Zero Point Theory - the universal constant Gravity

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Quantum Quack, May 27, 2012.

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

    Messages:
    23,328
    example:
    postion A requires 100 units of counter force at d=1000 from source
    position B requires 99 units of counter force at d=1010 from source
    to move from position A towards position B a force greater than 100 units has to be applied.
    yes?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    No, you don't have to acellerate and decelerate simultaneously.
    First you accelerate, then you decelerate.

    The quickest way would be:
    first increase the counter force above 100 to break the equilibrium and accelerate toward B
    decrease the counter force below 99 so that the object decelerates in such a way that it will be stationary just at it reaches B
    increase the counter force to exactly 99 when the object is stationary at B.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    23,328
    correct. Sorry I confused the issue with the word "simutaneously". [*I shall explain why later]
    If you graph it you will see a "scallopping effect" similar to that descrbed in the diagram:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Now imagine the diagram is horizontay "squished up" so that the distances are reduced infinitely

    the paradox is summed up by this:
    "It takes more counter force to achieve a position where less counter force is required"
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Then it doesn't move. The counter force stays at exactly 100.
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    explain please...
    it is very subtle but incredibly important especially when reducing the time and distances to 1/infinitey
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    in the end the paradox explains WHY 0= +1 + (-1) therfore why zero is always the sum of all things.
     
  10. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    If the distances are reduced infinitely, then an object at A is already at B. Moving it from A to B means leaving it alone.
    The counterforce required to keep a stationary equilibrium at B is the same as at A.
    That's pretty much the definition of an unstable equilibrium.
    It's not paradoxical, it just means that you have to exert fine control to keep it in place, like balancing a pencil on your finger.
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Infinite reduction can not ever find zero because zero is nonexistant.
    which is why I refer to the infinitesimal as being the smallest possible movement in both distance and time.
    If position A and B are separated by an infinitesimal distance they are NOT in the same position. and most importantly note the distinction between the infinitesimal as being commonly thought of as being a static or finite dimension when in fact it cannot be [as is the case with Planks metric.]
     
  12. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Please, QQ, save the wild claims for when you've established some foundations.
    I'm currently maintaining a state where I'm considering you as being not a crackpot, but that state isn't necessarily stable. Large impulses will tip it over.
     
  13. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    ...and it's gone.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    The only reason there is no paradox evident is the advent of time. Take "time" out of the equation and look at zero and you will find a paradox by default. [ which is why we can experience 4 dimensional space ] because time resolves the paradox and "time" of course is directly related to distance.

    The method I have used is a form of reverse engineering....
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    thanks for the caution...
     
  16. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    I didn't even realize that the Big Bang could be explained in exnhilo terms until years after already doing so, lol. Sounds like you should read Alan Guths paper on eternal inflation. It has ruled out a lot of possible Big Bang scenarios that have been proposed over the years and it is mostly in layman's terms. It also says that inflation can conserve the energy being created from the moment of the Big Bang, and that there is no before the Big Bang, at least that has the same laws of physics. But, it can have a start! I would go further to say that in light of this evidence of inflation that there was no singularity at the moment of the Big Bang. All the matter/energy of the universe didn't have to be present at the time inflation started if it is conserved with inflation, so then it could have the same laws of physics that we have now. So, inflation doesn't rule out exnhilo Big Bang scenarios, and in his presentation we was asked a lot about them and they mentioned classical models that have not been completely ruled out, but it raises the problem of calculating probabilities. From what I have read about possible Big Bang scenarios it may be the best fitting model we have to eternal inflation. I think if eternal inflation does show evidence of physics having the same laws, then the Big Bang theory would no longer be relavent below the Planck Scale. And I think it has a lot of work to be done on the plancktian veiw, since Guth mentions that it would be hard to fit into that model. Also, in the paper I saw that he used 10^-43 sec and not 10^-34 sec that have read from many sources for the Planck Time... If the energy of the universe did in a sense double every 10^-37 sec then I would think that eteranal inflation assumes the Planck Time is 10^-37 and not 10^-34 in the theory. So then in eternal inflation the Big Bang would have started at 10^-37 sec in my interpretation of the theory.
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I stand by my comment of "There is no paradox", as Pete has also said. You're asking a mechanics problem, one which is pretty basic. Knowing the force you experience at any given location allows you to compute the energy required to move from A to B. Or is liberated when you go from B to A. This is literally what Newton invented calculus to describe. As I said in my last post, the problem is not a paradox, the problem is that you don't understand basic mechanics. But rather than saying "Well every physicist for 350 years seems to have been okay with this, perhaps I should look at how they model such things so I can expand my understanding" you've just said "I don't get it, therefore paradox!".

    It's incredibly important but you haven't bothered to look up the proper methodical construction of such a system using calculus, which allows us to consider distances going to zero in a consistent logically manner? It's so incredibly important and very subtle that you've been unable to do anything other than declare a paradox must exist?

    'Commonly thought'? By whom? You've just shown you don't know what mathematics or physics has to say about it so you're obviously not referring to mathematicians or physicists because if you were you're just being dishonest by presupposing they.... sorry, we, think about such things. Furthermore you continue to perpetuate your misconceptions about the Planck length. You clearly have no idea it's role in physics but you're happy to make assumptions about it and construct strawmen so you can claim 'commonly thought' ideas are flawed. The flawed thoughts here are yours.

    Said like a man who has no idea about dimensions in physics, the role of zero in mathematics or even what paradox means in reason and logic.

    Out of interest who precisely is all your ZPT stuff aimed at? Are you aiming it at laypersons so you can peddle delusions of mediocrity by conning people who don't know any better? It must be laypersons because your blatant lack of knowledge about what physicists/mathematicians do/think/understand/say and your willingness to construct straw men in that regard means you can't possibly seriously expect to convince those of us who didn't sleep through high school science class that you're onto something. If you're out to convince people like myself, people with the necessary mathematics and physics knowledge to do the 'fill in the maths' thing you previously suggested I might want to help doing then lying about us to our faces isn't going to endear yourself to any of us. Spewing out buzzwords and saying things like looking at zero gives you a paradox 'by default' might sound deep to someone who left school decades ago and even then without a decent grasp of science but to anyone who actually do any of this stuff you're coming off as a snake oil salesman. And a poor one at that. If you're honestly wanting to add something to science please explain to me why you think misrepresenting science and scientists (and likewise maths and mathematicians) is a good way to go about it.
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I shall repsond to your post using your last comments first:

    The primary reason for developing the site is to find a way to explain evidence that I have that is about to be revealed. The site was and is, only an explainer to provide clues for more erudite opersons when the time becomes necessary. As there will be a demand from science to explain this evidence. Given the time restraints I feel I have done remarkably well with the little scientific language skills I have.

    The primary reason for running this thread is not about explaining the paradox or the theory or acheiving credo's, but to learn why the explanations are unable to be conveyed in a way that is comprehended, whether that be to laypersons, a 12 year old highschool student or an astute physicists such as your self.

    Your posts so far to this thread have proved it's necessity.

    If this thread was about simple movement from position A to B in a field of attraction your post would be quite relevant and this thread would never have been started nor would there be a web site attempting to explain something so well understood.

    The issue is not about the movement although this has to be explained regardless it is about WHY an object has to deaccellerate more than it accellerates to move from position A to position B.
    Fortunately due to my discourse with Pete the language has been adjusted to use the words "accelleration" instead of "force" or "counter force".
    This adjustment in word use may make it easier to convey the paradox but in your case, which is why I am perservering is you have repeatedly "missed" the key elements of my posts denigrating them to inconsequentiality and repeatedy sort to discredit any attempt at better communication. [effectively blocking discussion for reasons you only know]
    This is the issue of this thread as I do not need to prove anything to you or any one, nor do I need to somehow validate the realty of zero point theory as the evidence I have and so many others have in ignorance, [ yes even you have it! ] is self evident. And as Newton would probably say "It is the self evident that is the hardest to explain scientifically - yep apples fall from trees!"

    Compare:
    With:
    Why you seem focused on something else I do not know but this thread is about finding out why you and others are inadvertently applying a form of selective reading.

    • It appears that you believe science is the exclusive doman of those who have been educated in it. This is a real pity, as science is a "global" human preoccupation for all education levels regardless of speciality, IQ or apparently dare I say wisdom...
    • You also believe you need to defend sciences acheivements in away that proves only, that you have grave concerns about it's credibility.


    Fortunately you and others of similar persuasion, do not hold a monopoly on scientific thought whether that be in an erudite fashion or in the fashion of a 2 year old.

    To me science is about observation and then attempting to understand what you observe. Preferably with out the emotional hubris of ego esteem issues, and of course the more tools you have in doing so the better. However if those tools [education] are lacking then one must do the best with what one has.

    When observing an object moving from position A to position B in an intense field of reducing attraction there is something that science has overlooked and something very fundamental to the way this universe is constructed and functions. That something explains the evidence I have which is why I found it.
    The paradox is easilly demonstrated using the following lab experiment:
    http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/51-attraction-paradox-empirical-evidence
    I would suggest if you wish to continue participating in this thread that you either refute the experiment as described in the link provided and it's predictions or simply declare indifference, or declare your agenda as "protector of the scientific ego"
    If you wish to continue "playng the man" instead of the "ball" we could start another thread to facilitate this. [maybe what I just wrote is over your head...eh?]
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2012
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Try to relate this to the above discussion,

    A discussion with "ditch digger" Bob down the pub...
    Bob: "ehh, hav u ever tride to hold a magnet with you hand close to some iron, .... still?"
    Me: "Ehh Bob, what are you tryng to say?"
    Bob: "eh yu no, try to keep a magnet still with your hand next to some eron?"
    Me: "Yep many times, why do you ask?"
    Bob: "aw..so why is it I can't stand still and strrrayt when I am drunk?"
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2012
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    As a matter of interest:
    there is an interesting analogue demonstrated. [ checks to make sure in right forum ] as used by the 4th dynastic Pharohs of Egypt with their somewhat famous Anch [ Ankh ]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    image c/o wiki
    regarding the notion of time and big bang concepts etc.
    Currently I am tending to believe that the heiroglyphs used in their "picture" writing are in fact not simply a religious dogma but actually a form of encypted [to us] science.

    The Anch symbol is ideal for demonstrating ZPT and given it's legends and typical meaning seems most appropriate. This is further, alluded to in the chaple built 10 years or so after L. da Vinci's [whom I believe knew the about the zero point reality] death, in Scotland called "Rossylin Chapel" which also has many myths and legends surrouding it's purpose and meaning.

    If you transform the symbol of the Anch into a time line using the vertical as the present moment, left arm being past and right arm being future and note the paradox of the "flow of time" with the circular loop shown at the top you can see a time diagram that displays the paradox and why matter or mass has inherant spin.
    This is a part of further research and as yet inconclusive.
    However if one subscibes to the notion that the Anch is indeed a scientific symbol and not just an ornament it opens all sorts of possibilities and potentials regarding historical myth and facts.
    How this relates to your post:
    I believe at this stage that the Pharohs of the 4th dynasty also belived that there is no "begining to time" and that the act of creation "big bang" is an ongoing present or now event.

    yet to be published:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    notice the similarities and recall that DaVinci had a morbid facination with the Golden Ratio and was a great comedian when it came to leaving clues and demonstrating his passion for cryptology.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    As I said, this is an area still to be fully researched and as yet not pubished in the web sites related articles section.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2012
  21. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    The language wouldn't need to be adjusted if you'd gone and read the 'common dictionary' which has been constructed by science over the last few centuries.

    • And we're back to you misrepresenting people. Where did I say science is the exclusive domain of those who are educated in it? Please provide a link to a post where I said something which can only be viewed to mean that. I'll save you some time, there isn't one.

      And you're putting words in my mouth for a second time in as many lines! I don't have 'grave concerns about it's credibility'. What concerns I have, grave or not, in regards to nonsense like the stuff you're spewing is that you can infect people who don't know any better with your nonsense. Someone might read you posts and think "Well I don't know any science or maths but he's using lots of words which seem complicated so he must be onto something". Furthermore I don't like it when people misrepresent science or scientists. As I said, several times you've basically said "Science says...." and then said something science doesn't say. If you're unwilling or unable to put in the intellectual time and effort to properly grasp what science says then don't attempt to paraphrase it for people. I wouldn't attempt to paraphrase someone speaking Japanese because I don't understand Japanese.

      I am certain I'm more aware of problems with/in general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, string theory, any area of physics, than you are. Identifying where problems are is the first step in addressing them, which is what research is all about.

      Where did I say I did? Wow, 3 misrepresentations in as many lines.

      Seriously, why do hacks view someone saying "Your work is unjustified, incoherent, wrong in numerous places and you're misrepresenting science" to mean "No one else can discuss science except those of us with a PhD in it!"? I have no problem laypersons discussing science, I really really really wish more of you would. I do have a problem though with people who blatantly haven't read any science pretending they have. It's intellectually dishonest. I have infinitely more time and respect for someone who says "I'm sorry, I don't understand this" and doesn't understand anything than I have for someone who understands something and refuses to acknowledge when they are in territory they don't understand. If they attempt to make up explanations/summaries for other people who don't know (such as Reiku did/does) then they pass on their ignorance. If they are trying to engage someone like myself in discussion then it wastes my time because they benefit nothing from it. I don't denounce laypersons considering science, I denounce anyone being intellectually dishonest. I view the wilful disregard/under-usage of reason, logic and the brain evolution has provided you are as close to a cardinal sin as an atheist can allow (since the notion of 'sin' and 'cardinal sin' are religious in origin). So when I see you misrepresenting science, showing you haven't read it, knowing you haven't read it but still willing to say things about what science says or what scientists do/think/say then I don't think terribly kindly of you.

      Oh goody, a smorgasbord of things to comment on, so I've numbered them.

      1. So what observations have you made, beyond just everyday life? You don't have access to scientific experiments done in labs. You don't have experimental experience so you haven't 'done a Faraday'. Given your lack of physics education you're also unaware of many of the phenomena in the universe which might be relevant to your claims.

      2. Saying your work is nonsense isn't the same as me saying "I'm better than you at this", though I happen to think that too. Your claims are vapid because you cannot justify them, you can't even state them coherently. No ego involved there. Also my view of my place within the research community is based on experience, trial by fire etc. I quite readily state I'm, at best, a mediocre string theorist. I have no problem with this, I'm just glad I could contribute something to it. Compare that self-view with someone like Farsight. He believes his work is worth at least 4 Nobel Prizes. He deliberately set out for fame and glory. I cold earn a lot more than I do if I went into finance. But I don't because I love my job and I think adding something to human knowledge, something fundamental, is a better goal than trading derivatives.

      3. If the more tools the better and if without education you must make do then why haven't you bothered to find out what science says? There's plenty of websites which will explain in layperson terms the scientific take on forces, you don't need a degree to find out such information. Why haven't you used perhaps the most powerful information processing tool ever to exist on this planet, the internet, to find out what science actually says and not just misrepresent it? Clearly you haven't used some of the most obvious and powerful tools which are freely available to you so I would say your comment is more of an abstract ideal rather than something you actually practice.

      And you know this from your extensive reading of science and mathematics, right?

      There is no paradox. I'm sorry that basic mechanics, something kids learn in school, is so baffling to you that you have to declare that there's a 'paradox of 0' but that's a problem in your head, not an actual paradox. Seriously, learning how to model speed, time, forces, energies, distances for such experiments is taught to school kids. Assuming your mathematics abilities aren't worse than a 12 year old (and if they are then you're undermining your own position by demonstrating you have no idea what current models/concepts/science says) you could learn how to do such things relatively easily.

      Seriously, you want to talk about ego etc when you're claiming the very concept of a force, something central to physics, is logically dubious, something only you have spotted?

      What is there to refute. Increase the separation between magnet and piece of iron and the force goes down. This is a demonstrable reality and the mathematical models physics uses to describe such things are sound. You don't have an 'experiment', you have an assertion about an experiment. An assertion you have not justified. If you think there's a paradox there then you need to show, clearly and methodically, that you can actually construct a paradox. The models of the experiment you describe are not paradoxical, not to mention they are put to real world use all around us.

      If there's a paradox there you need to show it. Show that you lead to a logical conclusion along the lines of A implies B and B implies not A and not A implies not B. The force needed to hold the iron still decreasing with separation from the magnet is not such a thing. In fact, it follows logically from the underlying construction

      I think you're showing a little more of your ego than you realise. I'm not saying your claims are nonsense as some knee jerk reaction to someone saying "Science is wrong" but because you haven't justified your claims, you've misrepresented science and scientists, you've misrepresented me and you're being intellectually dishonest in a number of instances. Someone claiming to have additional evidence for some part of science would illicit the same response from me if they did a similarly terrible job of making their case. An unjustified assertion is unjustified regardless of what the assertion may be. Viewing yourself as being on the receiving end of criticism because I'm a 'protector of the scientific ego' is more an illustration of your own ego. This is another issue hacks have, they get too emotionally invested in their work. It's because you don't logically derive your results from clearly stated postulates, you just assert what you think the conclusion is. Since your assertions are guided by your experience in the everyday world accepting you're mistaken means accepting your intuition and experience is insufficient. Being willing to bin ones work when it is clearly insufficient in merit is an important part of being intellectually honest. It's a behaviour almost completely absent in the hack community. Hence why we have people like Farsight, Sylwester, Magneto, Masterov etc still peddling their demonstrably flawed claims years down the line. Are you planning on joining that list?

      As I just explained, it's typical of people in this subforum to view a dismissal of their unjustified assertions as an attack on them, as they... sorry, you, invest too much of your opinions into your claims and not enough detached logic and reasoning. The fact you misrepresent science is a separate issue. Commenting on such a thing is playing the man, not the ball, but in such instances it is warranted since it is the man at fault.

      So, can you demonstrate a paradox exists in clear logic or are you just going to continue asserting it without merit? If it's the latter you provide nothing which needs to be retorted. That won't stop me pointing out when you misrepresent people, including myself, or science.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    OK...lets look at it critically.
    The lab experiment details published at:
    http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/51-attraction-paradox-empirical-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.
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    @AlphaNumericL
    Maybe you don't realise that the simple equation 0= +1 + (-1) being held as valid, is in fact confirmation of a paradox of zero.
     

Share This Page