Zero Point Theory - the universal constant Gravity

[Prof.Layman]

I think I am starting to see how this could be seen as a paradox, but It seems to go along with Zeno's Paradox but the result of Zeno's Paradox is not valid by experiment. It states that if you could divide the distance between two objects an infinite number of times that you would have to move an infinite number of distances to get from point A to point B. Since an infinite number can not be achieved then movement would be impossible. He was more or less trying to show that infinite division was not valid in mathmatics because it holds no basis in reality, but the kicker is that we ended up doing it anyways because Plato didn't believe in his theory.

So if you where to divide a force in the same manner it seems like you are assuming that the amount of force you could apply would be infinitesimal. So then you would not be able to move the object at all, but the fact of the matter still stands that you can apply a force to move an object.

I think the solution to the paradox is that space is not continuous and is particular. It can't be divided infinitely. This would be because the Planck Scale has an effect on the basis of reality itself. So then any distance could only be divided into 10^-33cm, and everytime you move you jump all the distances inbetween that distance.

Say for instance you decided that you wanted to try and get better at playing basketball but you could hardly even dribble the ball. Your skills where so bad that you wouldn't be caught dead practicing so you only went out at night to practice. You noticed the light from the moon also might allow someone to see how horrible you where at it so you didn't even practice when the moon was out. You where really bad so you then did this every night there was no moon in the sky.

Physics tells us that with each impact of the basketball to the Earth would push the Earth ever closer and closer to the Moon. But it doesn't, if it did every random interaction on the planet could move it significantly if they where all considered together at the same time. The Earth would fall out of orbit of the Sun and we would all be doomed, just from every automobile accident being a collsion in the same direction. The thing is that we are so insignificant to the Mass of the Planet Earth, that each of those individual interactions has no effect on it. If the physicist just rounded the movement of Earth from the Planck Scale to zero, he could in turn describe the interaction more accurately.

I think the only possiblity of a Zero Point Theory having any basis on reality would be at the moment of the Big Bang. It would have had infinite energy and then "detect" something smaller than the Planck Scale.

So then in order to move an object more smoothly you would just need a bigger setup or a smaller magnet. For example, if you had a shaving of the magnet under the peice of iron that would only affect it at about the Plack Scale then it would be no different than if it wasn't even there at all.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think I am starting to see how this could be seen as a paradox, but It seems to go along with Zeno's Paradox but the result of Zeno's Paradox is not valid by experiment. It states that if you could divide the distance between two objects an infinite number of times that you would have to move an infinite number of distances to get from point A to point B. Since an infinite number can not be achieved then movement would be impossible. He was more or less trying to show that infinite division was not valid in mathmatics because it holds no basis in reality, but the kicker is that we ended up doing it anyways because Plato didn't believe in his theory.

I tend to feel that Zeno was attempting to describe the nature of "infinite reduction" generally using "infinitely small distances" as a vehicle.

As described in the theory tutorial Zeno was stating that due to infinite reduction, the Archilles could never beat the tortoise to his own spot in the race.
re: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/infinite-reduction

I am aware there are many different opinions about this particular paradox, however as AlphaNumeric mentioned, possibly for different reasons, Zeno did not demonstrate a paradox in itself but actually clarified the logic of infinite reduction. [ in other words the so called paradox is not a paradox but a logical outcome of an infinite grandient.]

Of course the use of an arbitary Planck limitation on dimension defeats the notion of infinity completely. IMO which is why I wrote that Plancks approach was a convenience to remove the difficulty science had with "infinity" and "zero".

I think the solution to the paradox is that space is not continuous and is particular. It can't be divided infinitely. This would be because the Planck Scale has an effect on the basis of reality itself. So then any distance could only be divided into 10^-33cm, and everytime you move you jump all the distances inbetween that distance.

The only answer I have to this is that the universe does not have to subscribe to Planck scales. The Plank scale is a artificial limitation placed by Planck. There is no evidence that suggests that space is not infinitely dividable both in distance and time, and the limitation is only imposed to support pre-existing theory and not observation. Even so the Planck minimum segment must have zero at it's center which means a planck segment of time has both a past at one end and a future at the other.

It is a common error for people to presume that theory is reality rather than theory being what it is - an abstraction used in an attempt to understand reality.
example: "Probability" is merely qualified speculation and not the reality that some would have you think. Science has never proven "chance" or "randomness" to be real logically however it is commony taken for granted that "chance and randomness" have a reality beyond mental abstraction.
Another:
No one has actualy observed a photon [ or energy for that matter ]other than by it's effect yet belief in the photons reality as modeled by science is extremely strong.

I think the only possiblity of a Zero Point Theory having any basis on reality would be at the moment of the Big Bang. It would have had infinite energy and then "detect" something smaller than the Planck Scale.

The notion of the big bang [or pre-exstance] is fundamentally flawed as logically there can be no "before time began" therefore logically there can be no beginning to an eternal time scale. Every moment in time can then be deemed to be the centre of eternity [time].

When extrapolated fully Zero Point theory will indicate that the so called Big Bang is constantly occuring in the present moment as the "NOW" of zero duration means that non-existance is actually in the centre of eternity and not at the start or end. The zero point being a null point in the centre between past and future.

In metaphorical terms this means that the universe was never created [past tense], but is in a constant state of creation [ present tense]
Human minds tend to require linea time progression form past to future etc however in reality the past is no longer and the future is a mere fantasy yet to be played out. The only thing "real" is the current moment which only exists due to the paradox of zero, whith out which it is contended the experience of the present moment woud be impossible as nothing can exist if there is no time for it to exist in. "t=0 duration is any point on a time line or simply t=0."

 

[Prof.Layman]

A paradox I ran into thinking about this was that Max Planck discovered both the laws of conservation and the Planck Scale. If you consider the Planck "perscription" of saying that nothing below the Planck Scale can be detected, then no interactions in that scale could ever reproduce any interactions that are larger than that scale.

So say I go back to the basketbal example, I calculate that after a single dribble that the Earth moved a fraction of the Plack Scale. No scientist is then able to detect the difference in the position of the Earth that was caused by doing this. They try harder and then find that the difference in the Earths position didn't affect anything in the universe by any means possible. So then where did the energy from this correction of the Earth moving less than the Planck Length go? How did Max Planck create a law of conservation of energy and then develop a theory where energy seems to vanish?

So then in order to uphold conservation we would have to say that no there can be no interaction below the Planck Scale, or we would be forced to say that the Planck Scale provides another loop hole for conservation. It would be like the Planck Scale would need Hawking Radiation, because it is now a black hole to energy.

I think the randomness or chance is logical when considering spacetime dialation and the particles own frame of reference. If you say a photon travels the speed of light and spacetime from its frame has contracted to zero, then there exist no classical description that could operate in a sense where one frame is nonzero and another is zero. We don't even have the classical mathmatics to describe such a situation.

So I think light traveling particles do in a way assume they are at rest, but the affects of them doing so has to coincide with how we observe them from our frame of reference. Then particle behavior in a sense becomes relative to the observer. It see's itself at multiple location at a time due to spacetime dialation, but then we don't see spacetime the same way it does so then it has to pick out a approximate location/speed to be detected at.

So then the only way I think quantum mechanics could revert to being truely classical would be for someone to invinte new mathmatics that can deal with infinities and zeros and I don't think it would prove to be even possible.

So I think it may be possible to describe all strange particle behaviour in terms of spacetime dialation, but it would never be possible to truly describe them this way classically mathmatically. How else could you explain a particle being shot one after another and the previous one interacting with the next? They both saw the same thing, a worldline crunched to zero, those observations overlapped and then had an effect on our reality that observered them observing us.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A paradox I ran into thinking about this was that Max Planck discovered both the laws of conservation and the Planck Scale. If you consider the Planck "perscription" of saying that nothing below the Planck Scale can be detected, then no interactions in that scale could ever reproduce any interactions that are larger than that scale.

I believe Panck was attempting to reconcile his theories with the second law, and certainly did not discovered them.

In November 1900, Planck revised this first approach, relying on Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics as a way of gaining a more fundamental understanding of the principles behind his radiation law

And as I mentioned earlier If t=0 has a static duration of any value then "absolute rest" is occuring. IMO.

A Planck time length is aso premised on the model that states a photon is traveling across a vaccum. This in itself has never been evidenced apart from effect only. [a photon is a imaginary or modelled construct only and has yet to be demonstrated as actually real]

* yeah I know the above comment raises a few eyebrows but many threads here at sciforums and other forums have been written on this subject with no resolution yet. [I even offered a $500 usd prize for about 3 years to any one who could demonstrate a photon as being anything other than an effect - the prize has since been withdrawn as I spent the money on a IPad]

Zero point theory requires no photons or energy to travel across a vacumm because space itself is zero time/distance for energy but has a value for objects of mass.
see:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/74-distance-a-illusion-of-mass

So say I go back to the basketbal example, I calculate that after a single dribble that the Earth moved a fraction of the Plack Scale. No scientist is then able to detect the difference in the position of the Earth that was caused by doing this. They try harder and then find that the difference in the Earths position didn't affect anything in the universe by any means possible. So then where did the energy from this correction of the Earth moving less than the Planck Length go? How did Max Planck create a law of conservation of energy and then develop a theory where energy seems to vanish?

If you hold to a finite universe as Planck's theories imply then of course this poses a problem.
The universe can remain a closed system and yet have inifinite elements to it.
example: even if the universe is infinite in size and eternally existant it can still be a closed system and the 2nd law of themro dynamics remains true.
Zero point theory is not in conflict with this law. [in fact it strengthens it by providing a mechanism that closes the system as there is no escape from this universe because this is all there is]

So then in order to uphold conservation we would have to say that no there can be no interaction below the Planck Scale, or we would be forced to say that the Planck Scale provides another loop hole for conservation. It would be like the Planck Scale would need Hawking Radiation, because it is now a black hole to energy.

Not if that energy is universally distributed via a single zero point. [gravitational constant and a mechanism for inertia]
see images at bottom:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/universal-constancy

I think the randomness or chance is logical when considering spacetime dialation and the particles own frame of reference. If you say a photon travels the speed of light and spacetime from its frame has contracted to zero, then there exist no classical description that could operate in a sense where one frame is nonzero and another is zero. We don't even have the classical mathmatics to describe such a situation.

I fail to understand the relevance to "chance" or "randomness " both being unevidenced nor even logically defined by science. Probability being only qualified speculation only.

So I think light traveling particles do in a way assume they are at rest, but the affects of them doing so has to coincide with how we observe them from our frame of reference. Then particle behavior in a sense becomes relative to the observer. It see's itself at multiple location at a time due to spacetime dialation, but then we don't see spacetime the same way it does so then it has to pick out a approximate location/speed to be detected at.

The current model for light or EMR brings about this problem of perspectives not the universe.IMO

So then the only way I think quantum mechanics could revert to being truely classical would be for someone to invinte new mathmatics that can deal with infinities and zeros and I don't think it would prove to be even possible.

I am sure if they continue they will have to eventually invent something to accommodate the ongoing nature of the paradox. [in other words until the attraction paradox is understood and included in their work it will always be present in any model they choose to create or utilise... a bit like a Zeno rabbit chasing a tortoise down a hole ]

 

[Prof.Layman]

I double checked and found that he discovered Planck's Law, on black body radiation. I have seem to have gotten that confused with the laws of conservation.

I find it funny that you propose that the photon is imaginary or a model construct. I would have agrued just the opposite. I beleive all other particles to be some sort of imaginary construct of the photon. For one, I am not blind, now give me my 500 bucks, lol. Secoundly, particle accelerators detect photons and electrons not any of the other particles that come out of the reaction. Then describing the mathmatical interactions that have affected these particles do we know what else has happend from the collision. Also, if you combine matter with antimatter, you get pure energy or light particles without mass. So I would ask a similar question, how then could you prove that any other particle is not an imaginary construct of the photon? I could for example explain any particle theory completely in terms of photons in a unified theory as long as it doesn't involve gravity.

More recent discoveries about the cosmological constant have shown that the universe is open, or it is unbound and will expand forever. And the 2011 Nobel Prize was awarded for it. The real problem I see here is that you say energy is universally distributed via a single zero point. I am bringing in the Planck Scale, because I can't figure a way how this would ever be allowed in quantum theory. You couldn't ever incorporate the theory into quantum mechanics and have it work out with existing theory. I could say okay I believe you and it does, but then it could never leave the Planck Scale and wouldn't have an affect on anything, it would no longer be a testable theory and if it did have an effect on objects in the macro scale it would have been measured or tricked us into thinking our current theory was wrong because this effect was missing. I just don't think it is quacky enough to describe the quantum realm.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I double checked and found that he discovered Planck's Law, on black body radiation. I have seem to have gotten that confused with the laws of conservation.

I find it funny that you propose that the photon is imaginary or a model construct. I would have agrued just the opposite. I beleive all other particles to be some sort of imaginary construct of the photon. For one, I am not blind, now give me my 500 bucks, lol.

A common enough response as the belief in the reality of the photon is so strong yet none have ever demonstrated it beyond the effect. For all you know the light effect could be a resonance effect over zero space which is what Zero point theory would suggest. Same data outcomes but different causality.

In a way it is the same with gravity as science tries to model it as a "graviton" or some sort of particle inspired effect, yet could it be simply dimensional collapse as space attempts to collapse from 4 dimensions to zero dimension. [ no imaginary particles needed ]

The photon model is so entrenched in the minds of man that he will bend over backwards to attempt to accommodate it. Including the way our vision [brains] work.

Secoundly, particle accelerators detect photons and electrons not any of the other particles that come out of the reaction. Then describing the mathmatical interactions that have affected these particles do we know what else has happend from the collision. Also, if you combine matter with antimatter, you get pure energy or light particles without mass. So I would ask a similar question, how then could you prove that any other particle is not an imaginary construct of the photon? I could for example explain any particle theory completely in terms of photons in a unified theory as long as it doesn't involve gravity.

again this is only our attempt to explain an effect we observe and certainly offers no evidence of a particle.
Sheesh! we can't even be certain whether it is a partice or wave. Nor can we describe a photons size adequately nor even whether it has mass or not, whether it is a zero dimensional particle [ therefore nonexistant ] or a 3 dimensional particle [existant]

Religious people attempt to do like wise and will offer similar defence by attempting to claim God exists by the effects they experience.
The effects are evidence of something and we simply try to model a causality.

More recent discoveries about the cosmological constant have shown that the universe is open, or it is unbound and will expand forever. And the 2011 Nobel Prize was awarded for it. The real problem I see here is that you say energy is universally distributed via a single zero point. I am bringing in the Planck Scale, because I can't figure a way how this would ever be allowed in quantum theory. You couldn't ever incorporate the theory into quantum mechanics and have it work out with existing theory. I could say okay I believe you and it does, but then it could never leave the Planck Scale and wouldn't have an affect on anything, it would no longer be a testable theory and if it did have an effect on objects in the macro scale it would have been measured or tricked us into thinking our current theory was wrong because this effect was missing. I just don't think it is quacky enough to describe the quantum realm.

and the only way to accommodate cosmic expansion and yet still maintain the constancy of gravity [universally] is with a zero point as nothing else can perform this function. [there is only one zero point universally as all zeros are the same zero]

Zero point theory is no doubt contraversial, but then again so is the challenge to support the following notions:

• The existance of a photon beyond merely it's effect.
• The mechanism that allows quantum entangement of half particles regardless of distance of separation. [spooky action at a distance]
• Tunnelling effects.
• A mechanism that allows the conformity [invariance] of inertia and mass universally.
• A mechanism that can accommodate spatial expansion, in both time and length universally in a way that is absolutley uniform [ cosmic expansion ]
• and so on..

Even length contraction and time dialation as proposed by Special Relativity Theory [SRT] has to have a mechanism to accommmodate observer ignorance and only the use of zero as central to everything can perform this function
The biggest issue I have with SRT is that it introduces a "relative zero" which means that the math used when calculating the transforms is subject to a variable and arbitary or contrived zero and not an actual zero. [re: relativity of simultaneity]
So science has introduced a fabricated zero as a variable with out realising it and zero is not able to be a variable. This being purely to accommodate an incorrect belief in the photons reality. IMO
To me, it is up to supporters of SRT to prove that the zero they use is absolutely zero and not relative.

 

[Prof.Layman]

I don't think the photon is affected by a zero point, I think it is affected by something more around the Planck Scale. Take a look at Plancks Constant for instance. The value is almost the same as Plack Time, about 10^-34 secounds. So then that means there is a fundemental constant in nature that is affecting energy that is on the same scale or size of the proposed smallest something can even be measured. h-bar in jouls per secound is almost equivelent to Planck Time. You can't help but think there must be something really profound about this. The properties of the photon are affected by Planck Time, it is the unit circle of quantum physics.

A lot of faith in the graviton has been lost, I don't think the graviton is even a proper way to describe quantum gravity. I saw a proof in one of Einsteins Papers that was on the net saying it was the general theory of relativity (lost the link). But it seemed to show that if there was a quanta to gravity that the amount of quanta on any given surface would be infinite. I think this was just a double check to make sure he was taking gravity into the right direction. With the failure of the graviton, and the discovery of a Higgs type boson science will take more of a direction explaining quantum gravity with the Higgs Field and I support that pursuit.

If there are an infinite amount of zero points and all of them act on everything, then everything would be filled with infinite energy. Gravity cannot be quantized, there would have to be an infinite desity of a round boundy in order to "exchange" its gravity with everything else in the universe.

I think the "relative zero" may be very neccassary to support quantum entanglement as working the same regardless of distance of seperation. If c was not exactly the speed of light it would allow spacetime contraction to be nonzero for something traveling the speed of light. If that value was nonzero then it would allow an experimentor to say that there is a 100% chance that the photon will be between here and here at this moment because it observed the distance farther than that to be a different location from its frame of reference. But since its frame of reference exist when we observe the particle pair, we notice the effects of that indirectly as the "spooky action at a distance". The particles merely see the time they where joined and seperated at the same time, so then when its spin changes it changes it through that whole duration in its frame that has to coincide with what we then see in our frame. Since it happens all at once in its frame, we see it changing FTL in our frame. So I think the effect can be explained logically, but not mathmatically in this fashion. The only way it could is if spooky action at a distance had a limit to the amount of distance it could perform this spooky action, that has never been mentioned of from any experiment.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don't think the photon is affected by a zero point, I think it is affected by something more around the Planck Scale. Take a look at Plancks Constant for instance. The value is almost the same as Plack Time, about 10^-34 secounds. So then that means there is a fundemental constant in nature that is affecting energy that is on the same scale or size of the proposed smallest something can even be measured. h-bar in jouls per secound is almost equivelent to Planck Time. You can't help but think there must be something really profound about this. The properties of the photon are affected by Planck Time, it is the unit circle of quantum physics.

A lot of faith in the graviton has been lost, I don't think the graviton is even a proper way to describe quantum gravity. I saw a proof in one of Einsteins Papers that was on the net saying it was the general theory of relativity (lost the link). But it seemed to show that if there was a quanta to gravity that the amount of quanta on any given surface would be infinite. I think this was just a double check to make sure he was taking gravity into the right direction. With the failure of the graviton, and the discovery of a Higgs type boson science will take more of a direction explaining quantum gravity with the Higgs Field and I support that pursuit.

If there are an infinite amount of zero points and all of them act on everything, then everything would be filled with infinite energy. Gravity cannot be quantized, there would have to be an infinite desity of a round boundy in order to "exchange" its gravity with everything else in the universe.

I think the "relative zero" may be very neccassary to support quantum entanglement as working the same regardless of distance of seperation. If c was not exactly the speed of light it would allow spacetime contraction to be nonzero for something traveling the speed of light. If that value was nonzero then it would allow an experimentor to say that there is a 100% chance that the photon will be between here and here at this moment because it observed the distance farther than that to be a different location from its frame of reference. But since its frame of reference exist when we observe the particle pair, we notice the effects of that indirectly as the "spooky action at a distance". The particles merely see the time they where joined and seperated at the same time, so then when its spin changes it changes it through that whole duration in its frame that has to coincide with what we then see in our frame. Since it happens all at once in its frame, we see it changing FTL in our frame. So I think the effect can be explained logically, but not mathmatically in this fashion. The only way it could is if spooky action at a distance had a limit to the amount of distance it could perform this spooky action, that has never been mentioned of from any experiment.

Sorry but I have nothing further to add to our discussion.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

say, you wish to move the center of gravity of object A inifintesimally to position B away from the source of attraction [ ie. atractive force reducing]
You need to apply greater force than required at position A but less force than required at position B.
this is the paradox...

Why is it a paradox? Some forces get weaker with distance. This isn't a paradox, it's actually quite intuitive.

if you applied the force required at position B at position A the object would "fall" and move away and not towards position B
simple demo class room experiment see:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/51-attraction-paradox-empirical-evidence
and maybe you are right and there is no paradox...

And that's just "The force isn't constant".

Your 'paradox' is some forces get weaker over larger distances. You might find it strange or difficult to understand but neither of those are paradoxes. A paradox is something which is logically inconsistent, which cannot be made valid no matter how to view it, something like A is not A. Many 'paradoxes' in physics are actually examples of how normal intuition fails, like the 'twin paradox' of relativity. The concept of a force which gets weaker with increased distance is a mathematically sound concept, there is no paradox in the concept. Whether or not reality behaves like that is a different thing, logically sound concepts might not have a real world manifestation but they are still sound. So we have a mathematically sound abstract construct which describes a consistent observation about reality. There's no paradox there, only the possibility of someone not understanding it. Someone like yourself. This does not make it paradoxical. I don't understand Japanese, doesn't mean it's paradoxical or inconsistent and until I learn Japanese I'm not going to go around telling Japanese people how to talk, as that would be foolish. You, on the other hand, are telling mathematicians and physicists there is a paradox in their work when you haven't bothered to learn and understand their work.

Of course the use of an arbitary Planck limitation on dimension defeats the notion of infinity completely. IMO which is why I wrote that Plancks approach was a convenience to remove the difficulty science had with "infinity" and "zero".

Except the Planck length isn't a lower limit on lengths, it's the length scale where you have to consider quantum gravity, thus rendering our current quantum models completely inaccurate. That is why we can't go smaller at the moment in our models.

The only answer I have to this is that the universe does not have to subscribe to Planck scales.

Notice how you phrased that, the only answer you have to this. You aren't the benchmark by which science or reality is measured.

It is a common error for people to presume that theory is reality rather than theory being what it is - an abstraction used in an attempt to understand reality.

Laypersons maybe but scientists generally don't make that mistake.

The notion of the big bang [or pre-exstance] is fundamentally flawed as logically there can be no "before time began" therefore logically there can be no beginning to an eternal time scale.

Now you're showing you don't even know what the big bang model is. The BBM says that long ago (about 13.7 billion years according to observations) the universe was very small and very hot and it then underwent a particular form of expansion. It makes no comment about the 'moment of creation' or before, just as evolution has nothing to do with how life first arose (that's the realm of abiogenesis). But good on you for more misrepresentations and declarations of supposed logical flaws in things you haven't bothered to find out about properly. Go you.

When extrapolated fully Zero Point theory will indicate that...

I'm sure it'll indicate whatever you want it to because you aren't being led by logic, you're leading it by your whims and unjustified opinions. This is why there's not going to be any mathematical formalism possible for ZPT, maths follows logic, it will tell you the logical implications of the postulates you feed into it. Your opinions and whims pay no attention to proper logic. This is why the whole "I've done the concepts, someone else can do the maths" thing of hacks is so flawed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Why is it a paradox? Some forces get weaker with distance. This isn't a paradox, it's actually quite intuitive.

And that's just "The force isn't constant".

Your 'paradox' is some forces get weaker over larger distances. You might find it strange or difficult to understand but neither of those are paradoxes. A paradox is something which is logically inconsistent, which cannot be made valid no matter how to view it, something like A is not A. Many 'paradoxes' in physics are actually examples of how normal intuition fails, like the 'twin paradox' of relativity. The concept of a force which gets weaker with increased distance is a mathematically sound concept, there is no paradox in the concept. Whether or not reality behaves like that is a different thing, logically sound concepts might not have a real world manifestation but they are still sound. So we have a mathematically sound abstract construct which describes a consistent observation about reality. There's no paradox there, only the possibility of someone not understanding it. Someone like yourself. This does not make it paradoxical. I don't understand Japanese, doesn't mean it's paradoxical or inconsistent and until I learn Japanese I'm not going to go around telling Japanese people how to talk, as that would be foolish. You, on the other hand, are telling mathematicians and physicists there is a paradox in their work when you haven't bothered to learn and understand their work.

It is strange to me how you have missed the entire issue of the paradox. Of course forces get weaker as distance increases from the source and of course this poses no paradox in itself... You may need to read the explanation again.

Now you're showing you don't even know what the big bang model is. The BBM says that long ago (about 13.7 billion years according to observations) the universe was very small and very hot and it then underwent a particular form of expansion. It makes no comment about the 'moment of creation' or before, just as evolution has nothing to do with how life first arose (that's the realm of abiogenesis). But good on you for more misrepresentations and declarations of supposed logical flaws in things you haven't bothered to find out about properly. Go you.

I was answering Prof Laypersons post where he refers to the Big bang in exnhilo terms.

I'm sure it'll indicate whatever you want it to because you aren't being led by logic, you're leading it by your whims and unjustified opinions. This is why there's not going to be any mathematical formalism possible for ZPT, maths follows logic, it will tell you the logical implications of the postulates you feed into it. Your opinions and whims pay no attention to proper logic. This is why the whole "I've done the concepts, someone else can do the maths" thing of hacks is so flawed.

again you have demonstrated a failure to actually read what I post...and if you wish we can go through it step by step if you lke....

 

[Pete]

Seems you're getting tangled in dynamics, QQ.
To move something intially stationary at A to finally stationary at B it has to accelerate and decelerate, so the force on it will change over time.

There's nothing paradoxical about this.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Seems you're getting tangled in dynamics, QQ.
To move something intially stationary at A to finally stationary at B it has to accelerate and decelerate, so the force on it will change over time.

There's nothing paradoxical about this.

ahh but there is if this occurs in a field of reducing attraction. Ie. gravitational force differentials between Positions A and B. In space that has no fields of attraction present [which is not possible] you would be correct in your assessment however the entire universe has some degree of attractive gravitational fields at play.

from the web site:

Whether refering to dipole fields such as magnetism where the rule is "inverse cubed" or a monopole field such as Gravity where the rule "inverse squared" the paradox is still evident. All it takes is a reducing strength of the attraction , the further you move away from the source of attraction.

The Attraction Paradox applies to any situation where attraction is present on a reducing basis as distance increases from the source.​

The actual paradox is relatively simple to explain, with the application of infinite reduction, to test and to observe, very axiomatic and very fundamental and whilst not able to be demonstrated directly as zero is non-existant the following statement can demonstrate the fundamental attraction paradox:

"It requires greater force to move to position
where less force is required."​

re: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/attraction-paradox

and:

For example if an object is suspended in a gravitational field with a force applied equal to 100 units, to maintain a relatively stationary positon relatve to the source of attaction then any force greater than 100 units will see it "escape" that position and cause it to accellerate away from the source of attraction. This in itself is nothing unique of special and it is well understood and utilised by scientist on a regular basis.

However what is of interest and important to note is that if we appy "infinite reduction" to the amount of force in excess of the 100 units any force no matter how small will cause accelleration away from the source as the field of attraction weakens [over t/d] facilitating the accelleration.

In the example given it would only require 100 force units + 1/infinity force unit, needed to escape the position and start to accelerate.

It is only when we wish to avoid continuous acceleration that the paradox becomes highlighted.

If we wish to move our object only for 1/infiinite amount of distance, we would have to both increase and decrease our force simultaneously over a 1/infinity amount of time duration to avoid over shooting.
re: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/attraction-paradox?showall=&start=2

and most importantly:

100 + [1/infinty] to move to a position requiring 100 - [1/infinity]

So it can be concluded that at exactly zero in a gravitational field zero is paradoxed as both requiring more and less force applied simultaneously to be sustained as an exact position.
re: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/attraction-paradox?showall=&start=2

The best thing for you to do is work it out for yourself.

Highschool lab task:

Form a conclusion to the following scenario using absolutes:
"In a gravitational field move any object a distance of (1/infinity) away from the source of attraction.
And note the required forces including the weakening gravitational force over that 1/infinity distance."
Show workings
Form a conclusion [ opinion ]

 

[Pete]

ahh but there is if this occurs in a field of reducing attraction. Ie. gravitational force differentials between Positions A and B.

No, it's still simple dynamics, with no paradoxes.
Start stationary at A. Accelerate. Decelerate. Stop stationary at B.
No problem.

In a gravitational field move any object a distance of (1/infinity) away from the source of attraction.
And note the required forces including the weakening gravitational force over that 1/infinity distance.

That would be no movement at all.

Perhaps you mean "move an object a distance of h away from the source of attraction, and consider what happens as h approaches zero"?
(It seems to be implied that the object is stationary at the beginning and end of this movement.)

Which is easy to do.
Accelerate.
Decelerate.
No problem.

It's even easier if we remove the implication of being stationary to start and finish.

 

[Pete]

However what is of interest and important to note is that if we appy "infinite reduction" to the amount of force in excess of the 100 units any force no matter how small will cause accelleration away from the source as the field of attraction weakens [over t/d] facilitating the accelleration.

There's nothing paradoxical here, either.
You've pointed out that maintaining a mass at a constant distance from a gravity well by applying a constant thrust is a non-stable equilibrium, but that's not paradoxical.

Equilibrium: Stable or Unstable?

If the system moves away from the equilibrium after small disturbances, then the equilibrium is unstable.​

 

[Quantum Quack]

non-stable equilibrium

which is one of the things explained...
The paradox when understood explains an "unstable equilibrium" as you put it. It explains why there can be no "absolute rest"
I would suggest you do the lab experiment for your self [virtually or practically]
edit: it explains a "stable" equilibrium as well

 

[Quantum Quack]

Say, we have an object suspended in a gravitational field which takes 100 units of counter force to maintain a stable equilibrium.
We then wish to move that object to a position further away from the source of attraction that requires [100 - (1/infinity)] to maintain a stable equilibrium.
What forces do you have to apply to facilitate that movement with out over shooting the target position.

 

[Quantum Quack]

love the new forum look and function btw

 

[Pete]

Sorry, QQ, I don't see anything paradoxical, or anything that needs explaining.

 

[Pete]

Say, we have an object suspended in a gravitational field which takes 100 units of counter force to maintain a stable equilibrium.

No, it's an unstable equilibrium.
Any infinitesimal change in the counter force will lead to acceleration away from the position of stability.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, it's an unstable equilibrium.
Any infinitesimal change in the counter force will lead to acceleration away from the position of stability.

correct.

if position A requires 100 units of counter force
and position B requires 99 units of counter force
In a field of reducing attraction what forces must be applied to faciliate movement from A to B? where B is further away from the source of attraction?
hint: "you have to accellerate and deaccellerate however the deaccelleration has to be greater than the accelleration"