"Zero" is gravity. Discuss.

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

I have a vague speculation about something that I thought a few different perspectives might help.

Zero.

Zero returns to itself (as does "o" granted, as does "q" "r" "p" "a" "d", etc. but for the sake of clarity I am choosing "0")

Zero returns to itself.
Like Gravity returns matter to matter, so zero returns to itself.

Does that make zero gravity?
Or put scientifically, does 0 = g?

The reason this would make sense is also a little unclear to me, but I think essentially the inverse argument is:

If there was no gravity, there could be no 0.

Let me know if you think this makes sense or needs context (all other comments to be regarded with doubt). (You might want to give examples of where 0 occurs in the absence of gravity, for example).

 

[Paradoxum]

The symbol '0' is just a symbol. As far as I know the symbol isn't meant to convey information about the concept zero.

From what I know about physics, the further you move from a source of gravity the closer you get to minus infinite gravitational energy. The closer you get to the centre of the source of gravity, the closer to get to zero gravitational energy. I don't think this really helps you though.

Also, I'm not sure the phrase 'gravity is zero' contains any more information than 'that square is a circle'.

So, sorry, but I don't think your theory is correct.

 

[quatona]

Sorry, I quit smoking weed a long time ago.

 

[ADTClone]

Hi there,

I have a vague speculation about something that I thought a few different perspectives might help.

Zero.

Zero returns to itself (as does "o" granted, as does "q" "r" "p" "a" "d", etc. but for the sake of clarity I am choosing "0")

Zero returns to itself.

Like Gravity returns matter to matter, so zero returns to itself.

Does that make zero gravity?

Or put scientifically, does 0 = g?

The reason this would make sense is also a little unclear to me, but I think essentially the inverse argument is:

If there was no gravity, there could be no 0.

Let me know if you think this makes sense or needs context (all other comments to be regarded with doubt).

(You might want to give examples of where 0 occurs in the absence of gravity, for example).

Your argument is invalid and hence fallacious.

It is fallacious because you have concluded equivalence between two subjects because they have one attribute in common. In syllogistic form:

All A have the attribute C
All B have the attribute C
Therefore, all A are B

Whereas, the valid form would be:

All A have the attribute C
All B have the attribute C
Therefore, all A and B have the attribute C

Hence, your argument is fallacious and until you mend the fallacy, your argument is not cogent and should no further be used.

 

[ADTClone]

In a less formal explanation, "gravity" and "zero" are not the same things.

"zero" is an abstract concept which we apply through mathematics. "Zero" doesn't actually exist anywhere within our world.

"Gravity" on the other hand exists, and whilst we don't know the true nature of "gravity", we can observe it and these observations we label the force of gravity.

So the bottom line, the number zero doesn't exist, gravity does exist.

That's the second flaw in your argument that you will need to address.

 

[Gottservant]

I have thought about it a little more, and while it is interesting that you think I am making an "argument" of some kind, actually I am trying to understand the nature of equivalence, through natural observation.

Specifically, I think what I have been trying to get at here, is that a valid definition of gravity is simply "the foreclosure of space". Hence the remark about zero.

In context, what I said would make more sense if I had said "Zero is an example of the foreclosure of space that gravity is best represented by". But that would be to conflate the example with the representation - a big mistake?

 

[ADTClone]

I have thought about it a little more, and while it is interesting that you think I am making an "argument" of some kind, actually I am trying to understand the nature of equivalence, through natural observation.

Specifically, I think what I have been trying to get at here, is that a valid definition of gravity is simply "the foreclosure of space". Hence the remark about zero.

In context, what I said would make more sense if I had said "Zero is an example of the foreclosure of space that gravity is best represented by". But that would be to conflate the example with the representation - a big mistake?

I don't think "zero" is an example of gravity. You will have to convince me why it is.

Gravity is a label we have given to a phenomenon of objects being attracted to other objects, with the attraction following an inverse square proportionality.

Upon observation, many theories have been developed which describe this thing we label "gravity". The first of such were Newtons laws, which were very general. Our current model of gravity was formulated by Albert Einstein and involves the concept of a space-time, where space and time are dependent on one another. Gravity can be described by the curvature of space-time in this theorised model, which fits what we observe.

So I don't understand why you are saying zero is an example of something that gravity is best represented by. I just don't understand the example, or the purpose of the example.

 

[Gottservant]

If I say "there is a loophole in the law" you immediately accept that there is a way to get out of something...

Yet when I say "the loophole represents a law" you question me, again and again.

I think you need to take a break, and come back to it, or possibly not (no offence predicted).

 

[ADTClone]

If I say "there is a loophole in the law" you immediately accept that there is a way to get out of something...

Yet when I say "the loophole represents a law" you question me, again and again.

I think you need to take a break, and come back to it, or possibly not (no offence predicted).

I just don't understand what your point is.

""Zero" is gravity"

So what? Is there a point to what you are saying? I want to understand but at the moment I just don't.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm saying that as soon as you foreclose space, in absolutely any way, gravity is there.

therefore, when you foreclose space with a zero, gravity is perfectly manifest (having no obstruction)