The Naked Scientists
The Naked Scientists
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Answers to Science Questions
Do an Experiment
Ask a Question
Meet the team
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
Einstein versus Newton
Einstein versus Newton
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Einstein versus Newton
25/05/2018 16:38:06 »
Albert Einstein versus Sir Isaac Newton.
Einstein realised that, within infinity, anything and everything is possible: such as 160 million years of dinosaur evolution, and 160 million years of evolution wiped out almost overnight by an asteroid hit because the dinosaurs hadn’t evolved enough intelligence to predict or survive the resultant prolonged winter.
Einstein reasoned if ‘anything and everything was possible within infinity’ this freed his imagination for solutions to ‘anything and everything’. In so doing, Einstein seems to have created several cul-de-sacs of logic.
Wikipedia quote: - “Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Einstein in1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of space/time caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in gravitational time dilation, where time lapses more slowly at a lower (stronger) gravitational potential”.
Einstein’s extravagant proposal that gravity ‘is not a force’ seems a contradiction of an obvious fact and so remains a theory, not a scientific truth. Some of the world seems confident gravity is actually a primal force, but Einstein’s theory ensures it remains an indecipherable definition.
The proposal below hypothesises an alternative definition of gravity. The Eureka moment came from an inversion of one of sciences many assumptions and everything fell logically into place: Overall it is provocatively elegantly. If this proposed inversion ‘carries’, our understanding radically adjusts.
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’, it 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. The above inversion proposal logically explains this.
Authorised by infinity’s ‘everything and anything’ potential, to explain this illogicality, Einstein proposed Quantum Theory. Again, the same inverted assumption described above contradicts 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 and achieves 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.
Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? bent space/time, dark matter, string-theory, multi-verses, black holes and the search for a ‘God particle’? Are the answers more simple, more logical than that?
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.
Since there cannot be nothing, within infinity there was always something. It is proposed that ‘something’ is the same electromagnetic field of oscillations on multiple frequencies in every dimension and every direction; the same electromagnetic field that our radio and television use to communicate today. Light is not a beam, it is a 360 degree expanding bubble signal in this electromagnetic spectrum that happens to be visible to the human eye.
It is proposed that Infinity before the Big Bang was the basic electromagnetic field of oscillations - precisely as the night sky cosmos as we see it, but empty of all substance.
Within this field of oscillation, atoms became created from the precise collisions of frequencies from every direction which momentarily froze 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 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 incalculable size.
This combustion regurgitated this gigantic cloud 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, some into suns, residue material formed planets, et cetera, et cetera.
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 proposes there might be swirled concentrations of protons and neutrons which may explain the ongoing mysteries of black holes and dark matter.
As science stands at the moment, gravity and the Big Bang are accepted as unexplained, ill-defined ‘absolutes’ with definitions that only the addition of the spectre God can fully explain. If God cannot even be hypothesized scientifically such an existence must be questionable.
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 cloud 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 billions of years and at least one failed dinosaur era, Homo sapiens have evolved.
So, maybe Newton was right all along?
Naked Science Forum King!
Thanked: 178 times
Re: Einstein versus Newton
Reply #1 on:
25/05/2018 17:34:21 »
You already posted this very same thread here:
Actually, after reviewing your posting history, it seems that you chronically repost things that you have already said. Could you please not do that? Once is enough.
Last Edit: 25/05/2018 17:46:17 by
There was an error while thanking