0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion is that protons attract. 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. If the above assumption becomes confirmed experimentally then Einstein’s gravity proposal becomes a logical cul-de-sac.
If the above proposal “carries”, this highlights another cul-de-sac. If protons attract electrons why don’t electrons hit protons 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 which the above inversion proposal would also explain.
Authorised by infinity’s “everything and anything” potential, In explanation of this illogicality, Einstein proposed Quantum Theory. The same inversed assumption described above disposes of Einstein’s Quantum Theory solution. Another Einstein proposal is that travelling at light speed, time ceases for the traveller because, as the traveller approaches light speed his vehicle contracts in length until, at light speed it becomes a vertical line with infinite mass. It seems much more likely that the only way a traveller can achieve light speed is to convert into an electronic transmission. Agreed, at light speed, time would standstill for the traveller, because an electronic impulse no longer exists in the world of jobs, birthdays and lunch because the traveller has merged into the electronic world and therefore achieved Einstein’s infinite mass
Wikipedia quote, ‘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 science based explanation or resort to the spectre of God to fill in the gaps in the science.
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 mix produces helium.
Within infinity’s billions upon billions of years, hydrogen and helium was being continuously created. Hydrogen gathered into a cloud of explosive potential. It is proposed that within infinite space and infinite time, the continual and unrestricted growth of this concentration of hydrogen led inevitably and eventually to cause the core temperature of the cloud to heat from its own gravity 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 floating in infinity to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C, the Big Bang must have been fuelled with material from a hydrogen cloud of immeasurable size.
If the Big Bang explosion can cause a swirl of electrons to create a sun, it is also possible the same event also caused concentrations of protons and neutrons. Therefore, by association, the above proposal further suggests there might be swirled concentrations of protons and neutrons which may explain the mystery of black holes and dark matter.
It's just that protons are almost 2,000 times more massive than electrons and therefore accelerate significantly slower than electrons when equal amounts of force are applied.
an atom is practically 0 dimensions,
a proton being almost 2,000 times bigger than an electron is just illogical when the sizes are so small to begin with.
Quote from: Thebox on 15/05/2018 17:04:56a proton being almost 2,000 times bigger than an electron is just illogical when the sizes are so small to begin with. It's not 2000 times bigger; it's 2000 times more massive.The ratio of radii is much bigger (there's a real possibility that the radius of the electron is zero. At any rate it's smaller than we can measure.)Your "logic" doesn't agree with reality.This is not because reality has made an error.
Just one comment from me in the absurdity of this statement, an atom is practically 0 dimensions
it is tiny, a proton being almost 2,000 times bigger than an electron is just illogical when the sizes are so small to begin with.
An electron and a Proton are two merged energies
Protons aren't 2,000 times larger than electrons, they are 2,000 times more massive. Big difference
This is where you are using that science ''legalese'' again and you wonder why people fail to understand science terminology.
Massive means large in normal language
so please explain to the readers what ambiguos use you are using .
To be as precise as possible, a proton has a mass of 1.673 ×10−27 kilograms. An electron has a mass of 9.11 ×10−31 kilograms. That means that an individual proton has about 1,836 times more mass than an individual electron.
So if you meant mass, why say massive which by definition does not mean mass?
Also a Proton or electron has no mass, mass is a product of the combined, a proton does not have mass relative to a proton. Something else science does not understand.
Quote from: Thebox on 15/05/2018 21:42:10So if you meant mass, why say massive which by definition does not mean mass?To quote the first definition given at dictionary.com:"consisting of or forming a large mass; bulky and heavy:"QuoteAlso a Proton or electron has no mass, mass is a product of the combined, a proton does not have mass relative to a proton. Something else science does not understand. This thread isn't about your N-field.
Welp, that's it. Thebox is on my ignore list now.