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]
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.
Challenge:
If we apply infinite reduction to the dimensions of distance and time, what conclusions about the nature of zero can you make?
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...
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.
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.
@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.
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.