beejewel

Sorry, it seems I misread this question by swansont, the answer to his question is not simple. Black hole formation and mass to radius comes down to things like density which opens a whole can of worms. I shall have to pass this one.

Not my objective to derail my own thread, just trying to give swansont a full answer to his question. I feel that I have now demonstrated conclusively that the observers potential is limited, but it would be nice if at least one of you guys were prepared to acknowledge it. Limited potential is indeed one of the axioms for GPT but that's for another thread another day. Yes I can support my assertions are show that they are correct, but as mentioned above, this is better done in the speculations forum with moderators permission.

[oops edit, my mistake] As mass increases potential energy increases but raw potential goes towards a limit. Potential energy is unlimited, but potential is not, the absolute maximum potential is 938 million volts, this seems to be a constant of nature (Phi) in the same way as the speed of light c. Knowing the constant allows us to express the ratio of potential to speed [latex]K = (\frac{\Phi}{c})[/latex] It follows that absolute velocity is related to absolute potential. [latex]v = c(\frac{\phi}{\Phi})[/latex] and [latex]\Delta v = c(\frac{\Delta\phi}{\Phi})[/latex] In nature we see that the lone proton is indeed the particle with the maximum potential. From the proton's potential it's all down hill, it's potential is 938 million volts, the proton is closely followed by Hydrogen which is lower by 13.6 volts, after this I think the H2 molecule and then the deuteron and for every chemical and fusion reaction the potential drops. This process continues until a mass reaches the SR radius where potential goes to zero. What is commonly called binding energy might be better described as reduced potential. PS: Corrections made, can I have a point back please .... [+1]

Thanks for reply, I don't see the need for some of you to pick on every single sentence I write, just give me feedback on the main points you disagree with, enough said... Lets settle this now... The simple potential function is in the form [latex]U_p = - \frac{1}{r}[/latex] , for a positive radius this function does NOT cross zero so it is pointless to argue about the limit in that direction, this leaves only the other direction (downwards in the well) Relativity has demonstrated that there is a limit in the other direction and the corrected potential function is; [latex]U_p = - \frac{GMm}{r\sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}}}[/latex] This relativistic equation for potential energy shows that there is a downwards limit at the SR radius. According to Wikipedia the decision to set potential equal to zero at infinity was an arbitrary one and seemed like a sensible way to avoid the SR radius complications. Personally I would like to see it turned around where potential is zero at the SR radius with an absolute constant value for infinity. maybe it will happen.

My benchmark is real world observation, if a theory doesn't agree with the real world it's wrong. Science as an institution is more like religion, if the high priests of science like the theory then awards are presented, but if they give it the thumbs down no one has the guts to support it from fear of shame and ridicule. I am not familiar with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, I looked it up but it's not something I can grasp quickly. The diagram I drew above was intended to show how one wave can have several properties which classical science have given different names to. My approach has been to start from lowest level in the function and work up. The lowest level I can identify (with the exception of nothingness) is space and time, three dimensions of space meet one dimension of time, and providing there is some energy, also an axis called potential. If we imagine the wavefunction as a Sine wave, there is a positive energy component and a negative component to the wave, and a tendency for the wave to collapse which is provided by a tension factor or potential. These 4 wavefunctions have components; psi(t) , psi(x) , psi(y) , psi(z) and the potential (tension) axis is common to all, so it is simply impossible for the potential function to extend to infinity because a sine wave is by definition limited by its wave height. An infinitely tall wave would require an infinite amount of energy. Many have tried to depict what a four dimensional sine wave might look like and have failed miserably, but it's more familiar than everyone thinks. I am almost 100% certain that the single proton hydrogen atom is a 4D sine wave. All particles including photons and gravity waves are the same kind of waves, how they appear to various observers is a function of the observers potential on the absolute scale. This part is going to be the biggest challenge for me, because the common perception since the dawn of science is that we observe the world happening around us, but through GPT I have discovered that it's not like this at all, it is our position on the absolute potential axis which determines where in absolute time we are and how things move in absolute space. If it only had to make sense to me I wouldn't be here trying to explain it to all of you. Common sense means by definition that more people than me agree. Sometimes if we are lucky, an equation can be laid down as a definitive proof, but even then it is necessary for the axioms to be agreed as true. Everyone agrees that F=Gmm/r^2 but few question where F came from... Newton invented it, so it's a fairy, it doesn't exist, it's an imaginary artefact to make the equation balance. In the days of alchemy and radium water for a healthy life, people were okay with a force that needed no strings, so they accepted the F readily. Try thinking of gravity as a velocity vector of absolute potential instead. 1) The thought experiment of separating charges 2) The example of sorting black and white marbles 3) The impossibility of a sine wave with infinite wave height 4) Lack of evidence of infinite energy 5) The sombrero graph 6) The logic of my opening post Here is the classic sombrero graph of gravitational potential. In this graph, the potential is the height, and if one were to extend the brim of the hat to infinity it seems likely that the height of the function is an asymptote. Once again a strong case for limited potential. As I tried to explain with my diagram above, the electrical force and gravity share the same potential axis, so we can use volts to describe both. Volt works for solid objects, providing you use eV for energy and eV/cc for mass. just keep in mind that the term force doesn't come into the picture.

In a sea of time and space there is only one wave function. Well spotted, no I didn't copy and paste it from any text book or web site. Your opinion is not unique around here, but it's lacking in logic. Ditto.. I don't understand the resistance to a limited domain for potential. Gravitational potentials are often plotted as surfaces they always look like an inside out sombrero, combined with expanding space, this typically makes the function asymptotic to the space axis, from which it must follow that the ultimate height of the potential is limited for any given observer. If this is true, then it follows that all of the observers world must lie within a limited domain and potential thereby becomes absolute. There are so many arguments for a limited potential many of which I have brought up in earlier treads, yet I haven't seen one piece of hard evidence presented to prove the case for an infinite potential domain. __________________________________________________________________________________________ I work much better with encouragement (click the up arrow)

This is more or less how I would represent the wave function.. The potential of the wavefunction is the wave height, usually referred to as U, this potential has two sides to it, one side is U/t and manifests itself as electrostatic force, perpendicular to this lies the space axis which gives rise to U/r and manifests itself as gravity. In the horizontal plane the wave function is r/t which is velocity. Of course there is a fourth axis which I can't easily represent in 2D, and it would be the magnetic side. There is only one potential axis and it is the tension axis, which can be either positive or negative. So this more or less explains why I suspect velocity and potential to be absolute and limited with respect to the observer.

I think I have been consistent in my use of the terms potential and potential energy. Absolute Potential and Relative Potential is measured in Volts, it is the SI unit. Funny you should mention gravity, can you definitively show that gravity is not an electrical potential? I happen to think it is 3.1 Volts per meter elevation at ground level to be precise. Well maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, time will show. I am trying to show you that the classic notion of gravity as a force is wrong, it's one of those fairies I mentioned before. Newton imagined this fairy to explain his theory, and we have been stuck with her for the last 300 years. Newton worked with mass and force, this worked fine until special relativity arrived on the scene, and then it got complicated, you agree because half the material on this forum is about mass confusion. Sure there are ways for experts like you to get around the maze but it's far from elegant. Not asking you to agree with me yet, but if or when I find the proof, I will

Just making sure we are defining our terms the same way here, I am talking about "Potential" as in Volts, not "Potential Energy" as in electron Volts or Joules. Energy is a function of how much mass you allow to fall through a given potential, mass does not feature in my opening post.

Actually it works for both absolute and relative potential, as long as you don't mix the concepts. [latex] absolutevelocity=absolutepotential*(\frac{c}{\Phi}) [/latex] and [latex] relativevelocity=relativepotential*(\frac{c}{\Phi}) [/latex]

Opinions without reason don't count, and pollution depends on weather you are smoking it or breathing it.

Could it be I have shown it to be false for three velocity, but true for four velocity? The two velocities are not the same. Trying not to go there in this thread.

One can't be too careful around here... If potential can be defined as absolute then absolute velocity is a factor of the ratio between maximum velocity and maximum potential. [latex]absolutevelocity=absolutepotential*(\frac{c}{\Phi})[/latex] Where c is the maximum velocity and Phi is the maximum potential. I would like to redefine my use of absolute as something which can be defined as a fraction of a whole, ie. the total can not be infinite, as a point on an infinite scale can not be defined as a part of the whole.

Well if it could be agreed that the observers potential is absolute and limited I could define the velocity as a function of c, but until we can agree that this is true, there is no point in going there. Consider my digression above as a margin note. Truth as well as belief can be found anywhere, but my point is that novel true statements are not found in published journals, else it would not be novel. The same reason as why you can't find news in a news paper.

A body free falling through a potential gradient is just converting potential energy to kinetic energy, nothing is gained or lost by the system, the total energy remains constant, this is what I would refer to as a true statement. When you think carefully about it, the earth is such a system, it is free falling through a potential gradient converting potential energy into velocity. [latex]U_p=\frac{mv^2}{2}[/latex] Humans have a knack for conjuring up beliefs I call them "fairies" some are obvious, like the Easter rabbit and Santa Claus, we soon recognise them as fairies and ignore them, but there are a lot more of them out there and some of them have been there for a long time so people have gotten used to them. They even make their way into physics and Nobel prices are awarded for their discoveries. You can even have them in mathematical equations, as long as you have a fairy on both sides. How do we know that common use concepts like big bang, expanding Universe, forces, quarks, black holes, 1/2 spin particles, gluons, dark matter etc. are not fairies? I am not suggesting that these are all fairies, but they could be. When an experiment is done and a measurement is taken, the scientist makes an educated guess and gives it a name, if accepted in a journal, other scientists get on the bandwagon and get in on the same slip stream. Science needs to recognise and eradicate the fairies, its not easy because people want to continue to believe in them. My advise is, be suspicious of any virtual object with a strange name that you can't hang your hat on, chances are it's a fairy. On the last comment, yes you are right I worded it wrong, I meant the missing truth is not to be found there.