Attraction Paradox - Zero Point Theory

Maybe you could explain what you mean when you say that a center of gravity must always be a zero point. Is that simply established physics; does that mean that at the center point the graivtational attraction on the surrounding matter is zero? Can you provide a link that explains the physics behind that statement?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This approach to universal dynamics is entirely controversial and no there are no specific links I can direct you to.

However the question is obviously to any one regardless of academic qualification are:
How can a centre of anything be anything but zero?
How can a center of gravity NOT be zero?
Example: determine the centre of gravity for a large cloud mass... where would you find it and how would you determine it in absolute terms.

At a fundamental level zero is the sum of all things....if you think about it zero does indeed equal +1 + (-1)
and yes I am aware that this provokes issues of credibility and the call to authority. Yet the logic is simple and fairly straight forward and those authorities [ not naming names ] here at sciforums are way too busy trying to block discussion than actually dealing with that simple and straight forward logic and natural, intuitive extensions.

Example determine the value of the centre of a perfect sphere? the answer must be zero.
Imagine an infinitesmally small sphere. What is it's volume in three dimensional space? [no mathematics required as the answer can only be zero]
If the theoretical Higgs Bosun has a material based premise then what is at it's center?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Ignore the pesky asterisks)
I can see how someone could take you to task over the concept that the center of anything has to be zero. If you**refer to the perfectly balanced point in space where the gravitational attraction of the system is the same in all directions, I would refer to that point as the center of gravity, not zero. There is a value of the gravitational attraction for that point in all directions, but that value in terms of the force of gravity isn't zero, it is a positive value. Zero might be the net gravitational value if you say that each vector has a positive value in one direction and a negative value in the opposite direction, but it seems more appropriate to me to think of the vectors originating at the center of gravity, not as bi-directional lines passing completely through the gravitational field, each having a plus and a minus component in opposite directions from the center.*

*Take the center of gravity of the Earth/Moon system. *It falls at a point in empty space between them and moves relative to their motions. Those calculations are probably seen as simple in the scientific community, and every direction from that center of gravity has a positive value, I would think.

Nothing about that determination makes me think that a definition of that point equates to zero. Saying it is obviously zero makes me suspect that your view has to do with a particular hypothesis, and that suspicion might be reinforced by your view that "This approach to universal dynamics is entirely controversial and no there are no specific links I can direct you to".

As for the escape velocity analogy and the constant distance/time value showing scalloping, I may be vague on your point when you have a decreasing and an increasing variable. *I'm just not sure that escape velocity and a constant d/t value are consistent, but that is just my lack of understanding of the physics involved without doing a little research and not a comment on the validity of your hypothesis. I don't think I can be of much help.

As for the theoretical Higgs boson, I have my own delusions. It wouldn't add anything to your thread to air them but I will say a Higgs boson has a center of gravity just like any object

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly let me state I appreciate your comments and have no hesitation in taking them on board as valid opinion.
One thing though stands out for me that may help.

the important thing to realise when doing the experiment or working out the question is that at any given point along vector the increasing and decreasing variables you mention have to occur simultaneoulsy to avoid escape velocity. When this is realised the paradox of that point [zero point] along vector becomes evident. [ which is the causation of the scalloping effect mentioned as the objects mass and velocity attempt to accommodate the paradox. [t/d is required to resolve the paradox]
I shall look further into your post later...

 

If you are interested we can work this through step by step, one step at a time if you like....

 

OK, take it from the top

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. What is this all about?

 

Ok ...what I suggest is that you form your own conclusions and extensions of logic based on the facts presented. ok?
I will try to avoid making a conclusion/extension NO MATTER how obvious it may seem to me.
This way we can work it out together. [as if a completely new idea.]
please indicate your understanding of each step even if they appear to be over simplistic so I can determine where I may be confusing you.

 

Step 01:

Review this diagram

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

source of attraction = A
reducing attraction indicated by B
Object of Mass with it's COG at "any" distance from source of attraction.

 

Step 2

Confirm your understanding of the very basic concepts involved with this diagram:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"that we have a point in a field of reducing attraction as distance of separation increases from source."

 

The reason I am being so pedantic is that the logic of the attraction paradox is indeed really very simple, however it must be held in absolute terms [axiomatic] to be understood as later when the paradox itself is explained that absoluteness is essential.

 

Step 3

The following diagram indicates that there MUST be a differential in the attractive forces between the high side and the lower side of that zero point of some value.
note: the above statement will validate the need to be pedantic and absolute as this "simple" paradox is already starting to be revealed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is it possible to make A and B two fixed objects of different mass separated by space with the object of mass in the middle being a third object of relatively insignificant mass, and using gravity as the attraction? Or not, and why not?

 

would it make the explanation easier?

 

Maybe, maybe not

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Would it be compatible with step one setup?

In step two you are showing one mass or attractive force and a plane. Can I take it that the plane represents an intersection with the AB line and as that plane moves toward or away from A the attraction increases or decreases relative to A? Is the "zero point" a specific position along the AB line or is the "zero point" the position on the plane through which the AB line passes, i.e. is there only one zero point along AB or does the zero point move as the plane moves? Is there a reason why you have only shown one of the attraction masses in step two? Can I assume that the center mass (mass C?) would have its center of gravity on the AB line in the position of the intersection point with the plane? Would step two be the same if you used attraction B and a plane, i.e. is step two meant to show a relationship of the changing force relative to one attration and the effect would be the same but with different values depending on if you refer to A or B?

 

ok I see the first diagram [step 1] has confused the issue... my apologies please ignore it if you can

 

The two dimensional plane is simply to indicate a zero point any where in the field of attraction. The plane is used to clarify the notion of two sides to a zero point. A higher and a lower attraction as shown in step 3

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The three images are really just different ways of showing the same thing.

 

when highest freedom is the most objective realisation value fact then it becomes equal to the lowest stand free potential of being right, since objective is by definition smthg and not free so not the previous value of freedom realized

that is how there is no attraction as u think, it is the opposite that occur being matters of rejections, which is subjects opportunism of things thrown
what u mean is the use of truth knowledge which is smthg else, when extremes free poles mean same objective freedom, so look at the middle in same way which became true reality of objective that exist more then free individualities even the most right or superior

u draw zero??? how that could b when in words im sure u cant recognize zero existence, how suddenly it is an object that u can justify things around it

that is what knowledge do, nonsense and criminals life

 

Maybe so, but let's not jump to the outcome before QQ can get through to my pea brain, lol.

 

OK. Now is it important that there is a specific force value that maintains a given position of mass C between the attractors? Is it important that to move to another point where the position is maintained, some change in force has to be applied? Is it important that the change in force to move mass C is different at every point on the AB line, and depends on the current position of mass C relative to A and B at the time the change in force is initiated?

 

they are both attracted to zero in a sense not to each others

bc both have zero quality which become objective perspective from both sides

the most freedom right is self zero as it is all freedom quality
the most objectively existing free is zero freedom perceived also from other side, as a freedom that dont behave as a subject

so zero is kind of objective perspective asserting the potential of positive existence to become which is translated i guess by the drive to move in order to realize some things

but in truth so out of objective intelligence freedom, objective perspective is actually recognized being an abstraction of true existence ways, so intelligent reactions is conceptions to realize about existing superiority as constant objective life