beejewel

The past and the future appears to be a function of the observers potential, so from our perspective which I call Ground Potential the electron is the ultimate future and the proton is the ultimate past. When a particle pair are created in a laboratory here at ground potential we witness the particles travelling east and west through space but this is not how we were created. Try to transpose yourself to the state of either particle and the creation event will look very different, imagine you being the proton, in which case the electron is obviously in your ultimate future (obviously because you will eventually come together and annihilate). Time is subjective, so this event which takes microseconds in a lab here on earth, takes the age of a universe as experienced by the individual particles created. We live in a world where the ultimate potential or ceiling is fixed at 938,000,000 Volts and since the beginning of time we have fallen around 8,000,000 volts and are now hovering at 930,000,000 Volts (evidenced by the decay of nucleons), and our ultimate future is when we reach 469,000,000 volts (half proton potential), which is going to be the annihilation point (we see this as a black hole horizon). Steven Frame rotation, showing how the gradual drop in the proton potential causes a rise in the electron potential. http://groundpotential.org/forum/download/file.php?id=24

I have the equation which relates the electron potential to the proton potential. [gammap.png] What this says is that the electron potential is equal to half the difference between the proton potential and ground potential, multiplied by gamma, where the gamma is the square root of one minus ground potential squared over proton potential squared. From this equation ground potential works out to be around 930 million volts. [check Wolfram Alpha] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.511%3D%28%28938-x%29%2F2%29*√%281-%28x%5E2%2F938%5E2%29%29 The answers were excactly what I was looking for, because I suspected all along that this was the reason why the chart of nucleides bottomed out at 930 MeV per nucleon. So as you see, binding energy is a bad way to describe the force that holds nuclei together, the real story is simpler, Ni-62 is already at ground potential so it can't fall any further. All the other nucleons have higher potentials and can only fall down. I work with analogue circuits and gamma spectrometry systems, and I am used to seeing how waves behave on my oscilloscope, some pulses are positive, some are negative and some are symmetrical, but this view of an electrical pulse is completely arbitrary and depends on where you set your ground potential. The world we live in is very much the same, the observer changes its surroundings by changing it's own potential. Living on a relatively flat planet, and being limited to elevations of a few thousand meters maximum, we probably never had grounds to suspect that we were sitting at 930 million volts. On the internal structure of the proton, I am quite certain the electron is the identical antiparticle, the only reason we are unable to probe its internal structure is that it exists in the future, and allthough it's mass can be observed from here, it's internal structure can not, much the same way as a black hole. Once again I encourage you to flick through my paper, as I cover a few more things, including how there is no need to postulate a Coulomb force nor do we need a gravitational force, these apparent forces simply come out as relative velocities. So many problems can be solved, simply by allowing the observers potential to float, now I am absolutely certain I am on the right track. Steven

It was actually Dirac himself that proposed this in his Theory of Electrons and Protons [Proc.R.Soc Lond A1930] but then goes on to justify several reasons why it can't be so, and I think it might have been Hermann Weill who debunked the idea by stating that the particle pairs must have equal mass. When the positron was discovered everyone was happy, because it fitted the model perfectly. The problem of why we have a universe full of electrons and virtually no positrons remained unanswered. I don't think it is a given law that the two particles are always witnessed to be of identical mass, as the mass ratio ought to depend on the observers potential. My view is that the electron and proton is the crest and the trough of the same wave, and that we can reconcile the two wavelets by a Lorenz transformation of the observer, (rather than transforming the mass as in Einstein relativity). When I started doing the numbers it all made sense to me, and all that was needed was to get away from the assumption that ground potential was somehow electrically neutral, it isn't. I have written a paper on this here; http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0158 Steven

Moderator and old friends, Thanks, over the last four years, since writing the paper on the relation of a body's mass and the Universe event horizon, I have been working on related problems, and one of them has been the lack of satisfactory explanation for why there are a) roughly equal number of electrons and protons, and b) why the electrons/protons are perfectly uniform in size. Working on a suspicion that these particles ought to be related in some way, I set out to look for this relation, it did not take me very long to find the relationship, as I intuitively knew there ought to be a lorenz factor in there somewhere. It quickly became clear to me that the electron and proton had to be a Dirac particle pair, and in order to reconcile their unequal mass, something had to give, which ultimately turned out to be the observer. In my latest paper, I work in units of energy (eV) and potential (V), this simplifies the expressions and the results can readily be converted back to mass etc.. My latest paper should be an easy read, and can be downloaded from http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0158 directly, or from my site http://groundpotential.org As always constructive critisism is appreciated.. Steven Sesselmann

Hi Guys, Theoretical physics takes time, you never knows when the next idea comes your way..., you guys probably don't remember discussing this thread 4 years ago, but if you still do, I have finally released the sequel. Find it here at http://www.groundpotential.org Like it or hate it, but just dont ignore it Steven Sesselmann

Ajb, you have been gentleman and you have highlighted many areas of my paper that need improving, and I value your comments. I don't think we have shot fatal holes in the theory, so I want to go back and work on another draft. It was never my intention to present it as a modified version of Newtons theory, so I need to clarify these points. Instantaneous action at a distance would be a problem, but I am not so sure that it applies when integrating a force over a distance...need to think about it some more. Thanks for taking the time to read, think and comment, and I hope we talk again soon.

You can concider it, but it lies outside of your observable Universe, so you can not know weather it conciders you, or in other words, no message can travel between you and anything outside your MHR. Regarding the reference to Newton on page 7, I am showing why Newtonian mechanics does not work, and why the energy required to separate two bodies from r to r = infinity, requires more work than what Newton suggested. The term Force (F) may be a Newtonian concept, but it is a measurable unit and without measuring force we would have no value for G, in which case Einstein could not have completed his theory either. I show on page 8, that integrating my new force law, from r to infinity, results in a completely different statement for [math]U_{p}[/math], than that of Newton. Regarding Black Holes, current theory is wrong, the complicated equations predict that an object collapses to a singularity and somehow retains it's mass. Sorry, but I do not believe this to be the case. The SR radius is a limit, beyond which the observer can not interact, gravitationally or otherwise. An object collapsing on its SR radius must give it's energy back to the observers domain, it can't simply run away with it. There is a limit to how much energy space can carry away in a certain time. I believe in two scenarios. a) the rotating vortex of incoming matter creates two diametrically opposing jets that eject the matter and energy, such as in a Quasar b) the spherically imploding matter simply bounces and starts ringing like a bell, becoming a pulsar. I do not believe that pulsars are beams that sweep across the sky, I believe they are imploding stars, that are unable to shed enough energy through normal photons, so they implode a bit, then bounce back a bit, then implode again and continue in this way, loosing a small amount of energy as a gravity wave with each bounce. So once again, black holes can not and do not exist in my theory, the balance of mass and space in the observers Universe is a function of the observers mass, and if you are the observer, nothing that happens out there in space can change your mass. All it can do is transform itself from matter to space or from space to matter according to lambda. Steven

Good question, and I can assure you that I struggled with this one too. Yes, assuming an observer free falling in emty space, somehow obtains and eats a sandwich (which he didn't previously have with him), his world would gain size. Not so important that he actually eats it Tying yourself to a building or standing in a gravitational field equates to the same thing, and yes, it would make a difference, but not as much as you might think. You should think of it in terms of gravitational blue shift, the opposite of gravitational redshift. Photons approaching an observer standing in a weak gravitational field will become slightly more blue shifted than photons arriving on the free falling, sandwich eating experimenter. The difference in accelleration is a small fraction of c. Steven Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Please delete and forget the word inertial on page 3 of my paper, it will be gone in the next draft Steven

I suppose it is possible that a mass appears repulsive outside of its MHR, I don't see that as a problem for the theory, as the region is forbidden from an energy point of view. Yes, let a mass m free fall from infinity, towards M, and at every point of the way it will have a velocity equal to EV, ergo the equivalence principle holds. Who told you I havent thought about this , if you look carefully, I am not really using Newtonian concepts at all, the SR radius happens to be a GR solution, even though Newtons law gives the same result for an EV equal to c. EV is a velocity applicable to an infinetessimally small point on r, and is therefore not a dynamic number, so no need for GR. You are still not looking at this from the observers point of view, so I need to clarify this.. If the observer was to implode on its own SR radius, there would be nothing left other than photons with a total energy of [math]mc^{2}[/math], these photons would travel outwards and upon reaching the MHR would be 100% redshifted. So it is important to understand that the observer can not collapse beyond its own SR radius. Therefore nothing will ever reach the speed of light, and no black hole will ever form, because no matter can ever slip through, it is an absolute limit. The force law on page 8 of my theory has resulted from a different thinking to that of Newton, it just happens to look similar. By rights, the force measurements from the Cavendish experiment should be entered into the new force equation to calculate a new value for G, allthough I doubt that it would result in a change, due to the number of significant figures we have in G. Steven Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged As we all know the real Universe is randomly scattered with observers of all sizes, and most are much heavier than our average astronomer. each of these bodies would observe a far more distant horizon than we can observe. It may have been less confusing if I had referred to the Universe at large, being all and everything, and called the finite Domain for the observers "World". I don't see a problem in a heavy body being able to observe a more distant horizon. When you think of it, the redshifted photons from far away regions will appear more blueshifted to a body of heavier mass. Steven

ajb, okay that's great, you have understood the concept..., it's almost too simple, isn't it. You ask two questions as folows; Matter, or what I referred to as mass, can be very dense or very rarefied, right? A body ie. an observer at rest is normally at some density which is a function of mass/volume Take this body and stretch it in all directions, against it's own force of gravity, in such a way that it is uniformly rarefied. The you will find that as the radius approaches the MHR; a) You have expended an amont of energy equal to [math]mc^{2}[/math] b) That every particle the original body was made from, is now at rest with respect to every other particle in the Universe, ie you have matched equilibrium. By definition, the MHR is a limit, because the observer of mass m, only has an energy domain of [math]2mc^{2}[/math]. hence the name Domain theory. The observers domain is limited in space and limited in energy, both of which are a function of its rest mass. I speculate, that it is due to the electro magnetic forces, opposing those of gravity, that we the observers (at rest), are hovering excactly in the middle of its energy domain. Were it not for the electromagnetic force, all matter would collapse on its own SR radii Experience shows that this does normally not happen, unless the mass reaches some upper limit (Chandrasekhar). Steven

Remember, when you calculate EV, the second mass term cancels out, this is significant, because it meand that you can define the EV for a lone object, simply by knowing G. A zero EV means that mass and space, are indistinguishable, ergo at the MHR, mass and space have the same density, which in turn implies that the observers space Domain must have the same mass as the observer itself. same... , EV simply replaces the term v, thereby turning it mass dependent and not velocity dependent. There is no difference between Newtonian EV and GR EV, it is a velocity based on first principles. The only requirement is an accurate value of G, which incidentally will differ slightly under my theory. What it means, is that the size of your World is a function of your mass, and that size of my World is a function of my mass. Sure, they overlap, and we share the events in the overlapping region (99.999....999% of it). Stuff exists outside your MHR, but you will have no way of finding out, unless of course, you gain mass The laws of the Universe seem to have put an upper and lower limit on an observers mass, which might be an indication that the grand total of all worlds, may be finite, but that is only speculation. Anyone who managed to get their head around GR, should have no problem understanding this.

You have all made some valuable comments and suggestions, some which I intend to use in my next draft. Now, standing back and looking at my theory objectively, I see three inventive steps, which I believe are novel. One is to remove all other reference points other than the observer itself, and to realize that the escape velocity from an observer at rest is purely a function of its mass. Second, to realize that there would be an upper and a lower limit to the mass density of any observer, the upper limit being the SR radius, where EV=c, and the lower limit being the MHR, where EV = 0, then to realize that a mass with a density so low that EV= 0, is by definition "space". Third, was to realize that gamma can be expressed in two ways, either... [math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math] or [math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{2Gm}{rc^{2}}}}[/math] Essentially these two terms mean and do the same thing, they represent gamma, the first term is used in SR where the dynamics are velocity. The second term is the transformation of the first term from velocity to mass, using the EV as a bridge. There is absolutely no need to introduce GR into this argument at all, it is elegant and completely self consistent on it's own. ...and best of all, it can make predictions that can be tested. By analysing the data from the Pioneer missions, I think it should be possible to show that the negative accelleration is not directed towards the sun, but that it is directed towards the observer. There might be a large enough paralax between the Sun and the Earth to show this. Only a small shift in thinking, but a giant shift in understanding Steven Sesselmann

It is okay to imagine an object of a given mass m, being far away from any other gravitating object, and then go on to calculate the hypothetical escape velocity from this mass, using nothing but first principles. Remember, the second escaping mass can be infinitely small.

AJ Thanks for your feedback.. In this theory, I am working everything from the observers point of reference and in the present moment. ie. escape velocity right now is equal to the expression above, with the present Hubble value and the observers rest mass m. My understanding is that relativity is also an inverse square law, the problem with Newton's expression, is that it is not dynamic. It only works for near circular orbits, but can't be applied when two objects are separated from r to r infinity. I agree, my intention is to refer to this radius as the MHR, and somehow my ego slipped up on the diagram page... gone in the next draft Wiki suggests lambda to be 10e-29 g/cm^3, my theory suggests 1.118 e-26 kg/m^3. Thanks again, it is a work in progress, and constructive feedback like this will improve future work. Steven

Have any of you guys ever asked the question: "How big is the Universe?" Of course you have and so did I, and after groumbling on the problem for a while, it became clear to me that ever since Copernicus, scientists have been looking at some aspects of physics from the wrong point of view. Successfully I might add, but some problems we have had huge difficulties actually understanding, such as, why the speed of light is constant to all observers and why quantum mechanics works the way it does. We just accept it as a given fact. I think the problem is, that scientists have worked on reconciling time and motion of third party objects, and have considered "the observer" as a passive party to the action/reaction. Not so, the observer is directly linked to the action and will affect the outcome of any experiment. On a macro scale, the effect is negligable, but on a quantum scale it becomes the determining factor. In my theory, I claim that the size of the observable Universe is a factor of the observers own mass, and I show with relative clarity and mathematical steps, why this is so, further I give a value for the actual size. Then, I go on to show that space has mass/energy and give the excact value. Finally I do the unthinkable and modify Newtons law! I invite your reviews opinions, and consider myself lucky to live in a world where burning at the stake is not common practice My paper can be downloaded from viXra.org http://vixra.org/abs/0911.0050 Steven Sesselmann

Hi guys, I am sure this question has been asked many times and the standard answer is always "the standard model...bla bla bla, and only God knows the size of the U". Well I think it is time to change the way we think... To comply with your forum rules, I will take my ideas to the Spec forum, where I can hopefully get a good debate. I am going to propose that the size of the Universe does depend on the observers mass, and hopefully show you why and how we can work out the excact size. See you there Steven

Hi Guys, I did look for an introduction forum, but couldn't find it, so now I realize that it was an introduction thread. My original introduction was posted here. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47547 Hope to get involved in some interesting discussions. Steven

"How big is the Universe?" It's a good question, and one that I too have thought long and hard about Recently, a solution dawned on me.., and I realized that a better question to ask is "How big is your appetite for Donuts?" yes, I now believe that the size of the Universe is mass dependent! (observers mass that is) and that the size of the Universe can be written as... r = (2Gm/H^2)^(1/3) ..which incidentally turns out, that observations match the mass of the average chubby Astronomer Now we can feel better about that extra Donut... Steven

Hi, I would love to join your discussion forum, cosmology is never far from my mind, and I love to theorize about the Universe and all that. Another interest of mine is amateur fusion, I have a small lab where I can carry out small high voltage/vacuum experiments. I often like to bring up new ideas and hypothethise about new theories, I hope you guys are open to that. (not like those "standard model Nazi's" at the PhysicsForum ) Let logic and reason prevail Steven