Proton electron pair animation

[Steven Sesselmann]

Every proton starts off with a surface potential of 938 MeV, it is a fundamental constant of nature, but over time two protions find each other and then three and so on..., causing it's potential to fall.

As the proton potential falls, the electron potential must rise, in order to conserve charge. When the proton reaches 469 MV, the electron will also have a surface potential of 469 MV, there being no differential in the potential, annihilation will take place, and the pair regain the photon state. I speculate that this might start another cycle.

Remember no energy has been lost.

Steven

Animation of Particle Life

2014-08-14-212237.gif (71.05 KiB) Viewed 11327 times

[Gerry Nightingale]

Nice animation to support your posit, Steven!

But...there is the question of "how does the process produce energy?"

Have you considered the possibility that "energy was manifested by the actions of matter?"

It seems your "model" is lacking something...an explanation of how matter created energy of itself, from itself.

......

Imagine what is commonly considered "radiant energy" as a "metric of potential"...the "potential" was already in-place

prior to any movement of a particulate from a rest-state...the particle(s) interact w/each others sphere of influence

and the "Casimir effect" comes into play...the particles are being "forced" to interact on a quantum level.

If the forced inter-action is great enough, the "potential" of energy becomes manifest. (action and re-action still

function, even at a "quantum" level, as well as Relativity factors.

......

This model then contradicts any known particle theory...as the "need" for photons/electrons to "move" becomes

moot...the potential of energy is present every "where/when" at all times...this means that "c" could be regarded

as a "frequency in-place" rather than a "speed".

.....

How then to explain the "travel" factor of light? Surely some particle must be regarded as "energy bearing!"

The answer is at the "source of emission"...in some manner, the density of matter is creating a "foreign" signal, and

it is this "signal" that "pushes" against what I refer to as the "quantum-dimension of energy" in a non-manifested

state of potential. The "signal" (or frequency) serves as causation to "disturb" dimensional energy, causing it

to become manifested in-place.

......

I believe this why no variation is ever noted w/ regard to "c"...it is never greater or lesser, no matter the FoR.

The "speed of light" never varies because it is always "there" no matter when/where it is measured. The "speed"

of light never changes because there was never any speed, or any sort of conventional movement.

......

(This is a very brief synopsis minus all the technical jargon...I wanted to show "how my concept works" rather than

a book's worth of point-by-point explanation of "how does this work and what does this mean?")

As always (Thanks for reading!)

[Steven Sesselmann]

Nice animation to support your posit, Steven!

But...there is the question of "how does the process produce energy?"

Gerry,
Thanks for the question. At this stage I do not have a definite answer as to where energy came from in the first place, but my theory does point towards galaxies being the particle making machines. One of the indications is that the proton (as seen from ground potential) only has enough energy to escape the galaxy. Another pointer is that we only see quasars in the very distant Universe, so this is what I think is happening; The jets we see emanating from the nucleus of a quasar may be the process of positive and negative particle creation, these jets when seen from a very-very large distance are visible in the x, y, z plane, but when a galaxy is closer (as in our own galaxy, these jets eject in the time plane, ie. one jet travels into the past, and one jet travels into the future, ie, they are there, but we can't see it. At around 468 MeV each they only have enough energy to make it as far as the rim of our galaxy, which makes me think that matter gets sucked into a black hole at the nucleus of our galaxy, then gets shot out into the past and the future, with the past particles reappearing as protons at the edge of the galaxy, and future particles appearing as electrons at the rim. Essentially recycling on a galactic scale. I intend to do a little animation of this process when I have time.

Imagine what is commonly considered "radiant energy" as a "metric of potential"...the "potential" was already in-place prior to any movement of a particulate from a rest-state...the particle(s) interact w/each others sphere of influence and the "Casimir effect" comes into play...the particles are being "forced" to interact on a quantum level. If the forced inter-action is great enough, the "potential" of energy becomes manifest. (action and re-action still function, even at a "quantum" level, as well as Relativity factors.

The whole idea of a metric potential or field, does not fit well with Ground Potential, because when you understand it as it is intended, the appearance of the world time and space is a function of the observers potential, so according to my understanding there is no ether or field stretching out into space which can change in any way. The whole idea of curved space was more of a metaphor than a physical reality, and it was a good way to explain GR to the general public.

The beaty about this approach is that the observer can change the world, simply by changing it's potential, I believe it puts free will back into the game.

This model then contradicts any known particle theory...as the "need" for photons/electrons to "move" becomes moot...the potential of energy is present every "where/when" at all times...this means that "c" could be regarded as a "frequency in-place" rather than a "speed".

Not sure if I have understood your question correctly, but if you read the section of my paper which deals with relative velocity, you will agree that velocity is a function of potential.

How then to explain the "travel" factor of light? Surely some particle must be regarded as "energy bearing!" The answer is at the "source of emission"...in some manner, the density of matter is creating a "foreign" signal, and it is this "signal" that "pushes" against what I refer to as the "quantum-dimension of energy" in a non-manifested state of potential. The "signal" (or frequency) serves as causation to "disturb" dimensional energy, causing it to become manifested in-place. I believe this why no variation is ever noted w/ regard to "c"...it is never greater or lesser, no matter the FoR. The "speed of light" never varies because it is always "there" no matter when/where it is measured. The "speed" of light never changes because there was never any speed, or any sort of conventional movement.

Ground Potential says that the proton potential 938 MV is the universal constant, and the speed of light is just a derivation of that. 938 million volts is the upper potential asymptote in our universe, and the reason for this is we are made of these protons and therefore we carry the energy. When the galactic nucleus spewed out particles along the time axis, it gave the particles a relative potential of 938 million volts, there is really no positive and negative, as each particle sees it's anti particle as having the opposite charge whatever that is.

Another pretty amasing thought, is that the particles that are ejected by the galactic nucleus, and are billions of years apart in time, are actually the electrons and protons that make up our world and appear to be no further apart than the atomic nucleus.

I understand you have some ideas of your own, but from the short passage above I can't make any comment. If you have a paper on your idea, you may want to provide a link to it, but keep in mind that this forum is primarily about disproving Ground Potential, my job is to defend it.


Steven

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to Steven S.

I understand (at least I think I do) what you are positing as a "true condition". I am trying in my own way to show
you some comparable ideas of "reality" that may "fit" within the model of "potential".
......

I think you might want to post the entirety of your theory at "physforum" or "physorg" . There is a moderator who goes
by "rpenner" and he's an expert at both calculus and current theory, just post your stuff to him, and see what he has
to say regarding the "number crunching'" aspects you present.

I despise him on a personal level, but his skills with regard to examining a theory are quote good and might be
useful to you...if you can get an answer from him!
(my own skills at calculus and affine-theory are poor, so I can't form any real opinions w/regard to your numbers)

Gerry