[Bored chemist]

best rebuttal of such ideas is to present better theories.

You still don't have a theory to rebut.
You seem, somehow, to think the word "theory" means "guess I pulled out of my... elbow".
All you have is blind guesswork.

[Kryptid]

the best rebuttal of such ideas is to present better theories.

There is no need at all to come up with a better idea in order to know that a proposed idea is wrong. All you have to do is look at the evidence. If the evidence contradicts the proposed idea, then it is wrong. No "better theory" needed.

[rstormview (OP)]

It is both surprising and disappointing that science’s reluctance to consider it may have made a mistaken presumption which misled science to sideline the physics of Newton and Galileo in favour of Quantum solutions. The proposal that protons do not attract electrons but that electrons are natural homers portents the elusive definition of Gravity that eluded Einstein; whose Wikipedia quotation is garble. (see original Paper, A SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION).
The proposed Gravity theory has still not yet been challenged; a better theory is hopefully awaited.

[Bored chemist]

it may have made a mistaken presumption

What presumption do you think has been made?

[rstormview (OP)]

The 'presumption' was if electrons flow towards protons it must be because protons attract them. Reversing the polarity leads to a logical/scientific definition of Gravity which builds to much much more - besides the restoration of the logical physics of Newton and Galileo.

[Bored chemist]

The 'presumption' was if electrons flow towards protons it must be because protons attract them.

That's not a "presumption".
It is an experimentally verified fact.

What you are effectively saying is that, rather than relying on observed facts, science should adopt your unsupported rambling.

Do you see why science might not do that?

[rstormview (OP)]

I say again, for the umpteenth time, if Protons attract electrons why do they not hit and become absorbed? By what scientific process does attraction reverse into repulsion when in close proximity in order to create hydrogen? That hydrogen becomes created is a fact, the way science suggests it does this is a presumption called quantum.

[Bored chemist]

I say again, for the umpteenth time,

Yes.
You have asked that many times,.
And we have replied many times.
Yet you do not listen.

So I'm not bothering to repeat it.
Read the thread again and again until you understand.

[Bored chemist]

By what scientific process does attraction reverse into repulsion

It doesn't.
That's an irrational presumption you have made.
The attractive and repulsive terms are both acting all the time.
But the repulsive force is a short rage effect. It wins at short ranges and the electrostatic attraction dominates at longer ranges.

You could have found that out buy actually learning some science.
It's not too late to start...

[rstormview (OP)]

Arrogance is not a response to a very simple question. You have no answered a very simple question, or  anything, you have just browbeaten. If you have answered my simple question, 'what scientific process happens to turn attraction into repulsion when in close proximity? Bluster is not scientific. If you have a direct answer please repeat it here. Rstormview.

[Bored chemist]

If you have a direct answer please repeat it here. Rstormview.

That's an irrational presumption you have made.
The attractive and repulsive terms are both acting all the time.
But the repulsive force is a short rage effect. It wins at short ranges and the electrostatic attraction dominates at longer ranges.

[Kryptid]

The 'presumption' was if electrons flow towards protons it must be because protons attract them.

You're aware that positive charge attracting negative charge is an experimentally verified phenomenon, aren't you? You are also aware, no doubt, that protons have been experimentally verified to have a positive charge and electrons a negative charge, correct? Now put two and two together and what do you get?

if Protons attract electrons why do they not hit and become absorbed?

What would it even mean for an electron to "hit" a proton? I hope you aren't imagining them as little balls. How would the proton absorb it? What would be the result of a proton absorbing an electron?

By what scientific process does attraction reverse into repulsion when in close proximity in order to create hydrogen?

The electromagnetic attraction never reverses into a repulsion. There is another force at work that balances the attraction: electron degeneracy pressure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure Perhaps you'd be interested in this particular quote from the article:

In 1967, Freeman Dyson showed that solid matter is stabilized by quantum degeneracy pressure rather than electrostatic repulsion.[1][2][3]

[Hayseed]

A proton can collide with an electron under certain conditions.   You are taught this as an anti-matter reaction.  A positron is just a low energy proton, and an anti-proton is just a high energy electron.   An electric storm can invert them.

Both particles have the same energy level spectrum.   When the densities are equal......they can touch.......and unfold/unwrap each other. 

When the densities are unequal, they oscillate at a distance.  They yo-yo.

[Kryptid]

A positron is just a low energy proton

That isn't even remotely true. Have you studied conservation laws or the strong nuclear force?

[rstormview (OP)]

Thank you all for your replies which I will study carefully. It remains the polarity inversion in the Post gives a very logical definition of Gravity which still remains elusive.

[Bored chemist]

Thank you all for your replies which I will study carefully. It remains the polarity inversion in the Post gives a very logical definition of Gravity which still remains elusive.

That doesn't make sense.
I guess nobody was expecting it to.

[Kryptid]

It remains the polarity inversion in the Post gives a very logical definition of Gravity which still remains elusive.

If that's true, then why are neutral particles attracted by a gravitational field?

[rstormview (OP)]

Everything is attracted to a gravitational field except aurora Borealis which stands off: Why?

[rstormview (OP)]

Am still waiting for a better theory for Gravity than Einsteins, see Wikipedia.

[Bored chemist]

Everything is attracted to a gravitational field except aurora Borealis which stands off: Why?

The aurora are hot and thus held up like hot air balloons.
More importantly, they are formed at great height and , quite possibly sink, becoming duller as the do so.
But they are replaced by more from above.


Now; answer Kryptid's question.