[Bored chemist]

So what happened to reality?

This

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.

is reality.
You just keep ignoring it.

[Bored chemist]

I used to teach control system design after work at Sperry and sometimes at Polytechnic

It does not matter what you did, does it?
You are still wrong about U being G
6.67408 × 10^-11 m³ kg-1 s^-2
Is not
8.85418782 × 10^-12 m^-3 kg^-1 S⁴ A²

[Bored chemist]

Voltage is Meters cubed per seconds cubed. Again I do not know what that means

Then shut up and listen to the grown ups.
You might learn.

[jerrygg38]

It does not matter what you did, does it?
Bored Chemist says;
You are still wrong about U being G
6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
Is not
8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 S4 A2
GG: G =Uo is a units formula
The actual formula is
G = 16 pi e Uo/(137.036)^3 =6.67223E-11    [6.67260E-11 per US standards].

[Bored chemist]

G =Uo is a units formula

That is still meaningless.

When you say e I presume you don't mean e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)
WTF are you talking about?

[Kryptid]

G = 16 pi e Uo/(137.036)^3 =6.67223E-11    [6.67260E-11 per US standards].

Let's see now...

(16 x 3.14159 x 2.71828 x (1.25663706212 x 10⁻⁶ H/m))/(137.036³)
(50.26548 x 2.71828 x (1.25663706212 x 10⁻⁶ H/m))/(137.036³)
(136.63574756 x (1.25663706212 x 10⁻⁶ H/m))/(137.036³)
(1.717015 x 10^-4 H/m)/(137.036³)
(1.717015 x 10^-4 H/m)/(2,573,380.584702656)
6.6722172934128 x 10^-11 H/m

The numerical value is close, but it's not the same as the gravitational constant (6.6743 x 10^-11). The modern value of the gravitational constant is accurate to within 22 parts per million, whereas your value differs from the modern measurement at the thousandths position. Besides that, the units are incorrect. The gravitational constant is not measured in H/m, but rather m³⋅kg⁻¹⋅s⁻².

[Origin]

A unit equation appears to be random constants and made up numbers that are picked to give a desired numerical value.  Since the constants and made up numbers are not physically related the resulting units are meaningless.  The numerical value is also meaningless of course.

[Bored chemist]

Jerrygg isn't going to do this but...

Imagine that , for some reason, we were still using the foot, pound and second as our basic units.
We would have values for things like C and U_o
If the result Jerrygg has found  is significant (in terms of physics) then it would still be numerically correct if you converted all the units to imperial ones.
After all, the truth  a profound discovery in physics cant depend on an accident of political history.
So, if it's true, it will still be true if you redo the calculation in imperial units.

Over to you...

[Kryptid]

So, if it's true, it will still be true if you redo the calculation in imperial units.

Finding the value for the gravitational constant in imperial units has been difficult. Working in a round-about way gives me a value of 3.4397 x 10^-8 ft³•slug^-1•s^-2 (which matches the value someone else calculated, so it gives me more confidence).

As for vacuum permeability... is there even an imperial unit for electrical inductance? A quick search has come up empty so far.

[Bored chemist]

I think the units are something like henries per metre
And the henry is kg m^2/ (s^2 A^2)
or some such thing
So you can calculate the values.
Replace kg by 2.2. Lbs and the metre by 3.280... feet
The Amp and Second are the same.

[Kryptid]

I think the units are something like henries per metre
And the henry is kg m^2/ (s^2 A^2)
or some such thing
So you can calculate the values.
Replace kg by 2.2. Lbs and the metre by 3.280... feet
The Amp and Second are the same.

Okay, I looked it up and the henry is equal to (kg•m²)/(s²•A²). The kilogram is the metric unit for mass, and apparently the equivalent unit for mass in imperial is the slug (0.06852 kg per slug). The square meter is 10.7639 square feet. So 0.06852 x 10.7639 = 0.73756 and 0.73756 x 1.25663706212 x 10⁻⁶ H/m equals 9.2685 x 10^-7 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m.

Now for the recalculation:

(16 x 3.14159 x 2.71828 x (9.2685 x 10⁻⁷ (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m))/(137.036³)
(50.26548 x 2.71828 x (9.2685 x 10⁻⁷ (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m))/(137.036³)
(136.63574756 x (9.2685 x 10⁻⁷ (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m))/(137.036³)
(1.2664 x 10^-4 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m)/(137.036³)
(1.2664 x 10^-4 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m)/(2,573,380.584702656)
4.92117 x 10^-11 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m

That number is very different from the gravitational constant in imperial units (3.4397 x 10^-8 ft³•slug^-1•s^-2). So unless I made a miscalculation, the metric similarity is merely a coincidence.

[Bored chemist]

I think the units are something like henries per metre
And the henry is kg m^2/ (s^2 A^2)
or some such thing
So you can calculate the values.
Replace kg by 2.2. Lbs and the metre by 3.280... feet
The Amp and Second are the same.

Okay, I looked it up and the henry is equal to (kg•m²)/(s²•A²). The kilogram is the metric unit for mass, and apparently the equivalent unit for mass in imperial is the slug (0.06852 kg per slug). The square meter is 10.7639 square feet. So 0.06852 x 10.7639 = 0.73756 and 0.73756 x 1.25663706212 x 10⁻⁶ H/m equals 9.2685 x 10^-7 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m.

Now for the recalculation:

(16 x 3.14159 x 2.71828 x (9.2685 x 10⁻⁷ (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m))/(137.036³)
(50.26548 x 2.71828 x (9.2685 x 10⁻⁷ (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m))/(137.036³)
(136.63574756 x (9.2685 x 10⁻⁷ (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m))/(137.036³)
(1.2664 x 10^-4 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m)/(137.036³)
(1.2664 x 10^-4 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m)/(2,573,380.584702656)
4.92117 x 10^-11 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m

That number is very different from the gravitational constant in imperial units (3.4397 x 10^-8 ft³•slug^-1•s^-2). So unless I made a miscalculation, the metric similarity is merely a coincidence.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.
That's it. If the claim was correct then it would work in any set of units.
It doesn't.
The claim is false.
Jerry only found an interesting coincidence, not something of any significance

[jerrygg38]

GG replies
    Thanks for all the criticism. Now I will have to study your work. I expect a little difference between the gravitational constant from the electrical measurements and the mechanical measurements. The electrical should be more accurate.
Anyway I will check your calculations and report on them.

[Bored chemist]

The electrical should be more accurate.

We know what the error margins are.
4.92117 x 10^-11
is not
3.4397 x 10^-8
within experimental error.

Now I will have to study your work.

Better late than never I guess.

[jerrygg38]

Kryptid said
That number is very different from the gravitational constant in imperial units (3.4397 x 10-8 ft3•slug-1•s-2). So unless I made a miscalculation, the metric similarity is merely a coincidence.
According to
Wikipedia
G = 6.67430E-11 N M^2/Kg^2 for the MKS system and it is
6.674E-8 Cm^3 g^-1 S^-2 for the CGS system. Either system should yield the same results. I use the MKS system and I use my calculated value of 6.67223E-11. I believe G calculated from the electrical world is more accurate than the mechanical world. Yet the differences are small. In any event I recalculated my numbers and I get the same results. I will still try to figure out what you did differently.

[Kryptid]

G = 6.67430E-11 N M^2/Kg^2 for the MKS system and it is
6.674E-8 Cm^3 g^-1 S^-2 for the CGS system. Either system should yield the same results. I use the MKS system and I use my calculated value of 6.67223E-11. I believe G calculated from the electrical world is more accurate than the mechanical world. Yet the differences are small. In any event I recalculated my numbers and I get the same results. I will still try to figure out what you did differently.

Both of those are metric systems. I used the imperial system.

[rstormview (OP)]

None of the comments above relate to a pre-Big Bang environment so I will repeat the Post in hope for some dialogue
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

[Kryptid]

A precise collision of frequencies at the positive peaks spewed out protons.
The precise collision of frequencies at the negative peaks created electrons.

You do realize that protons are not the opposite of electrons, don't you? You would expect the results to either be protons and antiprotons or electrons and positrons. So why do you think this "precise collision of frequencies" (whatever that's supposed to mean) created protons as opposed to positrons? Or electrons as opposed to antiprotons?

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.

Would you stop saying this already? Hydrogen does not have a flashpoint without oxygen or some other oxidizer present. You have been told multiple times but refuse to accept it for reasons I cannot fathom.

[Bored chemist]

Yet the differences are small.

4.92117 x 10^-11
is not
3.4397 x 10^-8

And the difference is nor "small".

None of the comments above relate to a pre-Big Bang environment so I will repeat the Post in hope for some dialogue

Dialogue with whom?
It's not as if there's anyone here who actually has any knowledge of what was present before the BB.

[Bored chemist]

You have been told multiple times but refuse to accept it for reasons I cannot fathom.

Have you considered the idea that he might be an idiot?
Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect