Force paradox - a test of reasoning

[Quantum Quack]

I have decided to post this here so that it can be vetted first by the readers of this forum prior to making a more formal presentation in the philosophy or physics forum.

It has it's relevance because I believe that the pseudo paradox I intend to describe and prove is fundamental to many areas of interest including psychic pheno [ our inability to prove such in predictable ways] and our quest in the understanding of physical fundamentals of gravity, gravitation, FTL travel.
So I'll start by posting a pre-amble of the hypothesis and take it from there.

Pseudo Force paradox

"A line of reasoning"



If we take a 2 dimensional plane and dissect a smooth gradient of forces as shown in the diagrams below we can say intuitively that there must be an infinitely small difference in the strength or pressure of forces, when comparing both sides of this 2 dimensional plane.
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%201.jpg>

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%202.jpg>

If this reasoning can be agreed upon then I intend to show that the intuitive position is incorrect and that the forces on both sides of this two dimensional plane are actually inverse to what would be normally expected. That gravitation itself is seemingly paradoxed based on our current perspectives.

That when comparing both sides of this plane the high side is actually lower and the low side is actually higher in pressure of force.

This can be described by the following diagram:
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%203.jpg>

Evidence of this inverse pressure of force relationship across and infinitely small dissection can be seen when using magnetic fields as an analogy for gravity.

So, with the above I have made certain claims.

Are those claims understandable?

Is the pseudo paradox I intend to demonstrate clear?

Ultimately it is hoped that this will show why metastability is present in all things. Why nothing can be absolutely at rest and everything is constantly in a state of change. That constant change is a necessary outcome of this inverse relationship across an infinitely small amount of space [ force ]


N.B I am confident that this is not a totally new concept and possibly some readers are familliar with it and can save me a lot of trouble by providing insight by way of links or references.

 

[James R]

Are those claims understandable?

Not to me.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not to me.

hmmmmm... can you decribe what you don't understand about it?

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

IT IS UTTERLY FASCINATING.
yet, it is limited in its scope... your definately headed in the right direction.
and by that i mean,, towards dimensional considerations.
forces and vectors,, and dimensional progressions.

you seem uniquely focused in the 2D plane, while not altogether interesting, is as you have pointed to, is fundamental.

for the nature of the opposing surfaces and their relative charges polarities in what ever manner manifested in the 2D plane period of our universes existance.

and while i dont see how you have brought any of this to the level of an actual equation or proposable constant, or variables.

it is clear that the forces of the 2D rise, was fundamental in the development of all the following stages, and that, that nature, would in itself, still remain throught our spatial universe as part of it fundamentall qualities....
yet, 2D planes do not exist, and yet, there maybe functional means by which these 2D planer effects could manifest as some quality in electromagnetic fields themselves, and thus, relates to all things.... in that still... mysterious intangeble way.



-MT

 

[James R]

QQ:

Here are your "claims", such as they are:

If this reasoning can be agreed upon then I intend to show that the intuitive position is incorrect and that the forces on both sides of this two dimensional plane are actually inverse to what would be normally expected. That gravitation itself is seemingly paradoxed based on our current perspectives.

You "intend to show" this, but you don't seem to show it.

That when comparing both sides of this plane the high side is actually lower and the low side is actually higher in pressure of force.

So, where's your demonstration of this?

Evidence of this inverse pressure of force relationship across and infinitely small dissection can be seen when using magnetic fields as an analogy for gravity.

How? You need to explain.

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ:

Here are your "claims", such as they are:



You "intend to show" this, but you don't seem to show it.



So, where's your demonstration of this?



How? You need to explain.

JamesR,
one step at a time.....I first wish to make sure that this idea of an infinitely smooth gradient being dissected by an infinitely thin plane leads to a comparitive difference of infinitely small pressures either side of that plane.

Once this is clear I can progress to the next step and show how this is demonstrated in nature as being an inverse relationship and not a converse relationship as one would intuitively expect.

ie
converse:
higher pressure---------------------H | L-------------------------lower pressure

inverse:
higher pressure---------------------L | H-------------------------lower pressure

where H=Higher pressure
and L= Lower pressure

 

[James R]

Ok. I have no problem with that.

If I have a board, and I push infinitessimally harder on one side than on the other, the result would seem to me to be intuitively obvious...

 

[Quantum Quack]

IT IS UTTERLY FASCINATING.
yet, it is limited in its scope... your definately headed in the right direction.
and by that i mean,, towards dimensional considerations.
forces and vectors,, and dimensional progressions.

you seem uniquely focused in the 2D plane, while not altogether interesting, is as you have pointed to, is fundamental.

for the nature of the opposing surfaces and their relative charges polarities in what ever manner manifested in the 2D plane period of our universes existance.

and while i dont see how you have brought any of this to the level of an actual equation or proposable constant, or variables.

it is clear that the forces of the 2D rise, was fundamental in the development of all the following stages, and that, that nature, would in itself, still remain throught our spatial universe as part of it fundamentall qualities....
yet, 2D planes do not exist, and yet, there maybe functional means by which these 2D planer effects could manifest as some quality in electromagnetic fields themselves, and thus, relates to all things.... in that still... mysterious intangeble way.



-MT

MT,
It is possible that the use of the words 2 dimensional will lead to confusion.

The distinction between a true two dimensional plane [ zero thickness] and an infinitely thin dimensional plane eventually needs to be considered.

I am using the term 2 dimensional plane but maybe the word "pseudo" needs to be included. Because infinitely thin does not necessarrilly equal zero thickness. [ Although some would argue philosophically that they may be so similar that the distinction is trivial]

Maybe in physics they have drawn this distinction and there is correct terminology to help show this in the language of science?

Possible JamesR could offer some insight?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ok. I have no problem with that.

If I have a board, and I push infinitessimally harder on one side than on the other, the result would seem to me to be intuitively obvious...

And I agree that this would be the case how ever I am heading in the direction that will show that microscopically at least the inverse is true rather than the converse with regards to forces such as gravity and magnetism.

Unfortunately the scenario of a board being pushed from one side fails to make reference to a field of force that extends beyond that infinitely small point, such as a satellite in a gravity well or space ship traveling away or towards a source of attraction such as gravity.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

YES... regardless of any thinkness involved... 2D motion doesnt have to just be dimensional...

i.e.. ------------------> a vector. is one dimensional.

-------------->
\
\
\
/ add. a second vector... a second dimension, and what do we get?

curves... i cant type curves... you get it.

vector addition of forces is just like a dimensional progression.

THE NATURE of any applied or occuring energys or pressures on or within the universe at 2D, may manifest threw out space and time in all matter.
fascinating stuff.

-MT

-MT

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

Excuse me if I am mistaken in my understanding, but from what I can gather, you claim that, at any given point, one can bisect a force and find that on either side of the infinitely small divide, we have an infinitely small difference in pressure, yes? That being said, I am not sure how you get from this to the higher pressure being found in the lower pressure, and the lower pressure found in the higher? Might you explain that?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack:

Excuse me if I am mistaken in my understanding, but from what I can gather, you claim that, at any given point, one can bisect a force and find that on either side of the infinitely small divide, we have an infinitely small difference in pressure, yes? That being said, I am not sure how you get from this to the higher pressure being found in the lower pressure, and the lower pressure found in the higher? Might you explain that?

It is the purpose of this thread to eventually explain why the inverse seems to be the case. To test the reasoning I have used.
I am generating the next set of diagrams and will post them soon.

Meanwhile;
If it can be shown that the inverse is true, what ramifications would this insight inspire do you think?

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

"Meanwhile;
If it can be shown that the inverse is true, what ramifications would this insight inspire do you think? "

Well first I require a tiny bit of clarification:

Your presentation of this idea is similar to the one where you first came upon the term metastabiity about 8 or so months ago, yes? Where you postulate that, because it would take a greater deal of energy to reach the lower level of pressure, that it is somehow saying that the lower-level of pressure is actually higher in energy, through its resistance, yes? And that because it is easier to go to the area of higher pressure, that it is in fact lower, because less energy need be exerted, yes?

Also, yes, do please make those next diagrams shortly. Your presentation of them will probably clear up much of the hypothesis.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack:

"Meanwhile;
If it can be shown that the inverse is true, what ramifications would this insight inspire do you think? "

Well first I require a tiny bit of clarification:

Your presentation of this idea is similar to the one where you first came upon the term metastabiity about 8 or so months ago, yes? Where you postulate that, because it would take a greater deal of energy to reach the lower level of pressure, that it is somehow saying that the lower-level of pressure is actually higher in energy, through its resistance, yes? And that because it is easier to go to the area of higher pressure, that it is in fact lower, because less energy need be exerted, yes?

Also, yes, do please make those next diagrams shortly. Your presentation of them will probably clear up much of the hypothesis.

Yes, it does refer to that concept thread so many months ago. You have a good memory..hey?

Where you postulate that, because it would take a greater deal of energy to reach the lower level of pressure, that it is somehow saying that the lower-level of pressure is actually higher in energy, through its resistance, yes?

Ahh! No, not quite, I wished to show only that the immediate condition of any object of mass is unstable and perpetually moving because the inverse square function of a force such as gravity generates inverse state upon every possible point with in that mass and in vacant space as well.
That at a universal level this is a constant state of "teetering" or movement and ultimately why vacuum or vacant space has the potential to generate energy, yet appears to offer no resistance to movement [ no aether]

In philosophy I am attempting to describe the reason why "safe that locks upon the attempt to open it" thought experiment. How this applies to the search for ultimate truths and so on. Thus joining physics with psychology, philosophy and para psychology.

 

[Quantum Quack]

BTW, if I appear to be labourously repeating myself [ re:earlier thread ] I am doing for a reason. The earlier thread failed to make it's point because I failed to communicate it's proposiotions adequately...so please accept the pedantic nature of this thread

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

"Yes, it does refer to that concept thread so many months ago. You have a good memory..hey?"

Actually, that is funny. I will often forget about a friend telling me they are going on vacation, or someone telling me that something is happening on x-and-y date, but I can remember topical things I heard only in passing months ago, or draw weird connections to information that I randomly remember from soemthing oftentimes only partially connected.

"Ahh! No, not quite, I wished to show only that the immediate condition of any object of mass is unstable and perpetually moving because the inverse square function of a force such as gravity generates inverse state upon every possible point with in that mass and in vacant space as well.
That at a universal level this is a constant state of "teetering" or movement and ultimately why vacuum or vacant space has the potential to generate energy, yet appears to offer no resistance to movement [ no aether]"

Ah! A bit more complicated, then.

So what are you saying? That an object with mass has gravitic effects on itself that stem from itself as well as emanating out from itself in all possible directions? And that in part is this responsible for the energy of the relative vacuum of space?

"BTW, if I appear to be labourously repeating myself [ re:earlier thread ] I am doing for a reason. The earlier thread failed to make it's point because I failed to communicate it's proposiotions adequately...so please accept the pedantic nature of this thread "

No, it is quite understandable. Sometimes we must elaborate on things even if it is somewhat of a continuation of a past idea that wasn't presented in such a way that people responded how we wanted them to.

 

[Quantum Quack]

yes, it is this:

higher force---------------------L|H--------------------Lower force

inversion that I would suggest is the cause for this fundamental instability or "teetering".
As usual this is merely a natural pheno that appears at this stage as a pseudo-paradox.

If you can imagine a magnet that is always facing the wrong way no matter how it turns in a magnetic field offerred by another magnet. It will continuously spin, as the attracted side will always invert to become a repelling side.

This inverse state can be demonstrated using similar diagrams posted in that earlier thread you refer to.

Over the next few days I will post diagrams and explanations to show this point and ask if the reasoning is sound. [ I already know the terminology will be a problem, however if we can get past that issue we might see that the reasoning makes sense or no- sense]

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

I truly look forward to these forthcoming posts to fully demonstrate the length and bredth of your theories regarding this. It will be quite fascinating, I am sure, and will elaborate on any further questions I might have.

I will comment again once they are posted, as a fullness of explanation I imagine to be found there.

 

[Quantum Quack]

OK I have put it all together in a way that hopefully shows what I am getting at. [ the number of diagrams is limited per post so I will have to spread this over two posts and not the ideal one]

Years ago, when experimenting with magnets in a very simple way I came to realise what most people realise that it is virtually impossible to hold two magnets at a fixed distance with out movement with only the use of your hands. The question that this raised was; is it impossible or is it just very difficult?

I found that in absolute terms it was impossible just as it is impossible to balance a lead pencil on it's sharpened tip in a sustainable fashion.

For the purposes of this topic I have claimed this pheno. to be a state of metastability. A state of "teetering" where by stasis, equalibrium or non-movement is impossible. The situation worsened when I wanted to move one of the magnets closer or further away in a controlled manner. Acceleration away or towards was incredibly hard to avoid.

And of course I asked the question; "Why is this so?"

"What is working at the most fundamental level of existence to generate this basic of all states?"

"Is it directly related to the question of why the universe seems to be in a state of pseudo perpetual motion?"

[I use the qualifier "pseudo" because I wish to avoid arguments about the absoluteness of the statement "perpetual" or for that matter the word "paradox" as well.]

It seemed to me that there was a direct correlation.

In this thread I will refer to just one specific [ scenario ] condition to show my reasoning. There are many other conditions that would show the same result but would be more complex to deal with here.

The simple scenario I have in mind consists of a source of gravitational attraction such as a star, a non- orbiting space ship and a force that the space ship can provide to counter that gravitational attraction.

For ease of explanation we shall use exaggerated abstract attractive force values ranging from 100 units of gravity to the 80 units the ship is enduring and so on, and the gradient of the force over distance is a "flat" reduction and not the usual "curved" reduction.

The setting of this scenario can be seen in the following diagram:

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%204.jpg>
We can take a closer look at our ship and re-confirm what was shown earlier

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%205.jpg>

Due to the infinite nature of finding stability the ship in this position is constantly teetering or moving and never at rest with the source of attraction.

The question then comes up:

What happens if we apply a force strong enough to move the ship further way from the attractor?

The force must be greater than 80 units to over come the immediate attraction.

Is it correct to say that if a force of greater than 80 units if maintained would generate an acceleration of the ship? As the attraction reduces yet the force applied by the ship is maintained the ship must accelerate away from the attractor.

If this is accepted as true then to this leads to the next question:

If the ship is merely to move from the position of 80 units to 79 units and then maintain that unstable position what must happen regarding the force applied by the ship?

The ship must apply a force greater than 80 units yet to achieve a position of only 79 units it must reduce that applied force from 80 to 79 units.

Thus the ship must apply a greater force to move to a position requiring lesser force.

Now if we look at this microscopically and think in terms of millimetres or even less of movement away from the attractor the same principle of greater to lesser applies.

Continued​

 

[Quantum Quack]

So we have what could be described in the following graph:

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%206.gif>

The above diagram is deliberately describing an invalid state due to the infinite nature of what I am discussing.

It only takes an infinitely small increase in applied force for the ship to move away from the attractor, however even so if that infinitely small increase in force is maintained the ship will accelerate and not be able to maintain the further position [ 79 units ]

The following diagram is probably a better rendition:
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%207.gif>

However even this diagram fails to show the infinitely small increase in force and then reduction in force needed to move to the metastable position of 79 units of attraction.

So the question is "What is happening here?"

We have a need for an infinitely small increase yet simultaneously if one wishes to move an infinitely small distance away from the attractor we need an infinitely small reduction. yet we know that logically the infinitely small increase must occur in the first instance. What this means is that it is impossible to have an absolutely smooth and acceleration free movement, that even what appears to be a uniform velocity is in fact non-uniform in absolute terms.

Does the above describe what appears to be a naturally derived pseudo paradox of movement within a field of attraction such as gravity?

I propose that it does.

The only solution to this problem is that at that infinitely small point in space the inverse of forces across and infinitely thin plane must exist to create this dilemma.

With out this inversion as described in diagram 3 [given again below] this pseudo paradox would not exist.
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%203.jpg>


If agreed, what ramifications does this have to our understanding of space time and matter?

It is evidenced in nature that this teetering or metastability is present in all things. The only way to satisfactorily describe this phenomena of infinitely small proportions is to consider the inversion of forces across an infinitely thin plane exists, thus showing why everything is in constant movement.

How does it help us in understanding how the vacuum of space has an energistic potential?

Does this help in understanding why quantum entangement generates non- communicative results?

Is the reasoning I have provided sound and does it make sense?