[rstormview (OP)]

I have no record of Kryptid explaining how protons attract electrons until they are in close proximity when this attraction somehow reverses into an orbital repulsion which creates hydrogen, the most basic element of our Universe. If we get this wrong then all that follows may be wrong.
Rstormview

[Bored chemist]

I have no record of Kryptid explaining how protons attract electrons until they are in close proximity when this attraction somehow reverses into an orbital repulsion which creates hydrogen

That's because "until they are in close proximity when this attraction somehow reverses into an orbital repulsion which creates hydrogen" is dross that you made up.
However, Kryptid did post this

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The 1s electron cannot be confined to a volume as small as a proton. It doesn't have enough energy for that: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_strong_is_the_uncertainty_principle_argument_for_the_non-existence_of_electrons_in_the_nucleus

The problem is that, when provided with the information, you refused to learn from it.
Can you explain how your behaviour differs from that of a troll?

[tehghost]

I could only say with certainty about this subject. That without matter, time cannot exist, the two are tied together, its an all or nothing deal.
Empty space or voids without matter are timeless. Time only exist's when matter is present in my opinion. IF there is no matter time has no teeth.

Ghost

[rstormview (OP)]

I am still waiting for a scientific explanation how, if protons attract electrons, they are not absorbed, but elect to orbit the proton, in the process creating oxygen - the basic element of the universe. All I'm getting is bluster. It's a simple question searching for a simple answer. My own suggestion is that protons do not attract, electrons are homers searching for stability. My suggestion leads on to a scientific
definition of gravity if you read the initial Post.

[Bored chemist]

I am still waiting for a scientific explanation how, if protons attract electrons, they are not absorbed, but elect to orbit the proton,

You are not waiting for it, you are ignoring it- probably through a basic lack of understanding.
For a start, they don't "orbit".

All I'm getting is bluster.

No, you are getting the answer, but not accepting it- maybe because it doesn't agree with your dream.

It's a simple question searching for a simple answer.

It's naive to imagine that simple questions will have simple answers.

My own suggestion is that protons do not attract,

Your suggestion is wrong.

My suggestion leads on to a scientific...

No, you don't get a scientific ... anything  by making a false assumption.

if you read the initial Post.

Why would I bother to read something that's based on something which I know to be wrong?

[Kryptid]

I am still waiting for a scientific explanation how, if protons attract electrons, they are not absorbed

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is scientific, as it is strongly supported by experimental evidence. On another note, the proton also cannot absorb the electron because there are no existing particles that could result from such a union. Under certain circumstances, such as in atoms where the electrons have more energy, one can be absorbed by a proton in the nucleus to create a neutron and a neutrino. That doesn't work for hydrogen because there isn't enough energy present. The simple sum of electron rest mass plus proton rest mass is less than the neutron rest mass.

but elect to orbit the proton, in the process creating oxygen - the basic element of the universe.

You're really going to have to explain how an electron orbiting a proton is supposed to create oxygen. Do you even know what oxygen is? It's element number 8 on the periodic table. It has eight protons in its nucleus. Why do you consider oxygen to be the "basic" element of the Universe? It is far more rare than, say, hydrogen is.

All I'm getting is bluster.

The inability to understand an answer doesn't make it bluster.

It's a simple question searching for a simple answer.

Not all simple questions have simple answers.

My own suggestion is that protons do not attract

Demonstrably wrong, given that we have known that opposite charges attract each other for a very long time.

electrons are homers searching for stability.

Homers? Are you talking about baseball? What does that have to do with electrons?

My suggestion leads on to a scientific definition of gravity if you read the initial Post.

Your definition is wrong. Gravity is not electromagnetic in nature. A photon's path is curved by a gravitational field (gravitational lensing), whereas photons are neutral and are therefore neither attracted to nor repelled from an electromagnetic field.

[rstormview (OP)]

Sorry. Creating oxygen was one of those auto-spellcheck corrections. Obviously it should have read Hydrogen.]
Bored chemist will have a field day with that.

[Bored chemist]

Bored chemist will have a field day with that.

I don't need to even address it, do I?
The rest of your stuff is such tosh that the typo hardly matters.

[rstormview (OP)]

If protons attract an electron flow, why do they not hit and become absorbed. Reverse the polarity and you get a science based theory of Gravity which expands into an interesting and logical science based theory of creation. I welcome criticism which presents a better theory.

[syhprum]

Is there not a "sinbin" where junk such as this can be deposited instead of taking up space in the regular format ?

[Kryptid]

If protons attract an electron flow, why do they not hit and become absorbed.

You seem to be under the impression that asking a question multiple times will change the answer. Why is that?

Reverse the polarity and you get a science based theory of Gravity which expands into an interesting and logical science based theory of creation.

No you don't. I already pointed out that the fact that light is attracted by gravity is a falsification of your model because light isn't attracted to electromagnetic fields. The fact that electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves aren't the same thing is another falsification. Electromagnetism and gravity are not the same thing.

I welcome criticism which presents a better theory.

You certainly haven't been welcoming to criticism so far. The "better theory", or rather theories, are the mainstream ones like quantum mechanics and general relativity.

[Bored chemist]

Reverse the polarity and you get a science based theory

No you do not.
Why do you keep telling that lie?

[rstormview (OP)]

I keep repeating my opinion because NOBODY is answering my question. I say again and again, if protons attract electrons why do electrons not hit, but circle protons to create hydrogen?
Never mind the bluster, in plain language, if protons attract electrons why do they not HIT?

[Kryptid]

Never mind the bluster, in plain language, if protons attract electrons why do they not HIT?

Because electrons are not solid little balls. They have a wave-like nature. They are already touching the proton as much as they can.

[Bored chemist]

I keep repeating my opinion because NOBODY is answering my question.

Everybody answered it.
You failed to put the effort in to learn what the answer means.
Whose fault is that?

[Bored chemist]

For a start, they don't "orbit".

but circle protons to create hydrogen?

Why say that after you have been told it's wrong?

[rstormview (OP)]

Okay Bored Chemist, how is Hydrogen created?

[Bored chemist]

Okay Bored Chemist, how is Hydrogen created?

Typically by the reaction of metals with acids.
What has that got to do with the price of fish?
One of the things you seem to be deliberately ignoring is that 
THERE ARE NO ELECTRONS ORBITING A NUCLEUS.
Are you beginning to become aware of that yet?

[Kryptid]

Bored Chemist is right: atoms are not miniature Solar Systems. Imagining them like that will give you the wrong impression. They are quantum mechanical objects with well-defined energy levels, not classical ones. There are no particles that are the simple sum of a proton plus an electron. So a proton cannot absorb an electron to become a new kind of particle.

[rstormview (OP)]

After eleven responses it seems my proposals are beginning to interest more open minds: Thank you.
It seems the more outspoken responses have failed to note we are not on the same page.
I am tabling ideas for conditions in the time before the Big Bang where current theories, Quantum in particular, may not have been relevant for a rebuttal.
The inversion of a scientific presumption expanded into a logical proposal for the missing definition of Gravity that eluded Einstein. The proposal of the inevitable creation of hydrogen throughout infinity led logically to a possibility of an infinity suffused with continuously created hydrogen, increasing in temperature with density, which ultimately exploded in a big bang.
The challenge to the “outspoken” is the best rebuttal of such ideas is to present better theories.