Zero Point Theory - the universal constant Gravity

I think the evidence from the experiment could be interpretted differently. Say you created a magnet out of a superconductor. You then could make something float over it with little or no effort of keeping it steady. The superconductor could just be a more perfect magnet, in a normal magnet not all of the poles in the material line up exactly the same and those poles can change to transfer magnetic properties to another material.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe you could describe the experiment to show your understanding of it and we can compare notes?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[seriously and with all due respect]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it isn't impossible. Provided you can apply a continuous force to the string holding the piece of iron it will smoothly move away from the magnet. In practical cases, such as you holding it with your hand, there might be some jerky motion but that's because of the way our muscles work. Don't mistake flaws in the apparatus with flaws in the underlying physics.

Firstly you haven't done any actual modelling of that. You haven't got anything quantitative, you only have assertions. Secondly 'zero' in an abstract concept. I'll get onto that in a moment...

I seriously wonder how you can think what you said is clear and coherent. You give the distinct impression that you're trying to stick together words and concepts you're not sufficiently familiar with into something you can convince yourself is meaningful.

You think that's a paradox? It only serves to illustrate how poorly you grasp even basic mathematical concepts. You mentioned 'conclusions about the nature of zero' earlier. We define zero by it's properties, not discover it's properties. This would be something you'd have seen if you bothered to go and find any information about it but as I said before, you talk about using tools available to yourself but you don't actually use them.

The concept of positive whole numbers is pretty straight forward. The concept of addition is pretty straight forward too. This is all formalised in the logical construct known as the Peano axioms of arithmetic. If x and y are whole numbers then so is x+y. But we will quickly find when looking at such constructs it's useful if there is some object, let's call it z, such that x+z = z+x = x for all x. Given this property we will also find that it's useful if for each x there is an x' such that x+x' = z. This is because if a+b=c then we can add a' to both sizes. The left hand side becomes a'+a+b = (a'+a)+b = z+b = b and the right hand side is c+a'. This allows us to isolate things we're interested in, such as b in that example. This is all done in abstraction because the concept applies to many other things beyond just whole numbers and similar procedures allow us to construct the notion of 1, multiplication, division, factorising, fields, groups, rings, modules and more besides. People are more familiar with the notion of 0 for z and -x for x'. So 0 is constructed such that addition leads to the concept of subtraction and things like -1 are defined by the equation 1 + (-1) = 0. This isn't a paradox, it's one of the most basic results in all of arithmetic!

No doubt you think you've got some wonderful deep insight into 'a paradox of zero' but in reality you're just showing you're struggling to grasp things which children learn. The abstract construction and generalisation of arithmetic is the bread and butter of many areas of mathematics. You aren't exploring new territory, you've gotten lost in your own home! And you refuse to look at a map, despite claiming you make use of tools available to you. This is yet another illustration of how hacks simply don't have a clue how deep and elaborate mathematicians have done with even basic concepts, all because you adamantly refuse to consider you might not have the insight you believe yourself to have.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well we might get somewhere eventually...
You state:

*the weight is suspended in series with a set of scales to aid in graphing the small bouncing that would have to take place as the counter forces go from "more to less", "more to less" repeatedly to accommodate the inversed nature of the field of attraction in the context of the experiment described. [Note: the bounce or vibration will exist at a micro or atomic level whether we try to move the weight or not as absolute rest is impossible - the paradox generates inherant "spin"]

which means you have failed to consider that the reducing attractive forces involved are inverse to the counter forces required.

I suggest seriously that you have a bit more of a think about the issue of applying converse force in a field that is inverse.
The factors at play:
a reducing field of attractive force. [inverse squared or cubed]
a need to increase counterforce to move to a weaker position. [re: escape velocity ]
a need to reduce the counter force to maintain a new position
the amount of reduction in counter force must be greater than the innitial increase in counterforce.
If you do the math or even use simlpe word logic you can see that when reducing this situation infinitely to zero a paradox is evident.

Now bearing in mind that zero is nonexistant the equation 0= +1 + (-)1 states an obvious paradox of zero. And empirical evidence as described above supports it but only if one excludes the time factor.
The actual equation that would demonstrate the paradox and it's resolution properly in this context, has yet to be derived as, 0 = +1 - (-)1 is a simultaneous equation and not sequential where +1 + (-)1 are considered simultaneusly to equal zero.
As show by the experiment "time" or "sequentiality" is required if one wishes to bring the simple equation in to the real world of mass and matter [space/time] and not abstraction to resolve the paradox.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XEQVnIFmQ

In the video all he has to do is press down a magnet on top of the superconducting material in order to get it to float perfectly over it. I don't know much about it, I just heard about it in High School and I graduated about 13 years ago so I dont remember much about it. I think it is a counter example to the experiment, where a magnet reacts differently to a material. The superconductor allows magnetic properties to be transfered more effeciently, then it removes part of the problem you explained in your experiment. Then instead of the magnet being completely unstable, it is forced into a position of more stability that is the opposite of what the zero point theory predicts. So, the experiment has more to do with the magnetic poles of the material in question.

 

Great video.. a thread on it's own I reckon...thanks

 

Just asserting "This generates spin" doesn't mean it does. Notice how you haven't formalised anything, so you aren't actually using logic to go from assumptions to conclusions, you just assume what you think follows actually follows. Why don't you formalise this? Writing down the description of forces, particularly Newtonian gravity, is quite easy. Can't you do that?

Sorry, I do know how to model such systems and there's no paradox. I also just explained via mathematics/logic why there's no paradox in 0 = 1 + (-1). Besides, if you're so sure the maths leads to a paradox then show it.

I've already corrected you on this. Zero is a concept, not a thing. The same is true for all other mathematical constructs. Your comment implies there's something more to say 1 than 0, since 'zero is nonexistant' [sic]. 0 is not more existent or not than 5 or -2 or sqrt(4) or i or \(\frac{d}{dx}\) or any other mathematical object. If you want to get into the philosophical logic of it all, concepts are non-physical. These exist only within minds. There isn't a planet where 5's grow on trees or a star made of \(\frac{d}{dx}\)'s any more than there's a planet which has fields of anger or oceans of ambivalence. I gave you what 0 means within mathematics, you assigning additional meaning to that doesn't then make a paradox within mathematics or logic because you're adding axioms/postulates/assumptions and thus changing the logic system in question. It's easy to make logical constructs from some set of assumptions within which you can define some individual concept but which then is no longer possible when you add additional assumptions or modify them. Since you haven't formalised anything you're not going about things logically but rather just assuming and guessing.

Only in your head.

Except it doesn't. You've just unable to grasp basic mechanics.

I'm now having a hard time telling whether you're just doing a Poe. You're now saying such obviously daft and incoherent things you are either more detached from reality and rationality then I realised or you're delving into new depths of parody, even for you.

 

Are you saying the center of gravity of any object is an abstraction?
Can you honestly state that the centre of gravity is not a zero point and that it is all in your head?
When you go to the web site the first slide in a slide show at the top is this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

did you not see it? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting me?

There is no doubt that ZPT is relevant to all areas of human intellectual pursuit including theosophy, metaphysics, epistiology, philosophy, mathematics, physics engineering, etc etc. which is why it is such a powerful theory. It is afterall the center of all things, concepts, ideas, dreams, thoughts, sensory peception, material substance, matter , mass, and gravitational attractions, magnetic attractions, etc.

For example, mathematics woud be utterly useless with out it as all equations and formulae rely on it's "non-existance" and singular absoluteness.
i.e. what does the (=) sign mean in E = mc^2

 

@Alphanumeric,
If I was to rely on only one specialist opinion [your's] I would be an idiot yes?
Do you wish me to rely only on your opinion?

 

The symbol is female in type and is the obvious counterpart of the male symbol which I don't want to identify. It is a symbol of invisible forces which were eventually misunderstood and incorporated into their religion. The symbol is a derivative or abstact design of an instrument used by pre dynasty tribes, that involved using the background forces in technology.
Big bang, black holes, dark matter and almost all modern science had no place in their thinking - either religiously or scientifically. All ancient cultures recognised that the universe was created and maintained by a Divine Being or plural thereof.

 

I believe you to be correct when you say the symbol is incorrectly understood given that you feel there is a "male" counter part.... the mere fact that you consider it to be a part of a polarised force is enough alone to render the symbol impotent. Freemasonary, as an example organisation, hold the symbol as part of a polarised duality as do it's various subsiduaries. Most other organisations have never looked at it as deeply, and consider it to be of only religious ornamentation.

 

Yes it is part of a duality. Quite often you will find Egyptian leaders holding both the male and female symbols. Both were considered emblems of great power, even though they did not know how to use them. The original instruments were buried with Kofu, and the first robbery of the pyramids removed those items, leaving behind all the treasures and gold for someone else less cluey.

 

I guess what I really wanted to say was that it is in the holding to a duality that maintains it as a duality and thus the symbol of the Anch is rendered impotent because for this incorrect human need to maintain a state of duality. In other words the Anch is actually self sufficient in it's own right and is neither female nor male but really a singularity and not a duality. It is the complete combination of both as one.

 

I interpret duality as the male and female principles of the backgound force and all of nature, and the Ank as representing one part only.

 

do you believe Gravity to be a polarised force and if so can you explain why?

 

I have looked at gravity as a plain gradient of energy, and also considered that it can be polarised by magnetism. If there was an odd phenomenon in the direction of gravity, such as the plumb line not quite the same as in other places, I would expect some sort of polarisation going on.

I don't want to say why, but there are places in the world where it happens naturally from time to time.

 

Before getting into the issue of the polaration of gravity according to Zero Point Theory try the following thought exercise:
We have a bar magnet of any typical macro length.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

we then cut this magnet in half and we end up with two bar magnets with both of them still polarised North and South.
Imagine repeating the cutting of one of the halfs infinitely, each time in half and then the resultant half again in half.
Let's pressume we do this and end up with a half that is infinitesimal or 1/infinity in length. [apply infinite reduction]
Theoretically the half that is infintesimal in length shoud still be polarised N & S. no matter how small you get the magnet there will always be a state of polarisation.

Presume this image shows a bar magnet that is infinitesimal in length.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Given that the infinitesimal is the smallest possibe length before zero. What makes up the body of the magnet?

I believe we can safely state that there is zero distance between North and South polarities.
N > 0
S > 0
extend to

0= N + S
the center of gavity is zero between both poles.
When you take one magnet and another magnet with opposite poles attracting each other, let them come together and the seem/line between the two is 0
N >0< S
(remember 0= +1 + (-)1 or
+1>0<(-)1 as a reflective statement with zero as the reflection plane [the end of the equation is in the centre of tthe equation and not at the end.]
We can surmise that 0 can be a pretty strong force with regards to magnetism

 

Now replace the word North with the word Future
and replace the word South with the word Past and apply the same logic.
What is between past and future? zero...[HSP] [NOW]
Zero is also the center of gravity..
Have a look at the light cones drawn for minkowski/einstein spacetime

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

image c/o wiki
and what do you see about the past and future and t= 0 duration?
That magnetic phenonema could be the polarisation of .......?

 

Now give all the above have another look at the symbol used by the ancients.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Anch could be understood using a refelctive statement as mentioned abe where the end of the equation is in the centre and not the end.

Essentially the (=) sign is replaced with a zero. I believe that this may provide a clue to the rest of the heiroglyphs utiised if thought of as using a form of reflective mathematics with zero at the centre and not just implied as in trypical Western mathematics. [an idea yet to be matured]
for those that are interested the Unformalised "word salad" as used by someone can be read here:
Zero Point Theory

 

The deduction of relating time with magetism, to me is reasonable, and an uncanny thought that seems to be springing from instinct.
The background force is such that, magnetism is induced by it. The magnetism itself is not a time factor, but the cause of magnetism is.

Magnetsim essentially shows that something has a 'need' to wind itself around a single line - the North South line.

By the way the condition of magnetism resides in every atom to some degree, whether it can be magnetised or not, so it is a fundamental aspect of matter.

Sorry, I have not answered the question.