I shall repsond to your post using your last comments first:
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.
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.
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!".
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:
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!".
With:
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"
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?]