I have decided to post this here so that it can be vetted first by the readers of this forum prior to making a more formal presentation in the philosophy or physics forum.

It has it's relevance because I believe that the pseudo paradox I intend to describe and prove is fundamental to many areas of interest including psychic pheno [ our inability to prove such in predictable ways] and our quest in the understanding of physical fundamentals of gravity, gravitation, FTL travel.
So I'll start by posting a pre-amble of the hypothesis and take it from there.

Pseudo Force paradox

"A line of reasoning"



If we take a 2 dimensional plane and dissect a smooth gradient of forces as shown in the diagrams below we can say intuitively that there must be an infinitely small difference in the strength or pressure of forces, when comparing both sides of this 2 dimensional plane.
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%201.jpg>

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%202.jpg>

If this reasoning can be agreed upon then I intend to show that the intuitive position is incorrect and that the forces on both sides of this two dimensional plane are actually inverse to what would be normally expected. That gravitation itself is seemingly paradoxed based on our current perspectives.

That when comparing both sides of this plane the high side is actually lower and the low side is actually higher in pressure of force.

This can be described by the following diagram:
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%203.jpg>

Evidence of this inverse pressure of force relationship across and infinitely small dissection can be seen when using magnetic fields as an analogy for gravity.

So, with the above I have made certain claims.

Are those claims understandable?

Is the pseudo paradox I intend to demonstrate clear?

Ultimately it is hoped that this will show why metastability is present in all things. Why nothing can be absolutely at rest and everything is constantly in a state of change. That constant change is a necessary outcome of this inverse relationship across an infinitely small amount of space [ force ]


N.B I am confident that this is not a totally new concept and possibly some readers are familliar with it and can save me a lot of trouble by providing insight by way of links or references.

Are those claims understandable?

Not to me.

Not to me.

hmmmmm... can you decribe what you don't understand about it?

IT IS UTTERLY FASCINATING.
yet, it is limited in its scope... your definately headed in the right direction.
and by that i mean,, towards dimensional considerations.
forces and vectors,, and dimensional progressions.

you seem uniquely focused in the 2D plane, while not altogether interesting, is as you have pointed to, is fundamental.

for the nature of the opposing surfaces and their relative charges polarities in what ever manner manifested in the 2D plane period of our universes existance.

and while i dont see how you have brought any of this to the level of an actual equation or proposable constant, or variables.

it is clear that the forces of the 2D rise, was fundamental in the development of all the following stages, and that, that nature, would in itself, still remain throught our spatial universe as part of it fundamentall qualities....
yet, 2D planes do not exist, and yet, there maybe functional means by which these 2D planer effects could manifest as some quality in electromagnetic fields themselves, and thus, relates to all things.... in that still... mysterious intangeble way.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3281/bcoverrrr1by.th.jpg (http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bcoverrrr1by.jpg)

-MT

QQ:

Here are your "claims", such as they are:

If this reasoning can be agreed upon then I intend to show that the intuitive position is incorrect and that the forces on both sides of this two dimensional plane are actually inverse to what would be normally expected. That gravitation itself is seemingly paradoxed based on our current perspectives.

You "intend to show" this, but you don't seem to show it.

That when comparing both sides of this plane the high side is actually lower and the low side is actually higher in pressure of force.

So, where's your demonstration of this?

Evidence of this inverse pressure of force relationship across and infinitely small dissection can be seen when using magnetic fields as an analogy for gravity.

How? You need to explain.

QQ:

Here are your "claims", such as they are:



You "intend to show" this, but you don't seem to show it.



So, where's your demonstration of this?



How? You need to explain.

JamesR,
one step at a time.....I first wish to make sure that this idea of an infinitely smooth gradient being dissected by an infinitely thin plane leads to a comparitive difference of infinitely small pressures either side of that plane.

Once this is clear I can progress to the next step and show how this is demonstrated in nature as being an inverse relationship and not a converse relationship as one would intuitively expect.

ie
converse:
higher pressure---------------------H | L-------------------------lower pressure

inverse:
higher pressure---------------------L | H-------------------------lower pressure

where H=Higher pressure
and L= Lower pressure

Ok. I have no problem with that.

If I have a board, and I push infinitessimally harder on one side than on the other, the result would seem to me to be intuitively obvious...

IT IS UTTERLY FASCINATING.
yet, it is limited in its scope... your definately headed in the right direction.
and by that i mean,, towards dimensional considerations.
forces and vectors,, and dimensional progressions.

you seem uniquely focused in the 2D plane, while not altogether interesting, is as you have pointed to, is fundamental.

for the nature of the opposing surfaces and their relative charges polarities in what ever manner manifested in the 2D plane period of our universes existance.

and while i dont see how you have brought any of this to the level of an actual equation or proposable constant, or variables.

it is clear that the forces of the 2D rise, was fundamental in the development of all the following stages, and that, that nature, would in itself, still remain throught our spatial universe as part of it fundamentall qualities....
yet, 2D planes do not exist, and yet, there maybe functional means by which these 2D planer effects could manifest as some quality in electromagnetic fields themselves, and thus, relates to all things.... in that still... mysterious intangeble way.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3281/bcoverrrr1by.th.jpg (http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bcoverrrr1by.jpg)

-MT
MT,
It is possible that the use of the words 2 dimensional will lead to confusion.

The distinction between a true two dimensional plane [ zero thickness] and an infinitely thin dimensional plane eventually needs to be considered.

I am using the term 2 dimensional plane but maybe the word "pseudo" needs to be included. Because infinitely thin does not necessarrilly equal zero thickness. [ Although some would argue philosophically that they may be so similar that the distinction is trivial]

Maybe in physics they have drawn this distinction and there is correct terminology to help show this in the language of science?

Possible JamesR could offer some insight?

Ok. I have no problem with that.

If I have a board, and I push infinitessimally harder on one side than on the other, the result would seem to me to be intuitively obvious...

And I agree that this would be the case how ever I am heading in the direction that will show that microscopically at least the inverse is true rather than the converse with regards to forces such as gravity and magnetism.

Unfortunately the scenario of a board being pushed from one side fails to make reference to a field of force that extends beyond that infinitely small point, such as a satellite in a gravity well or space ship traveling away or towards a source of attraction such as gravity.

YES... regardless of any thinkness involved... 2D motion doesnt have to just be dimensional...

i.e.. ------------------> a vector. is one dimensional.

-------------->
\
\
\
/ add. a second vector... a second dimension, and what do we get?

curves... i cant type curves... you get it.

vector addition of forces is just like a dimensional progression.

THE NATURE of any applied or occuring energys or pressures on or within the universe at 2D, may manifest threw out space and time in all matter.
fascinating stuff.

-MT

-MT

Quantum Quack:

Excuse me if I am mistaken in my understanding, but from what I can gather, you claim that, at any given point, one can bisect a force and find that on either side of the infinitely small divide, we have an infinitely small difference in pressure, yes? That being said, I am not sure how you get from this to the higher pressure being found in the lower pressure, and the lower pressure found in the higher? Might you explain that?

Quantum Quack:

Excuse me if I am mistaken in my understanding, but from what I can gather, you claim that, at any given point, one can bisect a force and find that on either side of the infinitely small divide, we have an infinitely small difference in pressure, yes? That being said, I am not sure how you get from this to the higher pressure being found in the lower pressure, and the lower pressure found in the higher? Might you explain that?

It is the purpose of this thread to eventually explain why the inverse seems to be the case. To test the reasoning I have used.
I am generating the next set of diagrams and will post them soon.

Meanwhile;
If it can be shown that the inverse is true, what ramifications would this insight inspire do you think?

Quantum Quack:

"Meanwhile;
If it can be shown that the inverse is true, what ramifications would this insight inspire do you think? "

Well first I require a tiny bit of clarification:

Your presentation of this idea is similar to the one where you first came upon the term metastabiity about 8 or so months ago, yes? Where you postulate that, because it would take a greater deal of energy to reach the lower level of pressure, that it is somehow saying that the lower-level of pressure is actually higher in energy, through its resistance, yes? And that because it is easier to go to the area of higher pressure, that it is in fact lower, because less energy need be exerted, yes?

Also, yes, do please make those next diagrams shortly. Your presentation of them will probably clear up much of the hypothesis.

Quantum Quack:

"Meanwhile;
If it can be shown that the inverse is true, what ramifications would this insight inspire do you think? "

Well first I require a tiny bit of clarification:

Your presentation of this idea is similar to the one where you first came upon the term metastabiity about 8 or so months ago, yes? Where you postulate that, because it would take a greater deal of energy to reach the lower level of pressure, that it is somehow saying that the lower-level of pressure is actually higher in energy, through its resistance, yes? And that because it is easier to go to the area of higher pressure, that it is in fact lower, because less energy need be exerted, yes?

Also, yes, do please make those next diagrams shortly. Your presentation of them will probably clear up much of the hypothesis.
Yes, it does refer to that concept thread so many months ago. You have a good memory..hey?

Where you postulate that, because it would take a greater deal of energy to reach the lower level of pressure, that it is somehow saying that the lower-level of pressure is actually higher in energy, through its resistance, yes?

Ahh! No, not quite, I wished to show only that the immediate condition of any object of mass is unstable and perpetually moving because the inverse square function of a force such as gravity generates inverse state upon every possible point with in that mass and in vacant space as well.
That at a universal level this is a constant state of "teetering" or movement and ultimately why vacuum or vacant space has the potential to generate energy, yet appears to offer no resistance to movement [ no aether]

In philosophy I am attempting to describe the reason why "safe that locks upon the attempt to open it" thought experiment. How this applies to the search for ultimate truths and so on. Thus joining physics with psychology, philosophy and para psychology.

BTW, if I appear to be labourously repeating myself [ re:earlier thread ] I am doing for a reason. The earlier thread failed to make it's point because I failed to communicate it's proposiotions adequately...so please accept the pedantic nature of this thread

Quantum Quack:

"Yes, it does refer to that concept thread so many months ago. You have a good memory..hey?"

Actually, that is funny. I will often forget about a friend telling me they are going on vacation, or someone telling me that something is happening on x-and-y date, but I can remember topical things I heard only in passing months ago, or draw weird connections to information that I randomly remember from soemthing oftentimes only partially connected.

"Ahh! No, not quite, I wished to show only that the immediate condition of any object of mass is unstable and perpetually moving because the inverse square function of a force such as gravity generates inverse state upon every possible point with in that mass and in vacant space as well.
That at a universal level this is a constant state of "teetering" or movement and ultimately why vacuum or vacant space has the potential to generate energy, yet appears to offer no resistance to movement [ no aether]"

Ah! A bit more complicated, then.

So what are you saying? That an object with mass has gravitic effects on itself that stem from itself as well as emanating out from itself in all possible directions? And that in part is this responsible for the energy of the relative vacuum of space?

"BTW, if I appear to be labourously repeating myself [ re:earlier thread ] I am doing for a reason. The earlier thread failed to make it's point because I failed to communicate it's proposiotions adequately...so please accept the pedantic nature of this thread "

No, it is quite understandable. Sometimes we must elaborate on things even if it is somewhat of a continuation of a past idea that wasn't presented in such a way that people responded how we wanted them to.

yes, it is this:

higher force---------------------L|H--------------------Lower force

inversion that I would suggest is the cause for this fundamental instability or "teetering".
As usual this is merely a natural pheno that appears at this stage as a pseudo-paradox.

If you can imagine a magnet that is always facing the wrong way no matter how it turns in a magnetic field offerred by another magnet. It will continuously spin, as the attracted side will always invert to become a repelling side.

This inverse state can be demonstrated using similar diagrams posted in that earlier thread you refer to.

Over the next few days I will post diagrams and explanations to show this point and ask if the reasoning is sound. [ I already know the terminology will be a problem, however if we can get past that issue we might see that the reasoning makes sense or no- sense]

Quantum Quack:

I truly look forward to these forthcoming posts to fully demonstrate the length and bredth of your theories regarding this. It will be quite fascinating, I am sure, and will elaborate on any further questions I might have.

I will comment again once they are posted, as a fullness of explanation I imagine to be found there.

OK I have put it all together in a way that hopefully shows what I am getting at. [ the number of diagrams is limited per post so I will have to spread this over two posts and not the ideal one]

Years ago, when experimenting with magnets in a very simple way I came to realise what most people realise that it is virtually impossible to hold two magnets at a fixed distance with out movement with only the use of your hands. The question that this raised was; is it impossible or is it just very difficult?

I found that in absolute terms it was impossible just as it is impossible to balance a lead pencil on it's sharpened tip in a sustainable fashion.

For the purposes of this topic I have claimed this pheno. to be a state of metastability. A state of "teetering" where by stasis, equalibrium or non-movement is impossible. The situation worsened when I wanted to move one of the magnets closer or further away in a controlled manner. Acceleration away or towards was incredibly hard to avoid.

And of course I asked the question; "Why is this so?"

"What is working at the most fundamental level of existence to generate this basic of all states?"

"Is it directly related to the question of why the universe seems to be in a state of pseudo perpetual motion?"



It seemed to me that there was a direct correlation.

In this thread I will refer to just one specific [ scenario ] condition to show my reasoning. There are many other conditions that would show the same result but would be more complex to deal with here.

The simple scenario I have in mind consists of a source of gravitational attraction such as a star, a non- orbiting space ship and a force that the space ship can provide to counter that gravitational attraction.

For ease of explanation we shall use exaggerated abstract attractive force values ranging from 100 units of gravity to the 80 units the ship is enduring and so on, and the gradient of the force over distance is a "flat" reduction and not the usual "curved" reduction.

The setting of this scenario can be seen in the following diagram:

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%204.jpg>
We can take a closer look at our ship and re-confirm what was shown earlier

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%205.jpg>

Due to the infinite nature of finding stability the ship in this position is constantly teetering or moving and never at rest with the source of attraction.

The question then comes up:

[I]What happens if we apply a force strong enough to move the ship further way from the attractor?

The force must be greater than 80 units to over come the immediate attraction.

Is it correct to say that if a force of greater than 80 units if maintained would generate an acceleration of the ship? As the attraction reduces yet the force applied by the ship is maintained the ship must accelerate away from the attractor.

If this is accepted as true then to this leads to the next question:

If the ship is merely to move from the position of 80 units to 79 units and then maintain that unstable position what must happen regarding the force applied by the ship?

The ship must apply a force greater than 80 units yet to achieve a position of only 79 units it must reduce that applied force from 80 to 79 units.

Thus the ship must apply a greater force to move to a position requiring lesser force.

Now if we look at this microscopically and think in terms of millimetres or even less of movement away from the attractor the same principle of greater to lesser applies.
Continued

So we have what could be described in the following graph:

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%206.gif>

The above diagram is deliberately describing an invalid state due to the infinite nature of what I am discussing.

It only takes an infinitely small increase in applied force for the ship to move away from the attractor, however even so if that infinitely small increase in force is maintained the ship will accelerate and not be able to maintain the further position [ 79 units ]

The following diagram is probably a better rendition:
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%207.gif>

However even this diagram fails to show the infinitely small increase in force and then reduction in force needed to move to the metastable position of 79 units of attraction.

So the question is "What is happening here?"

We have a need for an infinitely small increase yet simultaneously if one wishes to move an infinitely small distance away from the attractor we need an infinitely small reduction. yet we know that logically the infinitely small increase must occur in the first instance. What this means is that it is impossible to have an absolutely smooth and acceleration free movement, that even what appears to be a uniform velocity is in fact non-uniform in absolute terms.

Does the above describe what appears to be a naturally derived pseudo paradox of movement within a field of attraction such as gravity?

I propose that it does.

The only solution to this problem is that at that infinitely small point in space the inverse of forces across and infinitely thin plane must exist to create this dilemma.

With out this inversion as described in diagram 3 [given again below] this pseudo paradox would not exist.
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%203.jpg>


If agreed, what ramifications does this have to our understanding of space time and matter?

It is evidenced in nature that this teetering or metastability is present in all things. The only way to satisfactorily describe this phenomena of infinitely small proportions is to consider the inversion of forces across an infinitely thin plane exists, thus showing why everything is in constant movement.

How does it help us in understanding how the vacuum of space has an energistic potential?

Does this help in understanding why quantum entangement generates non- communicative results?

Is the reasoning I have provided sound and does it make sense?

I have generated a web page with the above at
http://www.ozziesnaps.com/force_paradox.htm if that is convenient

In your rocket ship example, there are only two forces at work: the attraction of gravity and the repulsion of the rocket engines. The net force is:

F(net) = F(engines) - F(gravity) = ma.

If the force of the engines is greater than the force of gravity at the particular location, the acceleration of the rocket is positive and it accelerates away from the sun/planet generating the gravity.

If the force of the engines is less than gravity, the acceleration is negative and the rocket accelerates towards the sun.

If the two forces are exactly equal, the acceleration is zero, which means that if the rocket is initially stationary it remains stationary.

You seem to be talking about a situation where you ramp up the engines to move the rocket to a greater distance. The force of gravity decreases with distance, so after the initial acceleration the rocket will keep accelerating away at a greater and greater rate unless the engines are continuously throttled back. If you want the rocket to slow to a stop at a greater distance than it was originally at, then you need to throttle the engines back until the force of gravity is larger than the engine force, which gradually slows the rocket to rest.

I don't see any problem with this.

JamesR, thanks for taking the time to post a response however I wonder if you saw both posts of just the first one?
Would you care to comment on the second part of the explanation? [ the one with the animations]
thinking:
Infinitely smooth gradient of force over and infinitely small distance. Or even using a Planck length would show the same result

Quantum Quack:

A flaw in your presentation:

The force exerted on the ship would not be in its mid point, but at its point closest to the sun. That is to say, the force would be at 81, not at 80. Going at 80 would not be sufficient to break free, and in fact, one would actually be pulled back, to higher and higher degrees of force. A gravitational quick sand only to be overcome by massive force.

Now, the other problem here is that you are also not realizing that any movement requires energy. That in order to overcome hte greater force behind you to achieve a lower-exertion of that force, that you must first match that force, and then if you wish to slow down again so that you do not exceed the force all together, you have to slow down to that force's power to hold you in place. This is not saying that a "lower energy level" requires more energy to reach than a higher energy level, but rather, that to move positions requires an exertion of energy, that there is not "higher pressure" or "lower pressure", and that the source of this attraction, one must also realize, is always pulling from behind, rather than being pushed from before. In essence, there is no paradox.

Let me also ask you this: Suppose we make the gravitational source so that landing on it would not destroy one. Now, what would happen if the gravitational force overcame the rocket ship and the rocket ship landed on the surface? Would not the "infinitely small exactitude" of zero be reached? For if it has stopped on the surface - and relative to the surface, and regardless of whether the planet is moving itself, it is indeed stopped - be reached? And therefore demonstrates that an infinitely small point would not prohibit exact rest?

Also, to clarify my entire objection: Take a rubber band. Affix it to a nail or something else that will be stable. Now, pull that rubber band away from the nail, keeping one end looped on the nail. Notice that you are exerting more and more force as you pull it? Now, stop at one point. Notice that you now have to keep that force consistant, or your finger will be pulled back. Now, pull it until the band breaks (let's hope the nail holds!) and you have reached a point where your force so exceeds the pull of the rubber band, that the band can no longer hold, and you are free. Note that what you just did was tantamount to escape velocity, where the gravity of an object has (virtually) no hold anymore and what you have actually done was not "reach a lower level of energy", but broke free from a force by matching and execeding that force.

Quantum Quack:

A flaw in your presentation:

The force exerted on the ship would not be in its mid point, but at its point closest to the sun. That is to say, the force would be at 81, not at 80. Going at 80 would not be sufficient to break free, and in fact, one would actually be pulled back, to higher and higher degrees of force. A gravitational quick sand only to be overcome by massive force.

Accepted and will be considered in future diagrams...thanks.

Now, the other problem here is that you are also not realizing that any movement requires energy. That in order to overcome hte greater force behind you to achieve a lower-exertion of that force, that you must first match that force, and then if you wish to slow down again so that you do not exceed the force all together, you have to slow down to that force's power to hold you in place. This is not saying that a "lower energy level" requires more energy to reach than a higher energy level, but rather, that to move positions requires an exertion of energy, that there is not "higher pressure" or "lower pressure", and that the source of this attraction, one must also realize, is always pulling from behind, rather than being pushed from before. In essence, there is no paradox.

This is so close to showing my point that I will let it stand with out criticism and instead ask you some questions that will, if answered, show the actual point I am trying to make ok? [ and then allow discussion upon that point directly - hopefully]

1] A ship is maintaining it's position at 80 units of attraction by applying a counter force of 80 units. The ship can be considered as being extremely small [ infinitely small if you like]

What has to happen to the forces exerted by the ship to move a millimetre away from the source of attraction and then maintain that new distance?

How would you graph that force?

2] What would have to happen to the forces exerted by the ship to move an infinitely small distance and then maintain that new distance?
Would graphing that force be any different to your answer to question 1?

3] Consider the nature of the infinitely small and ask how can movement be achieved with out an infinitely small "scallopping effect" in those forces?
An infinitely small increase followed by a very small reduction over and infinitely small distance?


Let me also ask you this: Suppose we make the gravitational source so that landing on it would not destroy one. Now, what would happen if the gravitational force overcame the rocket ship and the rocket ship landed on the surface? Would not the "infinitely small exactitude" of zero be reached? For if it has stopped on the surface - and relative to the surface, and regardless of whether the planet is moving itself, it is indeed stopped - be reached? And therefore demonstrates that an infinitely small point would not prohibit exact rest?
Actually this is a good question and intuitively one would say that the ship is not longer metastable and in fact has reached an equalibrium of forces and counter forces. However I wonder at a quantum level if equalibrium can actually be confirmed. My guess would be that even though it woud appear to be at rest that it is still in a metastable condition as the ship is never actually touching anything and that simply the forces involved are considerably more intense.

Also, to clarify my entire objection: Take a rubber band. Affix it to a nail or something else that will be stable. Now, pull that rubber band away from the nail, keeping one end looped on the nail. Notice that you are exerting more and more force as you pull it? Now, stop at one point. Notice that you now have to keep that force consistant, or your finger will be pulled back. Now, pull it until the band breaks (let's hope the nail holds!) and you have reached a point where your force so exceeds the pull of the rubber band, that the band can no longer hold, and you are free. Note that what you just did was tantamount to escape velocity, where the gravity of an object has (virtually) no hold anymore and what you have actually done was not "reach a lower level of energy", but broke free from a force by matching and execeding that force.

ever tried to control what happens after the rubber band breaks?

Say at 10 inches the band is stretched to it's absolute maximum and you wish to move your restrained hand only a another 1/8th of an inch immediately after the band breakes [ in the one action]. Is this possible? If not ----why not? This is the issue I am attempting to address.

Quantum Quack:

"1] A ship is maintaining it's position at 80 units of attraction by applying a counter force of 80 units. The ship can be considered as being extremely small [ infinitely small if you like]"

Okay.

"What has to happen to the forces exerted by the ship to move a millimetre away from the source of attraction and then maintain that new distance?

How would you graph that force?"

Accelerate by one unit, then decelerate by 2.

"2] What would have to happen to the forces exerted by the ship to move an infinitely small distance and then maintain that new distance?
Would graphing that force be any different to your answer to question 1?"

No. Only the units, not the degree of force, would change. I.E. I'd still be going forward 1, then decelerating 2.

"3] Consider the nature of the infinitely small and ask how can movement be achieved with out an infinitely small "scallopping effect" in those forces?
An infinitely small increase followed by a very small reduction over and infinitely small distance?"

Well presumably, no. For it is the stopping at each point that necessitates the extra energy, not the acceleration. But the end result would be similar, just magnified.

"Actually this is a good question and intuitively one would say that the ship is not longer metastable and in fact has reached an equalibrium of forces and counter forces. However I wonder at a quantum level if equalibrium can actually be confirmed. My guess would be that even though it woud appear to be at rest that it is still in a metastable condition as the ship is never actually touching anything and that simply the forces involved are considerably more intense."

Even if on the quantum level we'd have to deal with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it seems evident that Quantum MEchanics does not hold true in the same sense on the macroscopic, otherwise the principles in QM would extend to everything, which clearly they do not. In fact, it is the synthesis of QM and Einstein-Newtonian theories of space that has occupied science for the last one hundred years, no?

"ever tried to control what happens after the rubber band breaks?

Say at 10 inches the band is stretched to it's absolute maximum and you wish to move your restrained hand only a another 1/8th of an inch immediately after the band breakes [ in the one action]. Is this possible? If not ----why not? This is the issue I am attempting to address. "

It is possible, but very difficult, and requires further exertion of force. But this is also because we are dealing with a release of potential energy when that energy becomes kinetic upon the breaking of the bond. Take a yoyo or just a ball attached to a string, weaken the string near the end, and whip it around (outside!) as hard as you can. What happens when the string breaks? All the potential energy becomes kinetic and sends the ball rocketting outwards.

Now here is an interesting gravitic question: If gravity is a force, why does not the exertion of that force diminish the power of the source? For instance, why does not the sun shrink from exerting its gravitational pull on things? Perhaps it is not a force in sense the others are and this accounts for its intense weakness as "something else"?

Quantum Quack:

This just came to mind. Consider also that if you were to move backwards instead, we'd simply see a reverse of the process described above. Decelerate by 1, accelerate by 2.

But what are we here saying? That the two pressures are equal? No. Because you are also adding into the context -stability-. You are not accounting that at each point, the pressures are different, only that you are returning to stability each time.

Let's name three positions:

B. Beginning position. Force exerted 80.

A. One point back. Force exerted 81.

C. One point forward. Force exerted 79.

Now right off the bat, we see clearly that point A and C differ by two force from eachother. Right off the bat, this shows that relative to point B, that A is high pressure, and C is low pressure. But what you are introducing here is a return to stability, which necessitates that any movement be cancelled out in relation to the force exerted by the gravitational point. So you do get an "equal amount" by returning to that stability, because you have added that to the equation, not found it in the forces exerted by the gravitational source.

"What has to happen to the forces exerted by the ship to move a millimetre away from the source of attraction and then maintain that new distance?

How would you graph that force?"
Accelerate by one unit, then decelerate by 2.
And how is this de-accelleration achieved?

and then apply this to an infinitely small distance.....

Thinking:

Within that infinitely small point of space there is a need for a pseudo paradox of forces to maintain any degree of stability and that a state of absolute equalibrium is impossible due to this need. There fore the gravitational or attractive force naturally generates this need simply due to it's reduction as one travels further away from it's source.

so that dissecting line [ say center of gravity] whilst being infinitely thin has within it's infinite thinness a contradiction of forces.

Therefore gravity it self is a contradictory force, being both a push and a pull simultaneously but qualified as being more pull than push.

Which can then be extended to providing reason why a free-fall in gravity is at the speed it is and not faster or slower. That fall being governed by the degree of differential within that infinitely thin dissection [ Center of gravity] This answer deals with the questions:

"What governs the speed of something in freefall?"
"Why is it the speed it is and not faster or slower?"

And insight into:
"What I mean by suggesting that matter can be described as a governed singularity?"

Interestingly enough it also goes a long way to help describe why an object in orbit is considerably more stable if not in a state of equalibrium when compared to a non-orbiting object. The perpedicular [angular] momentum providing the object with the stabilizing orbital accelleration that affords our orbiting object greater stability when compared. [ they do say that an orbiting object is under continuous acceleration even though it's velocity appears to remain uniform. yes?]

I would be extremely interested how mathematically this could be shown to prove "speed of free-fall" relative to distance relative to the mass of the attractor.
I am condfident that an appropriate formula could be generated that would eventually tie in with other proven formulas.

Quantum Quack:

"And how is this de-accelleration achieved?

and then apply this to an infinitely small distance....."

By exerting a countering force.

"Within that infinitely small point of space there is a need for a pseudo paradox of forces to maintain any degree of stability and that a state of absolute equalibrium is impossible due to this need. There fore the gravitational or attractive force naturally generates this need simply due to it's reduction as one travels further away from it's source."

By virtue that nothing in this universe is ever truly alone to find stability?

"so that dissecting line [ say center of gravity] whilst being infinitely thin has within it's infinite thinness a contradiction of forces.

Therefore gravity it self is a contradictory force, being both a push and a pull simultaneously but qualified as being more pull than push."

I do not follow you.

Where is this "pushing force" to be found in gravity? Perhaps we can simply speak of gravity as being unable to move certain masses at certain distances and at certain strengths? That the mass itself overcomes gravity passively, that is, by being immovable to it until it reaches a certain strength.

"Which can then be extended to providing reason why a free-fall in gravity is at the speed it is and not faster or slower. That fall being governed by the degree of differential within that infinitely thin dissection [ Center of gravity] This answer deals with the questions:

"What governs the speed of something in freefall?"
"Why is it the speed it is and not faster or slower?"

Interestingly enough it also goes a long way to help describe why an object in orbit is considerably more stable if not in a state of equalibrium when compared to a non-orbiting object. The perpedicular [angular] momentum providing the object with the stabilizing orbital accelleration that affords our orbiting object greater stability when compared. [ they do say that an orbiting object is under continuous acceleration even though it's velocity appears to remain uniform. yes?]"

How does this lead to any insight into that? I am afraid I do not follow?

"I would be extremely interested how mathematically this could be shown to prove "speed of free-fall" relative to distance relative to the mass of the attractor.
I am condfident that an appropriate formula could be generated that would eventually tie in with other proven formulas. "

Current scientific knowledge on terminal velocity might all ready explain this.

sorry to be a bit persistant here but:
"And how is this de-accelleration achieved?

and then apply this to an infinitely small distance....."

By exerting a countering force.

At what point in an infinitely small distance does one apply this countering force?

Quantum Quack:

Ha. Got me there. As both accelerating and deacellerating cannot occur at the same time, and we can assume tha tonly one could occur in an infinitely distance's crossing, then you must by necessity miss your mark. However, if you move back an infinitely a certain space, and exert enough force to accelerate that space's distance to the infinitely small point you initially wanted to reach at the start and then immediatly counteract it as soon as one reaches the appropriate cut off point, one would stop at one's destination.

Here it is explained more easily.

Take the starting position to be B.

One back to be A.

One forward to be C.

In order to get from A-C, B must be reached. And at each point, one can only do one action.

In order to go from B to C one must necessarily overshoot one's bounds, because one can only accelerate in the time frame.

But if one starts from A, accelerates at A enough to reach C (say it goes "2 infinitely small miles an hour") and then counteracts that force when it reaches B, then it could stop at C and be at rest.

Quantum Quack:

What is the programme that you use for your animations? I'd like to use the same so I can occasionally respond with my own animations of my viewpoints.

and of course A,B and C are all a part of that infinitely thin dissection.

Can you see what I am driving at with regards to an infinitely thin line with two different forces when comparing the two sides and why the inverse can only be true of those forces to facilitate this metastability within that infinitely dissection [ center of gravity ]

imagine
A
B
C as a single infinitely thin line.

because in the end it is a single two sided infinitely thin line we are talking about. And if the forces appeared converse there would be no need to de-accellerate in an infinitely small distance.

Quantum Quack:

What is the programme that you use for your animations? I'd like to use the same so I can occasionally respond with my own animations of my viewpoints.

check out this web site:
http://www.freeserifsoftware.com/default.asp
and down load Serif Draw Plus

With A at one end, C at the other, and B in the middle? That is what I was essentially doing. Or do you mean that is the end and that is it? One could not go back two points, because there is not two points back?

With A at one end, C at the other, and B in the middle? That is what I was essentially doing. Or do you mean that is the end and that is it? One could not go back two points, because there is not two points back?
given that we are dealing with infinitey A,B and C are on top of each other and simultaneous.

or at least A and C is [ B being uneccesssary.]

So are you saying they are more like ___ (three _'s) rather than ...? No distinctness? Because I had assumed we are dealing with three infinitely small points lined up from A-C, with your question pertaining to movement from B-C and how to go one space forward only.

given that we are dealing with infinitey A,B and C are on top of each other and simultaneous.

or at least A and C is [ B being uneccesssary.]

you could take this diagram and reduce it to the infinitely small and you can see that that thin line has a lot more too it than just being infinitely thin.
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%206.gif>
and the only way to describe this force contradiction within that infinitely thin line is with this diagram:
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%203.jpg>

So are you saying they are more like ___ (three _'s) rather than ...? No distinctness? Because I had assumed we are dealing with three infinitely small points lined up from A-C, with your question pertaining to movement from B-C and how to go one space forward only.

the key word is infinitey.

an infinitely small distance is just as close to zero as an infinitely thin line. you cannot quantify an infinitely small distance in normal terms.

or you could ask the question:
How far do you have to go to cross and infinitely thin line?

If I had to describe a "graviton" from instance I would consider it to be backward or inverse to that which would be intuitive. [ as the diagram shows] and essentially infinitely thin [ or pseudo 2 dimensional]

Quantum Quack:

Presumably three infinitely small points do not equal "an infinitely small point", but equal "an infinitely small point times three", or "3x".

Moreover, in the animation, are you implying that in passing an infinitely small distance, you can accelerate and decelerate? Because presumably it would only take an infinitely small period of time to cross an infinitely small distance, no?

Also, to cross an infinitely small line one must cross an infinitely small distance. Just as to cross a ten metre long room, one must cross ten metres.

I'll be back in half an hour, so no more rapid-fire responses until I get back. After that I shall probably have to go, also.

I am off to get some sleep my self, but I wanted to leave you with the reason why this is so important a point.

I feel that this is the fundamental that imparts spin on most particles. In essence it is this pheno that keeps the universe moving in or through time. And I admit it is a devil to explain properly.

And I admit it is a devil to explain properly.

Welcome to the world of theoretical physics, People can take decades trying to come up with the simplest explaination that everyone can understand and doesn't cause misinterpretation. This is proven if you look at some of the PhD papers out there.

The usual way that any Lecturer or Tutor might try to suggest to someone attempting to explain a theory is to imagine that you are attempting to explain what ever it is you are theorising in to a room of 8 year olds. Kids of that age don't want to be bogged down with mind blowing lengthy explainations or extremely overblow words, they want it nice and simple and even to an extent presented in a fun manner.

I'm sure you've heard of the psychology that "..everyone has a Child inside" and at the face of it the one thing that never really grows up is peoples attention spans. Therefore speaking to people as if they were 8 years old can actually appeal to that youthful attention span.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/Prince_James/motionpictureforquantumquack.jpg

The red line shows that in the time it takes to go from 5-6, the acceleration exceeds the capacity for one to stop. So in order to reach that point, one has to go an arbitrary distance back (represented by the -5) then counteract that force at the last moment. Following this, one then exceeds the prior force in the opposite direction, then does the same thing at the last moment, and wallah! We've reached an exact point.

hmmm....drawing using a mouse is a real pain hey?.....ha.....

Sorry I just had to say that.....

I think I see what you are saying PJ.

However how does this happen in an infinitely thin line?

and when dealing with infinitely small distances.

actually a question that might help clarify something:

If I have an infinitely thin plane and I place an infinite number of these planes on top of it [ surface to surface ] how thick is the resultant composite plane?
is it still infintely thin or is it now infinitley thick?

or
infintely thin *3 =?

Welcome to the world of theoretical physics, People can take decades trying to come up with the simplest explaination that everyone can understand and doesn't cause misinterpretation. This is proven if you look at some of the PhD papers out there.

The usual way that any Lecturer or Tutor might try to suggest to someone attempting to explain a theory is to imagine that you are attempting to explain what ever it is you are theorising in to a room of 8 year olds. Kids of that age don't want to be bogged down with mind blowing lengthy explainations or extremely overblow words, they want it nice and simple and even to an extent presented in a fun manner.

I'm sure you've heard of the psychology that "..everyone has a Child inside" and at the face of it the one thing that never really grows up is peoples attention spans. Therefore speaking to people as if they were 8 years old can actually appeal to that youthful attention span.
Stryder,
Thanks for your sympathy...hmmmm....and I always try to simplify but I guess somethings just can't be simplified too well..... or maybe and most probably, I haven't worked out how to do so well enough yet....

Quantum Quack:

Crap! I saw a problem in the above linked picture that I didn't catch. It was very late and I was very tired. Sorry about that. I will correct and repost it.

The picture should now show a correction.

Sorry about that once again!

Now to reply to you...

But as to whether three infinitely small points were to be connected together, or three infinitely small planes, or whatever the case might be, my answer is that yes, the answer would 3(infinitely small). Or to put it another way, if x = infinitely small, then it would be 3x. I could not give you an actual value for this, as the infinitely small cannot be given as a number.

The picture should now show a correction.

Sorry about that once again!

Now to reply to you...

But as to whether three infinitely small points were to be connected together, or three infinitely small planes, or whatever the case might be, my answer is that yes, the answer would 3(infinitely small). Or to put it another way, if x = infinitely small, then it would be 3x. I could not give you an actual value for this, as the infinitely small cannot be given as a number.

Infinitely thin *3 can only equal infinitely thin....[the main issue when dealing with infinity is that it can not be reduced or expanded. Thus multiplying it even by itself will still give you the same infinity]

infinitey * infinitey = infinitey IMO

I am working on another diagram using magnets and will post shortly.

The following diagram shows a simple experimental apparatus using magnets as a way of demonstrating the "scalloping" effect any small movement would make. By taking careful measurements the point I am making should be demonstrated.
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%208.gif>

In fact I should build it just out of curiocity.

I would expect that no matter how careful I was even moving the magnets apart a mere micron will produce a bouncing effect.

Sorry for the wait. Sciforums crapped out last night.

Quantum Quack:

"Infinitely thin *3 can only equal infinitely thin....[the main issue when dealing with infinity is that it can not be reduced or expanded. Thus multiplying it even by itself will still give you the same infinity]

infinitey * infinitey = infinitey IMO "

Well the thing is this: On the infinitely large,. I agree with you. You cannot enlargen the infinitely large. But when we are here discussing the infinitely small, we are all ready presupposing we have reached the infinitely small, and as it stands that two instances of the infinitely small are being dealt with, and that they are infinitely small and we can no further, that added up they'd equal twice this. Of course we then have to realize the absurdity of ever talking about "reaching the infinitely small", for just like its big brother, it could never be reached if it was infinite, but still must exist.

But the infinitely small is not zero, and only zero + zero could equal itself when it is not the biggest thing.

"I would expect that no matter how careful I was even moving the magnets apart a mere micron will produce a bouncing effect. "

When they try to compensate for the force? Although I also ask how you will make this machine, as presumably the fixed magnet at the bottom will always suspend the magnet (so long as it is capable of overcoming the weight of the upper magnet) at the same distance.

Ahh! I see my double ponted arrow has mislead you. The magnets are in a state of attraction and not repulsion. I shall fix the diagram. the scales and the micron winder suspend the upper magnet.

Quantum Quack:

I would then hypothesize that if you do see any bouncing, it will only be momentary and a result of the movement, not of "oscillating to the point of stability". Specifically if the contraption is stable, cranking the machine will move the entire magnet upward (presuming that you can exert enough foce to break free of the bottom magnet enough to move it), but even so, small disturbances in the movement will result in a slight bouncing.

Quantum Quack:

I would then hypothesize that if you do see any bouncing, it will only be momentary and a result of the movement, not of "oscillating to the point of stability". Specifically if the contraption is stable, cranking the machine will move the entire magnet upward (presuming that you can exert enough foce to break free of the bottom magnet enough to move it), but even so, small disturbances in the movement will result in a slight bouncing.

And if the cranking of the handle was extremely controlled when moving from one position to the next [ say 1/1000th of an inch ] how what would a graph of the scales reaction show?

I might add that I get the impression that we may be making this whole issue more complicated than it needs to be.
The apparatus is, for example, very simple. Not complex at all. In fact it could very easilly be a study for year 8 students at highschool.

I guess we may be looking for complexity that isn't there...

Firstly the cranking of the winder must provide a force that is greater than the 80 units by an infinitely small amount before the magnet can move upward. However the scales can not measure an infinitely small amount, in fact nothing can measure this amount but logically the amount must be greater than 80 units. This I think we can agree upon.

But of course as soon as the amount is greater it must also reduce immediately other wise accelleration would be present. again we are talking about infinitely small amounts.

It is the "break" point that is at issue. As soon as >80 units is applied the object will move yet as soon as it moves the force must reduce to <80 units.

The magnet can not accellerate as it is always in a field of attraction. So as you wind the magnets apart you should observe a slow and steady reduction shown by the scales. But as soon as you stop winding a bounce will become evident. as the > becomes the < or we end up with <0> a point of equalibrium.

So at this break point with the magnet stationary we have a contradiction of forces occuring all within an infinitely small amount of movement. And becasue everything is reduced to the infinite it can be said that this contradiction happens simultaneously.

You can see that no matter how this is approached there will always be a contradiction is language. The greater force has to be applied before the magnet will move yet in an infintely small amount of distance it must also be reduced, effectively happening simultaneously.

And because when the magnet is stationary the force supplied by the winder must be less than that required to move the magnet thus if we draw a dissecting line through this field we have an inversion of forces on the surfaces of the two sides of that infinitely thin line.

higher attraction-----------------------L|H--------------------Lower attraction

a bit like a monkey grip where by the fingers of each had pull from behind.
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%209.gif>

Quantum Quack:

"And if the cranking of the handle was extremely controlled when moving from one position to the next [ say 1/1000th of an inch ] how what would a graph of the scales reaction show?"

Presuming a certain stability on the part of overcoming the magnetic force, then just one. If we assume that the release of the force that holds it at that strength at that distance, then probably a bit of wobbling, but an eventual state of total and complete equillibrium.

"Firstly the cranking of the winder must provide a force that is greater than the 80 units by an infinitely small amount before the magnet can move upward. However the scales can not measure an infinitely small amount, in fact nothing can measure this amount but logically the amount must be greater than 80 units. This I think we can agree upon."

Yes.

"It is the "break" point that is at issue. As soon as >80 units is applied the object will move yet as soon as it moves the force must reduce to <80 units."

Okay.

"The magnet can not accellerate as it is always in a field of attraction. So as you wind the magnets apart you should observe a slow and steady reduction shown by the scales. But as soon as you stop winding a bounce will become evident. as the > becomes the < or we end up with <0> a point of equalibrium."

Actually, would not the force be lessening so long as you move? That is, that the movement itself will move into lesser force? That is, the force of 80 at 81 will no longer be present?

Magnetic force, like all other forces, decreases in its power to exert force as distrance greatens. So when you move to point 81, you are experiencing less force than at 80.

"So at this break point with the magnet stationary we have a contradiction of forces occuring all within an infinitely small amount of movement. And becasue everything is reduced to the infinite it can be said that this contradiction happens simultaneously.

You can see that no matter how this is approached there will always be a contradiction is language. The greater force has to be applied before the magnet will move yet in an infintely small amount of distance it must also be reduced, effectively happening simultaneously. "

No, it is here that I think you are misconstruing things. Again, because you take into consideration -stability-. If you want to return to equillibrium with the force, you have to slow down so that the other force catches up. Yes. In order to reach a lower point and then -stay- at that lower point, you have to reduce the speed you used to get to that point, otherwise you'd simply exceed that. There is no contradiction here, because you are slowing down again. Two different actions.

It is rather like walking up an escalator. If you want to stay in one place, relative to the overall escalator, one has to move.

OK.....I understand your point and will go away now and think on it some more....

Thanks you so much for your interest......[ time for my daily constitutional ] will post again later...
you may have missed my monkey grip diagram, at the bottom of the preceeding page

Yes, I did miss it, but I think my point in this reply, which I was writing earlier, covers it. So here it is. My power flickered, hence the wait.

In order to further demonstrate my objections, Quantum Quack, let's go over two scenarios:

Going forward by one.

Going backwards by one.

Let 80 be the start point, 79 back forward by 1, or 81 backward by one.

Going forward:

Now to go forward when pulled back by 80, you have to exceed this speed by 1, or 81. Now, at this speed, you can go forward and completely leave the force forever. But you don't want to do that. What one wants to do is return to stability with the force. So therefore, you must decelerate by 2, which is the same as accelerating by 2 in a backwards direction. Therefore, all together, the force expended is 3 in order to reach 79.

Going backwards:

You begin at 80, like always. Now, one is all ready maintaining a speed at 80, so you basically can let up and only exert, let's say 79 counter force. Now if you do not exert any force, you will eventually accelerate to the source of the attraction. However, what you are trying to do now is to avoid that fate and instead find stability only at 81. Okay, so you must increase your counter force to 81 from 79, which is 2. But to also compensate for the sliping and the momentum you incur from this, you must add at least one more force overall, so as to make 3.

In essence: To go either back or forth and to stop momentum, you must exert equal force to return to stability.

If you did not want to return to stability, you'd simply have to stop expending force to go back, or exert force to go forward.

Or as Newton said: "An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by another force."

PJ.
a few problems...
1] Speed is not really relevant to the topic.
2] Movement is only being used to help show the pseudo paradox of an infinitley thin point in a gravitational field. Movement itself is not really the issue how ever the ability to move may be.
3] The infinitely small point of equalibrium is always changing it's location due to ambient interferrences such as gravitation tidal forces [ ie. moon and other stars etc] temperature fluctuations etc etc.

So there-fore a position of absolute equalibrium is impossible to sustain.

As the center of attraction of the magnets fluctuate so too will their degree of equalibrium. Keeping in mind we are talking about an infinitely small point this is understandable.

any way ...still thinking on it..... :)

Quantum Quack:

"1] Speed is not really relevant to the topic."

By speed, I meant counter-force exerted to move away from the source of gravitation.

"2] Movement is only being used to help show the pseudo paradox of an infinitley thin point in a gravitational field. Movement itself is not really the issue how ever the ability to move may be."

Then I am a bit confused as to what you are attempting to show and prove? Because I was under the assumption that we are talking about how, if you were to move past a certain point, back and forth, in two dimensions, with one dimension terminatinga at an attractive force, one would be met with more difficulty to go away and reach stability, then go back and reach stability. Am I wrong?

"3] The infinitely small point of equalibrium is always changing it's location due to ambient interferrences such as gravitation tidal forces [ ie. moon and other stars etc] temperature fluctuations etc etc."

Yet therea re such points in space, la grange points for instance, which are gravitationally stable, with few, if any, fluctuations to speak of. Moreover, we are simply speaking here in the ideal.

Then I am a bit confused as to what you are attempting to show and prove? Because I was under the assumption that we are talking about how, if you were to move past a certain point, back and forth, in two dimensions, with one dimension terminatinga at an attractive force, one would be met with more difficulty to go away and reach stability, then go back and reach stability. Am I wrong?
Not quite,
by using movement we are able to demonstrate what is happening at this infinitely small point, but it is this infinitely small point that is what we are attempting to quantify.

To move in either direction an infinitely small amount shows a contradiction of forces so therefore that infinitely small point is paradoxed, not the movement itself but that infinitely small point. [ thin line ]

just think on that thin line for a moment and imagine what has to happen to achieve absolute equalibrium. Every force in the universe would have to be static or stable and not moving.

Quantum Quack:

"just think on that thin line for a moment and imagine what has to happen to achieve absolute equalibrium. Every force in the universe would have to be static or stable and not moving."

I do believe that it is here where your elaboration upon, rather than perhaps the theory itself, has failed in its purposes.

For we have now switched from the ideal, to the real, and yes, we are all forced to concede that the universe is a swarming mass of gravitational attractions, magnetic fields, and various other disturbances, which would make an absolute equillibrium an impossibility, but relative to two things alone - which we could not do absolutely in a real example, but can do partially in one - we can indeed find an equillibrium.

But now I fail to imagine where your initial point is at all? And I still do not understand that "to move in either direction implies a contradiction of forces"?

Quantum Quack:

"just think on that thin line for a moment and imagine what has to happen to achieve absolute equalibrium. Every force in the universe would have to be static or stable and not moving."

I do believe that it is here where your elaboration upon, rather than perhaps the theory itself, has failed in its purposes.

For we have now switched from the ideal, to the real, and yes, we are all forced to concede that the universe is a swarming mass of gravitational attractions, magnetic fields, and various other disturbances, which would make an absolute equillibrium an impossibility, but relative to two things alone - which we could not do absolutely in a real example, but can do partially in one - we can indeed find an equillibrium.

But now I fail to imagine where your initial point is at all? And I still do not understand that "to move in either direction implies a contradiction of forces"?

Thanks PJ for you effort in trying to understand what I am proposing.
I didn't think it would be easy but it was worth a try I guess.
I shall now go away and analyse this thread to see where I went wrong and if I find a way to avoid a repeat of this result I shall make a further attempt.
Again , thanks
QQ

sorry to be a bit persistant here but:

“ "And how is this de-accelleration achieved?

and then apply this to an infinitely small distance....."

By exerting a countering force. ”

At what point in an infinitely small distance does one apply this countering force?

Quantum Quack:

Ha. Got me there. As both accelerating and deacellerating cannot occur at the same time, and we can assume tha tonly one could occur in an infinitely distance's crossing, then you must by necessity miss your mark. However, if you move back an infinitely a certain space, and exert enough force to accelerate that space's distance to the infinitely small point you initially wanted to reach at the start and then immediatly counteract it as soon as one reaches the appropriate cut off point, one would stop at one's destination.

We actually got quite close to the issue with this exchange, however we introduced the notion of going backwards one to go forward three for some reason.

also de-accelleration would not normally be achieved by applying a countering force but merely reducing the initial force being applied.

80-------79----------78
81-------80---78.6---78

2 graphs showing movement from 80 to 77 units of attraction
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%2010.gif>

or

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%2011.gif>
and going from 80 to 79.999999999999999999~ units would show the same form.

Quantum Quack:

"Thanks PJ for you effort in trying to understand what I am proposing.
I didn't think it would be easy but it was worth a try I guess.
I shall now go away and analyse this thread to see where I went wrong and if I find a way to avoid a repeat of this result I shall make a further attempt.
Again , thanks"

Well the problem with all explanations, is that they depend on the ideal, and in that, we can often, without explicitly stating otherwise, take the ideal for what is trying to be presented. For instance, you never really introduced the idea of applying this ideal to a reality which included an infinite amount of (potential) forces, so that it rather felt like we were discussing something totally different than what you postulated.

But by no means take this as an indictment of the theory, -only- of the presentation.

"We actually got quite close to the issue with this exchange, however we introduced the notion of going backwards one to go forward three for some reason. "

Yes, we were getting close to the issue there. As we were applying this to the infinitely small levels which you say best speak of your theory. This is also what I made the really, really, really badly drawn little diagram.

"also de-accelleration would not normally be achieved by applying a countering force but merely reducing the initial force being applied.

80-------79----------78
81-------80---78.6---78 "

Well actually, this is the problem. When driving along the highway, this is true. One can simply keep off the gas and cruise to a stop. But an enviroment like space - which I assumed would be better to speak of than in highway conditions - one must exert a positive counter force in accordance with Newton's law. For if we take 81 as escape velocity, one has all ready reached a point where gravity has failed to be able to stop one, much like a rocket ship, once it leaves Earth at 36,000 mph, has completely left the Earth's capacity to slow it down, so that it will continue ad infinitum at that speed, if never interrupted again. That is, in such an enviroment, braking is the same as accelerating backwards.

Let me check out this new diagram.

Quantum Quack:

Your diagram seems more applicable to the aforementioned "highway" conditions, whereas I was speaking more in "space" conditions. Escape velocity seems more in line with hitting 81.

so it can be concluded that to maintain a uniform and constant velocity in a gravitational field vectored away from the source of attraction the force being applied must always be maintained at the same relative increase to the gravitational force present at all locations along that journey.

therefore that applied force must be constantly reducing yet maintain it's higher amount relative to the gravity force present at all times and points. along that distance.
If this is not reduced proportionally the ship or object will undergo continuous accelleration and not have a uniform velocity.

For if we take 81 as escape velocity, one has all ready reached a point where gravity has failed to be able to stop one, much like a rocket ship, once it leaves Earth at 36,000 mph, has completely left the Earth's capacity to slow it down, so that it will continue ad infinitum at that speed, if never interrupted again. That is, in such an enviroment, braking is the same as accelerating backwards.

I dis-agree

in absolute terms I would expect that as the ship travelled away from earth the gravity field that was acting as a counter force would gradually reduce so theoreticaly the ship would be constantly accelerating as it travelled further away from earth. In reality of course we would then have to consider all the other planets and the sun in that scenario.

A quote from JamesR which he posted on page 2 of this thread

You seem to be talking about a situation where you ramp up the engines to move the rocket to a greater distance. The force of gravity decreases with distance, so after the initial acceleration the rocket will keep accelerating away at a greater and greater rate unless the engines are continuously throttled back. If you want the rocket to slow to a stop at a greater distance than it was originally at, then you need to throttle the engines back until the force of gravity is larger than the engine force, which gradually slows the rocket to rest.

The graphs are indicative of what JamesR is describing ---- [ I hope]

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%2012.gif>

by above I mean greater.

Then if we think of this in infinitely small terms............

Quantum Quack:

Whereas I am not a physicist, my understanding of Escape Velocity, as well as this article, seems to concur with my view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

If we could get someone that might have some knowledge of the field to join this conversation, we might have a resolution, so at least we can go back to the theoreticals.

Not to discredit James R., but I am fairly certain that once you reach escape-velocity and passed the Earth, you basically can cut the thrust - which they do, otherwise they'd burn up all their fuel before reaching the moon - and cruise anywhere. In fact, most of the long-range space trips so far, with the space probes and the like, have almost completely used the "sling shot" effect of "riding" the exterior gravity well of a planet and being flung away from it by not being captured by its gravity well towards it.

But yes, if you somehow did not want to do this, but instead wanted to retain stability, as I said, you'd have to apply a counter force, and if you wanted to move forward "going down" the different points of gravitic attraction, you'd have to spend a great deal more energy in the process through the "stop and go" effect, than if you just cruised at your top speed through it.

I still am having a hard idea with how this is paradoxical.

Im just a student but this is not exactly rocket science!(Oh yeah it is really :D ). Anyway if you drop below escape velocity you go into orbit, unless you further drop to below orbital velocity - then you tend towards earth. If you take advantage of the slingshot(and its indeed possible to still drop below escape velocity) you still cant break the law of gravity and escape the earth.

Imaplanck:

But specifically, once you hit escape velocity and reach the point where that frees you of the gravitational pull of the object, does one have to continue accelerating in order to avoid returning to said planet? I am under the impression that one can essentially cut the thrust and cruise the rest of the distance. Am I correct?

of course you are referring to an object that has energy applied in excess of the gravitational attraction in the first instance. Escape velocity is after all escape velocity.

In micro gravity as we are discussing any force greater than the attraction will generate accelleration. So therefore any force greater than attraction will generate an escape velocity.

Quantum Quack:

I understand that we are speaking on the microgravitic scale, but the principles of escape velocity are to be found on all scales, not just the planetary or stellar. That is to say, if we reach the escape velocity of 81 (to return to the argument's numbers) then we no longer must speed up and it will force us to exert energy to slow down, not that we will be "caught and slowed" by gravity.

Quantum Quack:

I understand that we are speaking on the microgravitic scale, but the principles of escape velocity are to be found on all scales, not just the planetary or stellar. That is to say, if we reach the escape velocity of 81 (to return to the argument's numbers) then we no longer must speed up and it will force us to exert energy to slow down, not that we will be "caught and slowed" by gravity.
OK I see what you are getting at.
In all my examples I haven't included momentum gained by the forces applied.

I am assuming that the rocket has no hmmmmm...acquired kinetic??? energy.
Which is a mistake.....hmmmmmm...

Ahhh well back to the 'ole drawing board....

I dont know what the problem is here.
A, you never actually escape the influence of the earth gravity.
b, To move away/ continue to move away from the earth you have to stay above escape velocity.

It's perfectly simple.

What you may be doing wrong is that escape velocity decreases the further you go away from the earth, but that would be underestimating your intelligence wouldn't it?

Quantum Quack:

"OK I see what you are getting at.
In all my examples I haven't included momentum gained by the forces applied.

I am assuming that the rocket has no hmmmmm...acquired kinetic??? energy.
Which is a mistake.....hmmmmmm...

Ahhh well back to the 'ole drawing board.... "

If you find a way to include this, do post here. I would most definitely like to continue this following such inclusions.

imaplanck:

"What you may be doing wrong is that escape velocity decreases the further you go away from the earth, but that would be underestimating your intelligence wouldn't it? "

I think that was the problem in the original experiment, yes.

But does not the gravitic pull of an object decrease with the square of the distance?