Exercise requires energy, and exercise cannot be performed without energy. Many people think that the more they eat, the more energy they have in their body.

This is one-sided. Although I feel energy when I eat it, the energy is not concentrated. We need to break down food to get the energy in it, but decomposition itself consumes energy.

Therefore, relying solely on food for energy is ineffective. As the main sugar in the human body, glucose provides energy to the human body.

And that's what it delivers. When it comes to energy, it is said that energy is conserved. To say that energy is conserved, it is necessary to say perpetual motion machine.

Even if someone thinks of me as a folk science enthusiast, I want to say it. We have said before that to achieve eternal rotation is to have an infinity.

Obviously, this infinity is not a real infinity. Otherwise, the whole world will be destroyed by this perpetual motion machine.

Infinity is an invisible and intangible concept, which can only be understood and studied by relying on the concept of infinite series.

This infinity can be an irrational number infinity or a cyclic decimal infinity. This raises a question.

A chopstick is measured with a microscope and then measured with a Planck length level instrument to get a more accurate value.

We have said in the past that errors cannot be eliminated because particles can be redivided indefinitely.

In fact, regardless of whether the particles can be redivided or not, the length of the object is a numerical value. If the error is impossible to eliminate, then the length must be infinite.

If so, doesn't that mean that infinity is commonplace? So, is infinity really ordinary?

Actually, there are many kinds of infinite points. We said before that dimension is determined by infinity, and there are three infinities in three-dimensional space.

In other words, there is infinity in our space. Of course, this is the infinity of space, not the infinity of objects.

However, I wonder if the infinity of space will conflict with the infinity of objects? It stands to reason that there are already three infinities in space, plus one infinity of objects.

Isn't this space four-dimensional, but I wonder how the infinity of objects can lead to the infinity of space?

And this space is necessarily three-dimensional. Due to the infinite existence of objects, this space is unstable.

Therefore, there can be no infinity of objects in three-dimensional space. Therefore, errors can be eliminated.

Since there is no infinity of objects in three-dimensional space, infinity is not ordinary. We know that the infinity of cyclic decimals is not really infinite, but it is an infinity!

How to understand? It's like an imaginary number, which is both present and non-existent. The infinity of three-dimensional space should be the kind of real infinity, which is much larger than the ordinary infinity.

If a perpetual motion machine has an infinity, it must be a cyclic decimal infinity. And this infinity is false infinity, but it is also true infinity.

Nature doesn't distinguish between 1/3 and 0.3 cycles, that's the number anyway. Duenas and Alicia, what do you have to say?

Mizukawa asked. Duenas said, I have an understanding of energy. Activation energy is mainly embodied in chemistry, which refers to the energy that makes atoms active in chemical reactions.

Encyclopedia says that activation energy indicates the height of the potential barrier, and activation energy is the energy that promotes the reaction of atoms.

We know that some reactions require catalysts, which means that although the activation energy of the reaction can affect the progress of the reaction, the factors that affect the reaction are the surrounding substances.

We know that catalysts are not involved in reactions, so what exactly makes reactants more active?

Could it be that the two reactants did not react because the activation energy was too high, and the catalyst reduced the activation energy of the reaction a lot?

The molecules are all moving, so is there a similarity between the movement of the catalyst molecule and the molecular motion of the reactants?

Just like the vibration of two objects, the phenomenon of resonance occurs when the frequencies are the same. We naturally know that there are reversible reactions in chemistry, so the activation energy of reversible reactions should be high, right?

In water, there is an ionization reversible reaction. However, the water does not lose much energy. It can be seen that the reversible reaction is not caused by activation energy.

The reason is that there is a similarity in the molecular motion, so there is a similar resonance. Before Duenias could finish speaking, Margarita and Rokukofeng came and left, and the discussion ended.