[rstormview (OP)]

Einstein’s Cul-de-Sacs

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; but, in so doing, he 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 hypothesis, not a scientific truth. Some of the world seems confident gravity is actually a primal force, but Einstein’s theory ensures it remains an unfathomable 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”, 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.

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 a signal in the 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 immeasurable 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, 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 suggests there might be swirled concentrations of protons and neutrons which may explain the mystery 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.
...ooOoo...

[Kryptid]

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.

It isn't an either/or case of protons attracting electrons or electrons attracting protons. They both attract each other with equal force. That's Newton's third law at work. 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.

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.

It isn't though. Gravity is not a result of electromagnetic attraction. Neutrons, which are neutral, have been documented as falling in a gravitational field: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1502/1502.03243.pdf

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.

Because that isn't how quantum physics works. Electrons are not little balls that orbit protons the way that planets orbit the Sun. They have significant wave-like properties. The simple addition of a proton's mass and an electron's mass is insufficient to form any existing particle anyway, so that would be another barrier to absorption.
 

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

Objects with mass can't achieve the speed of light anyway.

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.

The Big Bang theory does not propose that an explosion created matter: the matter already existed in the singularity at the beginning of time. All the Big Bang did was create space and distribute that matter throughout it.

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.

The problem with this is that protons are not the opposite of electrons. Protons have a fundamentally different structure, as they are composed of three quarks bound together by the strong nuclear force whereas electrons don't seem to have any internal structure within the scope of experimental observation. Protons are also almost 2,000 times more massive than electrons. If you are speaking about the opposite of an electron, then you are talking about positrons.

Electrons and protons combined naturally to create hydrogen, the basic element in the universe. The addition of neutron into the mix produces helium.

No, the addition of a neutron to hydrogen creates deuterium. Helium requires the addition of a second proton.

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.

This seems familiar...

I do believe I've already pointed out to you in the past that the "flash point" of hydrogen depends upon the existence of oxygen (which would not have existed back then). You are thinking in terms of chemical combustion, which has nothing to do with the Big Bang: it provides far too little energy.

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.

Stars and planets are a roughly even mixture of electrons and protons. You can't gather a large concentration of electrons into one place naturally, because their electrical repulsion massively overwhelms their gravitational attraction.

[guest39538]

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.

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. 

[Bored chemist]

an atom is practically 0 dimensions,

Nope, it's 3 or 4 depending on how you look at it.

[Bored chemist]

a 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.

[guest39538]

a 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.

You don't half talk rubbish at times.  I supposing you will tell me that a cluster of gases 1000's of miles away are alcohol or something so absurd to, or something like billions of light years away.  More imagination than fiction writers for sure.

An electron and a Proton are two merged energies ,

[Kryptid]

Just one comment from me in the absurdity of this statement,   an atom is practically 0 dimensions

The radius of an atom is measurable (the value you get depending on your definition of "atomic radius"). The covalent radius of an atom is the distance between the two atomic nuclei in a molecular bond divided by two. As an example, you can measure the covalent radius of a hydrogen atom by measuring the distance between the two hydrogen nuclei in a molecule of diatomic hydrogen and then dividing that distance by two. The number you get is 31 picometers. Although that is a very small number, it isn't zero.

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. 

Protons aren't 2,000 times larger than electrons, they are 2,000 times more massive. Big difference.

An electron and a Proton are two merged energies

Please be respectful of rstormview and don't hijack his thread with your own hypotheses.

[guest39538]

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 .


added - I think they mean to say 2000 times more mass, however also false. 

[Kryptid]

This is where you are using that science ''legalese'' again and you wonder why people fail to understand science terminology.

Most people wouldn't have a problem understanding that the word "massive" has more than one meaning.

Massive means large in normal language

Sometimes. Not always. Not here.

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Kryptid]

So 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:"

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.

This thread isn't about your N-field.

[guest39538]

So 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:"

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.

This thread isn't about your N-field.

No it is about Einsteins cul-de-sacs, gravity is not the curvature space and I am entitled to have counter argument.

A proton has no mass but has an electrostatic force

An electron has no mass but has an electrostatic force

When an electron and a proton is combined then we have mass that is dependent to there being other mass.

A single atom has no mass unless there is other atoms to provide Newtons of force.


p.s mass, in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight, which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a body.

[Kryptid]

Welp, that's it. Thebox is on my ignore list now.

[guest39538]

Welp, that's it. Thebox is on my ignore list now.

Suit yourself, that is often the line people take who can't provide a counter argument.  I am using intuition not Wiki.


A Proton has mass relative to what ?

An electron has mass relative to what ?

Simple questions with simple answers that show relativity . It is not I who has it wrong, I could ''school'' science anytime I wish too.


added- I haven't got an answer so I will sulk in the corner is not very productive at all.