[rstormview (OP)]

The hypothesis below proposes 21st Century  ideas about Time before the Big Bang and an answer to every query any investigative  intelligence might have about life, death and the universe.

A SCIENCE BASED HYPOTHESIS OF GRAVITY AND CREATION.
HAS A VERY LOGICAL PRESUMPTION MISDIRECTED SCIENCE DOWN A CUL-DE-SAC?
Suggested below is the error that veered science away from the logical physics of Galileo and Newton. The simple inversion of a scientific presumption gives us the missing definition of gravity that eluded Einstein, restores to physics the logical world of Galileo and Newton and, surprisingly, signposting much much more besides.

A New Definition of Gravity, Black Holes and Dark Matter?

_Preface_
Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? The search for a ‘God particle’, Black holes, Bent space/time, Dark matter, String-theory, Multi-verses, Quarks that nobody has yet seen or proven? Are the answers simpler, more logical?

Wikipedia has only Einstein’s strange speculation for what gravity is, Quote: -
‘Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Einstein in1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of space/time  caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in gravitational time dilation, where time lapses more slowly at a lower (stronger) gravitational potential.
Einstein’s proposal that gravity ‘is not a force’ seems a contradiction of an obvious fact and so remains a hypothesis, not a scientific truth; most of the world seems confident gravity is a primal force. Einstein’s theory ensures gravity remains an unintelligible definition.
Einstein admitted he never solved the mystery of gravity.
Below is a proposition that postulates what gravity is, and by association, what black holes may be.

An Alternative Definition of Gravity

The hypothesis below proposes an inversion of an accepted and unchallenged assumption, but overall it is scientifically logical.
The Eureka moment came from an inversion of one of sciences many presumptions and everything fell provocatively into place.
Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion is that protons attract. If protons attract electrons why do they fail to hit and become absorbed? What is not well defined is how this proton attraction somehow reverses into repulsion in close proximity and directs electrons into orbiting protons to create hydrogen.
The proposal for consideration is that it is electrons that attract, but with relatively insignificant mass, it is electrons that do the moving, homing for a stability. Therefore the logical proposal is, in close proximity homing electrons are repelled by protons into circulatory orbits to create hydrogen, the basic and most prolific atom of the Universe.
If the Big Bang can spew out swirls of electrons to create Suns/Stars and a swirl of hydrogen and helium spawned planet Jupiter, the above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attractive force of a swirl of electrons held en mass by its own gravity; modest in the molten interior of Earth, massive in our Sun.
It is further proposed for consideration the Big Bang also caused swirl concentrations of protons and neutrons. So, by association, the above proposal further suggests there might be swirled concentrations of protons or neutrons which may explain the unsolved mysterious black holes and dark matter.
If this proposed inversion becomes proven experimentally, the logical science of Galileo and Newton is restored.

The infinite endless creation of Hydrogen throughout infinity leads logically to consider:-

TIME BEFORE THE BIG BANG?
Preface
Below is the only proposition (I am aware of) that hypothesizes ‘Time’ before ‘The Big Bang’, and how the Big Bang amassed enough matter to furnish the world in which we have evolved.

 Wikipedia, ‘The consensus among scientists, astronomers and cosmologists is that the Universe, as we know it, was created in a massive explosion that not only created the majority of matter, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos. This is known as the Big Bang Theory’.

 Can explosions create matter? The accepted chemistry of explosions is that explosions do not create matter; they just transmute it - mostly into heat. Therefore this ‘consensus of opinion’, unchallenged, unproven is a working hypothesis, not a proof. If explosions do not create matter, something did. We have to choose between a science based explanation or resort to the spectre of God to fill in the gaps in the science.
 
Infinity is a difficult concept for Homo sapiens to grasp. Within infinity anything seems possible. Within infinity, dinosaurs evolved on planet Earth and ruled unchallenged for 160,000,000 years! An asteroid hit caused a climate change disaster and, because dinosaurs hadn’t evolved sufficient intelligence to survive a prolonged sunless winter, one hundred and sixty million years of evolution was wiped out almost overnight. This is a warning!
Within the subsequent sixty million years many different types of creatures began to evolve. Apes were one of the lucky inheritors of the dinosaur’s disaster and over 300,000 years Homo sapiens evolved intelligence enough to investigate the world we found ourselves in.
All Earthly life evolves on the cooled crust of an inferno of molten rock and human life survives from breathing a thin film of oxygen that clings to this crust by gravity. Human beings exist on a knife edge of survival seemingly unconcerned there is nowhere else in an infinite universe that is presently within our grasp where we can survive; if needs be.
It is self-evident the world contains enough rock to build us all shelter, enough earth to grow us all food, enough unknowns in both inner and outer space to give us all useful work. The ugly mess of life we Homo sapiens have evolved demonstrates that, although humans may have evolved intelligence, we do not appear to have evolved enough.

A UNIFYING THEORY
There cannot be nothing. Within infinity there must have been something. It is proposed this ‘something’ is the same electromagnetic field of oscillations on multiple frequencies in every dimension and every direction that our radio and television use to communicate today. It is further proposed that Infinity and the electromagnetic field are different names for the same thing.
Infinity before the Big Bang was an electromagnetic field of oscillations -  precisely as the night sky cosmos as we see it, but empty of all substance
Within this field of oscillation, it is proposed atoms became created from the precise collisions of frequencies from every direction which momentarily arrested the speed of light.
A precise collision of frequencies at the positive peaks spewed out protons.
The precise collision of frequencies at the negative peaks created electrons.
The precise collision of frequencies at zero peaks produced neutrons.
Electrons and protons combined naturally to create hydrogen, the basic element in the universe. The addition of neutron into the formula creates helium.
Within infinity’s billions upon billions upon billions of years, hydrogen and helium was being continuously created until Hydrogen suffused our electromagnetic field, i.e. suffused infinity. It is proposed within infinite space and infinite time, the continual and unrestricted growth of this concentration of hydrogen led eventually and inevitably to cause either the temperature of infinity to heat from its own gravity to reach the auto-ignition point of Hydrogen. Since an atom of hydrogen has a mass of about 1.66 x 10(-24) grams, and a MOLE of hydrogen atoms weighs only 1.008 grams, for the core temperature of hydrogen floating in infinity to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C, the Big Bang must have been fuelled with material from a hydrogen concentration of infinite size which billions upon billions of years was able to provide; or an alternative trigger of the Big Bang could hypothetically have been a nuclear fusion.
This combustion regurgitated this gigantic amount of matter into the cosmos - enough matter to furnish the universe in which we have evolved.
The resultant explosive interactions from heat, gravity, velocity reacting with inert helium introduced variety into primal universal equations which caused more complex assortments of matter to evolve. Swirls of electrons subsided into suns/stars and residue material formed planets, et cetera; a swirl of hydrogen and helium created planet Jupiter.
As science stands at the moment, gravity and the Big Bang are accepted as unexplained, ill-defined ‘absolutes’ without definition.
Therefore, it is proposed our universe was not the creation of a superior intelligence, but is a logical and inevitable creation of an electromagnetic field operating within infinite space and infinite time - endlessly creating hydrogen which gathered into a suffusion of infinite size which ultimately and inevitably exploded, spewing a near infinite amount of matter into infinity that created the universe into which, after more billions of years, Homo sapiens evolved.
                     Rstormview@hotmail.com
The Proof?
Our human obsession with music and dance is the unconscious recognition of our rhythmic oscillatory roots.

[Bored chemist]

A frog answers everything.
You can ask any question you like; he has an answer.
The answer is "Ribbit".

There is no requirement for an answer to make sense.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.   I hope everyone is well.

I've had a glance through what you've (rstormview) written.   Obviously it's a lot easier to find concerns or critique a piece of work rather than create it.  I wouldn't and probably couldn't create anything like this.  I'm just presenting a few things that concerned me.

1.  All of your references and quotes are from Wikipedia.  This is not always the best or most reliable source of information.
2. 

What is not well defined is how this proton attraction somehow reverses into repulsion in close proximity and directs electrons into orbiting protons to create hydrogen.

   This is not a well accepted model of what atoms are or how they behave.   The model of an atom as an electron in orbit around a proton is only the simplest model and it breaks down or fails to explain several key properties that are observed.   The photo-electric effect is one example.
3. 

Can explosions create matter? The accepted chemistry of explosions is that explosions do not create matter; they just transmute it - mostly into heat.

   The Big Bang is not thought to be this kind of explosion.  It was not a chemical explosion, indeed there weren't any atoms around in the early universe and Chemical reactions could not occur.   Many Physicists suggest that the name "Big Bang" is an unfortunate one because it makes everyone think of an explosion that is like the explosions we see in our ordinary experience.  An alternative name for the Big bang is to call it "the everywhere stretch"  (it might have been Neil deGrasse Tyson who first popularized that phrase - but I'm not sure).
4.

for the core temperature of hydrogen floating in infinity to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C, the Big Bang must have been fuelled with material from a hydrogen concentration of....

    It sounds as if you are talking about the chemical combustion of Hydrogen, this requires Oxygen to also be present.  In the absence of Oxygen, heating up Hydrogen will do nothing interesting except make it hotter.

5.   A good scientific theory should try and make predictions or offer some tests or experiments that can be done to test it's validity.  If you are presenting a scientific theory try to think about what practical difference it might make and how this might be detected.

[Bored chemist]

the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C,

You have posted 8 times about this and it has been pointed out that the flash point of hydrogen has nothing to do with the early cosmos.

Why are you still talking about it?
Are you deliberately trolling, or just not clever enough to remember

[yor_on]

Ignoring the references made to religious matters I think you will be able to find this interesting rstormview .

'The Photonic Universe'

https://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=89279

[remotemass]

A frog answers everything.
You can ask any question you like; he has an answer.
The answer is "Ribbit".

There is no requirement for an answer to make sense.

If an answer to a question doesn't make sense it is because it is not the best answer to that question or because the question is not worth a good answer.

According to Wittgenstein, in his own words: "For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered."

[Bored chemist]

If an answer to a question doesn't make sense it is because it is not the best answer to that question or because the question is not worth a good answer.

That is very true.
And since this

the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C

does not make sense, it is not the best answer.

So why do you keep saying it?

[yor_on]

Think this thread fits better in 'new theories' actually. And I also think I would like a link to where " Einstein admitted he never solved the mystery of gravity. ". Tried to look for it on the Internet but couldn't find anything?

When you state things like that rstormview it's always good to follow it up with a link.

[Bored chemist]

The Proof?
Our human obsession with music and dance is the unconscious recognition of our rhythmic oscillatory roots.

Presumably, given that a brick and I share the same fundamental origins, the brick also sings and dances.
Or... your idea is wrong.

[Kryptid]

You have incessantly reposted this same topic over and over again despite warnings to stop doing so. The warnings have run out. You'd be wise to use this as a learning experience if you plan to bring this to other sciences forums in the future.