[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

It is not possible for an object in  motion to pass numbers and reach infinity  but in the following case  An object at motion can be considered  to be passing  infinite  numbers 4 , 4.1 , 4.11 ,  4.111 , infinity ,  5  limit  , an object moving from 1 to 2 distance passes fraction of infinite numbers reaches infinity  which is represented  by 2

In the case of infinite numbers from 1 to 2
1) Limit of x as x approaching 2 is 2
In the case of infinite numbers from let's say 5 Newton   to 0 zero  Newton
2) Limit of y as y approaching 0  is 0

The contradiction   is gravity being infinite is that number 2 equation should have value of infinity , but logically gravity decrease and it is limit is 0
The conclusion of all the above is gravity in fact reaches zero in points in space-time while space-time is infinite , it means gravity is not infinity.

accelerated values of gravity distance could be a case of infinite numbers  from 1 to 2 passed by an object this object is  in fact reaches 2 and passes infinite numbers.
 
My hypothesis gravity is limited to a range extending at the speed of c  that is numbers in this  range in fact has limit beyond this limit gravity equals zero , I can choose gravity to decrease infinity  in an accelerated way to reach zero at the edge .

Newton gravity equation is valid, gravity in case it is limited , has limited range extend with the speed of light from a number and ends zero at the edge It has nothing to do with the infinite distance of space time  ,  The fact is we have infinite distance related to infinite space-time and  we have another distance related  to the range ends in zero . .

[Bored chemist]

What problem do you think you are trying to solve?

[Halc]

It is not possible for an object in  motion to pass numbers and reach infinity but in the following case

Pass numbers?  You make them sound like kidney stones.  Infinity is not a number.  If you're talking about moving a given distance in a reference frame, then there is no distance that cannot be reached given no limit in time to do it, so your assertion (if that is what you're asserting) is false.

An object at motion can be considered  to be passing  infinite  numbers 4 , 4.1 , 4.11 ,  4.111 , infinity ,  5

Again, infinity is not a number, and it certainly isn't one between 4.111 and 5.  Are we trying to argue Zeno here?

an object moving from 1 to 2 distance passes fraction of infinite numbers reaches infinity  which is represented  by 2

OK, you are.  2 represents a finite number, not infinity.  The distance between 1 and 2 is 1, not 'the count of points between the two'. Your complete mutilation of mathematics, physics, and even syntax, holds no weight from this point the beginning onward.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Then there is no distance that cannot be reached given no limit in time to do it, so your assertion (if that is what you're asserting) is false.

An object at motion moves from 1 to 2 infinitely.

[Bored chemist]

What do you mean by "moves  from 1 to 2 infinitely."?

You really must explain yourself better.

[Halc]

An object at motion moves from 1 to 2 infinitely.

As I said, you're making a mutilation of even syntax. As B-C point out, the above comment makes no syntactic sense.  Yes, something like a spinning object, absent something that stops it, will have its atoms move from side to side (from 1 to 2 and back again) an indefinite number of iterations. That's probably not what you meant, but your syntactic travesty above said nothing that allows me to take a better guess.

So take an object moving at one meter per second, from 1 to 2 (a meter apart).  Where will it be one second after passing the 1 mark?  If you claim anywhere but 2, your proposal (in the OP) can trivially be falsified.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

What do you mean by "moves  from 1 to 2 infinitely."?
You really must explain yourself .

As a result of my argument " 4.0 , 4.00, 4.000 , 4 distance limit " An object starts from 4 meters and time 0 seconds seems it won't start motion at all   , but in fact it starts infinitely from absolute zero distance.

[Bored chemist]

None of what you say makes sense.

[Kryptid]

How can something "start infinitely"?

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

How can something "start infinitely"?

It starts from infinitely small distance " from 1"  and ends up in 2 and, we could reverse the process an object starts from 2 and ends in 1 , gravity starts from 5 and ends up in 0 and we could reveres it from zero to 5

[Hayseed]

I do believe that infinity is in one direction only, out.  It's the direction light goes to.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Gravity decreases in accelerated way in which it never reach zero , but the zero is beyond the edge and the edge has infinitely small  gravity .

[Hayseed]

I think gravity is local.  In fact, I believe rotation makes it so.  I think rotation limits the range of E and M force, until it is cut.  Velocity factor.

[Kryptid]

I think gravity is local.  In fact, I believe rotation makes it so.  I think rotation limits the range of E and M force, until it is cut.  Velocity factor.

That's just plain wrong.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

I think gravity is local.  In fact, I believe rotation makes it so.  I think rotation limits the range of E and M force, until it is cut.  Velocity factor.

The rotation could be a proof,  According to Einstein theory of relativity , rotation increases mass , that causes more space-time curvature , the new energy/mass will cause gravity extendable range

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

None of what you say makes sense.

No.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Gravity:
As a  result of my previous argument , gravity has a zero value , must exists somewhere in infinite space-time, it means gravity doesn't extend with its zero value to infinity , and it means the idea of gravity never reach zero is wrong, my argument is for a moving object from zero co-ordinate  to 1 unit it starts infinitely  small to reach the 1 unit which represent infinity, it means if the object starts infinitely small it will reach infinitely the 1 unit,  if the object starts infinitely it will cover all the possible fractions that could be, , an d it will end up at infinity  which is the 1 unit, it starts from infinity " the zero " and ends up at 1 unit which is itself represent infinity

Gravity starts from zero infinitely small and ends at let's say 5 Newton, while for the object zero can be reached , it is the same idea for gravity, the zero unit for the object is reachable " starting  backwards from 1 unit", gravity zero value is reachable, the idea of unreachable zero value is wrong, if we compare the " 0 and 1 " case the zero will be reachable , for gravity the 0 zero is unreachable , the comparison is the object moves from 1 to zero reaches zero if it won't reach zero the zero should moves to infinity  becoming unreachable , for gravity if zero gravity is unreachable the zero should exists at infinity , it means zero value extends infinitely, but if so the value of gravity between  let's say 5 and zero will extend infinitely, and the gravity value between 5 and zero will change continuously, since the coordinates points will take new positions.

According to my theory   zero gravity exists and reachable, starting from let's say 5 to 0, the zero exists at the edge of a range the gravity range a according to my theory  extends withe speed of light , the gravity value decreases infinitely from let's say 5 to 0, I.e the zero is reachable, beyond this range gravity value is zero. It doesn’t matter when the mass exists causing gravity range.

The idea of extendable range “ my theory “ and current theory  “ extending zero to infinity “ is different, the values of co-ordinate point “ according to my theory “ are fixed the range extends leaving gravity value without change, and the current theory problem is mentioned above.

[Bored chemist]

None of what you say makes sense.