0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I keep getting post Big Bang science, quantum faux science even, in response to pre-Big Bang hypotheses.
How could you get a decent measurement if you had a platform traveling at 0.999C?
Or a star with a gravitational field 1 million times more than ours?
GG: The equations give me the total charge in any system given the total kilograms in that system. A neutron with a mass of 1.67493E-27 Kg contains 8.50793 dot-waves each with a charge of 3.47119E-60 coulombs for my electrical model. As you know when you break apart the neutron you measure things which have relatively high mass and high charge as compared to the dot-waves.
Wrong 'Forum King' that electrons don't collide and become absorbed with protons IS a pre-Big Bang question because, in the hypothesis, the character of electrons is to seek stability by attaching.
until it exploded in a Big Bang
The hypothesis is a Quantum free theory
This is an interesting hypothesis and worthy of better debate than it currently attracts.
The particle accelerator data is generated at high energy=temperature, but at very low pressure compared to say a neutron star.
Many people have told me that I was the smartest person they ever met. Yet you think I am dim. That says a lot about you.
As I see it, the differences in light speed upon the Earth in satellites will be rather small. You have to move to a very non-linear area of space to find measurable differences. And we cannot get there.
GG: A proton traveling near the speed of light has almost zero forward dimension but perpendicular the size is almost the same as when standing still. So now you live with the proton and build strange instruments to measure the speed of light.
You use relativity as if it is absolute truth rather than a very good mathematical approximation to reality.
It is not believable to me what you say.
This is not believable to me either. We are in a non-linear situation and Einstein’s equations would require a Fourier series correction.
GG: The inverse equation isMass = Coulomb meters/ secondCoulomb per second is a current flow
When we multiply by meters we get a current flow around a plane.
Quote from: puppypower on Yesterday at 11:47:48The particle accelerator data is generated at high energy=temperature, but at very low pressure compared to say a neutron star.The collisions in particle accelerators result in the equivalent of localized, very high pressure.
These experiments will create an impulse of pressure. However, it does not last long enough to sustain an extreme pressure phase. Instead we will get a pressure impulse, and then a rapid pressure drop, at which time we measure the low pressure and high energy phases. You would need to run the experiments, within an extreme pressure field, so the pressure will remain high for the entire experiment.
GG: And who will be alive to build these strange instruments. No one can survive distortions greater than20- 50 percent of light speed. A rocket ship would break apart if we exceed 0.2C.
GG: Einstein’s work has been verified for linear areas of space time and in the lab.
The Doppler Radar studies by several universities corrected his equations.
GG: For your example, there is no wire. If you have a circular flow of dot-waves at a particular radius and you double the flow, the mass of the electrons in the circular flow will double. The entire universe is constructed of dot-waves which have calculable mass and charge. If you have more charge you will have more mass and vice versa.
I am just looking for simple words.
Every particle or photon is made up of dot-waves.
A space ship or a measuring instrument has only weak chemical bonds to hold it together. And it will not survive when we go beyond 0.2C to 0.5C.
I agree that we are moving outward at slightly above the speed of light C.
It equalizes everything in the galaxy with respect to the outward velocity C.
Stationary protons are round. Photons are flat. If we add flat photons to a round proton, the net result would be a flattened proton.
Relativity of platforms requires independent gravitational fields.
A spaceship has basically a zero gravitational field as compared to a planet. Therefore a spaceship will be flattened as we raise its speed toward light speed.
Relativity works some of the time but not all the time.
GG: I read the reports by MIT and other universities as I studied in the Sperry library which was listed as Secret and Top Secret.
Equation 1: Kilograms = Coulombs x Constant x Speed of Light C.
they must have gotten better data by today.
The are tied to each other by force equations such as for the Bohr Orbit.
I seem to be still getting post Big Bang rebuttals to a pre Big Bang hypothesis.
Electrons don't hit protons in our post-Big Bang world either.
if the polarity inversion hypothesis ‘carries’
Yet another problem with your model is that it predicts that the electromagnetic force should become repulsive at very small distances. In order to explain the radius of the hydrogen atom, that realm should be at about the Bohr radius (5.29 x 10-11 meters). One of the consequences of this prediction is that any bound, two-particle system where each member has a charge equal in magnitude to the electron or proton should have exactly this same radius, since the electromagnetic force would behave identically for any particle with that same charge.This, however, does not match experimental findings. Positronium, which is the bound state of an electron and a positron, has the exact same magnitude of electromagnetic forces at work as exist in a hydrogen atom. Despite this, the radius of a positronium atom is about twice as large as that of the hydrogen atom (which we know from examining its ionization energy/electronic spectra). Muonic hydrogen, on the other hand, is much smaller than a hydrogen atom. Again, the muon has a charge identical to the electron. So both of these pieces of observational data demonstrate that the electromagnetic force does not suddenly reverse into a repulsion around the Bohr radius.The repulsion model also has the problem of not explaining electron capture. In certain isotopes, one of the innermost electrons in an atom can be captured by the nucleus. If there was some kind of repulsive force at work keeping the electron away from the nucleus (and no such thing as quantum mechanics to explain how it could tunnel through such a barrier), then how does your model account for the phenomenon of electron capture?
Ongoing H creation throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.
The Big Bang wasn't an explosion.
No it isn't, because it predicts that hydrogen burns at its flashpoint without an oxidizing agent. That's chemically impossible. Even if you tried to circumvent the problem by invoking proton-proton fusion, there is still another issue: putting all of the visible universe's mass into a giant cloud of hydrogen with enough heat and pressure at its center to cause fusion would result in the cloud collapsing into a black hole. So there wouldn't even be an explosion at all.
The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo
So how does your model explain phenomena such as quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, the probability distribution of the electron cloud in the atom, the uncertainty principle, the Casimir effect, the double slit experiment and all of the other masses of evidence in quantum mechanics' favor?
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