Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: rstormview on 10/12/2016 10:03:25
-
_______________________________________________________
Preface
______________________________________ ________________
Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? black holes, bent space/time, string-theory, multiverses and the search for a “God particle”? Possibly, are the answers simpler, more logical than that?
Below is the only proposition I am aware of that postulates what gravity is, hypothesizes ‘time’ before “The Big-Bang” and what black holes probably are. The Eureka moment came from an inversion of one of sciences assumptions. It may contradict some accepted unchallenged theories, but it is interestingly logical.
A UNIFYING THEORY
There cannot be nothing. There was always something. It is proposed that ‘something’ was an infinite, endless, timeless force field operating on all frequencies and in every direction oscillating at light speed like a multi-layered surface of the sea.
Within this infinite environ, atoms became created from the precise collisions of frequencies from every direction which momentarily arrested light speed.
A precise collision of frequencies at the positive peak spewed out a proton.
The precise collision of frequencies at the negative peak created an electron.
The precise collision of frequencies at zero peak produced a neutron.
Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the natural conclusion is that protons attract. What is more difficult to explain is how this attraction somehow reverses into repulsion in close proximity and directs electrons into orbiting protons to create hydrogen.
The proposal is that it’s electrons that attract, but with relatively insignificant mass, it is electrons that do the moving. Therefore the proposal is, in close proximity, homing electrons are repelled by protons into circulatory orbits which creates hydrogen, the most common element in the Universe.
The above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attraction of a mass of electrons, modest in the molten interior of Earth, massive in our Sun.
Within infinity’s billions of years, hydrogen gathered into a cloud of explosive potential. It is proposed that within infinite space and infinite time, the continual and unrestricted growth of this concentration of hydrogen led inevitably and eventually to cause the core temperature of the cloud to heat from its own gravity from -173.15oC (the temperature of a single hydrogen atom) to reach the flashpoint of Hydrogen + 500oC.
This Big Bang, fuelled with material from a hydrogen cloud of near infinite size spewed this near infinite matter into space, enough material to furnish our universe. The resultant explosive interactions from heat, gravity and velocity introduced variety into primal universal equations which caused more complex assortments of matter to evolve into suns; residue material formed planets, et cetera, et cetera.
It is proposed the Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe as we know it, but an event within infinity and, was not the creation of some superior intelligence, but a logical, inevitable creation of a force field operating with infinite space and infinite time.
-
Personally I recon it has the same failing as all the others. No definitive numbers.
If we can't come with some sort of unified formula that delivers basics like the speed of light, force of gravity, mass of an electron.... those sort of things, then I say keep looking.
Not that I am trying to discourage you. Maybe you have it and all you need to claim your Nobel prize is a large pot of coffee and a pocket calculator.
-
One assumption that can unify physics is the speed of light is the ground state of the universe. The problem has been, this assumption makes many assumed considerations of modern physics unnecessary. Modern physics assumes inertial (via velocity) is the ground state, requiring fudge factors. Once you change the ground state, much of this fudge goes away.
The analogy is building a structure that is self standing and does not need scaffolding. Many people assume scaffolding is a necessary part of the structure. When they don't see it, they assume the model can't be right. Yet it is possible to build without these scaffolds. Poor foundation premises is the reason the scaffolding is needed. This is not based on the needs of reality.
If you begin the universe with pure energy, matter and antimatter pairs will not appear until extreme energy is reached. We can't form matter out of visible light. Visible light can interact with matter but it can't form matter from scratch. It takes energy in the gamma range and beyond. If we made some matter and antimatter from extreme energy, and allowed these to lower potential, we get energy again. The matter and antimatter is at higher potential than nearly all photons.
If we instead we took away the antimatter, like happened to our universe, and left only the matter, the high potential within the matter is frozen in, at the upper limits of energy. Now it has no direct route (anti-matter) to lower potential back to energy. Instead it will need to use the forces of nature to lower potential back to energy, and the speed of light reference of energy, in piecemeal fashion.
If you use the assumption of a speed of light ground state, things become very simple, since all roads lead to the same ground state, with many roads competing with each other to generate variety. Three forces of nature; EM, strong and weak nuclear forces, all give off energy when they lower potential. These add photons to the speed of light reference; ground state. Gravity causes space-time reference to contract toward the speed of light reference. At the speed of light, the universe would look like a point-instant; black hole. Gravity moves matter back toward the speed of light reference, while also allowing competing energy input and output from the other forces due to pressure, which creates variety, with all things seeking paths back to the C ground state.
Even the universal red shift is a path back to the ground state. Photons move at the speed of light yet they show finite expressions. Based on the math of special relativity, something moving at C should appear to shrink to a point, yet photons show variety of wavelength and not all appear to be points by moving at C. This tells us that photons have two legs. One leg is at lowest potential and is attached at the C ground state, while the other leg is connected to inertial reference and contains potential with the ground state; wavelength and frequency.
I have not done the math. It is more important to discuss the conceptual foundation than to model with math at this time. The reason is math can be used to model anything including the physics of game engines. Math can also model fudge factors to compensate for poor foundation premises. It is better to iron out the conceptual foundation before building the math.
Since inertial is at higher potential, then the C-level ground state, to form the universe via the BB, potential will need to be created with respect to the ground state. The C ground state assumption requires we go back one step before what we call t=0. The C ground state assumption requires that energy came first since energy is a bridge state, between the ground state and the upper limits of potential defined by matter. To make energy, first, requires much less potential with the ground state.
-
To be any good as science you need to be able to use your hypothesis to make profound, not obvious predictions that work.
Otherwise you are talking out of your arse.
Them's the rules.