Special Relativity

There has been a lot of talk of Special Relativity, so I'm just going to clear some things up so no one can BS it.


There is a coordinate system K with coordinates x, y, z and a time coordinate t.
There is a coordinate system K', moving at velocity v in the x direction relative to K, with coordinates x', y', z', and a time coordinate t'.
c is the speed of light.

These are the equations:



Where this is the Lorentz Factor:



So just multiply them together.  I don't know why they put it like that.  Just imagine the Lorentz factor, with the part in the original equation on the top instead of just 1.

The denominator in the Lorentz factor is extremely close to 1 when v is nowhere near c, so you just divide by very near to 1 and the rate of time and distance is not affected greatly, but as we reach the speed of light, as the Earth will after a lot of time, but it cannot reach or pass the speed of light.  Time will slow down, which will decrease your relative speed, and distance will grow in the direction you're moving.  This will avoid breaking the "cosmic speed limit" of the speed of light.

Relative to ...what?  To something, Earth will be moving faster and faster, until time necessarily slows and direction grows, but the speed relative to, um, that same thing, will be decreased.  If you go outside of the Earth to whatever the Earth is relative to, then the Earth will no longer be accelerating much, it will just be approaching asymptotically the speed of light, or it will get closer and closer to the speed of light, without reaching it.  Which is awesome.



This is bad, but just look at the left half.  The x-axis is speed, and the y-axis is the slowing of time or growing of distance.  Take your pick.

Time will slow down until it is, essentialy, not moving.  It will be lowered every second it constantly accelerates, and time will get slower and slower and never go on, simply be very nearly frozen for all eternity.  This would have happened a long time ago, and the year 2011 would never have began.  I have determined that it will take 30,559,883.588 seconds to accelerate to this speed, which is 353 days, 16 hours, 51 minutes, and 23.588 seconds.

Of course, time will have slowed down, so we won't be quite at that point yet, so, quite awesomely, this will probably happen after about a year.

But I've been alive for much more than a year, and the point is, time won't even go on, even slowly beyond all imagination, if it's accelerating at an entirely constant rate.  To us, theoretically, the moment will pass without our noticing, but the problem is, the moment won't pass.  Time will have, essentially, ended.


So, in other words, the end of time will come in one year.

So, in other words, the end of time will come in one year.

Well, more like 376 days or so.

The jig is up, buddy. When you posted the topic "Galaxies" after I asked what to galaxies revolve around in Q&A I pretended not to notice. But posting yet another suspiciously similar article after I posted a in-depth general relativity thread is too far.

Think of your own god damn topics instead of basing them off mine.

...
Time will slow down until it is, essentialy, not moving....

But only for the observers not being accelerated by FE's mysterious Dark Energy. From your perspective on the RE, time continues normally.

Relativity often trips up REers here. Indeed, I recall reading when the FEers decided to drop normal gravity (as it causes serious problems for FET), they were quite happy that they would be able to confound REers.

Now, if you want to attack this concept in FET, I suggest you look at the energy requirements to maintain that incredible acceleration. FET requires a 'fiat' of energy greater than all energy seen in the Universe it all its history in the next second. See math at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43779.msg1085683#msg1085683.

Quote from: El Cid on December 09, 2011, 08:53:51 PM

...
Time will slow down until it is, essentialy, not moving....

But only for the observers not being accelerated by FE's mysterious Dark Energy. From your perspective on the RE, time continues normally.

Relativity often trips up REers here. Indeed, I recall reading when the FEers decided to drop normal gravity (as it causes serious problems for FET), they were quite happy that they would be able to confound REers.

Now, if you want to attack this concept in FET, I suggest you look at the energy requirements to maintain that incredible acceleration. FET requires a 'fiat' of energy greater than all energy seen in the Universe it all its history in the next second. See math at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43779.msg1085683#msg1085683.

Yes, but the problem is, a second for us would be a trillion years for someone in whatever we're moving relative to (what is it?).  True, the time would still pass, for us we wouldn't notice it, but you're being unrealistic.  The universe isn't perfect.  Something large would hit the Earth.  Considering how fast we're moving, it would probably destroy the Earth, especially when millions of meteorites of the size that destroyed the dinosaurs would be hitting every second, if you assume that one hits every 65 million years, approximately (and by the way, it's probably a whole lot more than a trillion years anyway).  Also, we would observe, through our telescopes, that everything's happening really fast.  Not a single hint of anything like this has been observed.

Also, what are we moving relative to?  The way I see it, the entire universe has to be moving with us, or else we would see something coming up to us really fast.  Even that's unrealistic, though, because, obviously, if everything's moving, there will be a lot of gravitational effects.

Besides, if the entire universe is moving, then it's not relative to anything and therefore is meaningless.  It's like Syndrome said in The Incredibles, "I will sell my inventions, so that everyone can have them!  Everyone can be super!  And when everyone's super...*cackle* No one is."

If everyone's super, then super is normal, and super is no longer very special.  If everything's accelerating, then in Machian relativity, nothing is.  We're all just perfectly still and people can float around weightlessly.  Man, why can't that be true?  I hate gravity.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 09, 2011, 09:47:15 PM

Quote from: El Cid on December 09, 2011, 08:53:51 PM

...
Time will slow down until it is, essentialy, not moving....

But only for the observers not being accelerated by FE's mysterious Dark Energy. From your perspective on the RE, time continues normally.

Relativity often trips up REers here. Indeed, I recall reading when the FEers decided to drop normal gravity (as it causes serious problems for FET), they were quite happy that they would be able to confound REers.

Now, if you want to attack this concept in FET, I suggest you look at the energy requirements to maintain that incredible acceleration. FET requires a 'fiat' of energy greater than all energy seen in the Universe it all its history in the next second. See math at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43779.msg1085683#msg1085683.

Yes, but the problem is, a second for us would be a trillion years for someone in whatever we're moving relative to (what is it?).  True, the time would still pass, for us we wouldn't notice it, but you're being unrealistic.  The universe isn't perfect.  Something large would hit the Earth.  Considering how fast we're moving, it would probably destroy the Earth, especially when millions of meteorites of the size that destroyed the dinosaurs would be hitting every second, if you assume that one hits every 65 million years, approximately (and by the way, it's probably a whole lot more than a trillion years anyway).  Also, we would observe, through our telescopes, that everything's happening really fast.  Not a single hint of anything like this has been observed.

Also, what are we moving relative to?  The way I see it, the entire universe has to be moving with us, or else we would see something coming up to us really fast.  Even that's unrealistic, though, because, obviously, if everything's moving, there will be a lot of gravitational effects.

Besides, if the entire universe is moving, then it's not relative to anything and therefore is meaningless.  It's like Syndrome said in The Incredibles, "I will sell my inventions, so that everyone can have them!  Everyone can be super!  And when everyone's super...*cackle* No one is."

If everyone's super, then super is normal, and super is no longer very special.  If everything's accelerating, then in Machian relativity, nothing is.  We're all just perfectly still and people can float around weightlessly.  Man, why can't that be true?  I hate gravity.

Initially if you had two observers, both at rest relative to one another, one on a flat Earth, the other one floating in space beside it. Out of nowhere huge amounts of energy are poured into the Earth and the observer on Earth feels 1 g of force. In your example above, the one who was not on the Earth would have to wait trillions of years for a single moment to pass for the observer on the Earth.

One of the biggest reasons Machian relativity doesn't apply here is that UA doesn't really accelerate everything, it accelerates the Earth and celestial bodies, but somehow doesn't accelerate things on the Earth's surface. If UA did what its supposed to do, then everything would float around 

Quote from: El Cid on December 10, 2011, 09:24:23 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on December 09, 2011, 09:47:15 PM

Quote from: El Cid on December 09, 2011, 08:53:51 PM

...
Time will slow down until it is, essentialy, not moving....

But only for the observers not being accelerated by FE's mysterious Dark Energy. From your perspective on the RE, time continues normally.

Relativity often trips up REers here. Indeed, I recall reading when the FEers decided to drop normal gravity (as it causes serious problems for FET), they were quite happy that they would be able to confound REers.

Now, if you want to attack this concept in FET, I suggest you look at the energy requirements to maintain that incredible acceleration. FET requires a 'fiat' of energy greater than all energy seen in the Universe it all its history in the next second. See math at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43779.msg1085683#msg1085683.

Yes, but the problem is, a second for us would be a trillion years for someone in whatever we're moving relative to (what is it?).  True, the time would still pass, for us we wouldn't notice it, but you're being unrealistic.  The universe isn't perfect.  Something large would hit the Earth.  Considering how fast we're moving, it would probably destroy the Earth, especially when millions of meteorites of the size that destroyed the dinosaurs would be hitting every second, if you assume that one hits every 65 million years, approximately (and by the way, it's probably a whole lot more than a trillion years anyway).  Also, we would observe, through our telescopes, that everything's happening really fast.  Not a single hint of anything like this has been observed.

Also, what are we moving relative to?  The way I see it, the entire universe has to be moving with us, or else we would see something coming up to us really fast.  Even that's unrealistic, though, because, obviously, if everything's moving, there will be a lot of gravitational effects.

Besides, if the entire universe is moving, then it's not relative to anything and therefore is meaningless.  It's like Syndrome said in The Incredibles, "I will sell my inventions, so that everyone can have them!  Everyone can be super!  And when everyone's super...*cackle* No one is."

If everyone's super, then super is normal, and super is no longer very special.  If everything's accelerating, then in Machian relativity, nothing is.  We're all just perfectly still and people can float around weightlessly.  Man, why can't that be true?  I hate gravity.

Initially if you had two observers, both at rest relative to one another, one on a flat Earth, the other one floating in space beside it. Out of nowhere huge amounts of energy are poured into the Earth and the observer on Earth feels 1 g of force. In your example above, the one who was not on the Earth would have to wait trillions of years for a single moment to pass for the observer on the Earth.

One of the biggest reasons Machian relativity doesn't apply here is that UA doesn't really accelerate everything, it accelerates the Earth and celestial bodies, but somehow doesn't accelerate things on the Earth's surface. If UA did what its supposed to do, then everything would float around 

And another naill in FETs!

One of the biggest reasons Machian relativity doesn't apply here is that UA doesn't really accelerate everything, it accelerates the Earth and celestial bodies, but somehow doesn't accelerate things on the Earth's surface.

I have explained this to you three times, but you never responded, so maybe you just ignored it. Let's try again:

Put something on your hand, and then move your hand upwards. You hand accelerates (at least initially), and so does whatever you put on it.
You can reproduce the experiment in outer space if you have the means - it'll still work. If you push something, it will be pushed. It's a fairly simple concept.

Also, UA acts somewhat like a wave, or, to put things even simpler (albeit this is not entirely valid) wind. The Earth shields us from it, but we still feel its indirect effects through the Earth's acceleration. Again, an elementary concept, assuming you've ever used an umbrella, or lived in a house.

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 10, 2011, 10:23:34 PM

One of the biggest reasons Machian relativity doesn't apply here is that UA doesn't really accelerate everything, it accelerates the Earth and celestial bodies, but somehow doesn't accelerate things on the Earth's surface.

I have explained this to you three times, but you never responded, so maybe you just ignored it. Let's try again:

Put something on your hand, and then move your hand upwards. You hand accelerates (at least initially), and so does whatever you put on it.
You can reproduce the experiment in outer space if you have the means - it'll still work. If you push something, it will be pushed. It's a fairly simple concept.

Also, UA acts somewhat like a wave, or, to put things even simpler (albeit this is not entirely valid) wind. The Earth shields us from it, but we still feel its indirect effects through the Earth's acceleration. Again, an elementary concept, assuming you've ever used an umbrella, or lived in a house.

Lol, the reason I didn't respond was because your posts about the magical UA force being like a wind were too ridiculous to reply to.

Another interesting tidbit, apparently you don't understand what most of posts are saying, because everything I've posted about the UA has said exactly what you are saying. I think you'd be hard pressed to find even one that doesn't.

Here's a RE example, a person is atop a tower inside an elevator. The elevator is released and the both enter a state of free fall. From the person's point of view there is no relative acceleration between him and the elevator and he just sorts of floats around. Even though everything in his "Universe" is accelerating at 1 g, he doesn't notice a thing. If gravity only accelerated the elevator and not the person, then there would be a relative acceleration of 1 g between him and the elevator and he would have to stand up (albeit on the ceiling).

FET refers to the second example above where there is a not-so-universal acceleration acting on the elevator but not the person. All I'm saying is that its not universal acceleration if everything in the universe isn't being accelerated...

Lol, the reason I didn't respond was because your posts about the magical UA force being like a wind were too ridiculous to reply to.

And how are they ridiculous? Many similar phenomena occur. I have presented just a few.

On the contrary, implying that UA should affect us twice is quite ridiculous. Of course, you have never attempted to support it, and you simply shrug off explanations.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find even one that doesn't.

You said people would float above the Earth. They wouldn't, and your explanation in this post even covers that.
Welp, that wasn't too hard.

FET refers to the second example above where there is a not-so-universal acceleration acting on the elevator but not the person. All I'm saying is that its not universal acceleration if everything in the universe isn't being accelerated...

So what you're saying is you didn't read what UA is, got mislead by the name, and drew conclusions from it? Fair enough, but that basically means we should ignore everything you've ever said about UA.

that basically means we should ignore everything you've ever said about UA.

Isn't that what you do to all RE'er disproofs of UA anyway?
Inb4 PizzaPizazz claims "no RE disproofs" - he has pretended not to be aware of gravity variances about seven times now, or tried to blame them on some sort of magically stationary pull by moving celestial objects. UA disproved, deal with it.

Inb4 PizzaPizazz claims "no RE disproofs"

Damn it, you got me. Yes, I am going to remind you of the fact that no disproofs have been provided to date. That's just how I am.

he has pretended not to be aware of gravity variances about seven times now

I'm sure it'll be very easy to quote me once if I've done it seven times. Until then, we're going to stick to the factually correct claim that I am perfectly aware of variances in "gravity"

or tried to blame them on some sort of magically stationary pull by moving celestial objects.

The celestial objects orbit around the heavens' centre of mass. Thus, the movement doesn't noticeably impact the variances. We've been through that before.

UA disproved

Where? When? Please, don't keep me out of the loop. I wish to learn!
RE'ers will never make their case if they continue to make their proofs/disproofs top secret.

Quote from: The Knowledge on December 11, 2011, 05:11:02 AM

or tried to blame them on some sort of magically stationary pull by moving celestial objects.

The celestial objects orbit around the heavens' centre of mass. Thus, the movement doesn't noticeably impact the variances. We've been through that before.

First mention of "the heavens' centre of mass" by you in regard to celestial pull as the responsible agent of gravity variations, as far as I can tell. Therefore the sentence "we've been through that before" is wildly inappropriate and utterly wrong.
I may have missed a post somewhere of course, in which case you can disagree with me by providing a link to your previous mention of the heavens' centre of mass along with some sort of evidence of what it is and where it is.

... Yes, I am going to remind you of the fact that no disproofs have been provided to date. That's just how I am...

I've seen several clear examples of disproof that the Earth is flat, such as the curvature of the Earth's shadow at sunrise and sunset for all observers.

If you'd like to state the "theory" you'd like us to disprove, please provide a succinct, self-consistent, falsifiable hypothesis. Until then we can only disprove FET's variations. Of course, we come to expect that for any disproof offered we'll hear mumbling and a new theory. (FEer: Oh, darn, after years of denying that satellites orbit the Earth, REers have proved it.   Not even the space conspiracy BS can save us. I guess we'll just have to wave our hands until we come up something to answer it. Let's try: "The FAQ is wrong. It's not my job to correct it.")

According to Google, the mass of the Earth is 5,974,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms.  This is according to RE, of course, but it seems silly to say that the mantle and core don't exist, seeing as we've sensed seismic waves from in them, which still doesn't make sense, but let's just say it's about the same.

Force equals mass times acceleration.

The force is 58,606,902,000,000,000,000,000,000 Newtons, applied continuously to the Earth.  Luckily, dark energy is mysterious, and this could be possible, maybe.

According to Google, the mass of the Earth is 5,974,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms.  This is according to RE, of course, but it seems silly to say that the mantle and core don't exist, seeing as we've sensed seismic waves from in them, which still doesn't make sense, but let's just say it's about the same.

Force equals mass times acceleration.

The force is 58,606,902,000,000,000,000,000,000 Newtons, applied continuously to the Earth.  Luckily, dark energy is mysterious, and this could be possible, maybe.

That's true in the FE's non-inertial frame of reference. In any inertial frame of reference, the energy/microsecond required is so large than we can't even express it as a number. Reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42967.msg1065054#msg1065054

The celestial objects orbit around the heavens' centre of mass. Thus, the movement doesn't noticeably impact the variances. We've been through that before.

The Center of Mass is over Canada?  And why would the Sun's gravitational pull never move if the sun was moving.  For instance in RE there is a center of mass in-between the Sun and the earth, but it does not exhibit any gravitation itself, its just the center of the two masses based on their relative mass, which places it much closer to the sun than the earth.  But it itself would have no gravitational pull.  Not to mention that the Center of mass changes location as the two bodies orbit. 

And if we are only talking about one body, then its center of mass is always its center, as there is no other orbiting body to obscure it.

All that being said the gravitational pull of an object is wherever the mass is, not the center of its mass.

The Center of Mass is over Canada?

Or somewhere relatively close to it, yes. It could be anywhere above the Earth or in its close surroundings, given the elliptical nature of orbits.

And why would the Sun's gravitational pull never move if the sun was moving.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase?

For instance in RE there is a center of mass in-between the Sun and the earth

The Earth is irrelevant, as it does not exhibit a gravitational force. To avoid further confusion: We only care about the centre of mass of all gravitational objects.

And if we are only talking about one body, then its center of mass is always its center, as there is no other orbiting body to obscure it.

But we don't care about one body. We care about all of them, combined.

All that being said the gravitational pull of an object is wherever the mass is, not the center of its mass.

If you consider one body, yes. That's not what we're doing, though.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 12, 2011, 11:13:10 AM

And why would the Sun's gravitational pull never move if the sun was moving.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase?

Best example so far of PizzaPizazz's pretend stupidity when he can't think of a get-out. 

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on December 13, 2011, 01:48:58 AM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 12, 2011, 11:13:10 AM

And why would the Sun's gravitational pull never move if the sun was moving.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase?

Best example so far of PizzaPizazz's pretend stupidity when he can't think of a get-out. 

Ooh, an insult exchange! Let's see...
You're spelling "pizzazz" wrong, and have been doing so for a while.
You're also fat; and ugly.

There. This should do.
Now, if you have anything to add to the discussion, feel free to. For example, if you managed to read through the poor wording of the question in quote, you could rephrase it for those of us less proficient in (broken) English.

Quote from: The Knowledge on December 13, 2011, 02:13:13 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on December 13, 2011, 01:48:58 AM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 12, 2011, 11:13:10 AM

And why would the Sun's gravitational pull never move if the sun was moving.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase?

Best example so far of PizzaPizazz's pretend stupidity when he can't think of a get-out. 

Ooh, an insult exchange! Let's see...
You're spelling "pizzazz" wrong, and have been doing so for a while.
You're also fat; and ugly.

There. This should do.
Now, if you have anything to add to the discussion, feel free to. For example, if you managed to read through the poor wording of the question in quote, you could rephrase it for those of us less proficient in (broken) English.

Not an insult exchange, as my description of you pretending to not understand because you don't have a get out is absolute truth. Only a child would not understand Orbis's sentence, or someone very stupid, and I know you're smarter than that, hence your assertion that you don't understand HAS to be false. Either you're stupid, or you're pretending to be. If you'd rather I labelled you as stupid, fine - that wouldn't be an insult either if it was the truth. For example, slugs are stupid. To call a slug stupid is not insulting, because it's true.
BTW you are spelling Pizza Planet wrong, and have been for some time. If it's two words there should be a space between them. If it's one word, the second P should be lower case.
Anyone who has met me will know that I am far from fat, though I do have a less scrawny neck than you and lighter eyebrows, making me less top heavy.

Not an insult exchange, as my description of you pretending to not understand because you don't have a get out is absolute truth. Only a child would not understand Orbis's sentence, or someone very stupid

No, I genuinely have no clue what he's asking. I like to think that my English is pretty good, but it's not my first language. But okay, I'll try.

If (if) he's asking about why the Sun's movement doesn't affect local differences in perceived "gravity", then the answer is:
Because everything else is moving too. The centre of mass of the whole lot remains effectively the same. You could only perceive the difference if the Earth shifted out of the centre of the universe.

and I know you're smarter than that

And there goes me thinking you consider me to be a complete idiot. Thank you, I guess.

hence your assertion that you don't understand HAS to be false. Either you're stupid, or you're pretending to be.

Or for some bizarre reason the wording of that sentence seems ambiguous to me in the concept of this discussion. I think that (keeping in mind the fact that I've lived most of my life outside the Anglosphere, my English is pretty good. However, that doesn't mean I will always be infallible. Some grammatical constructions may strike me as confusing, much like some accents will be completely incomprehensible to me. It's just the way non-native speakers of a language are.

If you'd rather I labelled you as stupid, fine - that wouldn't be an insult either if it was the truth. For example, slugs are stupid. To call a slug stupid is not insulting, because it's true.

I can easily provide verifiable evidence of my non-stupidity. So yes, it is an insult.

BTW you are spelling Pizza Planet wrong, and have been for some time. If it's two words there should be a space between them.

Assuming it's a Toy Story reference, perhaps. It's not.

If it's one word, the second P should be lower case.

Assuming it's not a proper noun (which are subject to artistic licence). It is.

Anyone who has met me will know that I am far from fat

Excellent - then my counter-insult was adequate.

though I do have a less scrawny neck than you and lighter eyebrows, making me less top heavy.

A quick Google search indicates that "top heavy" refers to the size of one's breasts. I'm not sure how you've judged the size of my breasts. Should I be worried?

A quick Google search indicates that "top heavy" refers to the size of one's breasts.

Yes, that's clearly the only possible use of the phrase "top heavy", you are so right.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase?

I'd be happy too!

So lets take an example again with multiple options .  If you take two objects of equal mass (for simplicity) and place them across from each other, the center of mass will be between them at exactly their midpoint.  Yet this spot does not have any gravitational pull.  Meaning if i placed a penny slightly closer to one object but still closest to the center of mass the penny would be drawn to the closest object not the center of mass.

That is where my statement was derived. 

If the sun is moving around in the sky, its gravitational pull will be strongest towards the closest object to it (directly below it in most cases), regardless of how many other celestial bodies there are or where the center of the mass is.  The center of mass is essential for determining the orbital pattern of planets and other celestial bodies, but it is not an indicator of where gravitation will be strongest or weakest.

Therefore when the sun is overhead i should notice a calculated change in Gravitation.  As it moves away i should see an increase in weight until the moon is directly overhead.  And this is in fact what happens, as evident with the tides.  However, it is not uniform.  In Canada, things always weigh less based on the density of the earth.

So lets take an example again with multiple options .  If you take two objects of equal mass (for simplicity) and place them across from each other, the center of mass will be between them at exactly their midpoint.  Yet this spot does not have any gravitational pull.  Meaning if i placed a penny slightly closer to one object but still closest to the center of mass the penny would be drawn to the closest object not the center of mass.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.  The center of mass is calculated for each object individually.  The midpoint between the objects has no gravitational influence because the gravitational influence of both objects balance and cancel each other out.  The penny would indeed be drawn to the closer object.

Now the two objects do gravitationally influence each other and if they were celestial bodies in orbit, then the the center of the orbit would depend on their masses.  For example, in out solar system the sun is so massive that the center mass of the solar system is still within the diameter of (but not in the exact center of) the sun.  This causes the sun to wobble somewhat and this wobble is one of the things that astronomers look for when they hunt for extra-solar planets.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 14, 2011, 10:49:16 AM

So lets take an example again with multiple options .  If you take two objects of equal mass (for simplicity) and place them across from each other, the center of mass will be between them at exactly their midpoint.  Yet this spot does not have any gravitational pull.  Meaning if i placed a penny slightly closer to one object but still closest to the center of mass the penny would be drawn to the closest object not the center of mass.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.  The center of mass is calculated for each object individually.  The midpoint between the objects has no gravitational influence because the gravitational influence of both objects balance and cancel each other out.  The penny would indeed be drawn to the closer object.

Now the two objects do gravitationally influence each other and if they were celestial bodies in orbit, then the the center of the orbit would depend on their masses.  For example, in out solar system the sun is so massive that the center mass of the solar system is still within the diameter of (but not in the exact center of) the sun.  This causes the sun to wobble somewhat and this wobble is one of the things that astronomers look for when they hunt for extra-solar planets.

I'm pretty sure we just have different ideas about the concept of the center of mass.  Take your second paragraph, where you describe the wobble.  That wobble is because the center of mass between the two objects can be calculated.  so both bodies orbit this center of mass, but the orbit of the larger body is so small that it appears to be a small wobble. 

You can calculate a center of mass for more than one object, or at least a midpoint that is dependent upon both masses, whatever you choose to call it.  In my astronomy classes its always been referred to as the center of mass. 

So yeah i'm pretty sure i had it exactly right just used a term you felt to be inapropriate, or I did not explain it clearly.