[Bored chemist]

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

What's actually wrong with Einstein's version (and the modern tweaks to it)?

What actual real physical things don't agree with the current theory?

[rstormview (OP)]

"Forum King"
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?
Positive Charge facing Negative charge, What do you get? You get a hit! Except you don't, you get hydrogen. How many times do I have to ask for a logical explanation?

[Bored chemist]

How many times do I have to ask for a logical explanation?

It doesn't matter how often you ask since you never listen to the replies.

If I put an apple on the table, what stops it falling through?
Gravity is still pulling on it.
Why doesn't it pass through the table? (both the apple and the table are mostly empty space).

[Kryptid]

"Forum King"

Just so you know, that's not a title I gave myself. It's one that's given automatically based on the number of posts a member has. The quality of the posts doesn't even matter.

What do you get? You get a hit! Except you don't, you get hydrogen. How many times do I have to ask for a logical explanation?

What do you think is the difference between getting hydrogen and getting a "hit"? The electron is already touching the proton as much as it can. This is somewhat like asking why the atmosphere doesn't fall and hit the ground. It's already "hitting" the ground as much as it can.

[Bored chemist]

It's one that's given automatically based on the number of posts a member has.

On a related note, I'm not God

[jerrygg38]

Naked 1.30.19
rstormview said
A UNIFYING THEORY

RS: 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.
GG: According to my latest book “The Dual Light Speed Universe and the Dot-Wave Theory with quantum Entanglement” we came from a photonic Universe of light speed Cs where Cs=18833Co. In the prior universe there were photonic dot-waves. The total energy was unchanged. Thus high light speed energy became lower light speed energy. I calculate a cycle time of 1088 billion years based upon a clock at out rate of ticks. However as the universe expands time slows and therefore we can say we came from infinity and return to infinity only to return to the big bang.
  You say the collision of frequencies produced the protons, electrons, and neutrons. That sounds reasonable. However the original particles had much higher energy levels. They radiate dot-waves and eventually the universe in our dimension will be gone. Everything will return to the light speed Cs dimension.
   As far as why the electron doesn’t become part of the proton, you have to calculate the Einsteinian mass increase as the electron moves into the Bohr orbit. As shown in my book in Chapter 3: The Hydrogen Atom
M = 1.000026627 Mo
This increase is 13.606EV which is the same as the binding energy of the electron
  As the electron moves closer to the proton its mass keeps increasing and the repulsive force increases. Therefore the answer is simple Newtonian physics. If you force the electron into the proton by compressive forces you get a single unstable neutron. Yet when you add other things to the mix it can be a stable atom.

RS: 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.
GG: Firstly one big mistake is assuming that the universe was created. I do not have a time dimension. I have X, Y, Z, Co, and Cs. An object traveling faster toward the speed of light spends more of its distance traveled in the Cs dimension. The net result is that the distance in the Co dimension looks shorter and time clock slows.
  The universe always existed. Sometimes it is high light speed waves and sometimes it is particles. We were not created by a superior intelligence. We were created by pure energy. In any event your ideas are very good. I call the big bang an inversion where high light speed energy flowed toward a pinpoint and became concentrated energy of our light speed.
   Three equations are important
E=MCC 
This is Einstein’s equation
M= CQ
Mass equals charge times the speed of light
MoC = QCC
Momentum equals charge time the speed of light squared
These are my three light speed equations which I explain in Chapter 5.
  The dot-waves go from a high mass low light speed state to a low mass high light speed state. Thus we live in a simple to explain universe where energy switches between dimensions which always existed.

[Kryptid]

Mass equals charge times the speed of light

All you have to do is compare the mass of the proton and electron and then compare their charges to know that isn't true.

[Hayseed]

Isolated change might be anti-gravity.  99% of solar particle flux is isolated charge.  It accelerates out beyond Neptune, and no one knows the cause.

As far as we know, it would have to be an electric or magnetic field to accelerate it.

Could anti-gravity accelerate it?

Only when charge combines and goes neutral, do we get the G attraction.

The neutral field of a dipole is extremely asymmetric.  Can these asymmetric fields attract other asymmetric fields?

A much weaker attraction than charge.

Allowing dipoles to combine forming nuclei.

[Bored chemist]

Could anti-gravity accelerate it?

It depends what it says in the script, or what the author wants to happen in the story.

Or did you not realise that "anti gravity" is only a thing in sci fi?

[rstormview (OP)]

Am getting overrun with replies. Sorry if not responding specifically.

[rstormview (OP)]

Thanks for your numerous replies. In answer, I summarise my position.
In the SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION post, if the polarity inversion proposal  ‘carries’, we get a seductive and long awaited definition of Gravity which, in turn, suggests an ongoing creation of Hydrogen throughout infinity.
Ongoing throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.
This suffusion was infinite so it spewed out enough material to furnish the Universe we evolved into via 160,000,000 years of dinosaur evolution.
The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo, but there are acres of Quantum disciples who vociferously disagree.
My only request to the ‘vociferous’ is that your opinions begin with your own  pre Big Bang theories
Rstormview

[Bored chemist]

I summarise my position.
In the SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION post,

You don't have a theory.
There's really nothing more to say.

[Kryptid]

but there are acres of Quantum disciples who vociferously disagree.

Because the evidence supports quantum physics. Classical physics cannot, for example, explain the structure of the atom, or quantum entanglement, or quantum tunneling.

Ongoing throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.

Putting a universe's worth of hydrogen in one place won't give you a Big Bang. You'll get a black hole instead.

[jerrygg38]

GG:Mass equals charge times the speed of light



K: All you have to do is compare the mass of the proton and electron and then compare their charges to know that isn't true.
GG: my equation is a units equation
Kilograms = coulombs. meters per second

[Kryptid]

So what evidence do you have that particles like the neutrino or Z boson contain electric charges?

[Origin]

GG: my equation is a units equation
Kilograms = coulombs. meters per second

What is a "units equation"?
Kilograms do not equal Cm/s. Kilograms don't equal ohms.  Kilograms don't equal Tuesday.

[rstormview (OP)]

Thanks for your numerous replies. I seem to be getting post Big Bang rebuttals to a pre Big Bang hypothesis. In answer, I again summarise my position.
 In the SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION post, if the polarity inversion hypothesis  ‘carries’, we get a seductive and long awaited definition of Gravity which, in turn, suggests an ongoing creation of Hydrogen throughout infinity.
Ongoing H creation throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.
This suffusion was infinite so it spewed out enough material to furnish the Universe we evolved into via 160,000,000 years of dinosaur evolution.
The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo, but there are acres of Quantum disciples who vociferously disagree.
To ensure we are on the same page, my only request to the ‘vociferous’ is that your opinions begin with your own pre Big Bang theories
Rstormview

[Origin]

Thanks for your numerous replies. I seem to be getting post Big Bang rebuttals to a pre Big Bang hypothesis.

Your conjecture does not rise to the level of a hypothesis.  Your conjecture is clearly wrong based on the evidence.

In answer, I again summarise my position.

Repeating an incorrect conjecture does not make it less incorrect.

[jerrygg38]

Naked 2.2.20 7AM
Kryptid said:
K: No you don't. I already pointed out that the fact that light is attracted by gravity is a falsification of your model because light isn't attracted to electromagnetic fields.
GG: As Einstein proved, the light from far stars bends around our sun. This was verified by the astronomers and his equations were accurate. He said that space time bends around the sun and many others tend to agree with him. Particles are three dimensional energy forms and readily attracted by gravity whereas photons are planar energy forms and this would make them sensitive to gradients in the gravitational fields.  In addition photons absorb and lose energy depending upon the gravitational field intensity.  This produces forces within the photon to make it bend around the stars. So light is attracted by gravity but not in the same manner as with particles.
K:  The fact that electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves aren't the same thing is another falsification. Electromagnetism and gravity are not the same thing.
GG:  Yes and no. In my dot-wave theory, the most likely sister solution for an electrical universe is that the units of G and Uo are the same
G(units) = Uo(units) = Meters^2 per coulomb second
   Since they have the same units, the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field are variations of each other. If you split the gravitational field in half you will get a positive electromagnetic field and a negative electromagnetic field.   How do you split them? That is not easy because the gravitational field is a perfectly balanced magnetic field. Although the equations are similar, the gravitational field’s primary energy interaction is photonic and balanced.
  The electromagnetic field is more self-evident and stronger. It too has a photonic driving force but the positive and negative photonic dot-waves contain much higher levels of energy than the very weak gravitational balanced dot-waves.
   When we discuss gravity and mechanical problems, it is much easier to speak in terms of photons and weak gravitational fields whereas when we discuss electrical problems it is much easier to speak in terms of fields. Yet they are all the same thing.

[Bored chemist]

my equation is a units equation

Is this an attempt to respond to people saying that your equations are nonsense because they can't pass a simple dimensional analysis check?