## Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

Once again I had to think about your question for a day or so. I don't see any conflict with causality just because observers are at different potentials. GP theory says that the relative four velocity between two observers at differtent potentials must be $$c(\frac{\Delta\phi}{\Phi})$$, so all this means is that all bodies, regardless of potential are heading in the same direction, but those at higher potential are taking a longer path.

A concious observer can use energy to change it's potential i.e it's 3 velocity and thereby change the cause of it's own future, this change can only be observed by bodies in the past, hence there is no conflict. Observers separated by space, will always see the other in a past state.

In order to cause a conflict with the future, one would have to travel faster than light.

GP theory says the arrow of time points in the direction of lower potential, ie radially inwards, with the present being at ground potential, so the observer future is inwards, not surprisingly we can't easily see it.

Steven
Steven Sesselmann
Only a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...
https://gammaspectacular.com

FourLeaves
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:00 pm

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

In that case, how are the 4 velocities of two observers related to each other if the velocities come in unique pairs, and are only identifiable by the displaced potential of each equally unique observer? Surely there must be a matrix or series describing the translation of exact information from one potential too another. If no matrix exist for the translation, how can a mathematician or physicist calculate and predict innumerable velocities, all relative to each other or not, without knowing either the determinant of the translational matrix or the exact Ground Potential of the desired system?

Additionally, how is the "longer path" and "direction" quantified? If they can not be identified and quantified without using GP, then they are not compatible with the currently accepted model. And although compatibility with the current model is not a necessity for the truth of GP, it is a necessity for convincing the defenders of the current model, as well as any student who is learning / has learned physics using the current model.

Further more, if all bodies are heading in the same direction, how can bodies exist in the past? And how are you assuming any conscious observer has a future which is not imminent annihilation? What does this imply about observers only separated by time, not space? Can this kind of separation only occur within a single observer? And if the arrow of time is pointing in the direction of lower potential, wouldn't the particles with the lowest potential actually be experiencing an increase in potential, relative to their past? Such that the mathematical gap in energy between GP and the electron portion of an electron-proton wave is actually decreasing over time? Which implies, from the perspective of lower potential, that GP is in fact increasing over time and that the arrow of time points upward toward GP? This becomes even more evident when you take into account the fact that that no electron is conscious. No electron, therefore, can be aware of its past potential. This means it can not notice the slow decrease in the exact potential of itself or it's related proton. Which occurs over the entire past, present, and future system of the observable universe, as described by GP.

In whole, the reason GP seems to raise more questions than it answers seems to be the lack of differing opinions regarding the more... tentative... aspects of your theories. Though you are capable of answer the difficult questions I ask, the answers all revolve around a central point which you have restated multiple times. GP, however correct it may be, will not be a reliable system or deciphering the universe until every single portion of it depends upon it's own independent truth. In other words, GP must not rely so heavily on a single equation or set of theories in order to maintain it's logical stability. There are no magic wands or fairy dust, only wishes and dreams. The latter of which is quite unpredictable.

FourLeaves
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:00 pm

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

Oh, and as it happens, information can travel faster than light. It is done so by using the phenomena of Quantum Entanglement. This does not seem to be possible within GP, especially so since "conflicts with the future" have never once been documented, recorded, or quantified in any way.

Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

FourLeaves,

Quite a number of difficult questions, I need time to formulate good answers.

Happy to receive some help too ;)

Working on it....

Steven
Steven Sesselmann
Only a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...
https://gammaspectacular.com

FourLeaves
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:00 pm

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

Don't mistake my words for negativity or disagreement though, in fact, GP clarifies many difficulties within modern physics but merely lacks a formal base for argument. I have my own opinions and theories about how to successfully interpret and predict the phenomena of nature, but to share them with other people is to assume those theories are pervasively flawed. From that mentality, I think you could benefit greatly. In other words, GP needs a re-establishment on more thorough and formal proofs in order to achieve such ambitious goals. Don't get me wrong though, I am just as much anti-establishment as you are when it comes to desktop physics. I would like nothing more than to have my opinions hold equal value as Einstein's in the scientific community. But such ambition and separation from the "standard model" bears the burden of proof. Because of this, the imaginative developers of GP (which seems to really just be you at this point) carry out rigorous proofs, not to show the scientific community GPs validity but to have absolute confidence in your own knowledge of GP. If you are sure that no one in the history of academia could best you in an argument on the validity of Ground Potential as an explanation for the phenomena of nature, because of the innumerable proofs you've derived, than you will certainly be able to change the laws of physics from the top down.

If you'd like, I can describe my theories about nature and GP in specific, but I must insist on doing so in a non-public form. Do know that relatively anonymous and so inclined people like myself who inhabit the internet, a group including myself, very much appreciate and respect your contribution and dedication to the advancement of science through a free, public-access forum. Your time dedicated to this endeavor is exponentially increased per every curious or skeptical person who reads this forum.

With all that said, I am a messenger and challenger to you, hailing from the unknown community of minds called the internet, here to test the metal of GP. And though I strike with my hammer-ous intentions, trying my best to decimate your basis for reality, I only do so with the goal of bettering both our understandings of this wonderful universe.

Thank you,
FourLeaves

Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

I appreciate the challenging questions you ask..
FourLeaves wrote:How are the 4 velocities of two observers related to each other if the velocities come in unique pairs, and are only identifiable by the displaced potential of each equally unique observer?

Surely there must be a matrix or series describing the translation of exact information from one potential too another. If no matrix exist for the translation, how can a mathematician or physicist calculate and predict innumerable velocities, all relative to each other or not, without knowing either the determinant of the translational matrix or the exact Ground Potential of the desired system?
By knowing only one's own ground potential one can only infer the potential of other bodies by measuring their relative velocities, any ability to work out the size of the field or a matrix has been lost due to fact that we have simplified the expression by dividing by number of nucleons. The total mass would also need to be known, to determine the size of the field. That said, this can be indirectly calculated by knowing the gravitational accelleration or the orbital velocity of objects around a body of known potential.
Additionally, how is the "longer path" and "direction" quantified? If they can not be identified and quantified without using GP, then they are not compatible with the currently accepted model. And although compatibility with the current model is not a necessity for the truth of GP, it is a necessity for convincing the defenders of the current model, as well as any student who is learning / has learned physics using the current model.
The four velocity of all bodies is taken to be c, therefore the sum of velocity vectors as follows must hold true;

$\frac{dx}{dt}+\frac{dy}{dt}+\frac{dz}{dt}+c(\frac{\phi_{gnd}}{\Phi_{proton}})=c$
Further more, if all bodies are heading in the same direction, how can bodies exist in the past? And how are you assuming any conscious observer has a future which is not imminent annihilation?
It becomes clear that from the observers vantage point all events are happening in the past, this is an inevitable consequence of the finite speed of light.

The future is inwards from the observers surface to the centre of gravity. The arrow of time points radially towards the centre of gravity, with the present at ground potential.
What does this imply about observers only separated by time, not space? Can this kind of separation only occur within a single observer?
From what I can see, time like separation is only applicable to events that lie inside the observers surface.
FourLeaves wrote:And if the arrow of time is pointing in the direction of lower potential, wouldn't the particles with the lowest potential actually be experiencing an increase in potential, relative to their past?

Such that the mathematical gap in energy between GP and the electron portion of an electron-proton wave is actually decreasing over time?
Yes, I believe this is what causes heavier nuclei like Thorium, Uranium etc..to decay, upwards, they literally fall back up to ground potential.
FourLeaves wrote:Which implies, from the perspective of lower potential, that GP is in fact increasing over time and that the arrow of time points upward toward GP? This becomes even more evident when you take into account the fact that that no electron is conscious. No electron, therefore, can be aware of its past potential. This means it can not notice the slow decrease in the exact potential of itself or it's related proton. Which occurs over the entire past, present, and future system of the observable universe, as described by GP.
Interesting observation, which I had never thought about, but yes I think you have a point. From the electrons potential the world will look exactly the same as it does for us, the electron will see the proton as being the smaller particle and time will in effect run the other way.
FourLeaves wrote:In whole, the reason GP seems to raise more questions than it answers seems to be the lack of differing opinions regarding the more... tentative... aspects of your theories. Though you are capable of answer the difficult questions I ask, the answers all revolve around a central point which you have restated multiple times. GP, however correct it may be, will not be a reliable system or deciphering the universe until every single portion of it depends upon it's own independent truth. In other words, GP must not rely so heavily on a single equation or set of theories in order to maintain it's logical stability. There are no magic wands or fairy dust, only wishes and dreams. The latter of which is quite unpredictable.
GP theory is in it's infancy, and one by one pieces are falling into place. I think we will end up with a simple framework which physicists can use to make predictions, so I need input from people like yourself to shape the theory. The paper is already in need of rewriting, so hopefully I will get time over Christmas to do that.
FourLeaves wrote:Oh, and as it happens, information can travel faster than light. It is done so by using the phenomena of Quantum Entanglement. This does not seem to be possible within GP, especially so since "conflicts with the future" have never once been documented, recorded, or quantified in any way.
On the contrary, GP theory says a change in the observers potential instantly changes everything, including the proton to electron ratios in the Andromeda galaxy. That's spooky action ata distance ;)

Steven
Steven Sesselmann
Only a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...
https://gammaspectacular.com

Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

Interesting,

I was watching a series of talks from Sydney University, today and 12 minutes into the third video, the speaker talks about Kurt Godel's work on general relativity and how he predictewd closed world lines. Godel's solutions were considered as quite absurd as they were understood to be for macroscopic objects and therefore suggested time travel.

I think Godel's work is worth investigating, because what I am suggesting in GP (earlier in this thread) is precisely how a hydrogen atom is nothing more than a photon wave travelling in a closed world line.

http://youtu.be/W4-O7j169D0

Starts at around 10 minutes into the video.

and this..

http://www.math.nyu.edu/~momin/stuff/grpaper.pdf

Steven
Steven Sesselmann
Only a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...
https://gammaspectacular.com