Do you have a link to this paper?

Dear Steven:

I wrote quite a few little papers on part of the above results (several on Q&A which I find an ideal medium for rapid communication), but no equally comprehensive one so far.

The best approximation to the paper you have in mind is probably: 

http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-43-09.PDF

Several earlier ones are on the European Scientific Journal, like:

http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/991

Thank you for your kindness,

Otto

Otto, thank you, I don't need much convincing about c-global, as I already know that c is proportional to the constant mass of the proton. What is missing is a proper understanding of c-local which is related to the term I call ground potential. 

As in your proposal my ground potential theory suggest that there was no big bang, instead what we observe as redshift is caused by a continuous fall in ground potential. This fall in ground potential is caused by matter in the earth undergoing constant nuclear decay thereby falling to lower and lower potential.

I like to think of the universe as a simple harmonic oscillator where ground potential is the node.

In the videos below I also suggest my version of tiny little correction.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL15SpeVcDTYoHFwMj1oX68SYITYFKFjAo

Dear Stephen:

Thank you for your partial support.

I would like to add that the recent new fundamental science of cryodynamics has solved the problem of the distance-dependent redshift by confirming Zwicky 1929.

Nevertheless the detailed implications form a wonderful quantitative research project.

All my best wishes to you,

Otto

Otto,  I read up on some of Zwicky's work in regards to dark matter etc. In regards to dark matter it concerns me when scientists invent a unicorn to solve a problem. Dark matter is just such a unicorn, it's invented to solve a problem caused by another unicorn called gravity.

The universe is so much more interesting than this, forces aren't even needed to describe the world, in fact not much is needed at all. Uniformly sized standing waves of positive and negative energy seem to dominate the universe and from these simple waves all the complexity of our world arises. 

Between the crest and the trough of these standing waves there exists a constant potential of 938 million volts, and I don't suggest knowing anything about how or why these exist, but I do know how they make a world. 

These particles are of course protons and their electrons, hydrogen, the building blocks of nature. 

The node around which these standing waves oscillate is ground potential which currently sits at 930 million volts, very close to the protons potential which is why the proton jiggles around in the centre of the hydrogen atom. 

Ground potential is falling due to nuclear decay below the surface we live on and this change in potential is what we refer to as time. In fact time is another construct because it's really just change in potential.

All relative velocities are simply the result of relative potential and vice versa, there is no need for the term force.

The SR radius around a black hole turns out to be the node at which hydrogen oscillates at equilibrium, ie. where the electron and the proton have the same mass, and therefore becomes a photon. 

Where the current understanding of physics has got it completely wrong is to believe that the universe is in the current state because of it's age, this is complete nonsense because the Universe we see today is completely governed by our own potential "Ground potential". Ground potential is what governs the node of every atom in the Universe, no matter how far away it happens to be. 

Had we instead been orbiting a black hole at close to 1/2 the proton potential the electrons and protons everywhere would have almost the same mass and the world would look very different.

However as we eventually become swallowed up by a black hole, nothing in the universe really changes, our existence was really just a virtual existence by way of a slowly drifting node in a standing wave of constant energy, so when our consciousness slips through the horizon of the black hole, the wave still remains.

There is so much wrong with our current understanding of physics, that we may as well scrap it and start all over again.

Unfortunately the high priests of science won't let it happen without a fight, they have created an institution to suit their purpose, where they can decorate each other and award each other and get funding for discovering new unicorns and gravity waves. 

But falling potential also means increased understanding of the world, and just as our primitive sciences of the past were overturned and replaced so too will todays science. Once the genie is out of the bottle we cant put it back.

Steven

Would not Nuclear Decay also imply an ever increasing Volume of the daughter products, thus implying that Planets must increase in Radius, Surface Area, and Volume based on the changes that tend to stabalize when the more stable Silicone Dioxide is reached ?

It is easy to invent theories... Please have real facts to support your ideas...

I did not invent the theory, it has been around since Sir Francis Drake noticed thatcontinents fit together.  Look at Steven S.'s second answer, second paragraph,about Nuclear Decay.  High density matter with lots of protons and neutronsdecays step-wise to lower density mater with fewer protons and neutrons.  There isan associated increase in the volume of the materials, and a large release of energy.

I refer you to the CHART OF THE NUCLIDES,  the 28 locations on Earth that arebetween 400 and 800 km in diameter where hot materials from the core rise slowly toward the  surface.  Some make it to the surface at locations like Hawaii, or Yellowstone.

These materials rise because their density is lower than the surroundings.  I suspect these formed when Uranium based ( stellar ) asteroids hit the Earth and melted their way down toward the core leaving a column of weakness where lower density materials could migrate upward.   Lower density material rises to the level of its thermal, and density based equilibrium.  Sometimes it makes it to the surface, and sometimes it does not mke it to the surface.

The temperature of Magma is way too hot to form by frictional movement alone.

The temperature must be amplified by Nuclear decay to melt hundreds of cubic kilometers of rock.

@Michael,

Ground potential theory is 100% derived from special relativity, in such a way that a change in potential is proportional to a change in velocity. the exact relation is simple;

∆v = c(∆V/Ø)

Where ∆v is relative velocity between two bodies, ∆V is difference in potential and Ø is absolute potential. 

The implications of this is that when heavy nuclei decay, the most common decay product is an alpha particle, and these light nuclei have such a different potential with respect to ground potential that the velocity exceeds escape velocity, so they boil off into space.

My calculations suggest that earths ground potential is falling by around 0.5 millivolts per year. This doesn't sound like much, but when you stretch this back to the cretaceous period 100 million years ago, the potential at ground was around 0.0005*1000000 = 50,000 Volts higher.

This means the earth is getting smaller and denser with time, which can also be supported by the fact that mountain ranges have appeared since the cretaceous period. A wrinkled surface is indeed what one would expect from a shrinking sphere with a hard skin.

What prevents the potential falling at a faster rate is the permittivity of free space, fortunately for us, space is a good insulator. 

The temperature of a body is therefore a good measure of how fast it's potential is decaying, I think Avogadro actually got a few things right. And yes, global warming just means we are using energy faster so the rate of decline is steeper.

Steven

I like the idea of the unicorn principle.

Steven

The Potential would drop if the mass were constant.  Based on the recession rate of the Moon as it moves away from the Earth (net = 38.2 mm / year), (gross is 42.3 mm/ year ) , the mass is increasing  by 1.31448 X 10^15 kg / year.  The Gain is roughly one part in the age of the Earth  That is one part in 4.5444 E 9 Years.  ( to an excessive number of digits ).

The rate of mass gain can be highly variable depending upon where the Earth is in comparison to the 8 arms of the Milky way Galaxy.  The solar system is actually pert of the Sagitarius Dwarf Galaxy which rotates at a different speed than the Milky Way Galaxy.  The Solar system passes through all 8 arms ever 186 .6 million years, so there are 8 growth spurts every 186.6 million years.

So would not the rate of increase in the number of active Volcanoes on a planet also be a maesure of the net change in the Potential  ( mass gain minus decay rate ) ??

 @Michael, 

You ask some very good questions, it could have taken me a year to answer this were it not for the fact that I had thought about this a year ago :)

(Ground Potential Theory (GPT) created a problem for me, because according to the velocity equation bodies of increasing potential with respect to the observer should move with increasing velocity, but this contradicted Kepler's 1/r^2 law, so it wasn't looking good for GPT.

I was quite depressed over this situation until I realised Kepler was wrong, planets do not move in a prograde orbit with decreasing velocity, they orbit in retrograde orbits with increasing negative velocity.

As you pointed out, planets do not move in closed orbits, they spiral outwards, so the correct way to think of a planet in orbit is like the stylus in a groove on a vinyl record. 

Depending on which way the record turns the stylus is either moving outwards or inwards. 

We know the moon is moving outwards, which proves the orbital velocity is negative (with respect to the observer). By the way this also solves the galaxy rotation curve problem, but I wont go into that here.

So to summarise, all the celestial bodies of higher potential than the earth move in retrograde orbits, and all the bodies at lower potential move in prograde orbits (mercury etc..),

On the second part of your question, I agree, and I think massive earth quakes and vulcano eruptions may represent sudden falls in potential, in fact any exothermic process takes place at the expense of earths potential, including burning of fossil fuels, nuclear fuels etc.

The processes which store potential energy are things like trees which harvest energy from the sun and store it as carbon.

The problem is that water wants to run down hill, so those people/industries who can convert potential to energy at a higher rate seem to have a competitive advantage.

Steven

The Moon spirals away from the Earth-Moon Barycenter, while the Earth spirals inward toward the Earth-Moon Barycenter.  The Change in the ratio of the Mass of the Earth divided by the mass of the Moon effects both spiral motions.  The Currrent ratio

is about 81.30059122 : 1, and increasing.  The Earth spirals inward by about 0.5 mm per year, and the Moon Spirals outward about  42.35 mm with a net change of 38.2 mm per year.  The average Radius gain is about 4.15 mm per year.  The scientists at JPL write equations to zero out this radius gain so GPS can be used for surveying.  And wallah!!!, no change in the Earth's radius admitted to by the GPS folks.

In addition, the distance between the Earth and Mars is also increasing, as communication with satellites takes a little bit longer with each orbit.  If I remember right, the distance increase from Sun to Mars is calculated at about 15 meters per year of recession rate.  This would imply that the mass gain of the Sun is vastly higher per year than the mass gain rate of the Earth.

Michael,

I agree, those numbers sound about right. When you say mass gain I assume you means density gain, because their radii are shrinking, it's not the mass increasing.

A back of an envelope calculation shows GPT agrees with your figure.

We know the instant velocity of a body falling under the influence of gravity is 9.81 m/s after 1 second, during this time the body has fallen 4.9 meters (standard kinematics).

GPT says: ∆v = c(∆V/Ø)

therefore,

9.81 m/s = c(∆V/938,000,000 V)

rearranging this..

∆V = 938,000,000 V(9.81 ms^-1/c)

∆V = 30.38 Volts

Which is the potential difference over a distance of 4.9 meters

We can therefore say that the electrical potential gradient at earths surface is 30.38/4.9 = 6.2 V/m which in turn is the real cause of gravity.

This being the case we can compare your figure of earths surface shrinking by 0.5 mm per year and say 6.2 Vm^-1 * 0.0005 m = 0.0031 Volts per year.

Cross checking this;

GPT says ground potential is 930 million volts which is 8 million volts less than absolute potential therefore ground potential has dropped 8 million volts over the age of the universe. Google says 13.8 billion years, therefore;

8,000,000 V / 13,800,000,000 = 0.0006 Volts per year

Out by one order of magnitude, which is still not bad. There is no reason to believe that the potential has fallen at a linear rate.

Steven

 I have a feeling that we are going in the exact opposite directions.

For Example, when the dinosaurs reahed their maximum allowable size, ( Sauropods ), their volume peaked at about 15 Male African Elephant Volumes, but they were limited by the strength of the materials ( bone, Muscle, tendons, and Ligaments ), so they lived in a reduced gravity.  So 15 raised to the 2/3 power is a weight of 6.08 Male African Elephant weights, so the surface gravity was 6.08 / 15 = 0.405 of the current surface gravity.  This would be about 3.978 meters per second^2 of acceleration rather than the current value of 9.81 m/s^2.   Since Mars is currently about 3.79 m/s^2, the Earth would be a little bigger than Mars when the Dinosaur sizes reached a maximum around 165 million years ago.  ( Ball Park ).

Mike Clark

No Michael, we are still on the same page, think of falling potential like an inflated balloon with a tiny leak, as the air leaks out the tension falls and the balloon shrinks. 

A higher surface potential would have meant a lower gradient ergo lower gravity, yet the diameter of the earth was bigger.

I am no palaeontologist so I know nothing about the size of dinosaurs, but I agree that acceleration due to gravity was less 100 million years ago. it might be possible to work it out, let me think about that.

In the mean time, the Book DINOSAURS AND THE EXPANDING EARTH might

give you some useful ideas.

Is the return to the young Einstein's global c not worthy of a thought of its own?