It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:53 am

## Not your average BIG Bang theory

Use this forum to ask questions and talk about GPT theory.
• Author
• Message

Gerry Nightingale

• Posts: 26
• Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:47 pm
Greetings yet again to StevenS.

As I looked thru the "posts" I noticed that you mentioned one possible reason(s) for being "banned" is my making
claims w/nothing to "back it up"...I have a severe issue w/this!
I NEVER write anything w/o considering it first, at least wrt physics theory. I consider everything I write to be logical
and cohesive and "in-line" with "Relativity" (as written by A.E., not someone else's "interpretations" thereof)
As for proof of my observations and conclusions...I offer the known Universe and empirical reality! These are my "proofs", and I find they are enough to satisfy me.

For instance, I believe ALL the energy (radiant et al.) are ALWAYS "present", either as "manifested" or as condition
of "potential" (a "rest state") In what manner shall I "prove" this? (your "groundpotential" bears witness to this, like
it or no) In what manner is this a false conclusion? I would certainly like to see a rebuttal that can effectively prove
otherwise! <(this what serves as "causation" for being "banned"...the lack of effective denial!)
As for "math proofs?" It already exists. "Energy=Matter=(x velocity)" Does this sound familiar? It should!
How much is enough "proof?"

Gerry.

Steven Sesselmann

• Posts: 99
• Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
• Location: Sydney - Australia
Gerry,

What GP theory states, is that there is no such thing as fate, luck or destiny, everyone is more or less in control of their own future. As mentioned in a previous thread, time is a property of the observer, and as observers we have the power to modify time (ie. slow it down or speed it up). We do this by using some borrowed energy to slow time, or wasting some energy to speed it up, it is these constant adjustments to ones potential which has taken you to where you are today.

Unfortunately this is where ruthlessness comes in, because by taking more than your fair share of the available energy, you move up the ladder. Ironically, in a competitive world with a limited amount of energy, you will be more successful spending as much energy as possible, rather than being the one trying to conserve it. Just look at the airline industry, they depend on liquid fuels, which are destined to run out by 2040 or there about. Are they putting prices up and reducing the number of flights to conserve energy? No on the contrary, they are dropping prices and scheduling more flights than ever.

Steven
Steven Sesselmann
Only a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...

Gerry Nightingale

• Posts: 26
• Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:47 pm
Steven.

In regard to "GP", have you ever considered the overall implication(s)? By this I am referring to the possibilities of
an EM field as a "pre-cursor" state...a tensor-metric of potential (this preserves Relativity as well as associated postulates, such as Newton, et al.) The intriguing aspect of a tensor-metric is that it does NOT deny "GP"! In fact, your
own posits of GP theory seem to reinforce the concept of "energy as an independent state-of-self". The one main area
where we differ is in the idea of energy as entropic function...and I believe I can reconcile this as a "false interpretation" as to energy of itself.

All that is necessary is to regard energy as a separate function of matter, and the concept of the necessity to convert
"matter into energy" is rendered moot...in this manner, there is NO loss of matter, nor any loss of energy.

Energy is neither created nor dissipated by the mechanisms of matter...it is "actualized" by matter, and thus the
only limitations of "actualized energy" is amount of matter involved in manifesting the energy.
The greater the amount of matter, the greater the amount of energy that can be actualized. No matter is "lost" or
annihilated...matter is being transformed from one state to another. (fusion) As for fission, the matter is simply
being dispersed by interactions of matter and gravity.
......
I realize of course that none of the above could ever be considered as real...it would literally "throw the baby/bathwater/and house clean out the window" as far as physics theory of the last 100yrs. is concerned. In fact,
it would demand the re-thinking of everything! Can you imagine it? ALL of current particle theory would be swept away, as well as current models of QM theory! (Einstein would STILL remain, as well as his masterwork)

Gerry

Fundamenta

• Posts: 1
• Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:25 pm
Hello

This is the first time I´ve visited your forum and it seems that your finding your way to deeper knowledge by searching in the electrical field departement of physics. I hope I can find some answers myself here.

There is a theory called SEC (Scale Expanding Cosmos) by Johan Masreliez that I find appealing. In short. Our belief that it all started with the Big Bang is all based on the fundamenta that as we observe the light from a distant star it is shifting towards the lower frequency of the lightspectrum (red). The more distant the more red-shifted. When you "play" this belief backwards you come to the conclusion that everything started in a Little Point and that expansion of the universe is accelerating (Big Bang). What if the fundamenta of this belief is wrong. What if it is the progression of time that gives the red light effect? It is not that the further away the objects are moving faster. That can be an illusion. It could be the amount of time that has passed since the light was emitted that makes it red-shifted.

What if Everything was to expand during each delta t as time goes by? We wouldn´t notice as our "ruler" got bigger along with Everything else. The only thing we would observe is that as time progress and relative velocity will decrease. This would be an effect as an object get scaled up by a very small fractal each delta t but its velocity remained the same during the process. The observer would see the object slow down as time passes.

This fundamenta is more alligned with what astrophysiscists observe as they study how the spiralarms of the Galaxies form. Why the arms of the Galaxy rotates slower than the center cannot be explained with the standard model but it can be explained with the SEC theory. The further the distance to the center of the galaxy the greater the speed. The greater the impact of the delta t scaling thus decreasing the rotational velocity more the further away of the centre. This model can explain the spiralform.

It is also a relly appealing thought that the universe can be infinite, without a Big Bang. With the Scale Expanding Cosmos theory the energyconservation holds as the scaling during each delta t decreases the energy of the whole system thus giving Power to the scaling itself, on and on.

One more thing. Don´t forget what ancient philosofers told us. Existence rules out non existence and that infinite is more perfect than finite.

I know this is NOT in the electricity field but I have to start somewhere :-)

Steven Sesselmann

• Posts: 99
• Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
• Location: Sydney - Australia
Fundamenta wrote:Hello

This is the first time I´ve visited your forum and it seems that your finding your way to deeper knowledge by searching in the electrical field departement of physics. I hope I can find some answers myself here.

Hi and welcome to the forum, it's not often someone comes along with enough guts to post here ;)

Fundamenta wrote:There is a theory called SEC (Scale Expanding Cosmos) by Johan Masreliez that I find appealing. In short. Our belief that it all started with the Big Bang is all based on the fundamenta that as we observe the light from a distant star it is shifting towards the lower frequency of the lightspectrum (red). The more distant the more red-shifted. When you "play" this belief backwards you come to the conclusion that everything started in a Little Point and that expansion of the universe is accelerating (Big Bang). What if the fundamenta of this belief is wrong. What if it is the progression of time that gives the red light effect? It is not that the further away the objects are moving faster. That can be an illusion. It could be the amount of time that has passed since the light was emitted that makes it red-shifted.

Precisely, the big bang is based on the assumption that Galaxies are moving away from us, and this belief persists despite the fact that stars and matter in general is loosing potential over time, it's almost as if science is in denial. I guess the idea of an expanding Universe is more palatable than one where we are all going down the drain (hard concept to sell).

Fundamenta wrote:What if Everything was to expand during each delta t as time goes by? We wouldn´t notice as our "ruler" got bigger along with Everything else. The only thing we would observe is that as time progress and relative velocity will decrease. This would be an effect as an object get scaled up by a very small fractal each delta t but its velocity remained the same during the process. The observer would see the object slow down as time passes.

These kind of philosophical arguments prove nothing by themselves, but can lead to real world proofs, in the same way as imaginary numbers can solve real problems.

Fundamenta wrote:This fundamenta is more alligned with what astrophysiscists observe as they study how the spiralarms of the Galaxies form. Why the arms of the Galaxy rotates slower than the center cannot be explained with the standard model but it can be explained with the SEC theory. The further the distance to the center of the galaxy the greater the speed. The greater the impact of the delta t scaling thus decreasing the rotational velocity more the further away of the centre. This model can explain the spiralform.

This is my latest argument, namely that we up until now have imagined orbiting bodies moving forward, while in fact GP theory tells me they are moving backwards. This has the excact effect you mention above, that planets move backwards faster the further out you go. A simple thought experiment demonstrates this. To get a rocket into orbit you must first accellerate it away from the observer so the velocity is negative, when you get to your desired orbit the rocket will have a velocity of $$v = - \sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}$$, then when you want to get it into higher obit you must once again accellerate the rocket, thereby reaching a higher negative velocity. My conclusion is therefore, planets move backwards, not forwards as kepler assumed.

Fundamenta wrote:It is also a relly appealing thought that the universe can be infinite, without a Big Bang. With the Scale Expanding Cosmos theory the energyconservation holds as the scaling during each delta t decreases the energy of the whole system thus giving Power to the scaling itself, on and on.

At the moment i agree with that thought, I also think galaxies are perpetual recycling plants. matter falls into the big black hole in the middle, which tears everything apart into single protons and electrons and ejects them perpendicular to space (in the time direction) as two jets, one positive into the past and one negative into the future, the matter ejected into the past (protons), you guessed it, turns up in the past at the edge of our galaxy, and starts a new cycle of fusion and fission, slowly making it's way back to the centre.

Fundamenta wrote:One more thing. Don´t forget what ancient philosofers told us. Existence rules out non existence and that infinite is more perfect than finite.

Noted ;)
Steven Sesselmann
Only a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...
Previous

Return to General discussion - talk physics

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests