[rstormview (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

I disagree that the BB created hydrogen

Do you realise this is a science page?

[Kryptid]

I propose an infinity of hydrogen created the BB.

Hydrogen cannot exist at the temperatures of the Big Bang.

[rstormview (OP)]

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!

[Kryptid]

From where did the BB accumulate enough material to create/furnish our universe?

Why assume that it accumulated material from elsewhere?

[rstormview (OP)]

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!

[rstormview (OP)]

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

[Kryptid]

Please stop reposting this same thing over and over again.

[Bored chemist]

"Is this a valid new theory of creation?"
No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
It's not a theory; it's spam.

[rstormview (OP)]

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?

[rstormview (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[rstormview (OP)]

I am relieved to observe that Kryptid's comments tell us more about him than it tells us about science

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[rstormview (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[rstormview (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?