Attraction Paradox - Zero Point Theory

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Quantum Quack, Jul 15, 2012.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    The lab experiment details published at:
    http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php...rical-evidence
    is easy to set up and easy to graph the results.
    Straight forward set up and inexpensive.

    General comment:

    By performing the experiment you can show graphically that smooth transition away from the source of attraction to another position is impossible. [A to B]
    In demonstration you will find the iron weight will bounce continuously as it moves to Position B if one wishes to avoid what is referred to as escape velocity. [ beyond and along the way to the target destination - position B ]
    It is the reason behind the "bounce" that is the issue.

    When assessing the output graphs one can deduce that the iron object is accelerating and then de-accelerating as it moves at a "relatively steady" velocity towards position B.
    One can also conclude knowing that the force of attraction is continuously reducing that the amount of deacceleration is always in excess of the acceleration.

    Challenge:

    If we apply infinite reduction to the dimensions of distance and time, what conclusions about the nature of zero can you make?

    Hint: You will not find the answer in a text book and you will have to work it out for your self.

    My solution is :
    No matter where the centre of gravity [zero point] is, as the object moves to position B, it must be needing to both accelerate and de-accelerate simultaneously. Therefore I conclude that as everything is constantly moving [ no Absolute rest ], zero being the centre of gravity, must be paradoxed. Therefore proving logically that the paradoxical equation: 0 = +1 + (-)1 is valid


    What is your solution?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    May be this thread shoud be moved to the physics forum instead of pseudo science?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Speaking as the moderator of said forum, no. You and I have already been over this, the paradox is between your ears, not anywhere else.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    the link goes to a '404 page not found' - which was much more informative than what I expected to see...
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    a problem with the upgrade truncating the link.. try this
    click: Attraction Paradox
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    'tis funny actually, because when extrapolating the theory fully , the center of *cognisance*: is indeed paradoxed which allows you the ability to act and decide with freedom.
    Yep in the center of your head, or as you put it "between your ears" is a zero point : the center of your perception. And as the empirical evidence demonstrates it is indeed paradoxed.

    see article:

    * Zero Point theory and the Holy Grail * which includes reference to the 8 billion Euro, CERN Higgs quest
    The article includes a CERN Video (see click note) and also a few examples of it's function with in large groups of humans and animals such as flocking birds etc.

    [video=youtube_share;bLf6Yc4gdNY]http://youtu.be/bLf6Yc4gdNY[/video]
     
  10. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I can only assume you're trolling and being deliberately nonsensical to get a rise out of people.
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    The question can be other wise stated as:
    an object is travelling away from a source of attraction at a steady velocity.

    To avoid escape velocity [therefore acceleration] when velocity is steady away from a source of attraction what counter forces to the source of attraction are required?
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Obviously, a person still can't even post in the Pseudoscience forum here at Sciforums without a moderator disparaging them personally, as opposed to addressing the content. Good work AN.
     
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Lol, this is even better. Now the trolling card comes out instead of discussion of the topic. Beautiful.
     
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I've already 'discussed' the supposed paradox QQ claims exists with him, in another thread. Despite both myself and Pete talking to QQ he couldn't demonstrate a paradox exists, made several mistaken statements about zero's role in mathematics/properties and then ignored my explanation of why his statements were mistaken. So there is no paradox except within QQ's mind, which resides in his brain, which is between his ears. Hence my comment about between his ears.

    Do you think QQ was coherent and clearly explaining himself in the post I commented on? I was actually giving him some benefit of the doubt because if he isn't deliberately trolling to get a rise out of people then it means he believes what he's saying is in some sense cogent. Even setting aside the lack of coherent narrative in his posts his claims completely lack any of the attributes necessary for something to move from the pseudo subforum to the main forum. The fact QQ doesn't realise this means he's either woefully uninformed about both the basic principles of the scientific method and the rules of the maths/physics forum with respect to fringe stuff or pet theories. He's been a member here long enough to be acquainted with the forum's rules and thus the question becomes whether he's so uninformed about what constitutes a decent science discussion that he believes his work has met the necessary criteria or whether he's aware it doesn't but tried his luck anyway.

    In either case it wouldn't be moved to the physics/maths forum but at least in the latter case, which I said I assume is the correct one, he's not just plain ignorant. I had to decide whether he's being ignorant or dishonest and I picked the latter. Would you have preferred it if I had concluded the former?

    It wouldn't surprise me if you and QQ get on well and see yourselves as both in the receiving end of people trying to silence you discussing your work but the fact remains both he and you fail to make the case for your claims. In his case it went to far as to think what he's presented is enough to be allowed to post it in the main forum. He had his chance with Pete and myself in another thread. As I said, he failed to make the case and now he's opened another thread to continue making assertions on the same stuff. It wasn't necessary to start another thread, he now has 3 on various aspects of his 'theory'. He could have kept them all in a single thread but then someone reading this newer thread wouldn't read the back and fore between QQ and myself and Pete and how QQ completely failed to make his case. Perhaps QQ would like to explain why he thinks 3 threads are necessary for what amounts to the same thing? If he couldn't make his case in the first one two further threads with even less justification and coherence isn't going to accomplish much.

    Of course if QQ could formalise what he's saying, rather than just asserting things about scenarios he doesn't describe in sufficient detail and using technical words incorrectly then we could have a discussion. He's talking about a system which is governed by pretty basic mechanical rules, rules children learn in high school. If he could describe the problem properly, quantitatively, and demonstrate a paradox ensues (the fact zero has a defining properly such that 0 = 1 + (-1) isn't a paradox. It's explicitly chosen to be a property of zero!) then we could go from there. Instead he talks about " infinite reduction to the dimensions of distance and time", waving his arms furiously. Can't he formally describe the scenario in question? Is he no familiar with any mathematics which might be a useful language to phrase all of this in terms of?

    I know for you and he this sort of thread is the limits of your scientific capabilities, the most scientific thing you'll do all day, but that doesn't make it scientific or follow the scientific method or clear or coherent or logical or right. If the two of you want to throw increasing vapid buzzword ladened assertions about areas of science you're both unfamiliar with beyond 7 seconds on Google then be my guest, I'll not make comments about the vapid, pointless nature of the exercise provided you don't try to con yourself and others into thinking it's anything close to what would be considered informed scientific discussion. Maybe one day you'll both open a science book and realise how far from anything vaguely cogent and scientific the fruits of your labour have been.
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    yep one has gotta wonder about who exactly is trolling here...
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    @ Alphanumeric
    oh dear! YOU HAVE NOT discussed the paradox as you have repeatedly misrepresented my posts or missed key elements such as missing the key fact that the paradox occurs in a field of reducing attraction.
    Do you wish me to quote all the times you have made that mistake?
    So if you are going to make accusations of incompetance I suggest you point your finger to your self first.. Also I think Pete has the ability to think for himself

    try again:
    To avoid escape velocity [therefore acceleration] when velocity is steady away from a source of attraction what counter forces to the source of attraction are required?
    or possibly Alphanumeric, or dare I say someone else, could suggest a better way to phrase the question?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2012
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    @Alphanumeric, my role here at sciforum appears to be, to keep your vitrolic mind busy so other posters can enjoy the use of this forum with out your incessant ranting about scientific methodology.
    You do realise that the last post is almost an exact copy of a post you made in 2003 don't you?
     
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I was hoping that you would consider that it is posts like yours with vacuous innuendo, apparently false arguments, slurs, and disparagement of laymen interested in science discussions that have caused the decline in Sciform membership and activity, as well as the fact the you have carried your disparagement right out into the Pseudoscience forum that is really the right place for us laymen to carry on discussion of our delusions. Leave us alone and watch the interest in the rest of the forums begin to regain some of the integrity of the past better days. Or keep it up and watch Sciforums continue to decline.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2012
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    You know QW, my main passion is Human behavioural science, especially the study of the propensity of persons to develop psychosis. When I observe a poster repeatedly stating the same thing and then research that they have been doing it for over 10 years I start to consider that that person has certain challenges. I immediately empathise and wish only that that person manages to find a way out of the hell they are in.
     
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I guess you know some of these posters like I do; better than they know themselves. I don't share any of your empathy toward them, because not once have any of them ever acknowledged that they had intentionally mischaracterized people and what they have posted.
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I think I have almost got the question that when answered fully exposes the paradox correct.
    an example of a simple highschool lab experiement that could be used to explore and demonstrate the solution with, is located * here *
     
  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I don't understand two things about the link. 1) what is the scalloping effect, and 2) how do you define zero in terms of its significance in the paradox. Is zero the net force or what in the experiment?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2012
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    to start to address your concerns:
    1]
    ........a) The scalloping effect demonstrated by the experiment is a macro scale exageration using an intense magnetic field of what happens at a "micro" level using a weaker field gravity.
    ........b) The scalloping effect is evident due to the fact that an object is moving to a position that requires less effort to sustain than the original position. Yet it requires greater effort than needed at the original position to "escape that positions attractive forces. The object is then constantly moving to a position that requires LESS than the origina position, therefore the scallopping effect occurs becasue the object must accelerate less than it deaccellerates. Ie. it will "bounce" on the scales.
    ........c) As this effect occurs at every possibe point along vector it can be seen that the object is NEVER at rest and alway bouncing even when visually it may apppear to be still [ metastability - no absolute rest is possible]
    ........d) When reducing the evident "bounce" infinitely towards zero one can determine that zero by default, must be paradoxed when applied in 4 dimensional space

    2]
    Zero is the absolute "anti-substance" "anti volume" "anti space" in a universe of substance and volume. It provides an absolute singularity if not goverened by the existance of everything. The strength of the attraction being totally self justified by the masses involved. [ie. a galactic center of gravity is as strong as the mass of that galaxy requires it to be]
    ........a) It could be concluded that a theoretical Black hole is actually a "culminant centre of gravity" determined by the existance of all substance surrounding it [ Galaxies, stars etc] as a centre of gravity must always be a zero point.

    As proposed in another thread regarding tornados here a culminant center of gravity can be rather influencial on certain masses.

    If you try to work out the answer to that question you will ultimately come to the same conclusions and you don't have to be a qualified physics person to do it.
    To avoid escape velocity [therefore continuous acceleration] when velocity of an object is sustained as steady away from a source of attraction, what counter forces to the source of attraction are required?
    Hope this helps ...

    Possibly if you can grasp the nature of it you could offer suggestions on how to word the web page better so that the confusion can be minimised.
     

Share This Page