some other point. So each number marks a specific point in the numberical sequence ranging from..-infinity to 0 to +infinity, and on into higher infinities, etc. So since the number 5 is not specifically equal to anything in and of itself, it can only be assigned as the value for that which we are measuring. What is truelly supprising is that 5 in one system of measure can be assosiated as being equal to 5 in some other system of measure, even if the value of 5 in the other system of measure is greater then the value of 5 in the one system of measure. More later, Best Regards, Edwin G. Schasteen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 Hi Edwin, I read some of your past posting from some time back and you seem to have a liking for combining religion with science? I find all your postings and scientific analysis very interesting! I just thought I would veer off the subject here a little bit and throw a G-D/Time Travel question at you. A Dear friend of mine threw this one at me, that a view of G-D would be as such: That we as a people long for a being that is higher than us. That our consciousness is what gives us life as likened onto a flowers life of photosynthesis is to feed off of energy from the sun. AND THAT ITS OUR CONSCIOUSNESS THAT CREATES A G-D LIKE FIGURE. So in theorizing this that it was our consciousness from some evolved futuristic civilization that beet us to the punch and implemented a G-D figure and sent it back in time from the future along with the Bible. (make sense?) I beg to differ! I believe strongly in a G-D! What are your views to combat this? CAT... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 If infinite/infinite = 1 -> sqrt(infinite)/infinite^infinite = 1? and infinite - 1/infinite +1 = 1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 I believe that Kant and Cantor would disagree on what the "correct" solution is to these formulae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 If those forumlae work, then any number divided by any other number would be equal to one. Infinity encompasses all of the numbers. 1 - that is a unit 2 is infinity 1/2 is infinity simply because you can always add one to any number and get infinity once more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 my understanding of Absolute Zero is primitive, but from what ive learned from Bill Nye the Science Guy, an object can never reach Absolute zero, because it is always in contact with another object. Air, A Table, and other things add to the heat. Therfore, i dont think you can attain absolute zero without floating the object in a vacummed room, and have it somehow float in the middle. then it MIGHT be possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 Bill Nye the Science Guy! Yeah!!!!! It seems the schools certainly promote him! So his theorys must be standard and fundamentally correct! CAT... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 if i didnt know any better cat, i would say your making fun of me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 Naaaa I like Bill Nye! I even know how the song goes...Bill Nye the science guy...Bill Bill Bill!!! I think he's cool and a good mentor! Just dont ask me how I know about him! You might make fun of me then... CAT... P.S. I see the plot thickens on your armor! I like it. I think its pretty technical and catchy! Well thought out and designed. How about the armor have a safty device that makes it invisible and only those that are tuned into its frequency can hear it and find it. Sort of like the armor calls to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guest Guest Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 why dont you post it in the offical topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guest Guest Posted June 23, 2002 Share Posted June 23, 2002 The problem with an absolute vacuum is the same as with absolute zero degrees Kelvin. There is no absolute vacuum. Such a situation requires that you measure the strength of all fields (weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational) as being precisely zero. Yet you have an object (particle) and an observer (thermometer)present. You also have the problem of virtual particles appearing from the vacuum. There will always be "something" present in the "vacuum". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guest Guest Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 Yes, I was looking at the following: sqrt(infinite)/infinite^infinite = 1? The thing about infinity, is that from a finite perspective all higher infinities, might apear to relate non-linear with respect to each other. However, in order to compare the above mentioned theorum with the equations I mentioned in my last post, I would rewrite "sqrt(infinite)/infinite^infinite" in the following form and confirm with the preceeding logic statements. If, 0 x infinity=1, and 1xinfinity=infinity, then 0 x infinity^2=infinity and 0 x sqrt(infinity^2)=1, then 0 x sqrt(infinity)=sqrt(1)=1 Now, to answer for the denominator "infinity^infinite". Let infinity=to the sum of an infinite number of 1's as a no-linear sequence within a single number line containing only an infinite number of valueless points. Because of the non-linear relation between the points let it be observed that the only thing that distinguishes one point in this number line from another is the sequence that seperates those points from each other on the number line. Let it be therefore concluded that if two points on the number line overlapp as to occupy the same numerical point on the number line, that the two formally independant points have merged to become one single point have only the value of 1 point in our number line, since it is "only" the distance between points on our numerical number line that allows those points to be distinguished as independant. Since there are only, an infinite number of points in a single number line axis, then only an infinite number of points may be distinguished as independant within that number line. If we have an infinite^infinite number of points within a number line containing only an infinite number of independant point values, such as 1,2,3....n;etc, then we are counting each of the infinite number of points in the number line an infinite number of times, that is, we are counting single line an infinite number of times. Thus we have established, in theory, that if you take in infinite^infinite number of points, that it is equal to having an infinite number of lines. If an infinite number of lines were extablished to be independant of each other, then by an infinite number of lines would form an infinite non-linear. Now the sequence that seperates each of the infinite number of points in a single numerical line, and that seperates each of the infinite number of lines in an infinite plane is tension. Now let it be observed that tension is negative pressure, and that pressure is negative tension. Since we have determined that it is tension that seperates the points in our number line, then we can affirm that it is the tension that determines the perameter of our number line. For instance, if we have a line containing a tension value of 1 inch, then our infinite^2 number of points are confined within that inch, where each line relates non-linearly. Now it can be shown that a line containing an infinite number of points that form a linear consecutive ordered sequence, such as 1,2,3... is composed of an infinite two lines that are non-linear consecutive unordered sequences with an infinite number of possible sequences when measured by themselves, but that form a non-linear relation that fills the entire sequence accounting for all points in the line when counted together simultaneously. I will post the example of these lines in my next post, I must go for now. Take care. Edwin G. Schasteen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts