[rstormview (OP)]

A SCIENTIFIC 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 much 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 more simple, more logical?
Below is a proposition that postulates scientifically 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, seeking 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 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.
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 pertinent to our grasp of infinity to consider that images of the 2014 World Cup are just reaching Alpha Centauri.
It is further proposed that Infinity and the electromagnetic field are 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 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 formula creates helium.

Within infinity’s billions upon billions upon billions of years, hydrogen and helium was being continuously created until Hydrogen suffused our electromagnetic field; i.e. 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 near 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

[alancalverd]

And what created the electromagnetic field?

I think you would do well to reflect on Heisenberg for an explanation of hydrogen. The Big Bang is simply a term that encapsulates what we see - stuff flying apart and some residual electromagnetic radiation consistent with a condensed origin of the stuff.

[Kryptid]

for the core temperature of hydrogen floating in infinity to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C

I have corrected you on this before, but it seems that you never actually read the responses to your posts. The "flash point" you speak of only applies when there is oxygen (or another oxidizing agent) present. Hydrogen by itself won't do anything special at that temperature.

[rstormview (OP)]

Thank you. I did register your Hydrogen/oxygen criticism but was unable to rationalize any other way. Maybe helium was the trigger? or a static discharge between hydrogen and helium? What is certain is that something triggered the event. I apologise, I don't know everything yet!!!

[Kryptid]

Thank you. I did register your Hydrogen/oxygen criticism but was unable to rationalize any other way. Maybe helium was the trigger? or a static discharge between hydrogen and helium? What is certain is that something triggered the event. I apologise, I don't know everything yet!!!

The Big Bang wasn't caused by any kind of chemical reaction or static discharge. Neither chemicals nor the electromagnetic force existed at the moment of the Big Bang.

[Bored chemist]

for the core temperature of hydrogen floating in infinity to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C

I have corrected you on this before, but it seems that you never actually read the responses to your posts. The "flash point" you speak of only applies when there is oxygen (or another oxidizing agent) present. Hydrogen by itself won't do anything special at that temperature.

It's also massively the wrong temperature.
The flash point is the temperature at which a material gives off enough vapour for the mixture of vapour and air to be flammable.
It is, therefore only applicable to liquids and liquid hydrogen is cold.
The triple point of hydrogen is about 13K (about -260 C) and regardless of the pressure,  the boiling point has to be less than that.

The ignition temperature is near 570 C but it depends on other things like the pressure, what the walls of the container are made of and- most importantly here, the concentration of oxygen.

At the time of the BB the oxygen concentration was zero and so hydrogen simply couldn't burn.

[rstormview (OP)]

If electrons, protons and neutrons were being continuously created in the manner proposed, then hydrogen was being continuously created throughout infinity until infinity was suffused with hydrogen, so something happened. It's good we are asking the question.

[rstormview (OP)]

Thanks for your responses. Perhaps we are trying to apply post big-bang science for understanding to a pre big-bang science? A lot to think about.

[rstormview (OP)]

I agree there were no chemicals present at the big-bang, but it is proposed that the electromagnetic field is infinity by another name. 'there cannot be nothing, so there was always something', the electromagnetic field continuously creating hydrogen from creating electrons and protons??

[Kryptid]

but it is proposed that the electromagnetic field is infinity by another name.

Based on what reasoning?

the electromagnetic field continuously creating hydrogen from creating electrons and protons??

That doesn't seem to be happening right now.

[rstormview (OP)]

The logic was 'there cannot be nothing, there had to be something' so the logic was that the electromagnetic field was the only 'something' available, and if it was the only 'something' available, it was just another name for infinity. If you don't like my logic I would welcome your alternatives.

[rstormview (OP)]

If electrons, neutrons and protons are being created as proposed, then hydrogen is still being created now. Somehow our universe was created, if you don't like my proposals, please present your own.
Rstormview

[rstormview (OP)]

See above

[Kryptid]

so the logic was that the electromagnetic field was the only 'something' available

Why the electromagnetic field? Why not the gravitational field or something else?

If electrons, neutrons and protons are being created as proposed, then hydrogen is still being created now.

And how do you propose this occurs without violating the first law of thermodynamics?

[rstormview (OP)]

Thank you all who responded. Nobody has yet shot me down in flames, Most interesting is that nobody has challenged the new definition of gravity. Is that a yes?

[Bored chemist]

Nobody has yet shot me down in flames,

In what way is this

And how do you propose this occurs without violating the first law of thermodynamics?

anything other than shooting you down in flames?

Ditto:

That doesn't seem to be happening right now.

Based on what reasoning?

At the time of the BB the oxygen concentration was zero and so hydrogen simply couldn't burn.

It's also massively the wrong temperature.

And what created the electromagnetic field?

[rstormview (OP)]

London to Sydney in 4 hours proposes to use Hydrogen, presumably without refuelling, so it seems H is plentiful, perhaps because it is being continuously created? in the electromagnetic field? or infinity?

[Kryptid]

London to Sydney in 4 hours proposes to use Hydrogen, presumably without refuelling, so it seems H is plentiful, perhaps because it is being continuously created? in the electromagnetic field? or infinity?

Talk about a non-sequitur...

[Bored chemist]

London to Sydney in 4 hours proposes to use Hydrogen, presumably without refuelling, so it seems H is plentiful, perhaps because it is being continuously created? in the electromagnetic field? or infinity?

Hydrogen is the commonest element in the Universe.
The big bang created almost entirely hydrogen, a little helium, and very little lithium.
Most of them are still here.
But there are no hydrogen mines on Earth.
If you want it, you have to make it- expensively.

Compared to the other costs of rocket planes, it's fairly cheap (and very light).

[Bored chemist]

Nobody has yet shot me down in flames,

In what way is this

And how do you propose this occurs without violating the first law of thermodynamics?

anything other than shooting you down in flames?

Ditto:

That doesn't seem to be happening right now.

Based on what reasoning?

At the time of the BB the oxygen concentration was zero and so hydrogen simply couldn't burn.

It's also massively the wrong temperature.

And what created the electromagnetic field?

We can now add this

Talk about a non-sequitur...