Zero Point Theory - the universal constant Gravity

Hi,

I have been developing a web site presentation of this theory that hopefully explains the nature of the universal constant of gravity and how this remains constant even when the universe undergoes cosmic expansion. It also explains amongst otherthings how this same constant provdes the mechanism for the interconnectedness of all things both animated and unanimated. [Living or dead]
As I said the web site is undergoing developement however feed back would be welcome.

It is located at http://zeropointtheory.com

Teasers:

"Have you ever considered that when you sleep unconscious at night that you are experiencing the same unconsciousness [zero point] as everything else does.

"The necessity of time is due to the attraction paradox which requires the universes' existence to resolve it"

"The Attraction Paradox is easilly demonstrated by the fact that it takes more force to achieve a position requiring less force when moving an infinitesimal or greater distance, away from a source of attraction - Therfore the [paradox can be summed up as "more = less" ]"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You obviously don't know what the zero point energy in physics is. You're instead doing what plenty of other wacko new age hacks do which is to subvert a completely reasonable and detailed scientific construct and start associating unscientific nonsense to it in an attempt to hid the fact you're presenting unscientific nonsense.

Well done, you've joined the ranks of hackery like "What The Bleep Do We Know". Dismissal and mockery await.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I read on one website that any Zero point energy is the lowest level of energy state of the enviornment atoms.
A solar heat engine works due to difference in atmospheric extreme temperature due to solar concentrating device or parabolic dish and the base atmospheric temperature(like room temperature).
Now there are few methods(free energy devices) to actually have temperatures much lower than this Base temperature.Then the energy that flows from base atmospheric temperature to much lower temperature is called zero point energy.

Now how to achieve the temperatures,lower than Base temperature of atmosphere is actually the secret of free energy devices.And yes,these devices are Not Perpetual Motion Machines.(They are not Perpetual).This is what I heard from some website.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

zero point energy?
eh?
not about zero point energy although the theory can be expanded to explain what it is and why it is...
gotta read the topic heading... says something about gravity...
you know the thing you guys have been looking for for ages and just spent over 8 billion Euros trying to find and couldn't [re:CERN]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

obviously a copy and paste job... as you didn't even read the op

 

Firstly, no it wasn't. Secondly, the fact your quackery could be responded to by a default response just shows how run of the mill such nonsense is.

To a physicist a zero point energy has a very specific and well formalised meaning. You're misusing the term. The question then becomes are you misusing it innocently, thinking you understand but actually you don't. Or are you aware the scientific meaning is something completely different and you use the word to add a veneer of validity to an otherwise utterly unjustified supposition?

 

......so you believe that the thread or topic is about zero point energy?
even though the topic heading and op clearly state it is about the universal constant - gravity?

There is no monopoly on the term zero or zero point.... in fact these two terms have been used for thousands of years by all areas of intellectual pursuit... from the occult to the scientific.
[there is has been an INTERNET monopoly on the use of zeroppointtheory.com since I purchased it about 4 years ago, but this is merely virtual and trivial]

Possibly it it your own pre-occupation with the potential of zero point energy that is the issue and not a semantic one.

The Op is is quite clear I think...about the investigation into the source of the universal constant - Gravity, which happens to be, according to Zero Point Theory, zero.

The why and what of zero point energy is actually quite easy to comprehend once zero point theory is understood.
Perhaps you are expecting complexity?

I am quite happy to discuss it either here or at the web site's forum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

They are actually the same construct in physics, just the quantum and relativistic points of view.

Surely even you grasp the issue that talking about zero point and gravity is going to make people think you talk about the cosmological constant, a zero point energy phenomenon? Sure, there isn't a monopoly on those words but when you put them together and aren't talking about their common meaning the onus is on you to clarify yourself. Besides, when you then go on to talk about the Higgs mechanism in the same page as gravity and universal constants you're clearly attempting to give the impression there's something in science you're talking about. Talking about the Higgs mechanism, gravity, universal constants and then making comments like "Some people call it gravity, others call it god" makes my first reply completely and utterly justified. Besides, you and I have been around the block enough times that I wouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt to think you aren't trying to add a thin dishonest veneer of scientific talk to your otherwise random guessing.

How do I have a preoccupation with it?

Well now you are clearly stating you can address zero point energy with this stuff, which completely validates my initial criticism. Seeing as you don't understand the relevant relativity or quantum field theory you are trying to dress up your random uninformed suppositions with an air of respectibility by dressing it in the garbs of actual science.

 

so ... can I ask ...do you have any particular reason(s) for not wishing to discuss the topic?
If so would you care to share these reasons?
btw I do appreciate your attempt to carify current scientific positions on these issues.

As to zero point energy, regardless of the language used or method ZPT (zero point theory) can indeed indicate very strongly it's mechanism and how it is able to manifest, in fact ZPT would predict the existance of Zero point energy once you understood the rational.

"It is often amazing what gemstones of inspiration one can find in amongst the scambled egg of someone elses insanity"​

 

@Alphanumeric,
Perhaps you or some one else would be inclined to help translate the theory into that which can be peer reviewed and win a Nobel in the process [ re: attraction paradox ]
I believe tha task of presenting a peer reviewable paper would be dead easy for someone with the appropriate skills
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/attraction-paradox
and
empirical evidence:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/51-attraction-paradox-empirical-evidence

I must admit when I refer to zero point energy I am refering to the ability to obtain energy from the pure vacant space, pure vacuum or what I refer to as zero space [and you are of courses correct that zero point energy may indeed refer to the Gravitational Constant using current cosmological theory or thought. ]
ZPT does not attempt to refute current scientific theory it merely states what it states. The refutation is up to those who hold to what ever beliefs they hold to.

 

A simple way of describing the higgs mechanism as theorised by Zero Point Theory using pressure vessels as an analogy:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"As shown in the three diagrams above, when you consider the infinite diversity of size, type, distance of separation in space etc of all things of substance, there can be only one possible way that a fundamental equality that is absolutely equal and constant over time can be acheived, and it is ONLY with a SINGLE zero point being universally constant. and absolutely so."
re: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/universal-constancy

The important thing to realise is that there can be no other solution nor method or mechanism that fulfills the role the source of Gravity MUST fullfill to be universally constant.

 

I thought the attraction paradox could prove to be interesting, but after reading it I still don't get it. How does it prove that there can't be a "true rest"? I have thought one of the biggest problems in a big bang theory would be, well then how do you get your nothing moving? Can it just assume that it is in constant motion even though it is at rest, but then what if that changes the properties of the particle in question is it still allowed to do so just because someone said it ways? So it seems like there would be more of a need for a mechanism to put things in motion. I would have to say that I don't think gravity played a role at t=0. If you have no space and no matter, then you would have no gravity. I think it would have been more of a electromagnetic effect playing the key role just at t=0. I have thought that maybe light itself only expereinces a zero point from its own frame of reference. From this perspective the big bang may have never happened, and then the variation of speed from the speed of light is what causes the big bang experience, from nothing to something. Then again this could be interpreted as a transition between no mass and acquiring mass that could have come in the later stages in the big bang.

 

The attraction paradox can only be resolved by "movement" [time]
At t=0, more = less which is impossible. [paradox] and it is this paradoxical state that requires time as movement to facilitate a resolution.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"For zero to non-exist, everything else must exist"
.. a purely self justifying logical statement as is the universe generally an absolutely self justifying existance but only over time.

Whats more, if one looks deeper into the paradox one can find that the movement generated by the paradox would have to be "spin" as at all times an object of mass is in a state of constant conflict with the linea gradient of the gravitational attraction. [ so the action of spinning in an attempt to resolve the paradox is an outcome ]
Therefore Zero Point Theory predicts "spin" or movement [time] at a fundamental level and does so for eternity as the object of mass constanty fails in it's attempt to resolve the paradox but is obliged by that paradox to keep trying for as long as the paradox exists [ eternity]. Absolute rest is utterly impossible.

I might add, any theory that attempts to set the premise of a TOE must be also able to accommodate time eternal as well.
Which is what Zero Point Theory does.

 

Still not sure where this more=less idea comes from or how it creates a paradox. Couldn't you assume that anything smaller than the Planck Scale would be equal to a zero point system? If it took an infinite amount of energy to measure something below the Planck Scale then any interaction that caused a difference smaller than the Plack Length/Time would be equal to zero, as it would have no measurable interaction with anything beyond that scale. So then in a sense everything could jitter around below the Planck Scale as much and as often as it wanted and would have no affect on anything since there would never be an infinite point of energy to detect it, energy could be conserved no matter how much everything did this.

 

Questioning it's entire approach and how it is presented is discussing it.

Except you have no working model or specifics of anything so saying "It can explain the mechanism" is very dishonest. You have a bunch of concepts you've arbitrarily taped together, they haven't been derived from a clear set of initial assumptions. I'll come back to this issue in a moment....

Yes, occasionally good ideas are inspired by nonsense but more often than not nonsense leads just to nonsense.

This is a classic mistake made by arm chair internet wannabe-scientists. You think you have the right concepts and all anyone needs to do now is just put in some maths to justify it. Doesn't work. If it did I could just say "Well quantum field theory describes the very small, general relativity the very big so we've got an explanation for everything, someone just needs to tie them together mathematically! Where's my Nobel Prize?". The problem is that when you actually look at the details you find QFT and GR can't be put into the same mathematical framework in a simple manner, you can't just tape them together despite their concepts being extremely good for understanding various physical phenomena.

Since all you've done is just say your opinion of various things you haven't shown they can be made consistent with one another, that there's a mathematical framework which binds them into a single construct. Furthermore you aren't deriving new conclusions in a rigorous manner, you're just adding more opinion. I'm sure I could ask you "How does your ZPT deal with [something]" and you'd be able to give a response but it's just one you make up from your own opinion, rather than seeing what the formal structure implies. That's why physicists do lots of calculations to see what the Standard Model says about LHC data, they can't just make up their opinion of what it will say.

Yes, there is a place in physics for someone having a qualitative concept in their head and then writing down some mathematics to formalise it but the formalisation must be done very early on else you're just piling assumptions on guesses on random supposition, which is what you have done.

Even if your opinion is accurate that doesn't cut it. If Einstein, instead of mathematically formalising GR, had written a paper which was nothing more than wordy descriptions of how he thinks space-time behaves he wouldn't have been doing good science. He'd need to justify how he arrived at those conclusions, what the precise predictions where. The devil is in the details. This is illustrated by the precession of the orbit of Mercury, Both Newton and Einstein predict a precession. We observe a precession. And yet the precession was used by Einstein to disprove Newton. But how, they both say a precession should occur? Newton predicts the wrong precession, he's out by about 10%. So without the details something can seem conceptually valid but is actually wrong.

Since you've already piled guesses on supposition on opinion you've already constructed what you think is a Nobel Prize worthy construct. Unfortunately you've failed to lay any foundations and, just as with a house, to lay the foundations you're doing to have to demolish the building, even if you are going to be able to rebuild it precisely as it was.

You are misrepresenting physics. Come on, you know you don't know any physics yet you're making statements about it in such a way to say "Oh obviously there's a problem!". It's dishonest to say such things when you know full well you're not familiar with the relevant concepts. I know you aren't familiar because you just demonstrated you don't know what the Planck units are for. They are just convenient units of time, length and mass. Physicists could work in seconds, metres and kilos but the algebraic expressions aren't as pleasant, even if they are exactly equivalent. It's similar to how it's convenient to work in units of length where in one unit of time light travels one unit of length.

As for zero being both a reality and a non-reality simultaneously you're now wandering into the realms of just meaningless nonsense. Even if the sentence wasn't poorly explained you're not familiar enough with science to know the mathematical models used and see problems in them. That isn't to say there aren't problems but the one you claim exists is not in physics, it's in your head.

 

Hey, I see nothing wrong with any of what you just wrote..in fact it would have to be one of your more reasoned pieces.
However regardless of the language or nouse used the attraction paradox stands as evidenced. How you deal with it and what method you wish to employ is your concern.
The simple nature of the paradox doesn't require a large amount of mathematics to interpret with.
In fact it is probably it's simplicity that meant it has been overlooked by science.
Simply put:
to move to a position that requires less force, greater force is required as evidenced in any field of attraction, this immediately sets up a paradox when you apply infinite reduction [to acheive t=0 duration] to any given point in a field of attraction.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

how clear do you want it?

 

It is inevitable that at some point in time someone with the appropriate math and physics language skills will agree to write a simple, clear and intrinsically informative mathematical formulation of the paradox.
We just have to wait until then I guess..as it's revelation is certainly not going to go away.

 

Firstly your opening paragraph on your 'Attraction paradox' is not a little egotistical, "Having developed a keen understanding of zero and nothing-ness ". How have you arrived at such a conclusion, given you're quite unfamiliar with maths and logic? You just thought a bit and concluded you've got a 'keep understanding'?

Secondly there isn't a paradox. There is no logical contradiction, no A = (not A), no 1=2. You don't provide evidence or reason for your claims, you just say "This sounds odd to me, therefore it's a paradox".

No, because it isn't a paradox.

That isn't a paradox. Where is the infinite reduction? The fact gravity between two objects decreases as they move away from one another isn't a paradox, it isn't a logical contradiction.

There is no paradox so it isn't going to happen. Your comments and pictures make it clear you've managed to grasp just enough basic reasoning to think you have a LOT of reasoning abilities and thus anything you conclude must be valid. Even your description isn't very clear.

What does it mean to 'achieve t=0 duration'? An instant of time to pass? Are you just trying to grope towards Zeno's paradox, which isn't a paradox really.

I always find it amusing when hacks conclude something either incoherent or well known which they think they must be the first to do. Farsight did it with his 'Money Explained' thing, where he thought it was a revelation when he realised money is just a complicated notion of IOUs with no value beyond what we choose to assign it. It's a concept anyone even vaguely familiar with economics theory realises for themselves. You, on the other hand, think you've got some huge revelation which is neither a revelation nor valid.

Concepts like taking time durations to zero and computing instantaneous forces or velocities etc is the bread and butter of calculus. That's precisely was calculus does and it does it in a formalised, coherent manner free of person opinion or incredulity. So you feel more gravitational or electromagnetic force the closer you are to something, so what? Kids know that. So you can move up a force gradient if you provide energy to do work? So what, that's physics 101. You say all of this can be done without needing to appeal to mathematics but if you actually had a smattering of mathematics capability, equivalent to a 16 year old doing a first course in calculus, you'd know that taking time intervals \(\delta t \to 0\) while considering the change in force, \(\delta F\) or energy \(\delta E\) or distance \(\delta x\) going to zero is not some revelation, it's literally how to construct derivatives formally! Gravitational force is the gradient of gravitational potential, \(F = -\frac{d}{dx}U \equiv -\lim_{\delta x \to 0}\frac{\delta U}{\delta x}\).

I'm almost certain you'll refuse to accept you might not have the 'keen grasp' you believe yourself to have (despite having no understanding of anything in maths or physics) but what you've shown is your own lack of imagination and grasp of such concepts. Newton and Leibniz developed calculus more than 3 centuries ago to handle concepts like instantaneous velocity, force, energy, changes etc. Now kids learn about it. Unfortunately you skipped or slept through that class and now think you're making massive revelations. Instead it's a parade of how little you've bothered to think or read.

 

say, you wish to move the center of gravity of object A inifintesimally to position B away from the source of attraction [ ie. atractive force reducing]
You need to apply greater force than required at position A but less force than required at position B.
this is the paradox...
if you applied the force required at position B at position A the object would "fall" and move away and not towards position B
simple demo class room experiment see:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/51-attraction-paradox-empirical-evidence
and maybe you are right and there is no paradox...