Jeroen Vriesman wrote:Hi Steven, in your reference you seem to state that potential is limited because relative velocity is limited, however, the energy associated with relative velocity is not limited, it goes to infinity near the speed of light, so the potential is not limited. You are using the special theory of relativity in one argument, but you skip it for the conclusion.

Jeroen, you make an important observation, because in my paper I talk about "potential" not "potential energy", the two terms are often confused. When you divide potential energy i.e electron-volts by electrons you just get Volts and the unit Volt is a measure of raw potential and it has to be limited.

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:There is some truth in force being an illusion, Newton already knew that his theory of gravity was problematic, it introduced a "mysterious force working at a distance".

However, the problem is not physical, it's a psychological problem, the idea that some kind of "contact" is needed for a "force" is just a result of our size and the way humans experience the world. All "forces" work at a distance, when we push things around there is not a single molecule actually touching another molecule.

Correct, I agree and we need to keep in mind that the terms forces and fields are mathematical constructs of the mind which have no physical reality, but help us calculate the velocity, which is really all I am saying in my paper, that the term potential refers to velocity or change of velocity.

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:What's happening is that the phenomenon we call "force" is just the first derivative of the total energy of the system, we just exchange forms of energy, gravitational, electrical, thermodynamic energy etc. When we push against a wall it just means that we do not shift enough energy from one place to another to push our hands through the wall, "contact" just means "not having enough energy to change the state of the matter involved". This insight leads to some very useful mechanical methods, called the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_mechanics

Agree..

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:So there is just the potential of the system. Thermodynamics show us that states which can be solely described by information theory still represent an energy, so the whole thing can be modelled as information only. Attempts at modelling gravity that way have recently been made by Verlinde

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravitySo indeed, "force" can be considered less fundamental than potential, but potential is not limited by the speed of light, since the energy needed to reach the speed of light goes to infinity.

I would agree, force is less fundamental than potential and potential is less fundamental than velocity, because velocity is what we actually observe, so why is it so hard to see that potential is limited when we ultimately measure potential in velocity?

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:In physics the EM theory is considered a "gauge" theory, the potential of the system as a whole can be varied without changes in behaviour.

Only by assuming the entire universe does not have a net charge one could define the absolute zero potential. (the idea that the potential at infinity is 0)

This is where my ground potential theory diverges from the standard model, because the term you used above "entire universe" implies that we somehow act out our lives in a domain called the universe, I see this concept as fundamentally flawed. In GPT the observer is floating at ground potential and by manipulating it's own potential it changes the relative universe. I came to this conclusion because the GPT equation which relates the mass of the electron to ground potential is non local, i.e. when you as the observer climb a set of stairs, you increase your absolute potential which reduces the mass of an electron everywhere, so you are basically turning back the clock of your whole Universe not just your own clock. Think carefully about this.

It is also an outcome of the theory that space everywhere is at ground potential, this means our current understanding that looking out into the universe is equivalent of looking back in time is wrong. What we see when we look out into space is NOW on the absolute time scale, we see the sun as it is now and we see the moon as it is now. True light travels at a finite speed, so if we see the moon as it is now, then it's also in our future as we see it. So the light cone changes shape.

Skim read it, but it's not something I can understand in reading it once, my initial reaction was that the experiment is flawed because it's measuring the velocity relative to the local fields and ignoring the observer, this is the general trend with quantum experiments and the reason why everyone is puzzled about quantum behaviour, they forget to consider the observer. When three people stand around the box containing Schroedingers cat, there are three observers and three realities, and not one realitry because there is one box and one cat.

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:As for your "second case for absolute potential"... seems to me a case of "not even wrong". Choosing the proton is arbitrary (if you take a charmed lambda or sigma particle you get different "absolute maximum" potential), equating the equivalent energy to surface potential, stating that a collection of protons has the same surface potential as a single proton (without even defining the "surface" of the charge collection)? Strange stuff.

Protons are a pretty good candidate, I have always been fascinated about protons, where they come from and why they are all identical, as a manufacturer I envisage some machine mass producing these particles that make up 99.945% of everything. They also happen to be the most energy dense naturally occurring particle, number one on the table of isotopes, which is why I chose the proton as the upper limit to potential. if there was another particle heavier and denser it would sit above and before Hydrogen on the table of elements, but noop I doubt you will find any stable particle up there.

938 million volts is just another way to express the speed of light c, the only reason the units are different is because we have messed up the units. So to normalise the units in GPT I simply multiply the speed of light by the fraction of absolute potential, and I can find the velocity of any particle with this simple equation.

∆v = c(∆U/Ø)

You can also write it like

∆v = ∆U (c/Ø)

Where c/Ø simply fixes up our stuff up of the units and ∆v = ∆U simply says velocity is exactly the same as potential.

Steven