On Infinities in Physics
Sven Gelbhaar
9/1/2019
The point has been brought up that the inverse square law mandates that mass
has infinite attraction, either via electromagnetic force, or gravity (which
my paper on /Unified Force Theory/ postulates is an emergent property of the
former). This would invoke a singularity: a point where things go to
infinities, but “nature abhors a naked singularity.” (Stephen Hawking)
We’ve seen this sort of thing before, only applied to the Hubble Effect. If
the galaxies are racing away from a central point, then if we project back in
time this implies that at some point all galaxies came from one single point
which is infinitely small and (for the sake of the argument) dense. This
resultant theory of universal genesis, termed the “Big Bang Theory,” is however
flawed, as we’ve discussed in another paper or two. It is flawed in that a
red-shift of star emissions is a factor of distance, not said star traveling
away from the observer. It would be another matter if that star were getting
more red-shifted over time, but this hasn’t been observed. In fact, our
closest galactic neighbor – Andromeda – is slated to crash into our Milky Way
galaxy in the distant future.
The reasoning above contra Big Bang Theory doesn’t really pertain to the
infinite gravity/EM-force problem, however. The problem is: If the inverse
square law applies, then if you are infinitely close to a particle of matter,
its gravity (or EM force) would be infinitely high. Obviously this doesn’t
happen in reality, and here’s why: Infinity divided by two is still infinity.
Stated another way, if matter can impart infinite force at any point along
its distance axis, then it must impart infinite force along the whole. This
implies that the attraction force is a constant, to be subdivided
exponentially as distance increases. Empiricism to the rescue!