It is currently Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:22 am

## Not your average BIG Bang theory

• Author
• Message

Steven Sesselmann

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

Ground Potential theory paints a very different picture about the beginning and the end of the Universe, but at the same time it mimicks the big bang, so anyone can be forgiven, even though it is wrong.

In GP theory, time is very much a function of the observers potential, so observers at different potentials find themselves at different times in the life cycle of the universe. Confused...let me explain..

We are currenly travelling through time with our planet earth and resting safely a potential of some 930 million volts, that's only 8 million volts less than the beginning of the universe which can not have been higher than 938 million volts (the surpace potential of a proton). So our universe is very young, in time we have only used 1.7% of our total universe age.

However time goes on and we eventually spiral inwards and towards the galactic centre, where our potential will eventually fall to half that of a proton 469 million volts, this half way point is also called the Schwarzchild radius, and is where the observers potential is actually zero.

Energy is not lost in this process, and as we loose potential energy, we gain velocity and upon reaching the annihilation point we have come to the end of time, and no we don't get swallowed up by the black hole, instead what was mass energy has now gone through a total Lorenz transformation to become a wave and then a particle pair in a perpendicular dimension which was formerly our time dimension.

The particle pair travel in opposite directions, one into the future and one into the past, and my calculations indicate that the particles, which have a starting momentum of 469 MeV, only have enough energy to make it out to the rim of our galaxy.

My suspicion is therefore that this moment in time when a proton is re-born through the nucleus of a galaxy, is what that proton looks back at as the big bang. And likewise when we look back at the big bang, we see that moment when our protons were created.

This might seem odd, but remember time is a local fenomenon, so when a proton is just born the universe is incredibly small and that process of being ejected from a galactic nucleus is what we understand as the inflationary period.

I have created a simple gif animation to show how galaxies recycle the energy, and to demonstrate that the big bang is actually a continuous creation, and not one event in time as currently believed.

Click on the image to see the full picture...

Continuous creation animation
galaxy.gif (101.65 KiB) Viewed 4370 times

The above animation shows an atom spiralling in to the galactic nucleus, where it is eventually reprocessed by the black body in the galactic centre and ejected dimetrically from the poles along the axis of time. These massive jets of matter are not visible to us from our vantage point, as we can not see the past and future time axis. But if we look at galaxies which are so far away in the past, that they appear at our potential, then we are able to see these jets, and of course those are what we call active galactic nuclei or quasars.

I should add a subnote here that GP theory demands that all black holes are identical in size, this happens because matter may condense to the point of becoming a black hole, but at that point, for the reasons stated above, it can not become more massive. All black holes being identical in size, would explain why all protons are manufactured with the same constant energy, which is what we see.

This aremy thoughts, and as always, your job as a sceptic is to use every known fact to prove me wrong...enjoy!

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
Hello and Cheers to StevenS.

In response to your post, it seems "potential" of energy is being assigned a "surface value"...what if the entirety of an

atom where assigned the "value?" What then? It seems (to me) that a "surface value" scalar would deny the EmC^2

principle as valid...matter would enable only it's maximum yield of "surface potential" only, regardless of velocity.

(I think the figure would equal less than 0.0000001 of totality)

.....

I think this is a case of "calculating available energy" of a wave-function, w/o considering the totality of the mass

of water (or whatever factor) that supports and "enables" the wave to exist...you cannot have one w/o the other!

.....

Is it just me, or are you equating "surface" energy as a commonality w/gravity?

.....

Cheerio! (good post...lots of intriguing questions)

Steven Sesselmann

• Posts: 99
• Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
• Location: Sydney - Australia
Gerry Nightingale wrote:Hello and Cheers to StevenS. In response to your post, it seems "potential" of energy is being assigned a "surface value"...what if the entirety of an atom where assigned the "value?" What then? It seems (to me) that a "surface value" scalar would deny the EmC^2 principle as valid...matter would enable only it's maximum yield of "surface potential" only, regardless of velocity. (I think the figure would equal less than 0.0000001 of totality)

Gerry, the whole concept of surface potential comes about because it is the energy required to separate an electron from a proton which gives the particle it's mass. It's mass is therefore a function of it's radius. Coulomb's force law is actually valid despite "force" not featuring in GP, or should I say the integral of Coulombs law.

Ue = Kqq/r

Obviously this equation can not be valid for r = zero, and we soon realize that only when Ue = 1022 keV can two particles of 511 keV be created, so the hypothetical surface of an electron is;

r = Kqq/E

...or simply K/E as the elementary charges in this case are 1

Gerry Nightingale wrote:I think this is a case of "calculating available energy" of a wave-function, w/o considering the totality of the mass of water (or whatever factor) that supports and "enables" the wave to exist...you cannot have one w/o the other!

Not sure if I understood that statement, but I don't think there is a need for a medium to carry energy, because energy carries itself. Energy being a wave, has a negative component and a positiver component, and carries it's own mass, so it does not need to travel in any medium whatsoever. Liken this to a completely broke person who borrows money from one person and lends it to another (unless he is a bank) the process is 100% neutral.

Gerry Nightingale wrote:Is it just me, or are you equating "surface" energy as a commonality w/gravity?

Surface potential and the rules of GP are the same for a proton, an electron or a slice of swiss cheese :)

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
Cheers to StevenS!

In regard to your "Time" models of "past" and "future" tenses...I am forced to disagree.
To me, there is no "actuality of time" as a "real thing".
As I see it, the only validity of time is as a numerical concept only, an arbitrary condition of measure.

......

As for "Big Bang?" I regard it as a premier candidate for "The worst theory ever postulated". There is NO reason
whatsoever to regard "BB" as having any validity...it is pure speculation based on false assumptions that "the
Universe must have a beginning and this must be how it all began!" Based on what? Wishful thinking?
"BB" was and is a "kneejerk reaction" to what is assumed to be evidence of "Expansion" from some nexus of origin.

(Einstein/Bose "condensate" theory has been completely ignored for the last fifty years, despite the fact that
it works, and has recently been established in lab projects as having "true results")
Almost ALL of modern "QM" theory is a "house of cards" supported solely by ever more elaborate calculus and
affine theory that "condensate" theory supercedes, and no one in modern theory cares to admit "Einstein was right!"
To admit that there is any "problem" in "BB" theory would cause EVERYTHING to collapse, and none dare admit
that "BB" is an example of the "Emperor's new Clothes!" )

Now you know why I get "banned" from forums...I simply can't agree with "magic conditions" as real science!

Best regards, Gerry.

Steven Sesselmann

• Posts: 99
• Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
• Location: Sydney - Australia
Gerry Nightingale wrote:Cheers to StevenS!

In regard to your "Time" models of "past" and "future" tenses...I am forced to disagree.
To me, there is no "actuality of time" as a "real thing".

Gerry, the concept of defining time as separate from space, was a mistake which has gost us almost 400 years of setbacks. All the indications are now pointing to time as being just another dimension of spacetime, no different whatsoever from the three we normally refer to as space. The difference as I try to make clear in my theory, lies with the observer, and not with the substance we call space-time. You are of course welcome to disagree, but I would appreciate a logical argument as to why you disagree.

As for "Big Bang?" I regard it as a premier candidate for "The worst theory ever postulated". There is NO reason
whatsoever to regard "BB" as having any validity...it is pure speculation based on false assumptions that "the
Universe must have a beginning and this must be how it all began!" Based on what? Wishful thinking?
"BB" was and is a "kneejerk reaction" to what is assumed to be evidence of "Expansion" from some nexus of origin.

Once again, it is a misunderstanding to think that the big bang was an event in time. The big bang is most likely a continuous thing, never ending banging, if that makes any sense, it is only from your point of view as an observer, that it appears to have taken place at a point in time.

(Einstein/Bose "condensate" theory has been completely ignored for the last fifty years, despite the fact that
it works, and has recently been established in lab projects as having "true results")
Almost ALL of modern "QM" theory is a "house of cards" supported solely by ever more elaborate calculus and
affine theory that "condensate" theory supercedes, and no one in modern theory cares to admit "Einstein was right!"
To admit that there is any "problem" in "BB" theory would cause EVERYTHING to collapse, and none dare admit
that "BB" is an example of the "Emperor's new Clothes!" )Now you know why I get "banned" from forums...I simply can't agree with "magic conditions" as real science! Best regards, Gerry.

There is no doubt that the establishment we call science has a huge momentum, and as a result it also has inertia or reluctance to change. But as with any large mass, a small tug in the right direction will eventually see it move. The reason you have been banned from other forum should not be because you disagree with the standard model, but because you make certain claims without backing it up. You may have a better chance idf you write your ideas down and structure them in some kind of logical sequence, this will also highlight areas where you think you have it all worked out, but discover gaps in your own model (it happens to me all the time).

Keep thinking..

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
StevenS...how's the water situation in Australia...is it as bad as seems to be? At least wrt rainfall averages.

In reference to my rebuttal of "Time" as a true component of the Universe, I stand w/my assessments.
Wrt denial of current theory, may I submit that there is NO definitive model of "time" anywhere in physics!
"Time" is defined as identifiable "tick rates" of decay (at least in science) and even these are regarded "valid only
respect to a given frame of reference".
This scenario of "variations of time/distance/velocity" are likely the most contentious themes in physics theory!
No...I cannot formulate any validity for my own interpretation of "time" other than logic. Fortunately, neither
can anyone else prove "time is real of itself".
As far as I can determine, "spacetime" is a handy concept used to validate otherwise unanswerable paradoxes, usually
accompanied with arcane calculus functions applied to velocity and distance.

......
As for "BB?" I think it was a rush to judgment based on false observations...an excellent example of a "meme" mindset
gone completely in thrall to the possibilities of "what is out there".

Regards, Gerry.

Steven Sesselmann

• Posts: 99
• Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
• Location: Sydney - Australia
Gerry Nightingale wrote:StevenS...how's the water situation in Australia...is it as bad as seems to be? At least wrt rainfall averages.

Australia is a big country, plenty of water here in Sydney at the moment, but elsewhere in the country it is still dry.

In reference to my rebuttal of "Time" as a true component of the Universe, I stand w/my assessments.
Wrt denial of current theory, may I submit that there is NO definitive model of "time" anywhere in physics!
"Time" is defined as identifiable "tick rates" of decay (at least in science) and even these are regarded "valid only
respect to a given frame of reference".
This scenario of "variations of time/distance/velocity" are likely the most contentious themes in physics theory!
No...I cannot formulate any validity for my own interpretation of "time" other than logic. Fortunately, neither
can anyone else prove "time is real of itself".

Gerry,

I have to partially agree with you on this one, because time is not a propert of space, it is a property of the observer, so we should not be talking of a substance called space-time as there isn't such a thing.

In GP theory, time is defined as the observers fall in potential.

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
Cheers to StevenS!

I see we have at least some "ground potential"<(haha) wrt time as an arbitrary function! Excellent!
When I was much younger, I held out great hopes for "grand new theories" that could reveal the 'truth of things".
Now, at sixty, I have found almost NOTHING of any real consequence has occurred since the death of Einstein...it is
as if he took "true theory based upon empirical reality and logic" with him into the unknown.
You would think that someone would "rise to the occasion" of the vacuum left by A.E. some physics equivalent of a
Churchill or a Roosevelt...instead we have "media whores" and poseurs who seek nothing more than money and adulation from a clueless public. I know little of Australia, and I hope that it is not like the U.S. where intellect is
nothing and only "how to get rich screwing other people and claiming accolades as a rightful due" is the norm.
(Bill Gates should be the "poster child" of this phenomenon, as well as Steve Jobst) The state of higher education
in the U.S. is so lacking in true knowledge and understanding it frightens me...just memorize enough crap and
become a "Doctorate" in damn near anything!
......
I have read thru your posits, and I believe they have merit and substance...although perhaps not for the reasons
you may believe true! The main difference in your examinations of physics and my own is that I am seeking
out "primal causations" for "ground-potential" to exist as a "true state".
I am trying currently to resolve my own work wrt your own position of "surface potential" as you have presented it, and
hopefully I will work out something good enough to post soon that shows the "Relativity" of your stuff and my own.
(this is NOT as easy as it would seem!)

BTW..."Crikey! This site needs some members!"

Steven Sesselmann

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

When I am not moonshining as a scientist, I run a business, in fact I have been self emlployed since I was 19, and I can confirm that ruthless business, and strategic cornering of the public, ie. taking away their choices is still the way to make money, even in Australia. (allthough I never mastered the art very well).

Introverts, deep thinkers, creative artists and talented musicians, lay down their work for ruthless business people to make money. Sad but true..

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
StevenS...Cheers!

I regret that I was not very successful in the "money" dept. for most of my life...(I spent the bulk of my younger years
"treading water", more or less...generally "less") The main reason? A complete inability on my part to "connect" w/others. I have never had any real friends or social life, so, there was never anyone to favor me wrt promotion or
pay increases and so forth. (even I find this curious...the "how" and "why" of my personal life)
I wish things had been different...!

Best regards, Gerry.
Next