I challenge the world , bring it on!

[james blunt]

One needs to actually experience the absolute space by ceasing to chatter.

Your random equations disprove absolute space.

My notation of k0 is absolute space sir. k is what is used for space in science , the zero is represent of the point.
function map ƒ:k=0→∞ a singularity



Then the next part , what does a change in energy mean in respect to the empty point?

E = t

Time has begun in that point when the energy was created . Energy is equal to time. No energy at a point, no time , nothing to decay.


Obvious time being energy has dimensions and is no longer a point

t=xyz

Establishing an energy and time relationship in the form of mass volume

 

[atanu]

My notation of k0 is absolute space sir. k is what is used for space in science , the zero is represent of the point..

'k0' negates absolute empty space now and at all times past and future.

I will not respond to you further.

 

[james blunt]

'k0' negates absolute empty space now and at all times past and future.

I will not respond to you further.

There is no past and future , quite clearly your ''I will not respond'' is a walk away from the truth .

added- You do not know what space is do you ?

Space is nothingness , the Universe is all that is , space and substance together.

 

[atanu]

There is no past and future , quite clearly your ''I will not respond'' is a walk away from the truth .
.

Okay. Because I am a theist too I write once more to suggest that you get your proof published.

 

[exchemist]

Your creator is @exchemist !

Yes of course. I am Dr Frankenstein.

(if only )

 

[Polymath257]

Okay. Do I understand correctly that for science space is only defined by what it contains -- objects or some or other kind of waves?


Note: We cannot understand or experience the nature of a thoughtless mind by thinking. Is it similar for science that it cannot know absolute space?

No. Usually, dealing with vacuum solutions come before the solutions with matter or energy.

 

[atanu]

No. Usually, dealing with vacuum solutions come before the solutions with matter or energy.

But that vacuum is not absolute space at all. It is vacuum only in relation to another state.

 

[james blunt]

But that vacuum is not absolute space at all. It is vacuum only in relation to another state.

A vacuum is expressing an empty ''chamber'' under ''extraction'' force, you are correct that a vacuum is not representation of an absolute space.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

A science section is my home turf, objectively I am a genius.

Most of the world is under cognitive control when it comes to science and the subjective education they are forced to accept or fail.

In saying that , I will set a series of challenges in this thread to main stream science by use of my cognitive freedom.

Challenge 1

A point has 0 dimensions , specifically no dimension of time. Einstein and science claims in such, there is a space-time.

Given the dimensions of XYZ = 1 cm ³ a spacial volume of geometrical points that is without any substance, i.e empty space

On examination of each individual point of the volume, the volume is without time.

My first challenge is for you/science to provide evidence that space-time exists in the given volume of space?

Quite obviously and axiom , space does not age and time is not relative to space. You are making it up Mr science, space-time is imaginary.

Not even a belief, an outright lie.

I'm afraid we conscious humans have no real conception of time past or future. We are stuck in time present. Time is a dimensionless property, not a special property. We can see time-past by observing small increments of changes over time. That is, time is how we interpret changes in the spatial representation between small to large, beginning to end, slow to fast. Time will always be relative to the observer. Time is only relevant within our 3 spatial dimensions. Since we are restricted from observing any parts of the Universe that exist forward in time, we must remain trapped in our present time. You do realize that all past and future events in time, have already happened from our perspective? Right? Or do you think that the earth is on the leading edge of our expansion, and time is not relative to its motion? There might be entities looking into their past, looking at us now.. In short, without any spatial events as a reference, there can be no conception of time. And, without time as a reference, there can be no conception of space. Hence "space-time is a permanently inseparable term.

There are many experiments that have directly demonstrated that no part of empty space is empty. We all know that zero entropy/enthalpy are not achievable anymore than achieving absolute zero. These properties are necessary in proving that space is truly empty. Why do you think this is? Since you never indicated what XYZ represents(basic physics: define your terms), the method for determining volume will always be without substance. Volume of what? Measurement of what? Can "love and "logic" be spatially represented? Are you aware of the Quantum Wave Theory? Every volume of space is bathed in radiation/waves/fields from the vibrating subatomic particles listed in the standard model of particle physics.This standard model is used to explain the origin of the four(4) fundamental forces that make up out Universe, and to classify all known elements including their properties. You do realize that Uranium is different from Helium? Why?

To respond to your challenge, "Space-time" is not a thing, it is a property. It is the fabric of space held together by the fundamental forces of Nature. There is no such thing as aged gravity, aged light, or aged energy. There is also no such thing as aged space-time. Using aspects that form the whole, to conclude aspects about the whole can be a fallacy(water is made from 2 gases, therefore water is a gas). There is also no expansion of the Universe into something, no time before time, and no science before science. These are all nonsense statements/questions. The fabric of space-time is two dimensional, and time has no dimensions. So just how is volume relevant to aging? How do you age Planck time or Planck length? Can you see just how nonsensical your statements are? However, the space-time continuum may have 10 dimensions(9 spatial). Maybe in time, we may command a better understanding of space-time, once a unified field theory has been established.

I have only read your OP, so I apologize if there have been some clarifications. There are just far too many variables to be considered(Gauge/Gravity Duality, Scale and Conformal invariances, wave functions, Relativity, and the type of space curvature), before this challenge would make any sense. At the quantum level of reality, Gravity is irrelevant. Does this mean that elemental subatomic particles do not exist? That we are just victims of cognitive control? Maybe you should jump out a window and test your hypothesis? If this is an example of what your challenges will be, I'd suggest you take a science refresher course before you issue the next challenge.

 

[Jedster]

...MK's algorithm was insanely elegant and self-referential. ...

Recursion is a great tool, which I learnt whilst studying mathematics.
I used it frequently whilst working as an analyst programmer.

 

[JoshuaTree]

I'm afraid we conscious humans have no real conception of time past or future. We are stuck in time present. Time is a dimensionless property, not a special property. We can see time-past by observing small increments of changes over time. That is, time is how we interpret changes in the spatial representation between small to large, beginning to end, slow to fast. Time will always be relative to the observer. Time is only relevant within our 3 spatial dimensions. Since we are restricted from observing any parts of the Universe that exist forward in time, we must remain trapped in our present time. You do realize that all past and future events in time, have already happened from our perspective? Right? Or do you think that the earth is on the leading edge of our expansion, and time is not relative to its motion? There might be entities looking into their past, looking at us now.. In short, without any spatial events as a reference, there can be no conception of time. And, without time as a reference, there can be no conception of space. Hence "space-time is a permanently inseparable term.

There are many experiments that have directly demonstrated that no part of empty space is empty. We all know that zero entropy/enthalpy are not achievable anymore than achieving absolute zero. These properties are necessary in proving that space is truly empty. Why do you think this is? Since you never indicated what XYZ represents(basic physics: define your terms), the method for determining volume will always be without substance. Volume of what? Measurement of what? Can "love and "logic" be spatially represented? Are you aware of the Quantum Wave Theory? Every volume of space is bathed in radiation/waves/fields from the vibrating subatomic particles listed in the standard model of particle physics.This standard model is used to explain the origin of the four(4) fundamental forces that make up out Universe, and to classify all known elements including their properties. You do realize that Uranium is different from Helium? Why?

To respond to your challenge, "Space-time" is not a thing, it is a property. It is the fabric of space held together by the fundamental forces of Nature. There is no such thing as aged gravity, aged light, or aged energy. There is also no such thing as aged space-time. Using aspects that form the whole, to conclude aspects about the whole can be a fallacy(water is made from 2 gases, therefore water is a gas). There is also no expansion of the Universe into something, no time before time, and no science before science. These are all nonsense statements/questions. The fabric of space-time is two dimensional, and time has no dimensions. So just how is volume relevant to aging? How do you age Planck time or Planck length? Can you see just how nonsensical your statements are? However, the space-time continuum may have 10 dimensions(9 spatial). Maybe in time, we may command a better understanding of space-time, once a unified field theory has been established.

I have only read your OP, so I apologize if there have been some clarifications. There are just far too many variables to be considered(Gauge/Gravity Duality, Scale and Conformal invariances, wave functions, Relativity, and the type of space curvature), before this challenge would make any sense. At the quantum level of reality, Gravity is irrelevant. Does this mean that elemental subatomic particles do not exist? That we are just victims of cognitive control? Maybe you should jump out a window and test your hypothesis? If this is an example of what your challenges will be, I'd suggest you take a science refresher course before you issue the next challenge.

Great response, thank You!

I've been pondering absolute zero for a response but you say absolute zero is not achievable. It seems to me by definition of absolute zero is the temperature where all motion stops. Seems empty space (which may or may not exist) would contain no motion therefore be absolute zero. Also seems like a singularity would be crunched to the point nothing moves therefore absolute zero. Both cases seem to be limits so guessing absolute zero is a limiting unachievable ideal.

That said then it seems if we've already proven absolute zero is not achievable then neither is empty space... I'm guessing I can't understand that proof lol.

So it seems to me if molecules are present then the molecules must be moving but if molecules are not present then there is no motion and we've achieved absolute zero in another way except quantum fluctuations would poof a particle into existence but then if the particle never moves before poofing out of existence then is absolute zero preserved? What would cause a particle poofed into existence to move?

These limiting cases are interesting.

Thanks!

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Great response, thank You!

I've been pondering absolute zero for a response but you say absolute zero is not achievable. It seems to me by definition of absolute zero is the temperature where all motion stops. Seems empty space (which may or may not exist) would contain no motion therefore be absolute zero. Also seems like a singularity would be crunched to the point nothing moves therefore absolute zero. Both cases seem to be limits so guessing absolute zero is a limiting unachievable ideal.

That said then it seems if we've already proven absolute zero is not achievable then neither is empty space... I'm guessing I can't understand that proof lol.

So it seems to me if molecules are present then the molecules must be moving but if molecules are not present then there is no motion and we've achieved absolute zero in another way except quantum fluctuations would poof a particle into existence but then if the particle never moves before poofing out of existence then is absolute zero preserved? What would cause a particle poofed into existence to move?

These limiting cases are interesting.

Thanks!

With all due respect, I'm afraid you are exposing your level of scientific understanding. Why would you be pondering why absolute zero is not achievable. It was you that indirectly mentioned the reason why? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know the velocity and position of any subatomic particle with certainty. At absolute zero all particles are motionless, and both properties can be known. This is a clear violation of this Principle. Another way of looking at this is, how would we lower the Kinetic Energy(vibrations) of any particles to absolute Zero? We would need something that was at a temperature lower than absolute zero. That is impossible by definition. These are not limiting cases, these are observed physical phenomena. Why do you think mass(not matter) can never be accelerated to reach the speed of light? Because that would entail creating infinite mass, and infinite inertia. Both are also impossible. Even a God could not achieve both.

As I have stated before, our Universe is bathed in the propagation of fields and waves, from the movement and vibration of quantum particles. Remember, we are not talking about a tiny physical piece of matter, we are talking about the duel nature of the quanta(energy). Think of space as a pond of water filled with different size fish. If you could only see along the surface of the water, what would you see? You would see many different kinds of disturbances along the surface. But if you were in a building looking at the pond from a distance, what would you see along the surface? Nothing. That is why empty space is relative from your perspective. But by using the proper scientific tools, empty space would becomes a sea of constant quantum activity. That is why no part of space is at absolute zero. There is a minimum of 19 fields and a maximum of 267 real fields that propagate throughout space. They don't simply make up the fabric of space, they are the space.

Even Black Holes have temperature and Kinetic Energy. Hawking Radiation, caused by matter-antimatter interactions, proved that Black Holes emit radiation and will eventually evaporate. So no, absolute zero is not reached even in Black Holes either. Hopes this helps.

 

[exchemist]

With all due respect, I'm afraid you are exposing your level of scientific understanding. Why would you be pondering why absolute zero is not achievable. It was you that indirectly mentioned the reason why? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know the velocity and position of any subatomic particle with certainty. At absolute zero all particles are motionless, and both properties can be known. This is a clear violation of this Principle. Another way of looking at this is, how would we lower the Kinetic Energy(vibrations) of any particles to absolute Zero? We would need something that was at a temperature lower than absolute zero. That is impossible by definition. These are not limiting cases, these are observed physical phenomena. Why do you think mass(not matter) can never be accelerated to reach the speed of light? Because that would entail creating infinite mass, and infinite inertia. Both are also impossible. Even a God could not achieve both.

As I have stated before, our Universe is bathed in the propagation of fields and waves, from the movement and vibration of quantum particles. Remember, we are not talking about a tiny physical piece of matter, we are talking about the duel nature of the quanta(energy). Think of space as a pond of water filled with different size fish. If you could only see along the surface of the water, what would you see? You would see many different kinds of disturbances along the surface. But if you were in a building looking at the pond from a distance, what would you see along the surface? Nothing. That is why empty space is relative from your perspective. But by using the proper scientific tools, empty space would becomes a sea of constant quantum activity. That is why no part of space is at absolute zero. There is a minimum of 19 fields and a maximum of 267 real fields that propagate throughout space. They don't simply make up the fabric of space, they are the space.

Even Black Holes have temperature and Kinetic Energy. Hawking Radiation, caused by matter-antimatter interactions, proved that Black Holes emit radiation and will eventually evaporate. So no, absolute zero is not reached even in Black Holes either. Hopes this helps.

I have to say this does not sound quite right to me.

In matter at absolute zero, all degrees of freedom are in their ground state. Once in the ground state there is no way to extract more thermal energy from the matter, as no state below the ground state exists, by definition. Zero point motion remains in the ground states of many degrees of freedom of QM systems. But this does not represent extractable energy, so it does not contribute to temperature.

In short, my understanding is that the presence of zero point motion does not prevent matter from reaching absolute zero. The reason why it can't seems to me to be the more prosaic one of the impossibility of removing all the extractable (i.e. above-ground-state) energy, unless one were to have a heat sink below absolute zero to receive the heat!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have to say this does not sound quite right to me.

In matter at absolute zero, all degrees of freedom are in their ground state. Once in the ground state there is no way to extract more thermal energy from the matter, as no state below the ground state exists, by definition. Zero point motion remains in the ground states of many degrees of freedom of QM systems. But this does not represent extractable energy, so it does not contribute to temperature.

In short, my understanding is that the presence of zero point motion does not prevent matter from reaching absolute zero. The reason why it can't seems to me to be the more prosaic one of the impossibility of removing all the extractable (i.e. above-ground-state) energy, unless one were to have a heat sink below absolute zero to receive the heat!

So are you claiming that I wasted my money on this:

Zero Point Energy Generator Review

Now you tell me. But wait if that is true how do you explain this:

"Free Energy Generator Reviews You Can Trust!"

 

[exchemist]

So are you claiming that I wasted my money on this:

Zero Point Energy Generator Review

Now you tell me. But wait if that is true how do you explain this:

"Free Energy Generator Reviews You Can Trust!"

Heh heh. The amount of credulous rubbish on the internet is amazing!

But seriously, I have come across this idea that zero point energy somehow prevents matter reaching absolute zero on several science forums and according to my recollection of statistical thermodynamics it is mistaken. I am fairly sure that all Stat. TD tells you is that at T=0 every element of the ensemble, in all its degrees of freedom, has fallen back into the respective ground states.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Heh heh. The amount of credulous rubbish on the internet is amazing!

But seriously, I have come across this idea that zero point energy somehow prevents matter reaching absolute zero on several science forums and according to my recollection of statistical thermodynamics it is mistaken. I am fairly sure that all Stat. TD tells you is that at T=0 every element of the ensemble, in all its degrees of freedom, has fallen back into the respective ground states.

That is my understanding as well. The belief that an electron in orbit would "freeze" in place at 0 K is clearly mistaken.

 

[exchemist]

That is my understanding as well. The belief that an electron in orbit would "freeze" in place at 0 K is clearly mistaken.

That is actually a very elegant way of illustrating what is wrong with the idea. Good one!

 

[JoshuaTree]

With all due respect, I'm afraid you are exposing your level of scientific understanding. Why would you be pondering why absolute zero is not achievable. It was you that indirectly mentioned the reason why? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know the velocity and position of any subatomic particle with certainty. At absolute zero all particles are motionless, and both properties can be known. This is a clear violation of this Principle. Another way of looking at this is, how would we lower the Kinetic Energy(vibrations) of any particles to absolute Zero? We would need something that was at a temperature lower than absolute zero. That is impossible by definition. These are not limiting cases, these are observed physical phenomena. Why do you think mass(not matter) can never be accelerated to reach the speed of light? Because that would entail creating infinite mass, and infinite inertia. Both are also impossible. Even a God could not achieve both.

As I have stated before, our Universe is bathed in the propagation of fields and waves, from the movement and vibration of quantum particles. Remember, we are not talking about a tiny physical piece of matter, we are talking about the duel nature of the quanta(energy). Think of space as a pond of water filled with different size fish. If you could only see along the surface of the water, what would you see? You would see many different kinds of disturbances along the surface. But if you were in a building looking at the pond from a distance, what would you see along the surface? Nothing. That is why empty space is relative from your perspective. But by using the proper scientific tools, empty space would becomes a sea of constant quantum activity. That is why no part of space is at absolute zero. There is a minimum of 19 fields and a maximum of 267 real fields that propagate throughout space. They don't simply make up the fabric of space, they are the space.

Even Black Holes have temperature and Kinetic Energy. Hawking Radiation, caused by matter-antimatter interactions, proved that Black Holes emit radiation and will eventually evaporate. So no, absolute zero is not reached even in Black Holes either. Hopes this helps.

I'm ok with exposing my remedial level of scientific understanding lol, that's how I learn.

I've reread your post and you stated absolute zero is not achievable, so I assumed you knew what you were talking about.

So... can something chill to absolute zero or not?

 

[JoshuaTree]

I'm ok with exposing my remedial level of scientific understanding lol, that's how I learn.

I've reread your post and you stated absolute zero is not achievable, so I assumed you knew what you were talking about.

So... can something chill to absolute zero or not?

Ohhhh... You asked me why mass can never be accerated to the speed of light. Ok... for grins and giggles... because at the speed of light time stops and stuff can't move. Does that win an honorable mention?

 

[JoshuaTree]

@Sustainer , you survive Sunday?