Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: rstormview on 20/09/2019 16:43:57
-
A SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF CREATION
HAS A 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 into the never-never land of Quantum. 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 much much much more besides.
_____A New Definition of Gravity, Black Holes and Dark Matter?___
_Preface_
Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? Quantum Theory, undefined Black holes, Bent space/time, Dark matter, String-theory, Multi-verses and the search for a ‘God particle’, Quarks that nobody has yet seen or proven? Are the answers more simple, more logical?
Below is a proposition that postulates scientifically what gravity is, and by association, what black holes may be.
Wikipedia has only Einstein’s strange speculation for what gravity actually 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 admitted he never solved the mystery of gravity.
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.
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 assumptions and everything fell provocatively into place.
Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion is that protons attract. However, 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, seeking 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 atom of the Universe.
If the Big Bang can spew out swirls of electrons to create Suns/Stars, the above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attractive force of a mass 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 swirled concentrations of protons or neutrons which may explain the unsolved mysterious black holes and dark matter.
If this proposed inversion becomes proven experimentally, Quantum is questioned and the logical science of Galileo and Newton is restored.
The infinite endless creation of Hydrogen 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 or Quantum to fill in the gaps in the science.
Infinity is a difficult concept for Homo Sapiens to grasp. Within infinity anything seems possible. Such as :- 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.
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 pertinent to our grasp of infinity to consider that images of the 2014 World Cup are just reaching Alpha Centauri.
It is further proposed that Infinity and the electromagnetic field are 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 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.
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. 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 the temperature of infinity to heat from its own gravity and 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.
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, et cetera.
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 near infinite size which ultimately and inevitably exploded, spewing a near infinite amount of matter into infinity that created the universe in which, after more billions of years, Homo sapiens evolved.
Rstormview@hotmail.com
-
And what created the electromagnetic field?
I think you would do well to reflect on Heisenberg for an explanation of hydrogen. The Big Bang is simply a term that encapsulates what we see - stuff flying apart and some residual electromagnetic radiation consistent with a condensed origin of the stuff.
-
for the core temperature of hydrogen floating in infinity to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C
I have corrected you on this before, but it seems that you never actually read the responses to your posts. The "flash point" you speak of only applies when there is oxygen (or another oxidizing agent) present. Hydrogen by itself won't do anything special at that temperature.
-
Thank you. I did register your Hydrogen/oxygen criticism but was unable to rationalize any other way. Maybe helium was the trigger? or a static discharge between hydrogen and helium? What is certain is that something triggered the event. I apologise, I don't know everything yet!!!
-
Thank you. I did register your Hydrogen/oxygen criticism but was unable to rationalize any other way. Maybe helium was the trigger? or a static discharge between hydrogen and helium? What is certain is that something triggered the event. I apologise, I don't know everything yet!!!
The Big Bang wasn't caused by any kind of chemical reaction or static discharge. Neither chemicals nor the electromagnetic force existed at the moment of the Big Bang.
-
for the core temperature of hydrogen floating in infinity to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C
I have corrected you on this before, but it seems that you never actually read the responses to your posts. The "flash point" you speak of only applies when there is oxygen (or another oxidizing agent) present. Hydrogen by itself won't do anything special at that temperature.
It's also massively the wrong temperature.
The flash point is the temperature at which a material gives off enough vapour for the mixture of vapour and air to be flammable.
It is, therefore only applicable to liquids and liquid hydrogen is cold.
The triple point of hydrogen is about 13K (about -260 C) and regardless of the pressure, the boiling point has to be less than that.
The ignition temperature is near 570 C but it depends on other things like the pressure, what the walls of the container are made of and- most importantly here, the concentration of oxygen.
At the time of the BB the oxygen concentration was zero and so hydrogen simply couldn't burn.
-
If electrons, protons and neutrons were being continuously created in the manner proposed, then hydrogen was being continuously created throughout infinity until infinity was suffused with hydrogen, so something happened. It's good we are asking the question.
-
Thanks for your responses. Perhaps we are trying to apply post big-bang science for understanding to a pre big-bang science? A lot to think about.
-
I agree there were no chemicals present at the big-bang, but it is proposed that the electromagnetic field is infinity by another name. 'there cannot be nothing, so there was always something', the electromagnetic field continuously creating hydrogen from creating electrons and protons??
-
but it is proposed that the electromagnetic field is infinity by another name.
Based on what reasoning?
the electromagnetic field continuously creating hydrogen from creating electrons and protons??
That doesn't seem to be happening right now.
-
The logic was 'there cannot be nothing, there had to be something' so the logic was that the electromagnetic field was the only 'something' available, and if it was the only 'something' available, it was just another name for infinity. If you don't like my logic I would welcome your alternatives.
-
If electrons, neutrons and protons are being created as proposed, then hydrogen is still being created now. Somehow our universe was created, if you don't like my proposals, please present your own.
Rstormview
-
See above
-
so the logic was that the electromagnetic field was the only 'something' available
Why the electromagnetic field? Why not the gravitational field or something else?
If electrons, neutrons and protons are being created as proposed, then hydrogen is still being created now.
And how do you propose this occurs without violating the first law of thermodynamics?
-
Thank you all who responded. Nobody has yet shot me down in flames, Most interesting is that nobody has challenged the new definition of gravity. Is that a yes?
-
Nobody has yet shot me down in flames,
In what way is this
And how do you propose this occurs without violating the first law of thermodynamics?
anything other than shooting you down in flames?
Ditto:
That doesn't seem to be happening right now.
Based on what reasoning?
At the time of the BB the oxygen concentration was zero and so hydrogen simply couldn't burn.
It's also massively the wrong temperature.
And what created the electromagnetic field?
-
London to Sydney in 4 hours proposes to use Hydrogen, presumably without refuelling, so it seems H is plentiful, perhaps because it is being continuously created? in the electromagnetic field? or infinity?
-
London to Sydney in 4 hours proposes to use Hydrogen, presumably without refuelling, so it seems H is plentiful, perhaps because it is being continuously created? in the electromagnetic field? or infinity?
Talk about a non-sequitur...
-
London to Sydney in 4 hours proposes to use Hydrogen, presumably without refuelling, so it seems H is plentiful, perhaps because it is being continuously created? in the electromagnetic field? or infinity?
Hydrogen is the commonest element in the Universe.
The big bang created almost entirely hydrogen, a little helium, and very little lithium.
Most of them are still here.
But there are no hydrogen mines on Earth.
If you want it, you have to make it- expensively.
Compared to the other costs of rocket planes, it's fairly cheap (and very light).
-
Nobody has yet shot me down in flames,
In what way is this
And how do you propose this occurs without violating the first law of thermodynamics?
anything other than shooting you down in flames?
Ditto:
That doesn't seem to be happening right now.
Based on what reasoning?
At the time of the BB the oxygen concentration was zero and so hydrogen simply couldn't burn.
It's also massively the wrong temperature.
And what created the electromagnetic field?
We can now add this
Talk about a non-sequitur...
-
I disagree that the BB created hydrogen: How? I propose an infinity of hydrogen created the BB.
I am proposing theories for macro issues and am being challenged by micro issues. The power of Infinity is a difficult issue for homo-sapiens to grasp; me included.
-
I disagree that the BB created hydrogen
Do you realise this is a science page?
-
I propose an infinity of hydrogen created the BB.
Hydrogen cannot exist at the temperatures of the Big Bang.
-
I find it difficult to understand that criticisms of a science based theory of creation are not backed by other/better ideas. From where did the BB accumulate enough material to create/furnish our universe?
Answers please!
-
From where did the BB accumulate enough material to create/furnish our universe?
Why assume that it accumulated material from elsewhere?
-
Elsewhere is a good answer, but incomplete. We are trying to theorise the absolutes of everything. We need other theories, other ideas, we need help!
-
A SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION
HAS A 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 into the never-never land of Quantum. 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 signposting much much more besides.
_____A New Definition of Gravity, Black Holes and Dark Matter?___
_Preface_
Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? Quantum Theory, undefined Black holes, Bent space/time, Dark matter, String-theory, Multi-verses and the search for a ‘God particle’, Quarks that nobody has yet seen or proven? Are the answers simpler, more logical?
Below is a proposition that postulates what gravity is, and by association, what black holes may be.
Wikipedia has only Einstein’s strange speculation for what gravity actually 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 admitted he never solved the mystery of gravity.
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.
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 assumptions and everything fell provocatively into place.
Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion is that protons attract. However, 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 atom of the Universe.
If the Big Bang can spew out swirls of electrons to create Suns/Stars, the above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attractive force of a mass 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 swirled concentrations of protons or neutrons which may explain the unsolved mysterious black holes and dark matter.
If this proposed inversion becomes proven experimentally, Quantum is questioned and 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 or Quantum to fill in the gaps in the science.
Infinity is a difficult concept for Homo Sapiens to grasp. Within infinity anything seems possible. Such as: - 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 infinitys 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 the temperature of infinity to heat from its own gravity and 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.
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, et cetera.
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 in which, after more billions of years, Homo sapiens evolved.
Rstormview@hotmail.com
-
Please stop reposting this same thing over and over again.
-
"Is this a valid new theory of creation?"
No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
It's not a theory; it's spam.
-
My response to 'bored chemist's "spam" is please criticise with a better theory - if you are able enough. Science's present theories on Gravity and Creation are not adequate for such a crucial, life-changing, philosophy: surely genuine scientists are more open-minded to radical ideas?
-
My response to kryptid is my repetition is because do not seem able to get anything better than negative criticism. I am anxious for dialogue with open minds; to read of more profound ideas then mine: but there do not seem to be any.
-
My response to kryptid is my repetition is because do not seem able to get anything better than negative criticism.
Being a broken record isn't going to change that.
-
I am relieved to observe that Kryptid's comments tell us more about him than it tells us about science
-
to read of more profound ideas then mine:
My initial thought was you meant "more... than mine"; but you might have got it right by accident. We can read something profound, then we can read your stuff, and have a good laugh.
Your ideas are not profound; they are wrong.
That's why all the feedback you get is negative.My response to 'bored chemist's "spam" is please criticise with a better theory - if you are able enough.
At least I know what a theory is.
What you keep posting is repetitive, unwanted junk; it's spam.
Do you really think that I need to have a better theory to prove that yours is "not even wrong"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
surely genuine scientists are more open-minded to radical ideas?
We are; you aren't.
Here's something you might consider to be a "radical" idea ; - you are wrong.
That's such a novel idea to you that you are unable to consider it.
Now, what was that about open minds?My response to kryptid is my repetition is because do not seem able to get anything better than negative criticism.
Well, that's quite correct.
When you post something that's completely wrong, the best thing you can get is criticism, pointing out that it's wrong.
Do you think we should encourage your delusion? Would that be better?
-
I am relieved to observe that Kryptid's comments tell us more about him than it tells us about science
I could say the same about your comments. You don't seem interested in learning. If you were, you wouldn't keep repeating that nonsense about hydrogen's flashpoint somehow being relevant to the beginning of the Universe. We have explained why it is wrong, but you don't seem to care.
-
Okay. Gravity: If protons attract electrons why do they not hit? How does proton attraction magically reverse into repulsion in close proximity to allow the creation of hydrogen. Please decode into plain English Einstein's gargle.
-
Okay. Gravity:
A hydrogen atom is held together by the electromagnetic force. Gravity has practically nothing to do with it.
If protons attract electrons why do they not hit?
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
How does proton attraction magically reverse into repulsion in close proximity to allow the creation of hydrogen.
It doesn't.
Please decode into plain English Einstein's gargle.
What does Einstein have to do with it?
-
Wikipedia has only Einstein’s strange speculation for what gravity actually 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.
This is bullshine.
Einstein admitted he never solved the mystery of gravity, so let's start with that. I say again, if protons attract electrons, how come this attraction reverses in close proximity into circulation to create hydrogen, the basic unit of creation?
-
Einstein admitted he never solved the mystery of gravity, so let's start with that. I say again, if protons attract electrons, how come this attraction reverses in close proximity into circulation to create hydrogen, the basic unit of creation?
You may remember trying to berate us for refusing to learn.
You may also recall that Kryptid said this
A hydrogen atom is held together by the electromagnetic force. Gravity has practically nothing to do with it.
And yet you keep wittering on about gravity in the makeup of atoms.
Einstein admitted he never solved the mystery of gravity, so let's start with that. I say again, if protons attract electrons, ...
Is it that you don't believe the truth, or that you don't understand it?
Neither answer makes you look good, but I just wonder which it is.
-
This is bullshine.
It's experimentally confirmed. We know that time dilation occurs and that its magnitude is in line with Einstein's predictions. Same thing with gravitational lensing.
Einstein admitted he never solved the mystery of gravity, so let's start with that. I say again, if protons attract electrons, how come this attraction reverses in close proximity into circulation to create hydrogen, the basic unit of creation?
This reinforces my previous observation that you are not interested in learning. I already told you that gravity is not the force that holds hydrogen together. I also already told you why the electron doesn't collide with the atomic nucleus. You can't have a meaningful dialogue with someone who refuses to learn. Is it any wonder why you have only received negative criticism so far?
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
Is there not a "sinbin" where junk such as this can be deposited instead of taking up space in the regular format ?
-
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.
-
Reverse the polarity and you get a science based theory
No you do not.
Why do you keep telling that lie?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
For a start, they don't "orbit".
but circle protons to create hydrogen?
Why say that after you have been told it's wrong?
-
Okay Bored Chemist, how is Hydrogen created?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
best rebuttal of such ideas is to present better theories.
You still don't have a theory to rebut.
You seem, somehow, to think the word "theory" means "guess I pulled out of my... elbow".
All you have is blind guesswork.
-
the best rebuttal of such ideas is to present better theories.
There is no need at all to come up with a better idea in order to know that a proposed idea is wrong. All you have to do is look at the evidence. If the evidence contradicts the proposed idea, then it is wrong. No "better theory" needed.
-
It is both surprising and disappointing that science’s reluctance to consider it may have made a mistaken presumption which misled science to sideline the physics of Newton and Galileo in favour of Quantum solutions. The proposal that protons do not attract electrons but that electrons are natural homers portents the elusive definition of Gravity that eluded Einstein; whose Wikipedia quotation is garble. (see original Paper, A SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION).
The proposed Gravity theory has still not yet been challenged; a better theory is hopefully awaited.
-
it may have made a mistaken presumption
What presumption do you think has been made?
-
The 'presumption' was if electrons flow towards protons it must be because protons attract them. Reversing the polarity leads to a logical/scientific definition of Gravity which builds to much much more - besides the restoration of the logical physics of Newton and Galileo.
-
The 'presumption' was if electrons flow towards protons it must be because protons attract them.
That's not a "presumption".
It is an experimentally verified fact.
What you are effectively saying is that, rather than relying on observed facts, science should adopt your unsupported rambling.
Do you see why science might not do that?
-
I say again, for the umpteenth time, if Protons attract electrons why do they not hit and become absorbed? By what scientific process does attraction reverse into repulsion when in close proximity in order to create hydrogen? That hydrogen becomes created is a fact, the way science suggests it does this is a presumption called quantum.
-
I say again, for the umpteenth time,
Yes.
You have asked that many times,.
And we have replied many times.
Yet you do not listen.
So I'm not bothering to repeat it.
Read the thread again and again until you understand.
-
By what scientific process does attraction reverse into repulsion
It doesn't.
That's an irrational presumption you have made.
The attractive and repulsive terms are both acting all the time.
But the repulsive force is a short rage effect. It wins at short ranges and the electrostatic attraction dominates at longer ranges.
You could have found that out buy actually learning some science.
It's not too late to start...
-
Arrogance is not a response to a very simple question. You have no answered a very simple question, or anything, you have just browbeaten. If you have answered my simple question, 'what scientific process happens to turn attraction into repulsion when in close proximity? Bluster is not scientific. If you have a direct answer please repeat it here. Rstormview.
-
If you have a direct answer please repeat it here. Rstormview.
That's an irrational presumption you have made.
The attractive and repulsive terms are both acting all the time.
But the repulsive force is a short rage effect. It wins at short ranges and the electrostatic attraction dominates at longer ranges.
-
The 'presumption' was if electrons flow towards protons it must be because protons attract them.
You're aware that positive charge attracting negative charge is an experimentally verified phenomenon, aren't you? You are also aware, no doubt, that protons have been experimentally verified to have a positive charge and electrons a negative charge, correct? Now put two and two together and what do you get?
if Protons attract electrons why do they not hit and become absorbed?
What would it even mean for an electron to "hit" a proton? I hope you aren't imagining them as little balls. How would the proton absorb it? What would be the result of a proton absorbing an electron?
By what scientific process does attraction reverse into repulsion when in close proximity in order to create hydrogen?
The electromagnetic attraction never reverses into a repulsion. There is another force at work that balances the attraction: electron degeneracy pressure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure Perhaps you'd be interested in this particular quote from the article:
In 1967, Freeman Dyson showed that solid matter is stabilized by quantum degeneracy pressure rather than electrostatic repulsion.[1][2][3]
-
A proton can collide with an electron under certain conditions. You are taught this as an anti-matter reaction. A positron is just a low energy proton, and an anti-proton is just a high energy electron. An electric storm can invert them.
Both particles have the same energy level spectrum. When the densities are equal......they can touch.......and unfold/unwrap each other.
When the densities are unequal, they oscillate at a distance. They yo-yo.
-
A positron is just a low energy proton
That isn't even remotely true. Have you studied conservation laws or the strong nuclear force?
-
Thank you all for your replies which I will study carefully. It remains the polarity inversion in the Post gives a very logical definition of Gravity which still remains elusive.
-
Thank you all for your replies which I will study carefully. It remains the polarity inversion in the Post gives a very logical definition of Gravity which still remains elusive.
That doesn't make sense.
I guess nobody was expecting it to.
-
It remains the polarity inversion in the Post gives a very logical definition of Gravity which still remains elusive.
If that's true, then why are neutral particles attracted by a gravitational field?
-
Everything is attracted to a gravitational field except aurora Borealis which stands off: Why?
-
Am still waiting for a better theory for Gravity than Einsteins, see Wikipedia.
-
Everything is attracted to a gravitational field except aurora Borealis which stands off: Why?
The aurora are hot and thus held up like hot air balloons.
More importantly, they are formed at great height and , quite possibly sink, becoming duller as the do so.
But they are replaced by more from above.
Now; answer Kryptid's question.
-
Am still waiting for a better theory for Gravity than Einsteins, see Wikipedia.
What's actually wrong with Einstein's version (and the modern tweaks to it)?
What actual real physical things don't agree with the current theory?
-
"Forum King"
You're aware that positive charge attracting negative charge is an experimentally verified phenomenon, aren't you? You are also aware, no doubt, that protons have been experimentally verified to have a positive charge and electrons a negative charge, correct? Now put two and two together and what do you get?
Positive Charge facing Negative charge, What do you get? You get a hit! Except you don't, you get hydrogen. How many times do I have to ask for a logical explanation?
-
How many times do I have to ask for a logical explanation?
It doesn't matter how often you ask since you never listen to the replies.
If I put an apple on the table, what stops it falling through?
Gravity is still pulling on it.
Why doesn't it pass through the table? (both the apple and the table are mostly empty space).
-
"Forum King"
Just so you know, that's not a title I gave myself. It's one that's given automatically based on the number of posts a member has. The quality of the posts doesn't even matter.
What do you get? You get a hit! Except you don't, you get hydrogen. How many times do I have to ask for a logical explanation?
What do you think is the difference between getting hydrogen and getting a "hit"? The electron is already touching the proton as much as it can. This is somewhat like asking why the atmosphere doesn't fall and hit the ground. It's already "hitting" the ground as much as it can.
-
It's one that's given automatically based on the number of posts a member has.
On a related note, I'm not God
-
Naked 1.30.19
rstormview said
A UNIFYING THEORY
RS: 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 pertinent to our grasp of infinity to consider that images of the 2014 World Cup are just reaching Alpha Centauri.
It is further proposed that Infinity and the electromagnetic field are 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 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.
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. 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 the temperature of infinity to heat from its own gravity and 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.
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, et cetera.
GG: According to my latest book “The Dual Light Speed Universe and the Dot-Wave Theory with quantum Entanglement” we came from a photonic Universe of light speed Cs where Cs=18833Co. In the prior universe there were photonic dot-waves. The total energy was unchanged. Thus high light speed energy became lower light speed energy. I calculate a cycle time of 1088 billion years based upon a clock at out rate of ticks. However as the universe expands time slows and therefore we can say we came from infinity and return to infinity only to return to the big bang.
You say the collision of frequencies produced the protons, electrons, and neutrons. That sounds reasonable. However the original particles had much higher energy levels. They radiate dot-waves and eventually the universe in our dimension will be gone. Everything will return to the light speed Cs dimension.
As far as why the electron doesn’t become part of the proton, you have to calculate the Einsteinian mass increase as the electron moves into the Bohr orbit. As shown in my book in Chapter 3: The Hydrogen Atom
M = 1.000026627 Mo
This increase is 13.606EV which is the same as the binding energy of the electron
As the electron moves closer to the proton its mass keeps increasing and the repulsive force increases. Therefore the answer is simple Newtonian physics. If you force the electron into the proton by compressive forces you get a single unstable neutron. Yet when you add other things to the mix it can be a stable atom.
RS: 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 near infinite size which ultimately and inevitably exploded, spewing a near infinite amount of matter into infinity that created the universe in which, after more billions of years, Homo sapiens evolved.
GG: Firstly one big mistake is assuming that the universe was created. I do not have a time dimension. I have X, Y, Z, Co, and Cs. An object traveling faster toward the speed of light spends more of its distance traveled in the Cs dimension. The net result is that the distance in the Co dimension looks shorter and time clock slows.
The universe always existed. Sometimes it is high light speed waves and sometimes it is particles. We were not created by a superior intelligence. We were created by pure energy. In any event your ideas are very good. I call the big bang an inversion where high light speed energy flowed toward a pinpoint and became concentrated energy of our light speed.
Three equations are important
E=MCC
This is Einstein’s equation
M= CQ
Mass equals charge times the speed of light
MoC = QCC
Momentum equals charge time the speed of light squared
These are my three light speed equations which I explain in Chapter 5.
The dot-waves go from a high mass low light speed state to a low mass high light speed state. Thus we live in a simple to explain universe where energy switches between dimensions which always existed.
-
Mass equals charge times the speed of light
All you have to do is compare the mass of the proton and electron and then compare their charges to know that isn't true.
-
Isolated change might be anti-gravity. 99% of solar particle flux is isolated charge. It accelerates out beyond Neptune, and no one knows the cause.
As far as we know, it would have to be an electric or magnetic field to accelerate it.
Could anti-gravity accelerate it?
Only when charge combines and goes neutral, do we get the G attraction.
The neutral field of a dipole is extremely asymmetric. Can these asymmetric fields attract other asymmetric fields?
A much weaker attraction than charge.
Allowing dipoles to combine forming nuclei.
-
Could anti-gravity accelerate it?
It depends what it says in the script, or what the author wants to happen in the story.
Or did you not realise that "anti gravity" is only a thing in sci fi?
-
Am getting overrun with replies. Sorry if not responding specifically.
-
Thanks for your numerous replies. In answer, I summarise my position.
In the SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION post, if the polarity inversion proposal ‘carries’, we get a seductive and long awaited definition of Gravity which, in turn, suggests an ongoing creation of Hydrogen throughout infinity.
Ongoing throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.
This suffusion was infinite so it spewed out enough material to furnish the Universe we evolved into via 160,000,000 years of dinosaur evolution.
The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo, but there are acres of Quantum disciples who vociferously disagree.
My only request to the ‘vociferous’ is that your opinions begin with your own pre Big Bang theories
Rstormview
-
I summarise my position.
In the SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION post,
You don't have a theory.
There's really nothing more to say.
-
but there are acres of Quantum disciples who vociferously disagree.
Because the evidence supports quantum physics. Classical physics cannot, for example, explain the structure of the atom, or quantum entanglement, or quantum tunneling.
Ongoing throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.
Putting a universe's worth of hydrogen in one place won't give you a Big Bang. You'll get a black hole instead.
-
GG:Mass equals charge times the speed of light
K: All you have to do is compare the mass of the proton and electron and then compare their charges to know that isn't true.
GG: my equation is a units equation
Kilograms = coulombs. meters per second
-
So what evidence do you have that particles like the neutrino or Z boson contain electric charges?
-
GG: my equation is a units equation
Kilograms = coulombs. meters per second
What is a "units equation"?
Kilograms do not equal Cm/s. Kilograms don't equal ohms. Kilograms don't equal Tuesday.
-
Thanks for your numerous replies. I seem to be getting post Big Bang rebuttals to a pre Big Bang hypothesis. In answer, I again summarise my position.
In the SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION post, if the polarity inversion hypothesis ‘carries’, we get a seductive and long awaited definition of Gravity which, in turn, suggests an ongoing creation of Hydrogen throughout infinity.
Ongoing H creation throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.
This suffusion was infinite so it spewed out enough material to furnish the Universe we evolved into via 160,000,000 years of dinosaur evolution.
The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo, but there are acres of Quantum disciples who vociferously disagree.
To ensure we are on the same page, my only request to the ‘vociferous’ is that your opinions begin with your own pre Big Bang theories
Rstormview
-
Thanks for your numerous replies. I seem to be getting post Big Bang rebuttals to a pre Big Bang hypothesis.
Your conjecture does not rise to the level of a hypothesis. Your conjecture is clearly wrong based on the evidence.
In answer, I again summarise my position.
Repeating an incorrect conjecture does not make it less incorrect.
-
Naked 2.2.20 7AM
Kryptid said:
K: 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.
GG: As Einstein proved, the light from far stars bends around our sun. This was verified by the astronomers and his equations were accurate. He said that space time bends around the sun and many others tend to agree with him. Particles are three dimensional energy forms and readily attracted by gravity whereas photons are planar energy forms and this would make them sensitive to gradients in the gravitational fields. In addition photons absorb and lose energy depending upon the gravitational field intensity. This produces forces within the photon to make it bend around the stars. So light is attracted by gravity but not in the same manner as with particles.
K: The fact that electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves aren't the same thing is another falsification. Electromagnetism and gravity are not the same thing.
GG: Yes and no. In my dot-wave theory, the most likely sister solution for an electrical universe is that the units of G and Uo are the same
G(units) = Uo(units) = Meters^2 per coulomb second
Since they have the same units, the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field are variations of each other. If you split the gravitational field in half you will get a positive electromagnetic field and a negative electromagnetic field. How do you split them? That is not easy because the gravitational field is a perfectly balanced magnetic field. Although the equations are similar, the gravitational field’s primary energy interaction is photonic and balanced.
The electromagnetic field is more self-evident and stronger. It too has a photonic driving force but the positive and negative photonic dot-waves contain much higher levels of energy than the very weak gravitational balanced dot-waves.
When we discuss gravity and mechanical problems, it is much easier to speak in terms of photons and weak gravitational fields whereas when we discuss electrical problems it is much easier to speak in terms of fields. Yet they are all the same thing.
-
my equation is a units equation
Is this an attempt to respond to people saying that your equations are nonsense because they can't pass a simple dimensional analysis check?
-
G(units) = Uo(units) = Meters^2 per coulomb second
What are G and Uo in this equation?
-
Origin asks:
What is a "units equation"?
Kilograms do not equal Cm/s. Kilograms don't equal ohms. Kilograms don't equal Tuesday.
In Chapter 5 of my latest book “The Dual Light Speed Universe and the Dot-wave Theory with Quantum Entanglement 2020, I describe “The Conversion of mass to charge velocity”.
I have studied many solutions in which I produce a universe composed of the units of coulombs, meters, and seconds. Over the years I have studied constant light speed universes, variable light speed universes, constant energy universes, etc. There are many Sister solutions and the most likely conversion for my models is the Sister One solution.
Are the solutions correct or are they merely an electrical model of the universe? I believe that they are correct but it does not matter because my model provides me with the variation of the constants of the universe as the universe expands from big bang toward infinity and cycles back again.
We have a series of standard physics equations
(5-11) Force = KQQ/R^2
(5-12) h = Energy x Time
(5-13) GMM = KQQ
(5-14) Voltage V = KQ/R
(5-15) Uo eo = 1/C^2 (eo is used for the permittivity constant)
All the above equations are standard physics unit equations. Only kilograms, coulombs, seconds, and meters are necessary to describe the universe. For example amperes are coulombs per second.
Using the above equations we can study the sister equations. The Sister one solution is
Kilograms = Coulombs meters per seconds
Once we do that we get a series of conversions.
Energy = Coulomb meter^3 / Seconds ^3
What does this mean? Energy is volumetric. It is charge vibrating in three spatial dimensions and the corresponding three time dimensions where time is distance over light speed.
Planks constant = Coulomb meters^3/Sec ^2
On page 25 I have a chart of all the important units in terms of the electrical universe. From these units I can match equations for the time of the universe to the astronomical data. I find the equation the force between two hydrogen atoms and the rate of expansion of these atoms since after they were created.
So we learn a lot from this electrical model. Near big bang the gravitational constant was basically zero and as we stretch out toward infinity the gravitational constant heads toward infinity as well.
Near big bang, the electrical impedance of the universe was basically a short circuit whereas near infinity the impedance of the universe is an open circuit.
The electrical model gives us a lot of interesting information.
-
Bored Chemist asks
G(units) = Uo(units) = Meters^2 per coulomb second
What are G and Uo in this equation?
GG: G is the gravitational constant and Uo is the permeability constant.
-
But I can measure G and U.
They have different values.
Also I can use them in equations and only one of them works.
If I try to set up a satellite using your wrong value for G it crashes.
If I try to design a capacitor using your wrong value for U it won't do what I want.
Do you realise that, if reality does not agree with your idea it is not because reality has made a mistake?
(and you need to stop telling the lie that your idea is a theory)
-
The electrical model gives us a lot of interesting information.
Your fantasy gives no information about reality. Clearly you have no interest in actual science and just want to make up stuff for some reason. Since this is just a soap box for you to spout absurdities I will move on.
Have a nice Groundhog day.
-
I applaud the response from ??? "That there cannot be 'time' without Mass". So Universal Time began with the Big Bang? Seems ??? is getting to grips with the omnipotence of Infinity.
-
BC: But I can measure G and U.
They have different values.
Also I can use them in equations and only one of them works.
If I try to set up a satellite using your wrong value for G it crashes.
If I try to design a capacitor using your wrong value for U it won't do what I want.
GG: I always use the standard physics equations for standard calculations. Everything I ever designed has worked quite well.
BC: Do you realise that, if reality does not agree with your idea it is not because reality has made a mistake?
(and you need to stop telling the lie that your idea is a theory)
GG: In my opinion my work is a theory. Therefore to me it is the truth. To your way of thinking it is not.
-
In my opinion my work is a theory.
Not according to the definition of a scientific theory it isn't. There is no "opinion" involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Characteristics
-
HYPOTHESIS: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
In philosophy: A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
Science seems to be ducking 'further investigation' in favour of vociferous, baseless, criticism.
-
HYPOTHESIS: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
R: says:In philosophy: A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
Science seems to be ducking 'further investigation' in favour of vociferous, baseless, criticism.
GG: To K and R: Interesting. Being an unpaid free agent I tend to follow my own beliefs. Technically what K says may be correct and R has made the definitions clear. So what is my work? It is an intuitive theory. I put the data in my conscious mind and my unconscious mind works on it. And then it gives me an answer sometimes in dreams while asleep, sometimes in audio/visual communication while I am quite awake. Then my conscious mind studies the solutions and look for faults in them. And the battle goes on as I fight to understand. Anyway in difficult engineering problems the solutions were always true. During test when I let my unconscious mind take over I always got 100%. In the 1956 electrical comprehensive H.S. exam I was the only 100% in New York State. So for practical exams it always works. I could not solve the Rubik Cube but once I turned on my unconscious mind it did it in a few seconds. It is just smarter than me.
-
In my opinion my work is a theory.
That's not a matter of opinion.
You are simply wrong,
-
HYPOTHESIS: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence
Science seems to be ducking 'further investigation'
Science is waiting for the magical transformation from absolutely no ****ing evidence whatsoever to "limited evidence".
Come back when something changes.
-
Science seems to be ducking 'further investigation' in favour of vociferous, baseless, criticism.
This is a base fro criticism of the suggestion.
We are waiting for any sort of progress.
I can measure G and U.
They have different values.
Also I can use them in equations and only one of them works.
If I try to set up a satellite using your wrong value for G it crashes.
If I try to design a capacitor using your wrong value for U it won't do what I want.
Do you not understand that?
If a hypothesis leads to a prediction which is wrong, you must reject the hypothesis.
-
Bored Chemist says:Do you not understand that?
If a hypothesis leads to a prediction which is wrong, you must reject the hypothesis.
GG: I am BSEE(summa cum laude) from Brooklyn Polytechnic. All my regular calculations are per standard equations. I use the conversion equations to provide me with an electrical model of the universe. This model is either the truth or the best electrical equivalent model of the universe. In this way it helps me to understand how the universe works. All the equations I use to calculate things work on the standard units as well as my simplified electrical units. And this is common to various physicists who eliminate the standard set of units.
-
Bored Chemist says:Do you not understand that?
If a hypothesis leads to a prediction which is wrong, you must reject the hypothesis.
GG: I am BSEE(summa cum laude) from Brooklyn Polytechnic. All my regular calculations are per standard equations. I use the conversion equations to provide me with an electrical model of the universe. This model is either the truth or the best electrical equivalent model of the universe. In this way it helps me to understand how the universe works. All the equations I use to calculate things work on the standard units as well as my simplified electrical units. And this is common to various physicists who eliminate the standard set of units.
And yet, you don't understand the simple fact that, because your idea gives the wrong answer, it is wrong.
But I can measure G and U.
They have different values.
Also I can use them in equations and only one of them works.
If I try to set up a satellite using your wrong value for G it crashes.
If I try to design a capacitor using your wrong value for U it won't do what I want.
Do you realise that, if reality does not agree with your idea it is not because reality has made a mistake?
(and you need to stop telling the lie that your idea is a theory)
-
I am not getting the asked for counter hypotheses, I am getting vociferous opinion. Opinions aren't very scientific.
I say again, I still getting post Big Bang rebuttal opinion to a pre-Big Bang hypothesis. In answer, I again summarise my position.
In the SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION post, if the polarity inversion hypothesis ‘carries’, we get a seductive and long awaited definition of Gravity which, in turn, suggests an ongoing creation of Hydrogen throughout infinity.
Ongoing H creation throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.
This suffusion was infinite so it spewed out enough material to furnish the Universe we evolved into via 160,000,000 years of dinosaur evolution.
The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo, but there are acres of Quantum disciples whose 'opinions' vociferously disagree.
To ensure we are on the same page, my only request to the ‘vociferous’ is that your opinions begin with your own pre Big Bang theories
Rstormview
-
Bored Chemist says
And yet, you don't understand the simple fact that, because your idea gives the wrong answer, it is wrong.
GG: I used to teach control system design after work at Sperry and sometimes at Polytechnic as a substitute for my boss. In order to solve mechanical problems electrical solutions were chosen. A capacitor was used for a mass. This enabled transient mechanical problems to be readily solved using electrical equations. The question is whether my conversion charts is an electrical analogy or physical truth. You say it is false. Is it? Flux density has the units of Meters per second squared. What does that mean? Voltage is Meters cubed per seconds cubed. Again I do not know what that means. Yet my conversions allow me to look at the variation of the constants of the universe from the big bang to the future. And it produces the light speed equations E= MCC , E = QCCC, and M= QC These three equations enable me to calculate the mass and charge of a particle when it oscillates into the light speed Cs dimension. My unconscious mind tells me that the higher light speed dimension exists. It is able to encounter it as it picks up information from that dimension. It can see and sense what my conscious mind cannot. So the total human mind has the ability to look beyond our light speed Co dimension and see beyond our limited existence.
-
Once again post-Big Bang opinion to rubbish a Pre Big Bang hypothesis.
Tony Blair said, to undermine Fundamentalism we need to show our ideas are better than theirs. If science hypothesises creation was an inevitable conclusion of an electromagnetic field operating within infinity the hypothesis does not favour the 'paradise' hypothesis.
-
The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo
No it doesn't. Quantum physics is strongly supported by observational evidence. That's not an opinion.
-
The missing "REALITY" of the A SCIENCE BASED THEORY (HYPOTHESIS) OF CREATION was raised several times.
Protons attract electrons is accepted current "reality". Except electrons do not hit the protons and become absorbed they orbit the protons and create Hydrogen. So what happened to reality?
-
So what happened to reality?
This
By what scientific process does attraction reverse into repulsion
It doesn't.
That's an irrational presumption you have made.
The attractive and repulsive terms are both acting all the time.
But the repulsive force is a short rage effect. It wins at short ranges and the electrostatic attraction dominates at longer ranges.
is reality.
You just keep ignoring it.
-
I used to teach control system design after work at Sperry and sometimes at Polytechnic
It does not matter what you did, does it?
You are still wrong about U being G
6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
Is not
8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 S4 A2
-
Voltage is Meters cubed per seconds cubed. Again I do not know what that means
Then shut up and listen to the grown ups.
You might learn.
-
It does not matter what you did, does it?
Bored Chemist says;
You are still wrong about U being G
6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
Is not
8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 S4 A2
GG: G =Uo is a units formula
The actual formula is
G = 16 pi e Uo/(137.036)^3 =6.67223E-11 [6.67260E-11 per US standards].
-
G =Uo is a units formula
That is still meaningless.
When you say e I presume you don't mean e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)
WTF are you talking about?
-
G = 16 pi e Uo/(137.036)^3 =6.67223E-11 [6.67260E-11 per US standards].
Let's see now...
(16 x 3.14159 x 2.71828 x (1.25663706212 x 10−6 H/m))/(137.0363)
(50.26548 x 2.71828 x (1.25663706212 x 10−6 H/m))/(137.0363)
(136.63574756 x (1.25663706212 x 10−6 H/m))/(137.0363)
(1.717015 x 10-4 H/m)/(137.0363)
(1.717015 x 10-4 H/m)/(2,573,380.584702656)
6.6722172934128 x 10-11 H/m
The numerical value is close, but it's not the same as the gravitational constant (6.6743 x 10-11). The modern value of the gravitational constant is accurate to within 22 parts per million, whereas your value differs from the modern measurement at the thousandths position. Besides that, the units are incorrect. The gravitational constant is not measured in H/m, but rather m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2.
-
A unit equation appears to be random constants and made up numbers that are picked to give a desired numerical value. Since the constants and made up numbers are not physically related the resulting units are meaningless. The numerical value is also meaningless of course.
-
Jerrygg isn't going to do this but...
Imagine that , for some reason, we were still using the foot, pound and second as our basic units.
We would have values for things like C and Uo
If the result Jerrygg has found is significant (in terms of physics) then it would still be numerically correct if you converted all the units to imperial ones.
After all, the truth a profound discovery in physics cant depend on an accident of political history.
So, if it's true, it will still be true if you redo the calculation in imperial units.
Over to you...
-
So, if it's true, it will still be true if you redo the calculation in imperial units.
Finding the value for the gravitational constant in imperial units has been difficult. Working in a round-about way gives me a value of 3.4397 x 10-8 ft3•slug-1•s-2 (which matches the value someone else calculated, so it gives me more confidence).
As for vacuum permeability... is there even an imperial unit for electrical inductance? A quick search has come up empty so far.
-
I think the units are something like henries per metre
And the henry is kg m^2/ (s^2 A^2)
or some such thing
So you can calculate the values.
Replace kg by 2.2. Lbs and the metre by 3.280... feet
The Amp and Second are the same.
-
I think the units are something like henries per metre
And the henry is kg m^2/ (s^2 A^2)
or some such thing
So you can calculate the values.
Replace kg by 2.2. Lbs and the metre by 3.280... feet
The Amp and Second are the same.
Okay, I looked it up and the henry is equal to (kg•m2)/(s2•A2). The kilogram is the metric unit for mass, and apparently the equivalent unit for mass in imperial is the slug (0.06852 kg per slug). The square meter is 10.7639 square feet. So 0.06852 x 10.7639 = 0.73756 and 0.73756 x 1.25663706212 x 10−6 H/m equals 9.2685 x 10-7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m.
Now for the recalculation:
(16 x 3.14159 x 2.71828 x (9.2685 x 10−7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m))/(137.0363)
(50.26548 x 2.71828 x (9.2685 x 10−7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m))/(137.0363)
(136.63574756 x (9.2685 x 10−7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m))/(137.0363)
(1.2664 x 10-4 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m)/(137.0363)
(1.2664 x 10-4 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m)/(2,573,380.584702656)
4.92117 x 10-11 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m
That number is very different from the gravitational constant in imperial units (3.4397 x 10-8 ft3•slug-1•s-2). So unless I made a miscalculation, the metric similarity is merely a coincidence.
-
I think the units are something like henries per metre
And the henry is kg m^2/ (s^2 A^2)
or some such thing
So you can calculate the values.
Replace kg by 2.2. Lbs and the metre by 3.280... feet
The Amp and Second are the same.
Okay, I looked it up and the henry is equal to (kg•m2)/(s2•A2). The kilogram is the metric unit for mass, and apparently the equivalent unit for mass in imperial is the slug (0.06852 kg per slug). The square meter is 10.7639 square feet. So 0.06852 x 10.7639 = 0.73756 and 0.73756 x 1.25663706212 x 10−6 H/m equals 9.2685 x 10-7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m.
Now for the recalculation:
(16 x 3.14159 x 2.71828 x (9.2685 x 10−7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m))/(137.0363)
(50.26548 x 2.71828 x (9.2685 x 10−7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m))/(137.0363)
(136.63574756 x (9.2685 x 10−7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m))/(137.0363)
(1.2664 x 10-4 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m)/(137.0363)
(1.2664 x 10-4 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m)/(2,573,380.584702656)
4.92117 x 10-11 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m
That number is very different from the gravitational constant in imperial units (3.4397 x 10-8 ft3•slug-1•s-2). So unless I made a miscalculation, the metric similarity is merely a coincidence.
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.
That's it. If the claim was correct then it would work in any set of units.
It doesn't.
The claim is false.
Jerry only found an interesting coincidence, not something of any significance
-
GG replies
Thanks for all the criticism. Now I will have to study your work. I expect a little difference between the gravitational constant from the electrical measurements and the mechanical measurements. The electrical should be more accurate.
Anyway I will check your calculations and report on them.
-
The electrical should be more accurate.
We know what the error margins are.
4.92117 x 10-11
is not
3.4397 x 10-8
within experimental error.
Now I will have to study your work.
Better late than never I guess.
-
Kryptid said
That number is very different from the gravitational constant in imperial units (3.4397 x 10-8 ft3•slug-1•s-2). So unless I made a miscalculation, the metric similarity is merely a coincidence.
According to
Wikipedia
G = 6.67430E-11 N M^2/Kg^2 for the MKS system and it is
6.674E-8 Cm^3 g^-1 S^-2 for the CGS system. Either system should yield the same results. I use the MKS system and I use my calculated value of 6.67223E-11. I believe G calculated from the electrical world is more accurate than the mechanical world. Yet the differences are small. In any event I recalculated my numbers and I get the same results. I will still try to figure out what you did differently.
-
G = 6.67430E-11 N M^2/Kg^2 for the MKS system and it is
6.674E-8 Cm^3 g^-1 S^-2 for the CGS system. Either system should yield the same results. I use the MKS system and I use my calculated value of 6.67223E-11. I believe G calculated from the electrical world is more accurate than the mechanical world. Yet the differences are small. In any event I recalculated my numbers and I get the same results. I will still try to figure out what you did differently.
Both of those are metric systems. I used the imperial system.
-
None of the comments above relate to a pre-Big Bang environment so I will repeat the Post in hope for some dialogue
A SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION
HAS A 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 into the never-never land of Quantum. 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 signposting much much more besides.
_____A New Definition of Gravity, Black Holes and Dark Matter?___
_Preface_
Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? Quantum Theory, undefined Black holes, Bent space/time, Dark matter, String-theory, Multi-verses and the search for a ‘God particle’, Quarks that nobody has yet seen or proven? Are the answers simpler, more logical?
Below is a proposition that postulates what gravity is, and by association, what black holes may be.
Wikipedia has only Einstein’s strange speculation for what gravity actually 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 admitted he never solved the mystery of gravity.
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.
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 assumptions and everything fell provocatively into place.
Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion is that protons attract. However, 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 atom of the Universe.
If the Big Bang can spew out swirls of electrons to create Suns/Stars, the above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attractive force of a mass 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 swirled concentrations of protons or neutrons which may explain the unsolved mysterious black holes and dark matter.
If this proposed inversion becomes proven experimentally, Quantum is questioned and 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 or Quantum to fill in the gaps in the science.
Infinity is a difficult concept for Homo Sapiens to grasp. Within infinity anything seems possible. Such as: - 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 infinitys 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 the temperature of infinity to heat from its own gravity and 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.
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, et cetera.
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 in which, after more billions of years, Homo sapiens evolved.
Rstormview
-
A precise collision of frequencies at the positive peaks spewed out protons.
The precise collision of frequencies at the negative peaks created electrons.
You do realize that protons are not the opposite of electrons, don't you? You would expect the results to either be protons and antiprotons or electrons and positrons. So why do you think this "precise collision of frequencies" (whatever that's supposed to mean) created protons as opposed to positrons? Or electrons as opposed to antiprotons?
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.
Would you stop saying this already? Hydrogen does not have a flashpoint without oxygen or some other oxidizer present. You have been told multiple times but refuse to accept it for reasons I cannot fathom.
-
Yet the differences are small.
4.92117 x 10-11
is not
3.4397 x 10-8
And the difference is nor "small".
None of the comments above relate to a pre-Big Bang environment so I will repeat the Post in hope for some dialogue
Dialogue with whom?
It's not as if there's anyone here who actually has any knowledge of what was present before the BB.
-
You have been told multiple times but refuse to accept it for reasons I cannot fathom.
Have you considered the idea that he might be an idiot?
Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
-
Chemist says:
And the difference is nor "small".
GG: You are correct that the simple equationis only good for the MKS system. The purpose of the equation was to show that the numereical value of the constants are related by simple numbers 2, pi, e, 137.036. I do not calculate things using the numeric equivalent equations. All my equations come from standard unit equations with coulombs, kilograms, meters, and seconds. So when I calculate the time of the universe I use the standard 4 units. I only use the three units to get an idea of what a universe of a different light speed has for mass and charge as related to our light speed.
-
The declaration that a hypothesis is 'wrong' is an opinion, not even near as valuable as a science-based logical hypothesis. Opinion is how Fundamentalists justify their actions. If the weight of science were to hypothesise a logical science based alternative creation, would this cause Fundamentalists to question?
-
The declaration that a hypothesis is 'wrong' is an opinion
Not if the reason that it is declared wrong is based on observational data. It isn't "an opinion" that the phlogiston hypothesis is wrong, for example. We have mountains of experimental evidence showing that it is wrong.
All my equations come from standard unit equations with coulombs, kilograms, meters, and seconds.
A good equation will work regardless of the measurement system used in its calculations. If it works in one system, but not another, then the equation is wrong.
-
I have asked countless times for "Observational Data" to explain if protons attract electrons why do they not hit and become absorbed? They don't hit, they become hydrogen. Quantum is the faux science which explains this mystery. If science accepts that electrons are "homers" you get the workable definition of gravity that eluded Einstein.
-
The declaration that a hypothesis is 'wrong' is an opinion,
Unless it is backed up by evidence.
The evidence in this case is the dimensional analysis.
It is unequivocal.
Your idea is proven wrong.
The fact that you don't understand this fact does not stop it being true.All my equations come from standard unit equations with coulombs, kilograms, meters, and seconds
All those equations also work in the fps system
That's the point of "consistent units".
You can choose any set of consistent units you like, and the equations will still work.
So, if the equations only "work" in one (consistent) unit set the equations are wrong.
I have asked countless times for "Observational Data" to explain if protons attract electrons why do they not hit and become absorbed?
Hydrogen exists.
This observation is sufficient to show that your simplistic idea (That protons ought to get hit by electrons) is wrong.
-
Once you understand this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(units_of_measurement)
you might recognise why we know you are wrong.
-
I have asked countless times for "Observational Data" to explain if protons attract electrons why do they not hit and become absorbed?
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is backed up by observational data: https://phys.org/news/2016-06-experimental-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle.html, https://www.sciencealert.com/new-research-says-the-uncertainty-principle-might-be-slightly-more-certain
Quantum is the faux science which explains this mystery.
Quantum mechanics is falsifiable, yet has passed many, many experimental tests. Evidence for quantum mechanics comes in the form of the double slit experiment, quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, Bell's theorem, the Casimir effect, quantum superposition, and photographs of the hydrogen atom that depict electron orbitals with the shape predicted by quantum mechanics, to name a few. There is nothing "faux" about it.
If science accepts that electrons are "homers" you get the workable definition of gravity that eluded Einstein.
Would you please explain what you mean by "homer"?
-
Kryptoid said:
The numerical value is close, but it's not the same as the gravitational constant (6.6743 x 10-11). The modern value of the gravitational constant is accurate to within 22 parts per million, whereas your value differs from the modern measurement at the thousandths position. Besides that, the units are incorrect. The gravitational constant is not measured in H/m, but rather m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2.
GG: In my GG-MKS system chart in my book,
Grav Constant = Met^3/ Kg Sec^2 but my coulombs are Kg Sec/Met
Yes the numbers are slightly different but the equation is a best fit numeric equation which is close enough for my purposes. I believe that there are ideal numbers for the constants and light speed Co which would be measured in an area of space that was free from high gravitational densities and velocities. So I search for ideal numbers. My ideal light speed is slightly higher than we measure.
-
but my coulombs are Kg Sec/Met
Please demonstrate in what sense a coulomb is a kilogram-second/meter.
Yes the numbers are slightly different but the equation is a best fit numeric equation which is close enough for my purposes.
Not close enough for scientific purposes, however. Especially when you consider that the number isn't even remotely close when the calculations are done in imperial units. An accurate equation is unit system neutral. It gives the right answer whether you use metric, imperial or some system used by aliens.
I believe that there are ideal numbers for the constants and light speed Co which would be measured in an area of space that was free from high gravitational densities and velocities.
According to relativity, that would make no difference. The speed of light is invariant to the observer.
-
My ideal light speed is slightly higher than we measure.
Then it is wrong.
-
close enough for my purposes.
What purpose is there to being knowingly wrong?
-
Bored chemist says
GG: My ideal light speed is slightly higher than we measure
BC: Then it is wrong.
GG: That I believed in 1981-3 as I studied the various constants of the universe and saw that they fit together more perfectly with slightly different numbers. The Earth is moving and the sun is moving and the galaxy is moving. It would be interesting to get a measurement of the speed of light on the moon and on a moving spaceship in a very weak gravitational field. Would they be the same? Perhaps, perhaps not. I do not know for sure. Why are you so certain?
-
BC: What purpose is there to being knowingly wrong?
GG: Because initially I was looking for more perfect numbers for the universe so that the constants vary by 4, pi, e, 137.036 etc. For example the inverse fine constant is an electron spinning around 137 times in one plane while the plane spins137 times in a perpendicular plane Thus
(FC)^-1 = 137/Cosine (360/274) = 137/0.999737 = 137.036
Anyway it seems to me that the universe works on a mathematical set of numbers.
-
Naked 2.14.20 8am
Discussion with Kryptoid
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:29:51
GG: but my coulombs are Kg Sec/Met
Kryptoid: Please demonstrate in what sense a coulomb is a kilogram-second/meter.
For the assumption that the universe could be specified in terms of coulombs, meters, and seconds or Kilograms, Meters, and seconds, A study of 8 leading possibilities show that Coulombs = Kilograms seconds per meter or alternatively Kilograms = coulombs meters per second is the best fit.
Scientifically what does this mean? In Engineering schools electrical models are produced to turn transient mechanical problems into ordinary electrical problems. This enables complex problems to be solved readily.
So I produced a best fit electrical model of the universe. Is it true for everything or is it a tool to learn more about the universe from an electrical perspective? In 1981-3 it seemed completely true to me. However it may only be a best fit model.
Looking at Plank’s Constant the units are
h = Cou Met^3/Sec^2
If h is a true constant. As the universe expands the meters will expand and the seconds will expand for a constant light speed. Therefore the charge of an electron and proton will decay. It also means that after big bang the charge of an electron and proton was much higher. They radiate dot-waves.
So to me my conversions give me another tool to study the universe long term. Is the model true? I believe it is. Can I find evidence to prove it? I can’t but perhaps others can in the future.
In any event the conclusions I have is that the universe at light speed Co is radiating away into the light speed Cs dimension.
Discussion with Kryptid:
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:29:51
GG: Yes the numbers are slightly different but the equation is a best fit numeric equation which is close enough for my purposes.
Kryptid: Not close enough for scientific purposes, however. Especially when you consider that the number isn't even remotely close when the calculations are done in imperial units. An accurate equation is unit system neutral. It gives the right answer whether you use metric, imperial or some system used by aliens.
GG: Since I use the MKS system for my calculations the results are the same. They are not the same for my numerical approximations as I study the numerical relationships among the constants of the universe.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:29:51
I believe that there are ideal numbers for the constants and light speed Co which would be measured in an area of space that was free from high gravitational densities and velocities.
Kryptid: According to relativity, that would make no difference. The speed of light is invariant to the observer.
GG: I believe that relativity is a mathematical best fit solution to the universe. I doubt if you somehow got on a piece of a planet traveling at 0.2C that you would get the same results as here upon the earth. It is just that since we live on a very linear portion of space that Einstein’s equations work so very well.
Report to moderator Logged
-
Naked 2.14.20 8am
Discussion with Kryptoid
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:29:51
GG: but my coulombs are Kg Sec/Met
Kryptoid: Please demonstrate in what sense a coulomb is a kilogram-second/meter.
GG:For the assumption that the universe could be specified in terms of coulombs, meters, and seconds or Kilograms, Meters, and seconds, A study of 8 leading possibilities show that Coulombs = Kilograms seconds per meter or alternatively Kilograms = coulombs meters per second is the best fit.
Scientifically what does this mean? In Engineering schools electrical models are produced to turn transient mechanical problems into ordinary electrical problems. This enables complex problems to be solved readily.
So I produced a best fit electrical model of the universe. Is it true for everything or is it a tool to learn more about the universe from an electrical perspective? In 1981-3 it seemed completely true to me. However it may only be a best fit model.
Looking at Plank’s Constant the units are
h = Cou Met^3/Sec^2
If h is a true constant. As the universe expands the meters will expand and the seconds will expand for a constant light speed. Therefore the charge of an electron and proton will decay. It also means that after big bang the charge of an electron and proton was much higher. They radiate dot-waves.
So to me my conversions give me another tool to study the universe long term. Is the model true? I believe it is. Can I find evidence to prove it? I can’t but perhaps others can in the future.
In any event the conclusions I have is that the universe at light speed Co is radiating away into the light speed Cs dimension.
Discussion with Kryptid:
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:29:51
GG: Yes the numbers are slightly different but the equation is a best fit numeric equation which is close enough for my purposes.
Kryptid: Not close enough for scientific purposes, however. Especially when you consider that the number isn't even remotely close when the calculations are done in imperial units. An accurate equation is unit system neutral. It gives the right answer whether you use metric, imperial or some system used by aliens.
GG: Since I use the MKS system for my calculations the results are the same. They are not the same for my numerical approximations as I study the numerical relationships among the constants of the universe.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:29:51
I believe that there are ideal numbers for the constants and light speed Co which would be measured in an area of space that was free from high gravitational densities and velocities.
Kryptid: According to relativity, that would make no difference. The speed of light is invariant to the observer.
GG: I believe that relativity is a mathematical best fit solution to the universe. I doubt if you somehow got on a piece of a planet traveling at 0.2C that you would get the same results as here upon the earth. It is just that since we live on a very linear portion of space that Einstein’s equations work so very well.
Report to moderator Logged
-
Kryptoid: Please demonstrate in what sense a coulomb is a kilogram-second/meter.
GG:For the assumption that the universe could be specified in terms of coulombs, meters, and seconds or Kilograms, Meters, and seconds, A study of 8 leading possibilities show that Coulombs = Kilograms seconds per meter or alternatively Kilograms = coulombs meters per second is the best fit.
Scientifically what does this mean? In Engineering schools electrical models are produced to turn transient mechanical problems into ordinary electrical problems. This enables complex problems to be solved readily.
So I produced a best fit electrical model of the universe. Is it true for everything or is it a tool to learn more about the universe from an electrical perspective? In 1981-3 it seemed completely true to me. However it may only be a best fit model.
Saying that it's the "best fit" isn't an answer at all. I want an actual explanation. Tell me how measuring the kilograms, meters and seconds in a system will tell me the magnitude of charge in that system.
GG: Since I use the MKS system for my calculations the results are the same. They are not the same for my numerical approximations as I study the numerical relationships among the constants of the universe.
Why do you still not understand that an equation must be valid in all measurement systems in order to be correct? I already showed you that the equation for determining the circumference of a circle from its diameter works regardless of the measurement system.
Looking at Plank’s Constant the units are
h = Cou Met^3/Sec^2
If h is a true constant. As the universe expands the meters will expand and the seconds will expand for a constant light speed. Therefore the charge of an electron and proton will decay. It also means that after big bang the charge of an electron and proton was much higher.
Given that the meter is defined in terms of light's speed, and light speed is invariant, meters do not expand over time. The expansion of the Universe simply means that there are more meters separating its individual components.
I believe that there are ideal numbers for the constants and light speed Co which would be measured in an area of space that was free from high gravitational densities and velocities.
Kryptid: According to relativity, that would make no difference. The speed of light is invariant to the observer.
GG: I believe that relativity is a mathematical best fit solution to the universe. I doubt if you somehow got on a piece of a planet traveling at 0.2C that you would get the same results as here upon the earth. It is just that since we live on a very linear portion of space that Einstein’s equations work so very well.
We already know from the Michelson-Morley experiment that the measured velocity of light is not affected by the observer's velocity. Much more recent experiments using optical resonators have greater refined our precision and we now know that the speed of light is invariant down to a factor of at least 10-17.
-
Why are you so certain?
Because I keep myself reasonably well informed and, above all, I can use Google.
So, I looked at your "point"It would be interesting to get a measurement of the speed of light on the moon and on a moving spaceship in a very weak gravitational field.
And I think about it.
Unlike you , I assume that the measurements have already been taken because countless billions have been spent on research.
So, I ask myself, what form would those experiments take?
Well, do we have measurements of the speed of light on spacecraft?
By far the commonest spacecraft are satellites.
Is there any reason why someone would have measured the speed of light on a satellite?
It depends what you mean by "measure", but there are functions of satellites that depend critically on the way in which em radiation moves about within them
And those satellites work.
So we know that the way in which radio waves move within satellites is the same (to a good approximation, and with calculable predictable changes) as it is here on the Earth's surface.
So there's actually ample evidence that the speed of light is (nearly) the same in space as it is on Earth.
Anyone who actually thinks about it with an open mind will realise that this must be the case- or lots of things that rely on relativistic science would simply not work.
So the question isn't why am I so certain, but why are you too dim to realise this?
The colour of gold is a relativistic effect.
If the speed of light changed then the color of gold would change.
Well, guess what... it doesn't.
-
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:12:46
Kryptoid: Please demonstrate in what sense a coulomb is a kilogram-second/meter.
GG: For the assumption that the universe could be specified in terms of coulombs, meters, and seconds or Kilograms, Meters, and seconds, A study of 8 leading possibilities show that Coulombs = Kilograms seconds per meter or alternatively Kilograms = coulombs meters per second is the best fit.
Scientifically what does this mean? In engineering schools electrical models are produced to turn transient mechanical problems into ordinary electrical problems. This enables complex problems to be solved readily.
So I produced a best fit electrical model of the universe. Is it true for everything or is it a tool to learn more about the universe from an electrical perspective? In 1981-3 it seemed completely true to me. However it may only be a best fit model.
Kryptoid: Saying that it's the "best fit" isn't an answer at all. I want an actual explanation. Tell me how measuring the kilograms, meters and seconds in a system will tell me the magnitude of charge in that system.
GG: The equations give me the total charge in any system given the total kilograms in that system. A neutron with a mass of 1.67493E-27 Kg contains 8.50793 dot-waves each with a charge of 3.47119E-60 coulombs for my electrical model. As you know when you break apart the neutron you measure things which have relatively high mass and high charge as compared to the dot-waves.
So when you look at the photons and the fields you get an idea of what they are made of. Can I prove anything? The big bang compressed all the dot-waves to produce protons, electrons, photons, sub-particles etc. This is what you see and measure. My dot-waves are the prime structure of the universe and cannot be readily seen and measured. So I cannot measure them yet they exist in my opinion.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:09:44
GG: Since I use the MKS system for my calculations the results are the same. They are not the same for my numerical approximations as I study the numerical relationships among the constants of the universe.
Kryptoid: Why do you still not understand that an equation must be valid in all measurement systems in order to be correct? I already showed you that the equation for determining the circumference of a circle from its diameter works regardless of the measurement system.
GG: Very good illustration. In my general mechanical force to electrical force equation the units should work out as well. Not for my simple units equations of course. I have a very difficult time calculating things in slugs and Newton’s since that was 60 years ago. Yet the basic physics equations should work equally well to your example since they relate mechanical force to electrical force. The example you calculated did not include the differences in mass, length, light speed etc. in the two systems. I looked at your calculation but I remember that a unit valid equation in the French system is equivalent to the unit valid calculation in the English system and most likely in any valid system.
You did prove to me that my simple numeric calculation for the MKS system is not good for the British system. You are correct. In my book I call it a numeric equation for the MKS system. And I will have to explain that better. This does not affect my time since big bang of 13.78 billion years since that came from a standard unit’s type equation which should be valid in all systems.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:12:46
Looking at Plank’s Constant the units are
h = Cou Met^3/Sec^2
If h is a true constant. As the universe expands the meters will expand and the seconds will expand for a constant light speed. Therefore the charge of an electron and proton will decay. It also means that after big bang the charge of an electron and proton was much higher.
Kryptoid: Given that the meter is defined in terms of light's speed, and light speed is invariant, meters do not expand over time. The expansion of the Universe simply means that there are more meters separating its individual components.
GG: That is certainly one valid conclusion. Yet I look at a universe in which it is possible that meters expand and seconds expand producing a constant light speed. Such a universe in my opinion is possible and yet very difficult to prove or verify. If everything slowly doubled in size including the ruler, how could you prove that to be true? If tomorrow you grew from 6 feet in height overnight and the Earth also doubled in size, how would you know? Most likely you would feel it but suppose it happened slowly over 13.78 billion years?
As the dot-waves radiate from the Co dimension to the Cs dimension, the spacing between galaxies will increase and gravity will tend to keep the size of the planets and galaxies nearly the same. So you would be quite correct. However in my opinion what I say is possible.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:09:44
I believe that there are ideal numbers for the constants and light speed Co which would be measured in an area of space that was free from high gravitational densities and velocities.
Kryptid: According to relativity, that would make no difference. The speed of light is invariant to the observer.
GG: I believe that relativity is a mathematical best fit solution to the universe. I doubt if you somehow got on a piece of a planet traveling at 0.2C that you would get the same results as here upon the earth. It is just that since we live on a very linear portion of space that Einstein’s equations work so very well.
Kryptoid: We already know from the Michelson-Morley experiment that the measured velocity of light is not affected by the observer's velocity. Much more recent experiments using optical resonators have greater refined our precision and we now know that the speed of light is invariant down to a factor of at least 10-17.
GG: Thanks for the latest info. You are most likely correct since the speed of light Co appears to be an absolute constant. I only question that the measurements might appear differently depending upon the platform used for the measurements. How could you get a decent measurement if you had a platform traveling at 0.999C? Or a star with a gravitational field 1 million times more than ours?
-
Once again, post Big Bang science is attempting to debunk a pre-Big Bang hypothesis and deploying Quantum faux science to do it..
-
Bored Chemist comments:
BC: Because I keep myself reasonably well informed and, above all, I can use Google.
So, I looked at your "point"
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 12:16:13
It would be interesting to get a measurement of the speed of light on the moon and on a moving spaceship in a very weak gravitational field.
BC: And I think about it.
Unlike you , I assume that the measurements have already been taken because countless billions have been spent on research.
So, I ask myself, what form would those experiments take?
Well, do we have measurements of the speed of light on spacecraft?
By far the commonest spacecraft are satellites.
Is there any reason why someone would have measured the speed of light on a satellite?
It depends what you mean by "measure", but there are functions of satellites that depend critically on the way in which em radiation moves about within them
And those satellites work.
So we know that the way in which radio waves move within satellites is the same (to a good approximation, and with calculable predictable changes) as it is here on the Earth's surface.
So there's actually ample evidence that the speed of light is (nearly) the same in space as it is on Earth.
Anyone who actually thinks about it with an open mind will realise that this must be the case- or lots of things that rely on relativistic science would simply not work.
So the question isn't why am I so certain, but why are you too dim to realise this?
GG: Many people have told me that I was the smartest person they ever met. Yet you think I am dim. That says a lot about you.
As I see it, the differences in light speed upon the Earth in satellites will be rather small. You have to move to a very non-linear area of space to find measurable differences. And we cannot get there.
BC: The colour of gold is a relativistic effect.
If the speed of light changed then the color of gold would change.
Well, guess what... it doesn't.
GG: How do you know? Can you detect very minute differences in color? The color of the red photon from the sun is not a fixed color but a spectrum.
-
I keep getting post Big Bang science, quantum faux science even, in response to pre-Big Bang hypotheses.
-
I keep getting post Big Bang science, quantum faux science even, in response to pre-Big Bang hypotheses.
You asked why the electron doesn't collide with the proton. That's not a "pre-Big Bang" question, so you didn't get a "pre-Big Bang" answer.
How could you get a decent measurement if you had a platform traveling at 0.999C?
Very easily. A laboratory on a spaceship moving at 0.999c will see itself as being at rest while the rest of the Universe around it is moving at 0.999c instead. If there wasn't any way of looking outside, you wouldn't even know that you were moving. Any experiments done aboard the ship would work exactly the same way as if the ship was not moving. That's how relativity works.
Or a star with a gravitational field 1 million times more than ours?
A laboratory in that field would have all of its instruments at the exact same gravitational potential as whatever else that its measuring (assuming that what it's measuring is in the lab itself), so there would ultimately be no difference in the measurements.
GG: The equations give me the total charge in any system given the total kilograms in that system. A neutron with a mass of 1.67493E-27 Kg contains 8.50793 dot-waves each with a charge of 3.47119E-60 coulombs for my electrical model. As you know when you break apart the neutron you measure things which have relatively high mass and high charge as compared to the dot-waves.
That didn't answer the question. I can make up any equation I want to at all and get an answer, but that doesn't mean that the answer makes physical sense. So again I ask, in what sense is a coulomb a kilogram-second/meter? It can be readily explained how a watt is a joule/second. I want a similar explanation.
-
Wrong 'Forum King' that electrons don't collide and become absorbed with protons IS a pre-Big Bang question because, in the hypothesis, the character of electrons is to seek stability by attaching. Electrons attach to protons and create hydrogen. The hypothesis proposes this continuous production of hydrogen throughout infinity suffused infinity with hydrogen growing ever bigger and hotter in the process, until it exploded in a Big Bang that spewed an infinity of atoms sufficient to evolve the Universe in which, after billions of more years, life evolved. The hypothesis is a Quantum free theory of creation and a return to the pure mathematical physics of Newton and Galileo. This is an interesting hypothesis and worthy of better debate than it currently attracts.
-
One of the main conceptual problems in physics is connected to the particle accelerator data used to explain the origins of our universe. In all physical systems, tested on the earth, the properties of materials show both a pressure and temperature dependency. Water, for example, at ambient conditions; STP, is a liquid in equilibrium with a gas. Water at the high temperature and pressures assumed for the earth's core, becomes a metallic solid.
The particle accelerator data is generated at high energy=temperature, but at very low pressure compared to say a neutron star. Our tools would phase change at those pressures. The current accelerator experiments would be like testing water at the very high temperature; core of the earth, but using earth surface pressure. The result would be a superheated ionized gas and not a metallic solid phase. We cannot just assume the earth's core sees the same thing or the BB sees low pressure phases like in the lab.
The current particle accelerator data represents an isobar on a larger T,P diagram. In the diagram below, the particle accelerator isobar would be parallel to the x-axis and somewhat close to pressure=0. This data is useful of itself, but it does not tell us anything about extreme pressure phases. Extreme pressure data would be needed to model the BB, not low pressure data. This tradition creates a conceptual problem.
In a neutron star, the assumed quark configurations for electrons and protons; seem at low earth surface pressure; accelerator data, may not be valid phases at the pressures of neutron density. The electron and proton phases only exist at lower pressure. This suggests even charge may not be a valid phase at extreme pressures,
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Phase-diag2.svg/310px-Phase-diag2.svg.png)
Say a photon split into an electron and positron, at a high enough pressure where the election or positron are not valid phases. It would quickly phase separate into the phase that can exist at the extreme ambient pressure. This phase appears to have been some form of matter, based on the observed matter universe.
-
Wrong 'Forum King' that electrons don't collide and become absorbed with protons IS a pre-Big Bang question because, in the hypothesis, the character of electrons is to seek stability by attaching.
Non-sequitur. Electrons don't hit protons in our post-Big Bang world either.
until it exploded in a Big Bang
The Big Bang wasn't an explosion.
The hypothesis is a Quantum free theory
So how does your model explain phenomena such as quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, the probability distribution of the electron cloud in the atom, the uncertainty principle, the Casimir effect, the double slit experiment and all of the other masses of evidence in quantum mechanics' favor?
This is an interesting hypothesis and worthy of better debate than it currently attracts.
No it isn't, because it predicts that hydrogen burns at its flashpoint without an oxidizing agent. That's chemically impossible. Even if you tried to circumvent the problem by invoking proton-proton fusion, there is still another issue: putting all of the visible universe's mass into a giant cloud of hydrogen with enough heat and pressure at its center to cause fusion would result in the cloud collapsing into a black hole. So there wouldn't even be an explosion at all.
Yet another problem with your model is that it predicts that the electromagnetic force should become repulsive at very small distances. In order to explain the radius of the hydrogen atom, that realm should be at about the Bohr radius (5.29 x 10-11 meters). One of the consequences of this prediction is that any bound, two-particle system where each member has a charge equal in magnitude to the electron or proton should have exactly this same radius, since the electromagnetic force would behave identically for any particle with that same charge.
This, however, does not match experimental findings. Positronium, which is the bound state of an electron and a positron, has the exact same magnitude of electromagnetic forces at work as exist in a hydrogen atom. Despite this, the radius of a positronium atom is about twice as large as that of the hydrogen atom (which we know from examining its ionization energy/electronic spectra). Muonic hydrogen, on the other hand, is much smaller than a hydrogen atom. Again, the muon has a charge identical to the electron. So both of these pieces of observational data demonstrate that the electromagnetic force does not suddenly reverse into a repulsion around the Bohr radius.
The repulsion model also has the problem of not explaining electron capture. In certain isotopes, one of the innermost electrons in an atom can be captured by the nucleus. If there was some kind of repulsive force at work keeping the electron away from the nucleus (and no such thing as quantum mechanics to explain how it could tunnel through such a barrier), then how does your model account for the phenomenon of electron capture?
Also, when are you going to explain what a "homer" is?
The particle accelerator data is generated at high energy=temperature, but at very low pressure compared to say a neutron star.
The collisions in particle accelerators result in the equivalent of localized, very high pressure.
-
Naked 2.15.20 8 am
GG: How could you get a decent measurement if you had a platform traveling at 0.999C?
Kryptoid: Very easily. A laboratory on a spaceship moving at 0.999c will see itself as being at rest while the rest of the Universe around it is moving at 0.999c instead. If there wasn't any way of looking outside, you wouldn't even know that you were moving. Any experiments done aboard the ship would work exactly the same way as if the ship was not moving. That's how relativity works.
GG: A proton traveling near the speed of light has almost zero forward dimension but perpendicular the size is almost the same as when standing still. So now you live with the proton and build strange instruments to measure the speed of light. You use relativity as if it is absolute truth rather than a very good mathematical approximation to reality. It is not believable to me what you say.
Quote
GG: Or a star with a gravitational field 1 million times more than ours?
Kryptoid: A laboratory in that field would have all of its instruments at the exact same gravitational potential as whatever else that its measuring (assuming that what it's measuring is in the lab itself), so there would ultimately be no difference in the measurements.
GG: This is not believable to me either. We are in a non-linear situation and Einstein’s equations would require a Fourier series correction.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 19:39:26
GG: The equations give me the total charge in any system given the total kilograms in that system. A neutron with a mass of 1.67493E-27 Kg contains 8.50793 dot-waves each with a charge of 3.47119E-60 coulombs for my electrical model. As you know when you break apart the neutron you measure things which have relatively high mass and high charge as compared to the dot-waves.
Kryptoid: That didn't answer the question. I can make up any equation I want to at all and get an answer, but that doesn't mean that the answer makes physical sense. So again I ask, in what sense is a coulomb a kilogram-second/meter? It can be readily explained how a watt is a joule/second. I want a similar explanation.
GG: The inverse equation is
Mass = Coulomb meters/ second
Coulomb per second is a current flow
When we multiply by meters we get a current flow around a plane. When we add huge numbers of these current flows, we fill a sphere of a particular radius. This produces a lot of current gyroscopes within an electron or the sub-particles within the proton. So a mass at rest will tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by a force.
The coulombs = kilograms seconds per meter is the inverted function for the mechanical world. It is not as easy to explain from a mechanical perspective. In any event my dot-waves have charge and equivalent mass. The mass is caused by the motion of the charges. In addition the dot-waves when spherical form oscillated between light speed dimensions.
Anyway the conversion is either an electrical model of the universe or the actual universe. Within a hundred years we should advance to the point where we know for sure. Then we can build some interesting things for power generation, space travel, and unfortunately advanced weapons.
Today I will post the details of the conversion of mass to charge using standard physics equations. I never did this before in this manner. So with your very good questions, I have learned more about my conversion work.
-
Many people have told me that I was the smartest person they ever met. Yet you think I am dim. That says a lot about you.
No, it just says that those people never met me.As I see it, the differences in light speed upon the Earth in satellites will be rather small. You have to move to a very non-linear area of space to find measurable differences. And we cannot get there.
For GPS satellites it's equivalent to about 38µseconds per day.
We did get there.
How can you be smart if you don't know that?
-
GG: A proton traveling near the speed of light has almost zero forward dimension but perpendicular the size is almost the same as when standing still. So now you live
with the proton and build strange instruments to measure the speed of light.
And that is precisely why measurements are not affected by velocity: length contraction affects everything in the laboratory equally.
You use relativity as if it is absolute truth rather than a very good mathematical approximation to reality.
I never said that relativity is an absolute truth, but the existing experimental evidence all points to what I say being true.
It is not believable to me what you say.
Then you are denying experimental evidence. Length contraction is an inevitable consequence of an invariant speed of light, and light speed is known to be invariant to a level of at least 10-17.
This is not believable to me either. We are in a non-linear situation and Einstein’s equations would require a Fourier series correction.
What is a "non-linear situation"? On what basis would Einstein's equations require correction?
GG: The inverse equation is
Mass = Coulomb meters/ second
Coulomb per second is a current flow
And yet if you double the current flow through a wire, you don't double the mass of the wire. So this relation must be false.
When we multiply by meters we get a current flow around a plane.
Meters are one-dimensional. A plane is two dimensional.
-
Quote from: puppypower on Yesterday at 11:47:48
The particle accelerator data is generated at high energy=temperature, but at very low pressure compared to say a neutron star.
The collisions in particle accelerators result in the equivalent of localized, very high pressure.
These experiments will create an impulse of pressure. However, it does not last long enough to sustain an extreme pressure phase. Instead we will get a pressure impulse, and then a rapid pressure drop, at which time we measure the low pressure and high energy phases. You would need to run the experiments, within an extreme pressure field, so the pressure will remain high for the entire experiment.
Say we could set up an experiment, on a neutron star, so we have extreme pressure over the entire experiment. Many of the particles we normally accelerate, would not qualify as a valid phase to accelerate, since the pressure begins too high. It is also very likely the neutrons will not break into sub-particles, since space is more restricted due to the pressure. High pressure, by making the system smaller, is reducing the space requirement of the new phases. This could means a phase with more quarks per particle; merger, instead of neutrons breaking into quarks.
-
These experiments will create an impulse of pressure. However, it does not last long enough to sustain an extreme pressure phase. Instead we will get a pressure impulse, and then a rapid pressure drop, at which time we measure the low pressure and high energy phases. You would need to run the experiments, within an extreme pressure field, so the pressure will remain high for the entire experiment.
We can tell what happened during that moment of high pressure by analyzing the particles that result from the collision. Constant pressure might lead to interesting results, but it isn't completely necessary to figure out what is going on.
-
Kryptid responds to GG:
GG: A proton traveling near the speed of light has almost zero forward dimension but perpendicular the size is almost the same as when standing still.
Kryptoid: So now you live with the proton and build strange instruments to measure the speed of light.
GG: And who will be alive to build these strange instruments. No one can survive distortions greater than20- 50 percent of light speed. A rocket ship would break apart if we exceed 0.2C.
Kryptid: And that is precisely why measurements are not affected by velocity: length contraction affects everything in the laboratory equally.
For the galaxy as a whole it can move at light speed C and slightly above because the gravitational field equalizes the pressures. Yet if we try to move a rocket ship at 0.8C there is nothing that can equalize it. An electron and proton has the ability to survive but chemical bonds are no match for the destructive forces caused by distortions in three dimensions.
Quote
GG:You use relativity as if it is absolute truth rather than a very good mathematical approximation to reality.
Kryptid: I never said that relativity is an absolute truth, but the existing experimental evidence all points to what I say being true.
GG: Einstein’s work has been verified for linear areas of space time and in the lab.
At Polytechnic we had various courses which were devoted to non-linear aspects of electrical engineering. A describing function was used to solve problems and that is what Einstein’s work is in my opinion.
Quote
GG: It is not believable to me what you say.
Kryptoid: Then you are denying experimental evidence. Length contraction is an inevitable consequence of an invariant speed of light, and light speed is known to be invariant to a level of at least 10-17.
GG: I agree with length contraction in the plane of motion but not in the perpendicular plane without very strong internal forces such as within a proton or electron. A space ship or a measuring instrument has only weak chemical bonds to hold it together. And it will not survive when we go beyond 0.2C to 0.5C.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 12:22:33
GG:This is not believable to me either. We are in a non-linear situation and Einstein’s equations would require a Fourier series correction.
Kryptoid: What is a "non-linear situation"? On what basis would Einstein's equations require correction?
GG: The Doppler Radar studies by several universities corrected his equations. In general no matter how hard you try to find perfect answers in anything, all you can get is an approximation to the true answer. Einstein’s work is a great approximation. It is a great describing function but it is not the whole truth.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 12:22:33
GG: The inverse equation is
Mass = Coulomb meters/ second
Coulomb per second is a current flow
Kryptid: And yet if you double the current flow through a wire, you don't double the mass of the wire. So this relation must be false.
GG: For your example, there is no wire. If you have a circular flow of dot-waves at a particular radius and you double the flow, the mass of the electrons in the circular flow will double. The entire universe is constructed of dot-waves which have calculable mass and charge. If you have more charge you will have more mass and vice versa.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 12:22:33
When we multiply by meters we get a current flow around a plane.
Meters are one-dimensional. A plane is two dimensional.
I am just looking for simple words. Perhaps a current torque would be better words. Please read my new topic “What is the relationship between mass and charge. This should make it clearer.
-
GG: And who will be alive to build these strange instruments. No one can survive distortions greater than20- 50 percent of light speed. A rocket ship would break apart if we exceed 0.2C.
You clearly don't understand how length contraction works. It is not like squeezing something in a vice. Neither the ship nor any one aboard the ship will experience any kind of stress or strain from the contraction. Relativity states that all inertial frames are equally valid. So for a proton moving at 99.999% the speed of light moving past the Earth, the Earth itself and everything on it will look extremely length contracted. This is exactly equivalent to the Earth itself moving at 99.999% the speed of light past a stationary proton. In neither case does anyone on Earth experience any problems from the contraction (nor would they even be aware of it, since all measuring devices shrink by the same amount).
GG: Einstein’s work has been verified for linear areas of space time and in the lab.
It has also been verified in extreme environments by observing the behavior of black holes and neutron stars. All of their behavior has lined up with the predictions of relativity so far.
The Doppler Radar studies by several universities corrected his equations.
Can you provide a citation for this?
GG: For your example, there is no wire. If you have a circular flow of dot-waves at a particular radius and you double the flow, the mass of the electrons in the circular flow will double. The entire universe is constructed of dot-waves which have calculable mass and charge. If you have more charge you will have more mass and vice versa.
It doesn't matter whether there is a wire or not. All that matters is if there is a current. Your equation predicts that a doubling of the current should double the mass. It doesn't.
I am just looking for simple words.
I would prefer accurate words.
-
Naked 2.17.20 10am
Kryptid: You clearly don't understand how length contraction works. It is not like squeezing something in a vice. Neither the ship nor any one aboard the ship will experience any kind of stress or strain from the contraction. Relativity states that all inertial frames are equally valid. So for a proton moving at 99.999% the speed of light moving past the Earth, the Earth itself and everything on it will look extremely length contracted. This is exactly equivalent to the Earth itself moving at 99.999% the speed of light past a stationary proton. In neither case does anyone on Earth experience any problems from the contraction (nor would they even be aware of it, since all measuring devices shrink by the same amount).
GG: In the first sentence you seem to indicate that each object sees the other like a Doppler effect. Neither suffers any physical shrinkage. It is just a visual effect. In the last sentence you indicate that all measuring devices shrink by the same amount.
I agree that we are moving outward at slightly above the speed of light C. Yet we do not feel that. It seems that the gravitational field of the galaxy obeys relativity. It equalizes everything in the galaxy with respect to the outward velocity C. Otherwise we would be flattened.
Now if a high speed proton is heading toward the Earth. It is entering our gravitational field which equalizes everything upon the Earth. The proton has a lot of photonic energy. It seems to me that the proton would be flattened. The earth would be nice and round but the proton would be crushed flat.
Stationary protons are round. Photons are flat. If we add flat photons to a round proton, the net result would be a flattened proton. Relativity of platforms requires independent gravitational fields. A spaceship has basically a zero gravitational field as compared to a planet. Therefore a spaceship will be flattened as we raise its speed toward light speed. Relativity works some of the time but not all the time.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:57:18
GG: Einstein’s work has been verified for linear areas of space time and in the lab.
Kryptoid: It has also been verified in extreme environments by observing the behavior of black holes and neutron stars. All of their behavior has lined up with the predictions of relativity so far.
GG: Ok. You seem to know quite a lot about such things.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:57:18
The Doppler radar studies by several universities corrected his equations.
Kryptid: Can you provide a citation for this?
GG: I read the reports by MIT and other universities as I studied in the Sperry library which was listed as Secret and Top Secret. They just added Doppler forward and rearward masses to Einstein’s equations. Anyway that was 50 years ago and they must have gotten better data by today.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:57:18
GG: For your example, there is no wire. If you have a circular flow of dot-waves at a particular radius and you double the flow, the mass of the electrons in the circular flow will double. The entire universe is constructed of dot-waves which have calculable mass and charge. If you have more charge you will have more mass and vice versa.
Kryptid: It doesn't matter whether there is a wire or not. All that matters is if there is a current. Your equation predicts that a doubling of the current should double the mass. It doesn't.
GG: You are turning the equation into an electric flow problem.
Mass = Coulombs Meters/Seconds = Current x Meters
So you say that if you doubled the current flow, the mass would increase twice as much. It doesn’t work that way.
Equation 1: Kilograms = Coulombs x Constant x Speed of Light C.
Kilograms and Coulombs are related by the speed of light C.
If you double the coulombs you double the kilograms.
Every particle or photon is made up of dot-waves. Each dot-wave comes as positive or negative. A bipolar dot-wave consists of one positive and one negative dot wave with a total charge of zero.
Equation 1 just relates kilograms and coulombs.
All it states is that the mechanical world and the electrical world always appear together as sister units. The are tied to each other by force equations such as for the Bohr Orbit.
-
Every particle or photon is made up of dot-waves.
First, your posts are hard to read since you do not use the the quote feature. To use the quote feature click reply, scroll down to the text you want to quote, highlight the part of the post you wish to quote and then click on the 'quote (selected)' button.
Secondly, the constant for the speed of light in a vacuum is a small 'c', not a capital 'C'. A capital 'C' is capacitance.
Finally, you made up the idea of 'dot waves', making up things is science fiction, not science. If there was ANY evidence of dot waves then it could be science. Your subconscious thoughts are not evidence.
-
A space ship or a measuring instrument has only weak chemical bonds to hold it together. And it will not survive when we go beyond 0.2C to 0.5C.
It is routine laboratory work to accelerate molecules (held together by chemical bonds) to reasonably large fractions of c
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-of-flight_mass_spectrometry
So you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
-
I agree that we are moving outward at slightly above the speed of light C.
Agreeing with whom? I never indicated such a thing.
It equalizes everything in the galaxy with respect to the outward velocity C.
I can't make sense of this sentence.
Stationary protons are round. Photons are flat. If we add flat photons to a round proton, the net result would be a flattened proton.
Citation needed.
Relativity of platforms requires independent gravitational fields.
No, no it does not.
A spaceship has basically a zero gravitational field as compared to a planet. Therefore a spaceship will be flattened as we raise its speed toward light speed.
No it wouldn't. You still don't understand relativity.
Relativity works some of the time but not all the time.
Please provide a link to a verified observation of relativity being wrong.
GG: I read the reports by MIT and other universities as I studied in the Sperry library which was listed as Secret and Top Secret.
So no, you cannot supply a citation.
Equation 1: Kilograms = Coulombs x Constant x Speed of Light C.
What is the value of that constant?
-
they must have gotten better data by today.
That might be why they no longer use the weird stuff you are posting about.
-
The are tied to each other by force equations such as for the Bohr Orbit.
... which never existed.
-
Thanks for your numerous replies. I seem to be still getting post Big Bang rebuttals to a pre Big Bang hypothesis. In answer, I again summarise my position.
In the SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION post, if the polarity inversion hypothesis ‘carries’, we get a seductive and long awaited definition of Gravity which, in turn, suggests an ongoing creation of Hydrogen throughout infinity.
Ongoing H creation throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.
This suffusion was infinite so it spewed out enough material to furnish the Universe we evolved into via 160,000,000 years of dinosaur evolution.
The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo, but there are acres of Quantum disciples who vociferously disagree.
To ensure we are on the same page, my only request to the ‘vociferous’ is that your opinions begin with your own pre Big Bang theories
Rstormview
-
I seem to be still getting post Big Bang rebuttals to a pre Big Bang hypothesis.
You seem to have missed this:
Electrons don't hit protons in our post-Big Bang world either.
if the polarity inversion hypothesis ‘carries’
It doesn't. Here's why:
Yet another problem with your model is that it predicts that the electromagnetic force should become repulsive at very small distances. In order to explain the radius of the hydrogen atom, that realm should be at about the Bohr radius (5.29 x 10-11 meters). One of the consequences of this prediction is that any bound, two-particle system where each member has a charge equal in magnitude to the electron or proton should have exactly this same radius, since the electromagnetic force would behave identically for any particle with that same charge.
This, however, does not match experimental findings. Positronium, which is the bound state of an electron and a positron, has the exact same magnitude of electromagnetic forces at work as exist in a hydrogen atom. Despite this, the radius of a positronium atom is about twice as large as that of the hydrogen atom (which we know from examining its ionization energy/electronic spectra). Muonic hydrogen, on the other hand, is much smaller than a hydrogen atom. Again, the muon has a charge identical to the electron. So both of these pieces of observational data demonstrate that the electromagnetic force does not suddenly reverse into a repulsion around the Bohr radius.
The repulsion model also has the problem of not explaining electron capture. In certain isotopes, one of the innermost electrons in an atom can be captured by the nucleus. If there was some kind of repulsive force at work keeping the electron away from the nucleus (and no such thing as quantum mechanics to explain how it could tunnel through such a barrier), then how does your model account for the phenomenon of electron capture?
Ongoing H creation throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.
You seem to have missed these as well:
The Big Bang wasn't an explosion.
No it isn't, because it predicts that hydrogen burns at its flashpoint without an oxidizing agent. That's chemically impossible. Even if you tried to circumvent the problem by invoking proton-proton fusion, there is still another issue: putting all of the visible universe's mass into a giant cloud of hydrogen with enough heat and pressure at its center to cause fusion would result in the cloud collapsing into a black hole. So there wouldn't even be an explosion at all.
Sometimes I wonder if you even bother reading our replies.
The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo
And here is why that won't work:
So how does your model explain phenomena such as quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, the probability distribution of the electron cloud in the atom, the uncertainty principle, the Casimir effect, the double slit experiment and all of the other masses of evidence in quantum mechanics' favor?
To ensure we are on the same page, my only request to the ‘vociferous’ is that your opinions...
It's best to avoid opinions altogether. Evidence and data are preferred.
...begin with your own pre Big Bang theories
There is no need for our own "theories" to refute your model (they wouldn't even be theories, because they haven't been tested), because the existing evidence already stands against your model. If you had actually read my posts, you should understand that.
-
In the SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION post, if the polarity inversion hypothesis ‘carries’
It isn't a theory so it won't carry.
To ensure we are on the same page, my only request to the ‘vociferous’ is that your opinions begin with your own pre Big Bang theories
Theories are based on evidence.
We have no evidence of what happened before the big bang.
No "pre Big Bang theories" are possible.
Were you deliberately setting an impossible task, or did you not know what you were talking about?
-
Kryptid claims15/02 "The Big Bang wasn't an explosion". So what was it then? Surely it must have been violent?
-
rstormview says
Kryptid claims15/02 "The Big Bang wasn't an explosion". So what was it then? Surely it must have been violent?
GG: As I see it the big bang was an inversion. If the material came from our dimension then it might look like an explosion. However the energy came from the higher light speed dimension. This converted high light speed photonic energy into our material universe. This caused high heat at the big bang inversion point. Our light speed Co photonic energy flew outward along with higher light speed photonic energy. If all the stuff was at the big bang point then an explosion would be the right word. Yet not all the ingredients were present simultaneously. Thus it was an inversion that reached very high heat.
-
Kryptid claims15/02 "The Big Bang wasn't an explosion". So what was it then? Surely it must have been violent?
It was a very rapid expansion of space itself. The distance between individual particles increased because of that expansion, not because they were moving away from each other through space like in an explosion.
If all the stuff was at the big bang point then an explosion would be the right word.
Nope, for the reason I explain above.
-
Kryptoid to Rstorm: It was a very rapid expansion of space itself. The distance between individual particles increased because of that expansion, not because they were moving away from each other through space like in an explosion.
GG: That makes sense to me since at the inversion a lot of light speed Cs photons were flowing into the Cs dimension. This expanded space rapidly.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 14:36:31
If all the stuff was at the big bang point then an explosion would be the right word.
Kryptid:Nope, for the reason I explain above.
GG: I do not believe that the stuff was in a lump. The energy was flowing into the Co dimension from the Cs dimension.
-
I do not believe
Science isn't about belief; it is about evidence.
You have none.
-
Bored chemist says:
Science isn't about belief; it is about evidence.
You have none.
GG: First comes belief. Later comes evidence. Within 100 years scientists and mathematicians will come to understand the dual light speed universe we live in. they will provide the evidence.
-
I want to point out that I detected a mistake in the calculations I did in reply #130. I ended up with 4.92117 x 10-11 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m, but I should have replaced the meters with feet. When I make this correction, the answer ends up being 1.499973 x 10-11 (slug•ft2/s2•A[/sup]2)/ft. This new number is still different from the imperial gravitational constant (3.4397 x 10-8 ft3•slug-1•s-2).
Likewise, the vacuum permeability of 9.2685 x 10-7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m would be more properly stated as 2.8250387 x 10-7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/ft
-
This Post has been hi-jacked. Quantum is faux science invented to answer questions that failed to be answered within the physics of Newton and Galileo. This failure was not to realise that the basic property of an electron is to seek stability, and in finding stability it altered DNA and was the cause to the endless. variety of life forms in the planet. I will end this Post with a repeat of the original Post
A SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION
HAS A 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 into the never-never land of Quantum. 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 signposting much much more besides.
_____A New Definition of Gravity, Black Holes and Dark Matter?___
_Preface_
Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? Quantum Theory, undefined Black holes, Bent space/time, Dark matter, String-theory, Multi-verses and the search for a ‘God particle’, Quarks that nobody has yet seen or proven? Are the answers simpler, more logical?
Below is a proposition that postulates what gravity is, and by association, what black holes may be.
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 admitted he never solved the mystery of gravity.
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.
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 assumptions and everything fell provocatively into place.
Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion is that protons attract. However, 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 atom of the Universe.
If the Big Bang can spew out swirls of electrons to create Suns/Stars, the above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attractive force of a mass 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 swirled concentrations of protons or neutrons which may explain the unsolved mysterious black holes and dark matter.
If this proposed inversion becomes proven experimentally, Quantum is questioned and 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 or Quantum to fill in the gaps in the science.
Infinity is a difficult concept for Homo Sapiens to grasp. Within infinity anything seems possible. Such as: - 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 the temperature of infinity to heat from its own gravity and 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.
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, et cetera.
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 in which, after more billions of years, Homo sapiens evolved.
Rstormview@hotmail.com
-
Quantum is faux science invented to answer questions that failed to be answered within the physics of Newton and Galileo.
How come it works then?
If you say it's false, then you must be able to show some case where it gives the wrong answer- ie a case where QM does not give the same result as an experiment.
So, go on; cite that experiment.
-
for the core temperature of hydrogen floating in infinity to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C
You sure do love to claim that hydrogen can burn without oxygen, don't you?
-
THE SCIENCE-BASED THEORY OF CREATION, posted above, has been reproduced in the BBC's Science Focus website. Perhaps now a dialogue/debate/argument will begin.
-
THE SCIENCE-BASED THEORY OF CREATION, posted above, has been reproduced in the BBC's Science Focus website. Perhaps now a dialogue/debate/argument will begin.
Can you provide a link?
-
Quantum is faux science invented to answer questions that failed to be answered within the physics of Newton and Galileo.
How come it works then?
If you say it's false, then you must be able to show some case where it gives the wrong answer- ie a case where QM does not give the same result as an experiment.
So, go on; cite that experiment.