There are many aspects, experimental and theoretical, that prove the invalidity of SR. For instance let you see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45905660_Is_the_speed_of_light_invariant_or_covariant

The bigbang theory is only a hypothesis and no experiment will can prove the validity of that theory. It is possible to consider many other hypotheses on the origin of the Universe. For instance let you see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320876966_Scientific_Hypothesis_on_the_Origin_of_the_Physical_Universe

Relativity theories are an accepted convention and have lead to a strange status closer to Medieval Ages.

Anyway my view has extensively been presented:

Data 111 years of Magic are enough: Let us return to Science now

Working Paper Beyond Electromagnetic Theory

Article A new cosmological paradigm: universal locality

Cosmology is consistent with general relativity, not special relativity. The Big Bang singularity is a consequence of the properties of general relaivity, cf. the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem: http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/314/1519/529

And if one is interested in modifying its conclusions, this means modifying its assumptions. What anyone personally thinks doesn't matter-the mathematical description, only does and it is independent of anyone's beliefs.

@Stam Nicolis,

I subscribe fully your words:

"And if one is interested in modifying its conclusions, this means modifying its assumptions. What anyone personally thinks doesn't matter-the mathematical description, only does and it is independent of anyone's beliefs."

It seems to me nevertheless that you think only one Mathematical description is possible and this is your mistake. Your claim: "cosmology is consistent with general relativity, not special relativity" is vague and indefinite. Perhaps your conclusions accept only General Relativity and don't accept Special Relativity. The two theories nevertheless are stictly correlated: perhaps you want to say that in cosmology length contraction, time dilation, increase of mass with the speed aren' t valid. In this context I don't need to modify my assumptions that are critical whether towards Special Relativity or towards General Relativity. I suggest you to read with the due attention your same words.

@Demetris Christopoulos,

you propose some papers and I looked quickly at your paper "Beyond Electromagnetic Theory". My view is that so-called Maxwell's equations, that in actuality are due to the contribution of many physicists, from Gauss and Poisson to Ampere and Faraday, etc.., are valid from a physical viewpoint even if I have proposed one change in those equations. I criticize instead the relativistic reading of those equations. In fact they describe the physical behaviour of the e.m. field with respect to the reference frame where the e.m. phenomenon happens and they give no useful information with regard to the relativistic behaviour that involves at least two reference frames. Therefore the relativistic reading of Maxwell's equations and relativistic consequences from those equations have no meaning.

Gentlemen,

While the big bang hypothesis seems logical in our expanding universe, my interpretation came out slightly different, and here is why..

In my Ground Potential Theory (GPT) the passage of time is a function of the observers change in potential (∆V), it follows that a change in potential is also a conversion of mass into space. This conversion of mass into space may at first seem strange, but when one considers that we are living on a radioactive sphere where isotopes are in a state of continuous decay it seems plausible that the conversion of mass to gamma energy also constitutes a conversion of mass into space.

Now from this point of view, one can believe that the expansion of the Universe is relative to the observer and the observer alone. Granted that most observers live on the surface of the Earth all will appear to measure the same time, this is only superficial, because each observer effectively observes it's own Universe in it's own time, and every observation an observer makes (regardless how far away) takes place in the observers absolute now time frame.

This is a controversial statement because it disagrees with all of known physics which generally teaches how observations at a distance took place in the past. This is a fallacy, because a photon emitted from a source has no practical way to change it's potential in flight, so the mere fact that it has been observed, means it must have been emitted at the same potential as the observers now, because photons travel along equipotential lines.

Now when we run this scenario backwards we are increasing the observers potential at the expense of space, ie. space closes in on the observer.

My interpretation of this is that the observers event horizon closes in on the observer, thereby incorporating less stars and less overall matter.

Taking this to the extreme we eventually end up approaching maximum potential which is of course Hydrogen or more correctly the proton.

What has been interpreted as the big bang and the initial inflation period, may actually be a tiny little bang involving the fusion of two protons into deuterium, and two deuterium into helium and so on.

In terms of potential fall, these early fusion reactions are HUGE in comparison with todays slow potential decay.

A single fusion reaction between two deuterium atoms will cause a potential drop in the order of 1.5 million volts, in todays terms that would represent a tremendous leap in time.

This was followed by a number of large potential drops as the heavier isotopes were assembled, however, it is now 13.8 billion years later and we are in the age of Nickel (930 million volts) and time has slowed down considerably.

Until we measure a change in the electron to proton mass ratio we can only guess that the current potential drop must be less than 0.0005 Volts per annum.

I predict we will measure a slight upwards drift in the mass of an electron, some time in the next 10-15 years.

My conclusion is there was an initial BANG followed by RAPID inflation, but far from BIG it was "tiny" and it certainly didn't contain all the mass in the universe squeezed into a golf ball, the beginning was just a single proton fusing with another proton, and this of course is still going on to this day.

The view from the surface of a proton is short, I figure the size of a universe is a function of an observers potential. Long before I wrote my GPT paper I wrote another paper called Limited Domain Theory, in this paper I came to the conclusion that the radius of a Universe was a function of the observers mass, but this was before I fully understood the connection with electrical potential.

This paper is old but it shows how I was thinking at the time.

Working Paper Limited Domain Theory

The proper solutions are in my GPT paper here:

Research Ground Potential Theory

I hope this will inspire further thinking..

@Stam Nicolis

Thanks for the link to the old Hawking Penrose paper, it may take a bit of time to pinpoint and define where the false assumptions are, but I am confident it's in there. I look forward to reading it.

I do not see any contradiction. For cosmic observers, all events happening in a slice of homogeneous and isotropic space are simultaneous. But for an observer moving with respect to cosmic observers, these events will not be simultaneous. Simultaneity in big bang model too is relative.

Dear Steven,

I fully agree to your statement what Big Bang theory leads to.

May be the following statements outline an illustrative alternative theory.

Normalized complex spacetime coordinates u with an imaginary space part lead to a finite geometry of the universe and a positive definite metric.

We see the finiteness with: u=(t,i(x,y,z)); and the dislocation equation u'=u+du=ln(exp(u)*exp(du)); (Refer to quaternion algebra and the trigonometric meaning of imaginary exponents)

The metric is du²=dt²-dX²>0, which is positive definite for v

Thank you everyone for feedback on my question, it appears some of you agree there is a problem and others trust the mathematics of GR which makes those predictions.

I have thought about the problem for several days , read a few papers and come to the conclusion that the axioms of GR are wrong, so even if the mathematics is right the predictions are not.

Pinpointing the problem has been tricky, but I am now pretty confident in saying the principle of relativity or the Galilean invariance is a false concept. While it might appear true on small scales it does not hold on large scales.

The missing piece of the puzzle is the limitation of potential. It is taught that potential is a scalar and that it can only be measured relative to some other point, but logic tells me that this is not so.

The simple fact that there is an upper limit to speed , should suggest to all that there is also a limit to potential, after all speed or velocity is a derivative of potential, even a child on a slippery dip knows this.

I have come to this conclusion from several different arguments and in my paper I even go as far as proposing an absolute value for potential in familiar units of Volts.

The consequence of of an absolute potential nullifies any argument made by GR, regardless of how many times it has been peer reviewed.

What we find is that time itself has not only direction, but also a beginning and an end, because time is nothing more than a change in potential.

I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we interpret the world...

Steven

Hi Steven,

what kind of potential are you talking about? Gravitational with an impact on masses? Electric with an impact on charge? Magnetic....?

Why do you think time has a start and an end? What is before "start" and after "end"?

@Wolfgang

I am here talking about electrical potential, gravitational potential is the same thing, because when electrons and protons are combined in the form of atoms, we no longer observe the individual charges, but instead a blur of both + and - , and this blur is what I call ground potential.

To answer your second question I speculate based on the outcomes of my equations, that the cosmological cycle must be very different to the standard model.

In my model, the surface of a single proton represents absolute potential, and the SR radius around what we call a black hole represents zero potential. The potential difference between the SR radius and the surface of a proton is 938 million volts.

Now the way I see it, the single proton to black hole life cycle is bounded to a single galaxy, baryonic matter heading towards the centre of our galaxy undergoes continuous acceleration with respect to you the observer and at the black hole radius reaches the point of zero potential with 100% velocity, ie. becomes wave like. (waves with zero surface potential travel at c)

Half the wave travels into the forwards in time and the other half travels backwards in time.

To you it just looks as if the matter disappeared somewhere in the middle of your galaxy, but just as soon as it disappeared into the black hole, a brand new proton (the half wave that travelled into the past) appears at the outer edge of your galaxy, thereby starting a new cycle.

My conclusion is that matter continuously exists at all potentials and at all stages of life, but you as an observer can only observe events in a slice of time governed by your own potential. What you can't see as potential you see only as velocity.

I figure our galaxy must have axial jets emanating from the core, but because these jets are oriented along the time axis we are unable to observe them from here(now), however when we observe very distant galaxies there is enough curvature between us and them to actually see the jets (the main reason we don't see quasars near by)

So it is only you the individual observer who has a beginning and an end to your time, and there is no such thing as a universal beginning and end.

The continuous appearance of protons from the core of galaxies would be better described as a BIG spray.

Steven

Hi Steven,

this is an interesting theory, but there are some serious contradictions to observations.

We cannot easily equalize gravitational and electric potentials because there is a fundamental difference of the mass of a proton and an electron, though both have the same amount of charge.

If mass falls into a black hole it cannot reappear somewhere because the new mass has been added to the mass of the black hole and the black hole simply keeps its mass.

Traveling backwards in time or time reversal is an intrinsic contradiction because it would mean an identical reversal of all processes in nature.

I do not think that we have a problem with GR. It is a great theory, which accurately describes many phenomena in nature. But we have problems with some theories, which allegedly are based on GR and claim that the Universe must be expanding and infinite and had a Big Bang as an initial start.

@Wolfgang

My paper titled Ground Potential will answer your questions.

Charge is not a special property of matter, it simply tells us which side of ground potential the energy/mass is, if we think of charge more like a direction than a unit, it becomes easier to understand why it is quantised.

If the amount of mass/energy in a Galaxy is constant, I suspect the mass of the black hole nucleus would be a function of the observers potential. For me the black hole represents the negative half of the wave we can't see, that is unless we observe it from a large distance with a frame rotation, like the hourglass nebulae.

Has it never occurred to you why these side on nebula look so symmetrical, what I think we are seeing is the negative and positive part of the wave, and had we been able to observe our own Milky way galaxy from the time axis it may well look like an hourglass shape.

Time reversed waves I think are permissible, providing they are massless.

GR is not technically or mathematically wrong, but it has been used to make incorrect assumptions. I formulated my entire theory from SR just making different assumptions.

Research Ground Potential Theory

First of all, nobody has claimed that big bang theory is somehow compatible with special relativity, simply because it is not - it is part of general relativity.

Then, neither special nor general relativity forbid matter to be distributed homogeneously and to move in a coordinated way, whereby defining a preferred set of comoving coordinates.

I would recommend you first to learn existing theory before criticizing it.

@Ilja Schmelzer,

I apologise if my audacity has offended, but I believe it is precisely my ignorance of the standard model which has helped for me to develop Ground Potential theory. I wrote the theory because I simply didn't know I couldn't.

Steven, I couldn't care less if you offend somebody, I'm not a snowflake. Your ideas are simply useless, if you ignore existing theory, as far as it is supported by experiment and observation.

@Steven,

"Charge is not a special property of matter..."

The essential property of charge is, that on a large scale nature always combines positive and negative charge to nearly neutral objects. Compared with mass, charge has a very special "cancel out" property, causing the effect, that on large scale gravitation dominates.

On a small molecular scale "charge" has an overwhelming dominance. over gravitation.

Considering charge and mass up to a certain degree as "similar", is not really helpful, because in applicable situations either gravitational impact on a mass or electrical impact on a charge is relevant.

@Wolfgang Konle

"On a small molecular scale "charge" has an overwhelming dominance. over gravitation."

One of the biggest problems on the frontier of science is the way our educational institutions have turned everyone into parrots. Sentences like the one above is repeated in parrot fashion all over the literature and in the class rooms. Write it down on a piece of paper tear it up and chuck in the bin, it has no meaning.

The real reason gravity seems to behave differently to charge is because atoms are essentially electronic standing waves in the potential-time plane and they oscillate over a range of 938 million volts, and the point of inflection (i.e. the neutral point) is ALWAYS at the observers potential.

So when you are measuring stuff made of atoms, and in particular stuff that is not moving, you are just modifying the energy of the standing waves until they have the same potential as YOU, and then you are concluding that it has no charge...

Of cause the freak'n stuff has charge, pick up anything here on earth and it is at 930 million volts, but just like a bird on a wire you don't feel it, because you are at 930 million volts as well.

My wish for Christmas is that everyone would chuck out their old text books and start thinking about the world instead.

@Steven Sesselmann

It is our experience, that charge dominates the small scale. We should accept that as a fact, exactly as it is described in numerous text books.

Compared with the Schrödinger equation "oscillation over a range of 938 million volts" is a very weird model for a (hydrogen) atom.

The oscillation model seems to make no difference between the atomic nucleus and the atomic shell and surely is not able describing spectral lines.

Considering mass as oscillating energy is ok. But without a specific model e.g. like quantum cromodynamics it is not at all helpful.

@Wolfgang Konle

It is not the statement "charge dominates the small scale" but "gravity rules on the large scale" which bothers me, because electric potential is all we have.

I don't see a problem with the wave model, we need to understand that the hydrogen wave is asymmetrical on the baseline, i.e we are observing the wave from a potential near that of the proton, while the electron is buried in a deep potential energy well.

The velocity of the proton (zitterbewegung) and the electron with respect to the observer follows a simple function ;

∆v = c(∆V/Ø)

Where ∆v is the difference in velocity and ∆V is the difference in potential and Ø is absolute potential.

I have not yet worked out how to incorporate the spectral lines, but I realise it needs to be done and I'm working on it.

Steven

@Steven Sesselmann,

you mention an oscillatory movement of protons end electrons in an atom.

This is not necessarily in contradiction to Schrödingers equation, but it is much less detailed.

The scaling facts also can be described with a few words:

Gravitation keeps massive bodies together. Charge keeps atoms and molecules together. Quark colour, a smaller scale more complicate analogon to charge, keeps nucleons together.

We even can assume that on a tinier scale further strange types of charge exist. An endless consecution of higher order charge types is thinkable, capable to prevent the collapse of black holes with ultra hard and ultra heavy elementary particles of higher order.

You may be right, that all those phenomena including gravitation and charge can be caused by a common principle. But up to now this principle, the grand unification, has not been found.

Therefore I think your theory is not from another world. If it is helpful for finding the common principle, it is great. But I suppose it is a long long way to go and the standard way taken by the majority of the theoreticians has a tremendous advance in explaining details.

@Wolfgang Konle

Thanks for your reply, I agree there are many finer details that need to be explained, which my theory does not yet cover. My general feeling is that we should not get carried away worrying about quarks and gluons until we understand what a proton and an electron is, and we don't.

Where did the protons and electrons come from, why are they all the same size and why are the two charges of equal strength despite such different mass? These are the questions I have suggested a plausible answer to.

We can take the view that atoms are bodies with self balancing surface potentials, they simply adjust their surface potentials by rearranging the positive and negative charges within the atom. For this reason atomic structures appear relatively unaffected by electrostatic charges at the macroscopic level, but any physicist knows that it only takes around 13.6 eV to break an electron loose and create an ion, which behaves very differently in an electric field.

As observers at ground potential my view is that we are sandwiched between positive and negative electric charges, floating somewhere in between.

In my GPT theory I have attempted to give the exact solution for ground potential based on a logical string of conclusions and I am pretty confident it agrees with observations.

What also came out of my solution is that ground potential is slowly falling over time, and this gradual decline causes a slight imbalance between positive and negative charges, which in turn may explain the weak force. You see for an atom to undergo β+ emission there needs to be a charge imbalance favouring this strange reaction, and I speculate it might be caused by the slow but steady fall of ground potential.

Ultimately I see my equation being replaced by a proper wave equation, for it makes a lot more sense to explain energy in terms of waves.

Displacement, velocity and acceleration are the fundamental actions of observation, and these are best described by waves.

Steven