[AntonioLao]

Then you are the source of the richest principal municipality in this country.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Then you are the source of the richest principal municipality in this country.

Birmingham Michigan in Oakland County, where I live, is the richest in the State of Michigan. I'm sure my contributions help.

[dleviwing]

The thing is Antony, if something is still in a structured state (atom or subatomic particle) it cannot be at “ABSOLUTE ZERO”. True absolute zero would destroy all physical atomic structure resulting in no more than one degree of freedom. Fermi condensates suggest the same thing. Our interpretation of what is absolute zero is wrong.

[analog]

Originally Posted by dleviwing The thing is Antony, if something is still in a structured state (atom or subatomic particle) it cannot be at “ABSOLUTE ZERO”. True absolute zero would destroy all physical atomic structure resulting in no more than one degree of freedom. Fermi condensates suggest the same thing. Our interpretation of what is absolute zero is wrong.

hey Dave,

Within your framework, wouldn't this be related to the acceleration of a structured formation (massive body) as it neared light speed? And wouldn't the initial state of your fundamental substance been at absolute zero (before the initial collision)?

[dleviwing]

Tim;
Yes, that’s how I interpret the math; of course you can also say it’s just my opinion but I think the math speaks for itself. (Relativity and QM both)
BTW: much faster than light speed is required.

[analog]

hey Dave,

I agree that the normal interpretation of absolute zero is wrong; and I agree with your interpretation.

The fundamental structures within the center of massive bodies (stars), wouldn't they be closer to absolute zero than those without, or is that just my interpretation from my framework?

[analog]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Tim; Yes, that’s how I interpret the math; of course you can also say it’s just my opinion but I think the math speaks for itself. (Relativity and QM both) BTW: much faster than light speed is required.

I have a bad habit of referring to "light speed" as the max speed limit. Perhaps I should have said "as it neared absolute velocity".

[dleviwing]

Tim;
That’s a good analogy but no matter how massive a star is, it cannot reduce structure to only one degree of freedom. The best you could have is a neutron cluster core or in the case of black-holes, symmetry particle clusters. (angular momentum rather than linear velocity absolute motion)

Let’s not steal Antony’s thread.

[analog]

Hey Dave,

I agree that, no matter how massive, it would never achieve the one degree of freedom veiwed as absolute linear velocity, I was just pointing out how weird it is to view the sun as having structured matter more near absolute zero at its center, more so than the rest of the structured matter within the solar system. I've stated this in a thread before, and I figured it sounded retarded to others.

It would seem that an increased fundamental medium density lowers the needed linear velocity required, which would allow for absolute zero (one degree of freedom) to be obtained, but it doesn't help due to the complications of further accelerating a formation once it gets that massive. This should be related to a conservation law.

Anyway, I'll post any further comments to your thread Dave; sorry Antonio.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Let’s not steal Antony’s thread

Maybe there exists a cold theorem?