beejewel

Mordred, I detect some frustration and anger in your reply, please understand I don't think the standard model is a very good description of the world I see. I am exploring the possibility that science might have taken a wrong turn sometine in the early part of last century, before the standard model was invented. Theoretical physics is about inspiration and invention something I think todays scientists are giving little priority to. These days it's all about probing the inner structures of matter and explaining mathematically what they see. The problem is you can't find the answer like that, what scientists are doing with the LHC is the same as analysing a milkshake and hoping, it is going to give the correct answer, which we all know is a cow! Please have patience with me Swanson, something in our universe is currently or has been manufacturing protons and electrons, not neutrons. having been in the manufacturing business for 30 years, I have a lot of respect for any machine that can produce something in such quantities and with such precision for so long without ever missing a beat. Give me protons and electrons and I can make you some neutrons, so neutrons in my opinion is just a byproduct and a way for protons and electrons to come together and loose potential. My claim still stands, that nature manufactures the electron proton pair with great precision and that the combined potential is ~938 MV (or the potential of the proton when the electron is sufficiently far removed.) ajb, I don't quite understand what calculation you did to come up with 1.6 million volts. Fundamentally I don't really think of protons and electrons as little balls or spheres, but rather as sine waves with an assymetric baseline (ground potential). I am used to seeing such assymmetric waves on my oscilloscope because I manufacture gamma spectrometry systems, and when the electrons from a PMT biased at 1000V strike the anode which is usually at ground potential, I see a negative gaussian pulse which is assymmetric to the baseline. The energy of the pulse is proportional to the pulse height, so to calculate the pulse height, we digitally sample the wave and integrate the area between the wave function and the baseline (calculating the RMS value). What I am doing to the proton is excactly the same thing, but in reverse, I know the energy is mc^2, so I differentiate to find the pulse height, and in the case of the proton energy in MeV it is very simple, I just drop the "e". So I am suggesting is that our universe has machines which manufacture (mass produces) gamma rays with an absolute constant energy of 938 MeV, and if GPT is correct, these machines are the black holes. GPT says that the Swartzchild radius has a potential of excactly half the proton potential, so as they swallow up (recycle) old matter from the galactic spiral disc, new matter consisting of 100% 938 MeV gammas are dimetrically ejected along the time axis (invisible from within our own galaxy). GPT does not forbid heavier particles from being created, it only forbids the wave height exceeding 938 MV, so if the wave is longer it can carry more energy, GR might show that length contraction or time dilation can explain this. It seems that the SR radius potential is a universal constant, therefore protons manufactured by black holes across the universe are all produced the same. The LHC can accellerate particles to higher energies and produce all kinds of exotic matter, but as I said further up the thread, these don't come out of your water tap, and also rapidly decay back into your everyday proton and electron. Sensei, you are welcome to have an opinion, If you look at my reasoning above, I am not disputing that it is possible to produce waves of higher energies, In fact I believe as long as scientists keep getting more funding, they will be able to make heavier and heavier particles, but do these particles have a higher surface potential or are they just larger overall? Try to imagine a sea, where the surface of the sea is the junction of space and time, and on that surface there are waves, and observers are surfing the waves, every observer is surfing a different spot on the wave and that observers present is where he or she touches the wave. Please try to understand that my theory is a complete rethink and on the timeline, belongs somewhere around 1910, and I don't have all the answers. Steven Moderator: Note we are still on the subject of electric potential, but it is necessary for me to refer to GPT in order to explain my thinking.

[math] r_p = k\frac{Q^2}{mc^2}[/math] My naive thinking here is that the energy required to make a proton is the work done in separating the elementary charges from zero to the classical proton radius. On the other hand I really think of the electron proton pair as a single wave, and I am sure GPT can define this radius in a better way, but that is something i have to sleep on. Don't have the solution ready in a box. Steven Sorry you misunderstand me, I am talking in terms of surface potential, which in mass terms is equivalent to mass per Nucleon. The proton is the odd one out, on the one hand it has slightly more mass, but clearly the surface potential is zero, but it's not stable anyway, I can explain this with GPT, but that's for another thread. Steven

Positrons are not a problem they onlu have 511 KeV Stable in that it can't decay upwards becoming an atom with higher surface potential. So the theory is not perfect.. That's fine lets define the scalar potential of a point charge as [latex] V_e=K\frac{Q}{r}[/latex] and visualise this graphically for a proton, it will look like a tall vulcano with a flat top, the flat top comes about because the proton radius is not a point charge, it actually has a physical diameter. So my argument does agree with classical physics, because there are no such things as point charges. So you come to a point along the road where a new set of rukles apply? Sounds like politics As above, the proton has a radius, and if my thinking is right, the scalar potential at the proton radius is ~938 MV Steven

Thank you that was an impressive list of baryons, but as I said the proton is pretty much it, the rest are unstable creations of the big accelerators. Further, the electrical potential created by a point charge Q at a radius r is relative to the potential at infinity. Well that presents a problem, because we do not have any proof that r = infinity even exists. How can we rest our understanding of physics on a belief that a radius of infinite distance exists ? I think we both understand what I mean, there should be no need to define it further. It's plain obvious for everyone to see, electrons and protons are the crux of charged particles, I don't care how many Nobel prices have been given away for discovering particles that exist for 8x10^-22 seconds, electrons and protons come out of your water tap, that's how common they are. The way I see things, Hydrogen is the heaviest stable element, and also element #1 and it consists of 1 electron and one proton. (yes I meant to write heaviest) so please let's try to come to a conclusion on charge between these two particles. Do you feel that "we" have given charge enough consideration? Can protons or electrons for that sake be infinitely far apart or infinitely close together? If not then we could be ignoring something couldn't we? If you think on the other hand, that electrical potenial can go to infinity, then it should be easy for you to describe a physical condition where this would be the case. Steven

With the moderators permission I would like to reintroduce this single topic, because I believe the question was not fully answered in the previously closed thread. We observe and agree that there are two kinds of charges positive and negative and we agree that matter in general is made up of particles carrying both kinds of charge, and we agree that there exists an electrical potential difference when two objects have differing amount of charge. We can think of this as having two bowls, A and B, each containing an even mix of black and white marbles, so we can say that the colour mix is the same and therefore no potential colour difference between the two bowls. Now we transfer some white marbles from A to B and an equal number of black marbles from B to A, now there exists a potential colour difference between the two bowls. Taking this to the limit, we can clearly see that the colour potential between bowl A and bowl B reaches an absolute limit when A contains all black marbles and B contains all white marbles. My point is therefore that the electrical potential between electrons and protons, is limited in exactly the same way. Why is this important? Because if this is the case then it would be impossible for nature to produce a particle heavier than a proton at ~938 Mev/c^2 This doesn't mean a particle can't be accellerated to higher energies by arteficial means, but nature may not make them. Is there any evidence? Yes, most of the Universe is made from Hydrogen, which contain single protons, yet AFAIK we don't see any heavy protons in nature, all the other elements are lighter (mass per nucleon). Ground Potential Theory (GPT) rests on this single postulate, so disproving the hypothesis is the only thing that's going to make it go away Steven

Did you miss the part where I finally divided by 1 electron? This tread is pathetic, you guys are more concerned about what I know than what I say. Just flip the freak'n rotation curve upside down and voila there is your measured rotation curve. It's absolutely rediculous that I should be told to read up on dark matter when the stuff isn't required for my theory, nor is it discoverable by any other means, What does it mean anyway, non baryonic matter? Dark matter has infected physics to the point where it is virtually impossible to find a paper that does not try to justify what it is. Here is made up graph showing a very rough mass distribution, keplerian orbit vs. my flipped orbit. and here is just one of hundreds of galaxy rotation curve plots, and guess what?....its flipped! My solution doesn't require any of your learned science, as I said before it's junior school addition and subtraction. Galaxy rotation curves are a gaping big hole in physics, it's nothing like the subtleties of special or general relativity, those Keplerian curves are so far off the mark, that even a child can see it. I quote the subject heading again.. dark matter, get over it! Steven Formula used in my plot was (mass inside radius)/r^2 for the red line, and the sum of velocities from the red line for the green line (actually negative, but shown here as positive)

Mordred, please appreciate the amount of time it takes to solve a single problem from first principles, I work alone and do this purely for fun, so don't be offended if I don't rush out and prove every suggestion that has been thrown at me here. I would rather focus in on one problem and show how I would solve it, which is how I started this thread. Now we can go and find some real data from galaxy rotation curves and try my method. I have a friend who is an astronomer, he may be able to get me some real data to play with. Essentially all I need is the visible mass distribution of a galaxy and the observed rotation curves, and I should be able to show that my rotation curve corresponds with the observed rotation curve without introducing any dark matter. Steven

No mordred, my model can't explain quarks, nor can it explain the strong force, it also has a real problem with the coloumb force, gravity, big bang, dark matter and a whole bunch of other stuff which are the invisible pillars of the standard model. But bring something tangible in your hand and I will try my damnedest to explain it steven

As I already stated, you don't need to use my theory to solve the rotation curve problem, it's an optical illusion, that's all. Kepler was fooled by an optical illusion, while todays measurements using doppler shift or redshift is not being foled, hence the difference. It's so simple todays measurements of galaxy rotation curves are correct, and Keplers law of diminishing velocity is wrong! Steven

The high priests in the churches of science have spun up a lot of ideas in the last 100 years to explain what they did not understand, you mention a few such as quark glon plasma, dark matter, coulomb force, strong force, electroweak force, gravity etc.. What they all have in common is that hey are invisible magic substances required to explain what I essentially believe to be a faulty theory. That's why I work from first principles, deliberately ignoring any science that falls into the made up category. Your first sentences above more or less tells me that you are not thinking independantly, but rather comparing my theory to the standard model and determining that it doesn't fit, so it must be wrong. GPT is literally a rethink from the ground up, and it can explain many things already, but it is not as mature as the standard model yet. It looks as if all your questions above are ones that you already believe you know the answer to so I'm not going to go there, instead I would like you to tell me or show me how it is theoretically possible to create a potential exceeding 938 million volts, which is the postulate my theory relies on. If you can show me a way to do this, I will pack up and stop paying the renewal fees for my web site Steven

[latex] 3-2-1 \neq (-3)+(-2)+(-1)[/latex] A junior school maths problem has sent scientists in search of illusive dark matter. Pretty embarracing headline if it appeared on a science journal But that's the real issue I highlighted in my first post. Steven

That's correct, it should be pretty obvious .. 1) I love thought experiments, take two bowls, crack a dozen eggs into each bowl, you now have two bowls with roughly equal amount of egg yolks and egg white. 2) Now transfer some egg white from bowl 1 to bowl 2, and some yolk from bowl 2 to bowl 1 3) You will agree that the content of one bowl is now more yellow, there is therefore a potential colour difference Obviously in typical "beejewel" fashion we don't stop at the omelett stage we go all the way, and transfer all the yolk to one bowl and all the eggwhite to the other, now it is easy to see that the colour potential has reached a limit. it does not matter how many more eggs yolks I add to bowl 1 it doesn't get any yellower. This is simple cooking logic and has nothing to do with who you are or how may honors and PHD's you have or how long you have been posting on this forum, the simple fact is, electrical potential can not exceed the surface potential of a single proton, and that's what ground potential is about. PS: I appreciate your straight forward well thought out relevant questions, unlike some members who just broadly hit out at anything they don't understand or agree with. Then you have not understood what I have been saying, so please ask me questions instead of telling me what I should be doing, I believe the problem is at your end. Thanks for reading the thread.. I hope you are not making the assumption that I am predicting planets to be somewhere else as a result of moving backwards, if so, you have misunderstood my first post. What I describe as backwards motion is purely a matter of reversing the temporal coordinate (fortunately this does not involve moving any planets). One can take any set of existing data recorded by astronomers, and sum the velocities to get my predicted result, and this is a pure result of lateral thinking, namely to understand that the apparent motion of the planets is counter to the real motion of the planets. I recommend watching the animation of the planets posted by Sensei almost in the beginning of the thread, first you will see the obvious forward motion of the planets, but if you try to reconfigure your brain slightly you will also see that the motion is reversible, it's a matter of looking outside the square. My theory isn't needed to understand the backwards motion of planets, but it correctly predicted it, and made me look twice, and sure enough there it was. Steven

What many have forgotten is that it was Paul Dirac himself that proposed how the electron might be the proton anti particle, and shortly after I think it might have been Weyl who dismisssed the idea because he assumed matter and antimatter had to have the same mass, and because it came from a respected scientist it was presumably taken as law. Every scientist has a responsibility to be sceptical of all past teachings, because the only consistent proof throughout history is that the past teachings were wrong. Contrary to some of the comments above, I have brought to the table a theory which does correctly predict or at least looks like the velocity curves found in nature, something which the newtonian model fails at. So I think it is at least reasonable for those really interested to investigate it a little further. Finding the law of nature that makes a Universe would be an amazing thing, I imagine it being a simple yet beatiful algorithm and would love to see it on a T shirt Steven

Frankly I don't need to know what my smart phone or google can tell me in less time than it takes to write a single one of those numbers. The debate we are trying to settle is, Does electrical potential go asymptotic as it approaches 938 million volts? If it does, your classical theory wrong, it's that simple. Steven

So what's your point, how is it relevant to this discussion?

Now that you mention it, yes, I worked out the mass per volume of space several years ago, before GPT, but I believe it still holds. [latex] V = \frac{8Gm\pi}{3H^2}[/latex] and it works out that one cubic meter of space weighs about 1.118 x 10^-26 kg anyway this is off topic and it's late here now, and I'm off to bed soon, so don't forget to google those rotation curves. Steven Here is a very basic youtube explanation of Galaxy rotation curves for anyone interested. https://youtu.be/Hcc0dToHf18 Steven

Good question, allthough I have done no work on the gravitational lensing that you refer to, GPT is quite clear on the amount of energy stored by space itself, and it's excactly half. Allthough I do not have watertight proof yet, I believe the frequent number two in the denominator which we see in most of our equations is there, because we are trained to only work with solid matter. GPT says that for every 1 gram of matter there must be 1 gram of antimatter, and as I am claiming that the electron which is only 0.5 MeV is the other half of the proton, there is a discrepancy of 929.5 MeV and that's the mass of space itself. When you integrate the energy required to separate a mass "m" from the Schwartzchild radius to infinity (taking redshift into account) and after some rediculous algebra you get the exact answer 2mc^2, that pretty much says it all. Steven

After 90 replies I don't blame you fortunately I still remember. According to GPT the planets in our solar system, as well as the stars in galaxies move backwards, this means their speeds relative to you the observer actually increases with increasing radius, when plotted this forms a rotation curve excactly like those found in nature, and not like predicted by todays science. Simply google "galaxy rotation curve" and click on images, and you will find hundreds of rotation curves that look like my prediction and absolutely none that look like Keplers. Dark Matter was invented by scientists to explain the anomalous rotation curve, that in itself is a concern. Steven

I am aware of it now, looks like something that might take some time to digest. F = -kq1q2/r2 Well there is that coloumb force again, lets get to that later. We generally think of capacitors as charged plates or spheres separated by some dielectric. These conductors are at least from a classical view made of some kind of metal, which in turn is made from electrons and protons with a few neutrons chucked in, further when the plates are neutral there is said to be the same number of electrons as protons in each plate hence believed to have no charge. Charge is added by transferring some electrons from anode to cathode, and when we do the actual numbers we realise that the number of electrons in proportion of the total are actually insignificantly few. Richard Feynman once used an example that even 1% difference in charge between to people would be equal to a force strong enough to lift the Earth, he seemed like the kind of guy who would have done the numbers. My argument here is that it is unlikely that anyone has physically experimented with any charges high enough to notice any potential limit, as was the case with special relativity. Had Einstein not pointed out that high relative speed caused time dilation, it would have been very unlikely that we would have discovered it anytime soon, as the effect is so small. Please read over my description again, if it is not clear I shall edit it, but I think it's okay, work done per unit charge approaches an asymptote as the ratio of protons over electrons approaches infinity. Steven

I boldly claim that the whole concept of charge is a misinterpretation of the real world, there are NO coloumb forces! All the energy contained in matter is the stored potential energy between the electron and the proton. What everyone generally thinks of as the Coulomb force is according to GPT [latex] \Delta v [/latex], which briefly means you the observer at ground potential (930 MV) experience the proton (938 MV) moving at a speed of [latex]v=c(\frac{8}{938})= ~2500 km/s[/latex] , and it will never stand still, you can confine it, but that just means it jiggles even more, but let's not derail this thread with that argument just yet, convincing you guys to forget Coulomb is a challenge I am keeping for another day Steven

Definition of Volts from hyperphysics [latex]V=\frac{WorkDone}{charge}[/latex] therefore on an anode consisting of 100% protons the work done in adding each extra charge is 938 million volts, which means you add one more unit of work to the numerator and add another one charge in the denominator, school maths tell you that nothing has changed. Steven My understanding is that the rest mass of a proton is calculated or more likely measured in the ionised form, probably using an accellerated beam through a mass selection magnet, so it is the mass of the proton at it's full potential which acording to GPT is the potential at which the electron mass is near enough to zero. So expressing the mass as energy according to the mass energy equation we choose the unit of eV because it's an SI standard and when we divide by one electron we have the all familiar unit for potential. You may ask why we divide by 1 electron, and that is because it is the other plate in our capacitor which we in reality call for Hydrogen. The entire 938 million eV is the work done in separating a proton from an electron, hence it is equivalent to the stored potential. When we ionize hydrogen, the electron is sufficiently far away from the proton, that we can safely ignore any work required to move it the last distance from say 100 meters to infinity. Steven

The problem here is we are dealing with 938 million volts, and for safety reasons school physics experiments mainly deal with less than 30 volts, and at University undergraduate level one is usually limited to 30 kV. None of these effects would show up at these potentials. Steven

Am I missing something here? Strange just confirmed my argument, you can't increase potential! Steven

Just going over it again for those who may not have read earlier posts.. I don't agree that adding more charge to a plate consisting of only protons will incease it's potential, Q=CV but you can't increase Volts when your anode is 100% protons, which is my whole point here because volts is a ratio of electrons to protons. [edit] I agree adding more charge increases the stored energy, but it does not increase the potential.[/edit] The jump to my postulate is only unfounded if the above claim is unfounded. Lucky for Einstein that someone else had already proved it, but all you have to do is open your eyes and look around, all protons are the same size, all protons have the same charge, there are no stable particles with a higher potential than a proton, there appear to be roughly as many electrons as protons, and the list goes on. But fine, let's debate the charged plates if you feel that is the sticking point, go one step further and gather every electron and every proton in the universe on two plates, then divide by the number of electrons, and you still come back to that same constant. Steven

Once again for the sceptics, Ground Potential Theory (GPT) begins with the following thought experiment; "take two paralell metal plates at some fixed distance apart, and charge one plate negative and the other plate positive, so that there exists an electrical potential between the plates, now take this experiment to the absolute limit, so one plate consists purely of electrons and the other of protons" It shall then be obvious that the potential has reached a limit, and adding more protons to the anode or more electrons to the cathode can not further increase the potential between the plates. If we also know how many electrons there are in total, we can divide the overall energy in eV stored in the anode by the number of electrons in the cathode (assuming same number) to get the net surface potentials. We also understand that removing the same number of electrons and protons from each plate does not change the potential, so let's take this experiment to the limit, so our plates in the end contain one electron and one proton, i.e Hydrogen. With this simple gedanken experiment, I hope to have shown that electrical potential does indeed have a limit, and that this limit is equal to the surface potential of the proton. In other words, the mass of Hydrogen is stored in the potential energy field between the electron and the proton. Finding the surface potential of the proton in Volts is a simple matter of taking its rest mass in whatever unit you have and converting it to electron volts and dividing it by 1 electron. This will give you the current value of a Proton: 938.272046(21) MV* Source: The NIST Reference on Constants, Units and Uncertainty We now have two valuable clues from which to begin the construction of GPT; 1) the constancy and limit of the speed of light and 2) the constancy and limit of the proton potential. Further our new understanding about the upper limit of electrical potential, let's us realise that ground potential must lie somewhere between zero and the surface potential of the proton, and obviously we would like to know what GP is, so we can see where we are in the scheme of things. So in GPT I postulate that the protons surface potential is a physical constant in the same way as the speed of light, and assign the symbol [latex]\Phi[/latex] We can now show that there is a linear relationship between [latex] v \propto \Phi[/latex] In the above sketch I have set [latex] c = \Phi = 1 [/latex]. Note that the velocity axis is the four-velocity, and so an observer at rest shall be at some potential between zero and [latex]\Phi[/latex] and likewise somewhere between zero and c on the velocity axis. Now let's have two observers at rest, Jack and John, Jack owns a fuel station and John owns a sports car. John buys a litre of gas from Jack, and speeds off down the highway at increasing velocity until his fuel runs out, at this point his velocity relative to Jack is [latex]\Delta v[/latex] and his potential has perceivably increased by [latex]\Delta \phi = \frac{mv^2}{2}[/latex] All this proves is that [latex]\frac{v}{c} \propto \frac{\phi}{\Phi}[/latex] and I will be able to use this later to show that the electron is the proton's anti particle. Keeping this to the current thread, it also proves that four-velocity and real velocity for that sake must increase with potential, which brings us back to the revolving planets, and I have not yet been convinced, I think Kepler was wrong. Steven