[MJA]

Watch yourself Austin!

[dipayankar]

The issue here is Time has no existance without motion and there is no point on the Universe that is at absolute rest because 0K is not achieved anywhere (I hope)...

[N0B0DY]

That depends on how absolute we wish to make the observable universe. The observable universe functions according to relativity, which is why Einstein is considered such a genius, but the absolute universe is just that, absolute, and its state therefore complies at absolute 0K, frozen in time.

We then might ask ourselves what "irresistible force" has the power to move the absolute universe in order to literally create time, heat, energy, mass, etc.. "Create," because an eternally-existent universe in motion violates the above absolute state which cannot have variable densities, motions, temperatures, etc.. For example, absolute 3 degrees or absolute .0001 degrees makes no sense, and the reality that consists of these relative temperatures ceases at absolute zero.

The problem understanding this simple fact is based on people's thinking the absolute universe conforms to relative observations of limited perception, instead of limitations being the illusory result of dividing the absolute state.

[dipayankar]

Absolute zero is not possible, as it will break the quarks and other sub atomic particles. It will create a perfect viod.. Which is not a viable solution...

Originally Posted by N0B0DY That depends on how absolute we wish to make the observable universe. The observable universe functions according to relativity, which is why Einstein is considered such a genius, but the absolute universe is just that, absolute, and its state therefore complies at absolute 0K, frozen in time. We then might ask ourselves what "irresistible force" has the power to move the absolute universe in order to literally create time, heat, energy, mass, etc.. "Create," because an eternally-existent universe in motion violates the above absolute state which cannot have variable densities, motions, temperatures, etc.. For example, absolute 3 degrees or absolute .0001 degrees makes no sense, and the reality that consists of these relative temperatures ceases at absolute zero. The problem understanding this simple fact is based on people's thinking the absolute universe conforms to relative observations of limited perception, instead of limitations being the illusory result of dividing the absolute state.

[N0B0DY]

Solution to what? What are you trying to solve?

Absolute zero is simply the absolute state of the universe, which has nothing to do with the infinite number of relative problems and the matching eternal pursuit of solutions.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Such exaggerations... Nobody, you should re-study "low temperature physics", to get your facts straight. Motion of substance exists at zero entropy... The experiments already exist at just a billionth of a degree above absolute zero, and further direction toward true absolute zero has been confirmed by further state change probabilities... Absolute zero seems to freeze nothing but your mind...

Nobody, you should really try to understand Einstein's real relativity theories, not your own interpretation of them... The absolute universe, less man's measure, has no relativity___It's absolute substance motion, eternally. This is just a-priori logic, because once you shut it off, you have nothing to scientifically restart it... So start with fundamental substance and motion, and all is much clearer...

Regards,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by N0B0DY That depends on how absolute we wish to make the observable universe. The observable universe functions according to relativity, which is why Einstein is considered such a genius, but the absolute universe is just that, absolute, and its state therefore complies at absolute 0K, frozen in time. We then might ask ourselves what "irresistible force" has the power to move the absolute universe in order to literally create time, heat, energy, mass, etc.. "Create," because an eternally-existent universe in motion violates the above absolute state which cannot have variable densities, motions, temperatures, etc.. For example, absolute 3 degrees or absolute .0001 degrees makes no sense, and the reality that consists of these relative temperatures ceases at absolute zero. The problem understanding this simple fact is based on people's thinking the absolute universe conforms to relative observations of limited perception, instead of limitations being the illusory result of dividing the absolute state.

[dipayankar]

If by any chance we were to achieve zero temperature, would the sub atomic prticles crumble at that temperature??

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Such exaggerations... Nobody, you should re-study "low temperature physics", to get your facts straight. Motion of substance exists at zero entropy... The experiments already exist at just a billionth of a degree above absolute zero, and further direction toward true absolute zero has been confirmed by further state change probabilities... Absolute zero seems to freeze nothing but your mind... Nobody, you should really try to understand Einstein's real relativity theories, not your own interpretation of them... The absolute universe, less man's measure, has no relativity___It's absolute substance motion, eternally. This is just a-priori logic, because once you shut it off, you have nothing to scientifically restart it... So start with fundamental substance and motion, and all is much clearer... Regards, Lloyd

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar If by any chance we were to achieve zero temperature, would the sub atomic prticles crumble at that temperature??

Hi Dipayankar;

Outside of the impossibility of absolute zero, if it were possible that would mean zero movement, and I would think rather then crumbling it would disappear.

At least according to my Idea if the quarks didn't move no proton, and if the strings didn't move no quarks.

And so no movement, no subatomic particles, Just my thought.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. The strings need to move from the dimensionless point to have length. You need Aristotle's prime mover to have things.

[dipayankar]

So even theoritically 0K is not possible and hence there cannot be absolute void.... Great news

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; Outside of the impossibility of absolute zero, if it were possible that would mean zero movement, and I would think rather then crumbling it would disappear. At least according to my Idea if the quarks didn't move no proton, and if the strings didn't move no quarks. And so no movement, no subatomic particles, Just my thought. Best to you, Pat P.S. The strings need to move from the dimensionless point to have length. You need Aristotle's prime mover to have things.

[N0B0DY]

"Motion of substance exists at zero entropy... The experiments already exist at just a billionth of a degree above absolute zero, and further direction toward true absolute zero has been confirmed by further state change probabilities... Absolute zero seems to freeze nothing but your mind..."

It freezes the "universal mind" as well, Lloyd.

You're not being entirely fair with your equating near-zero with absolute zero. If we both concede that there is an infinite difference between the two states, we can rid our minds of concepts of infinitesimal by focusing on the absolute-zero change in temperature.

A thousand degrees is just as hot as two thousand degrees when two thousand degrees is compared with 3 thousand degrees. Where you misunderstand my statements is through your thinking that I am stating the above relative temperatures are the same (period), when what I am refering to is the relationship between them all and how the absolute state (zero kelvin) carries throughout them to allow them to be differentiated.

So in the same fashion, absolute motion equates to no motion based on there being no differential quanta of motion.

Think of driving in your car on an earth that is moving in a galaxy that is moving in a universe that is moving. What allows the universe to move?