Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: rstormview on 09/09/2017 15:55:03
-
_____________IS THIS THE UNIFYING THEORY?______________
_Preface_
Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? black holes, bent space/time, string-theory, multi-verses and the search for a “God particle”? Are the answers more simple, more logical than that.
Below is the only proposition I am aware of that hypothesizes ‘time’ before “The Big-Bang” and postulates what gravity is, and by association what black holes probably are.
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, is a working hypothesis, not a proof. If explosions do not create matter, something did. We have to choose between a scientific explanation or resort to the spectre of God to fill in the gaps in the logic.
A UNIFYING THEORY
There cannot be nothing. There was always something. It is proposed that ‘something’ was an infinite, endless, timeless force field oscillating at light speed, precisely as the night sky cosmos as we see it, but empty of all substance. This force field is like an invisible sea of oscillations on multiple frequencies in every dimension. This invisible sea can transmit information in ripples such as radio and television transmissions. Light is a wavelength ripple in the spectrum visible to the human eye.
Within this infinite soup of oscillation, atoms became created from the precise collisions of frequencies from every direction which momentarily arrested light speed.
A precise collision of frequencies at the positive peak spewed out a proton.
The precise collision of frequencies at the negative peak created an electron.
The precise collision of frequencies at zero peak produced a neutron.
Electrons and protons combine naturally to create hydrogen.
The addition of neutron into the mix produces helium.
Within infinity’s billions of years, hydrogen was being continuously created and gathered into a cloud of explosive potential. It is proposed that within infinite space and infinite time, the continual and unrestricted growth of this concentration of hydrogen led inevitably and eventually to cause the core temperature of the cloud to heat from its own gravity to reach the auto-ignition point of Hydrogen. Since an atom of hydrogen has a mass of about 1.66 x 10(-24) grams, and a MOLE of hydrogen atoms weighs only 1.008 grams, for the core temperature of a hydrogen cloud to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C, the Big Bang must have been fuelled with material from a hydrogen cloud of near immeasurable size.
This combustion spewed this near infinite 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 mixed with inert helium introduced variety into primal universal equations which caused more complex assortments of matter to evolve into suns; residue material formed planets, et cetera, et cetera.
Therefore, it is proposed our universe was not the creation of a superior intelligence, but is a logical and inevitable creation of a force field operating within infinite space and infinite time endlessly creating hydrogen which gathered into a cloud of near infinite size which ultimately and inevitably exploded, spewing a near infinite amount of matter into infinity, to create the universe in which we have evolved.
As science stands at the moment, gravity and the Big Bang are accepted as unexplained, ill-defined “absolutes” with inexplicables that only the addition of the spectre God can fully explain. If God cannot be hypothesized scientifically such an existence must be questionable.
Wikipedia has only a wild speculation for what gravity actually is.
Quote: - “Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime 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”.
That gravity ‘is not a force’ seems to be a contradiction of an obvious fact and is therefore a hypothesis, not a scientific truth. “Curved space-time” is only a logical definition if it is unchallenged. The rest of the universe seems confident gravity is actually a force, but Einstein’s extravagant theory ensures gravity remains incompletely defined.
The theory below proposes an inversion of an accepted unchallenged assumption, but overall it is elegantly and provocatively logical. If this inversion carries, then understanding our universe also adjusts.
The Eureka moment came from an inversion of one of sciences ‘assumptions’ and everything fell into logical place.
Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion is that protons attract. What is more difficult to explain is how this attraction somehow reverses into repulsion in close proximity and directs electrons into orbiting protons to create hydrogen.
The proposal for consideration is that it is electrons that attract, but with relatively insignificant mass, it is electrons that do the moving. Therefore the proposal is, in close proximity homing electrons are repelled by protons into circulatory orbits to create hydrogen, the basic element in the Universe.
The above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attractive force of a mass of electrons, modest in the molten interior of Earth, massive in our Sun.
The above proposal further suggests, by association, that ‘black-holes’ may be concentrations of protons repelling all matter, only, over billions of light years, appearing to consume matter.
Rstormview@hotmail.com.
-
While I'm not privy to the exact reasons as why you were banned from those forums, I can hazard a guess. In general, posters are banned due to rule violations and very seldom purely on content. Some forums have a strict "No personal theories" policy. If you continued to push your theory on that board, that would be grounds for being banned. Other forums (such as this one) have specific areas for personal theories are discussed. Continuing to post about your theory outside these areas can also be a rules violation and lead to banning. Another cause can be thread high-jacking. This is where you jump into a thread started by someone else to promote your own theory.
Very few( if any) forums would ban someone without first warning them that their behavior could lead to a ban.
-
_____________IS THIS THE UNIFYING THEORY?______________
_Preface_
Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? black holes, bent space/time, string-theory, multi-verses and the search for a “God particle”? Are the answers more simple, more logical than that.
Below is the only proposition I am aware of that hypothesizes ‘time’ before “The Big-Bang” and postulates what gravity is, and by association what black holes probably are.
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, is a working hypothesis, not a proof. If explosions do not create matter, something did. We have to choose between a scientific explanation or resort to the spectre of God to fill in the gaps in the logic.
A UNIFYING THEORY
There cannot be nothing. There was always something. It is proposed that ‘something’ was an infinite, endless, timeless force field oscillating at light speed, precisely as the night sky cosmos as we see it, but empty of all substance. This force field is like an invisible sea of oscillations on multiple frequencies in every dimension. This invisible sea can transmit information in ripples such as radio and television transmissions. Light is a wavelength ripple in the spectrum visible to the human eye.
Within this infinite soup of oscillation, atoms became created from the precise collisions of frequencies from every direction which momentarily arrested light speed.
A precise collision of frequencies at the positive peak spewed out a proton.
The precise collision of frequencies at the negative peak created an electron.
The precise collision of frequencies at zero peak produced a neutron.
Electrons and protons combine naturally to create hydrogen.
The addition of neutron into the mix produces helium.
Within infinity’s billions of years, hydrogen was being continuously created and gathered into a cloud of explosive potential. It is proposed that within infinite space and infinite time, the continual and unrestricted growth of this concentration of hydrogen led inevitably and eventually to cause the core temperature of the cloud to heat from its own gravity to reach the auto-ignition point of Hydrogen. Since an atom of hydrogen has a mass of about 1.66 x 10(-24) grams, and a MOLE of hydrogen atoms weighs only 1.008 grams, for the core temperature of a hydrogen cloud to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C, the Big Bang must have been fuelled with material from a hydrogen cloud of near immeasurable size.
This combustion spewed this near infinite 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 mixed with inert helium introduced variety into primal universal equations which caused more complex assortments of matter to evolve into suns; residue material formed planets, et cetera, et cetera.
Therefore, it is proposed our universe was not the creation of a superior intelligence, but is a logical and inevitable creation of a force field operating within infinite space and infinite time endlessly creating hydrogen which gathered into a cloud of near infinite size which ultimately and inevitably exploded, spewing a near infinite amount of matter into infinity, to create the universe in which we have evolved.
As science stands at the moment, gravity and the Big Bang are accepted as unexplained, ill-defined “absolutes” with inexplicables that only the addition of the spectre God can fully explain. If God cannot be hypothesized scientifically such an existence must be questionable.
Wikipedia has only a wild speculation for what gravity actually is.
Quote: - “Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime 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”.
That gravity ‘is not a force’ seems to be a contradiction of an obvious fact and is therefore a hypothesis, not a scientific truth. “Curved space-time” is only a logical definition if it is unchallenged. The rest of the universe seems confident gravity is actually a force, but Einstein’s extravagant theory ensures gravity remains incompletely defined.
The theory below proposes an inversion of an accepted unchallenged assumption, but overall it is elegantly and provocatively logical. If this inversion carries, then understanding our universe also adjusts.
The Eureka moment came from an inversion of one of sciences ‘assumptions’ and everything fell into logical place.
Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion is that protons attract. What is more difficult to explain is how this attraction somehow reverses into repulsion in close proximity and directs electrons into orbiting protons to create hydrogen.
The proposal for consideration is that it is electrons that attract, but with relatively insignificant mass, it is electrons that do the moving. Therefore the proposal is, in close proximity homing electrons are repelled by protons into circulatory orbits to create hydrogen, the basic element in the Universe.
The above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attractive force of a mass of electrons, modest in the molten interior of Earth, massive in our Sun.
The above proposal further suggests, by association, that ‘black-holes’ may be concentrations of protons repelling all matter, only, over billions of light years, appearing to consume matter.
Rstormview@hotmail.com.
Only two forums banned you? I have been banned by countless forums even as a sock. However , welcome to the best science forum in the world where in this section , you are allowed to have your own theories.
Let me start off discussing your notion, but first may I ask you define what you think the ''explosion'' in the big bang means?
Notice I have put explosion in quotation to let you know it was not an actual explosion.
-
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 a hydrogen cloud to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C, the Big Bang must have been fuelled with material from a hydrogen cloud of near immeasurable size.
That flash point only applies if there is sufficient oxygen present to ignite the hydrogen. Perhaps what you are thinking about are thermonuclear fusion reactions, which require much, much higher temperatures than chemical reactions do.
-
There cannot be nothing. There was always something. It is proposed that ‘something’ was an infinite, endless, timeless force field oscillating at light speed, precisely as the night sky cosmos as we see it, but empty of all substance. This force field is like an invisible sea of oscillations on multiple frequencies in every dimension. This invisible sea can transmit information in ripples such as radio and television transmissions. Light is a wavelength ripple in the spectrum visible to the human eye.
I explain the part in bold so much better. The rest is subjective ''waffle''.
-
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 a hydrogen cloud to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C, the Big Bang must have been fuelled with material from a hydrogen cloud of near immeasurable size.
That flash point only applies if there is sufficient oxygen present to ignite the hydrogen. Perhaps what you are thinking about are thermonuclear fusion reactions, which require much, much higher temperatures than chemical reactions do.
Hydrogen did not exist before the big bang, nothing existed according to the theory.
-
My guess is that you did not enco0orate quarks into your theory, bosons or anything else, and really you should be shot.
-
Hydrogen did not exist before the big bang
Of course, but the OP seems to think a flash point has some significance in a cloud of hydrogen (which it does not).
-
It's always interesting to me when posters suggests what was there in the beginning and what was not there in the beginning. The size of black holes relative to 13.6 billion years is not mathematically possible in a linear development. It is equivalent to the Jewish bible saying man only existed 6 thousand years. Speculating on Adam and eve particles is useless without a physical mechanism. Speculating that a God created it forces one to ask about the creation of a God. The creation of the first particle to produce the first particle is beyond our ability to understand at this juncture in human existence. Math is the one tool we have for theories but math can only disprove a theory and not prove a theory to be correct. The BB should be scrapped because BH's of 4 billion solar masses is incompatible with the timing of the BB. It is the equivalent of saying man only existed 6 thousand years. The BB is really a faith issue and not science when you take in the actual observations. Top down is never a good position to find yourself. That means there was something before there was something and that something was everything. Not logical. But the creation of the first thing is illogical. Speculation should be reserved for actual observations like puzzle pieces. There are not enough pieces to suggest a BB considering the observations of BH's of such magnitude. Science by faith is not real science. Changing the collective mindset even with mathematically disproving the timeline is unlikely.
-
For a first cause, if pure original space was what was "oscillating," as you term it, the points of oscillation would have to have had non-oscillating space in between them, or else oscillatory motion could not have occurred. -This leads to the concept that massless elemental point-localities, such as these, of "partial points" of space itself, were what came first. The next step would have been a transition, from these oscillational point-like elements, to elemental vibrating "ether" units, which formed as oscillational fatigue of the oscillating spatial points produced Yin-Yang combinational pairs of elemental point-units, which then, as they reversibly would have to have reverted to elemental singleton units, would have erased the symmetry of space, producing new elemental units which then would have become the fundamental building blocks for everything that existed from then on. The next step after that would have to have been that these point-like elements would have constituted an ether matrix composed of uniform vibrating units. This would have been what underlay a transition to our structured quantum atomic world - for which I don't see any other possibility than creational design, using more-refined etheric forces to move the larger quantum scale units around, in designed pathways ( through"like-unit" pathways, or channels, coursing through the ether matrix.)
You need creational input, for just one example, to account for how antiparticles could have been channeled out of the way of the new quantum particle-universe. Also, this picture, of an unstructured ether matrix composed of elemental units, that exists together with a quantum world where all the quantum units and atoms are also made of the same elemental units, represents the only theoretic model that can rationally explain quantum entanglement.