I do realise that this is an almost impossible point to explain but I shall endeavour to attempt to do so all the same. lets look at this apparatus: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What we see is two magnets in a state of attraction being kept apart by the use of a counter weight of 10 kgs using a leverage system over a fulcrum. The weight is being pulled downwards by gravity. The state of the magnets would normally be referred to as metastable in that if one was lucky enough to get them to balance in the first place [ similar to balancing a pencil on it's point] it would take very little interferance to cause the entire set up to collapse. [ either exponential acceleration away or towards each other of the magnets] You will also note that to increase the separating distance in a stable non-accelerating way one has to do what I would call paradoxically add weight and yet immediately once added remove weight, thus this demonstrates the nature of metastability in the form of a paradox created by the inverse square function of two objects in a state of attraction. A tautology yes? no...as to add and subtract simultaneously weight is impossible therefore stable movement in a field of attraction is also impossible. It is contended that spin and the universes continuous movement through time and space [ no absolute rest is available] is due to this metastabiity naturally created by the inverse square function of two objects in a state of attraction. Therefore one can conclude that the universe's existence is fundamently a "paradox" in action. care to discuss?
I see your analogy but it's far from being perfect. For example, the Earth (and presumably all the other planets) gains mass with each passing day - yet their orbits are reasonably stable. So that sort of stands in opposition to your rather "hair-trigger" balance you seem to be presenting. However, that being said, the Universe is, indeed, winding down. Eventually, entropy will win the battle and everything will "die" as the energy differential drops too low. But dead planets will continue to circle dead stars for however long...
Heya, I don't believe this stands. Just because all the planets seem to have perfect symetry/balance/etc; you're still missing the entire point. Get a grip read!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh, sure - advice from the know-nothing about science.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You'll find that it is in the detail. Planetary orbits may appear to be stable but one has to first define what stable is. You will find that the orbits oscillate around a central "mean" and it is the degree of oscillation that determines stability or not. [ and whether that oscilation is symmetrical or not] Also the inertia of significant "culminant" mass mitigates the effects of metastability as well. *culminant meaning the combined mass of many particles that are grouped together i.e. a planet is consisting of a significant number of dust particles etc etc
However if one looks carefully and critically at the proposed scenario of the two magnets as shown one can clearly see the "paradox" I am attempting to describe.
