[Bored chemist]

 In the SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION post, if the polarity inversion hypothesis  ‘carries’

It isn't a theory so it won't carry.

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

Theories are based on evidence.
We have no evidence of what happened before the big bang.
No "pre Big Bang theories" are possible.

Were you deliberately setting an impossible task, or did you not know what you were talking about?

[rstormview (OP)]

Kryptid claims15/02  "The Big Bang wasn't an explosion". So what was it then? Surely it must have been violent?

[jerrygg38]

rstormview says
Kryptid claims15/02  "The Big Bang wasn't an explosion". So what was it then? Surely it must have been violent?
GG: As I see it the big bang was an inversion. If the material came from our dimension then it might look like an explosion. However the energy came from the higher light speed dimension. This converted high light speed photonic energy into our material universe. This caused high heat at the big bang inversion point.  Our light speed Co photonic energy flew outward along with higher light speed photonic energy. If all the stuff was at the big bang point then an explosion would be the right word. Yet not all the ingredients were present simultaneously. Thus it was an inversion that reached very high heat.

[Kryptid]

Kryptid claims15/02  "The Big Bang wasn't an explosion". So what was it then? Surely it must have been violent?

It was a very rapid expansion of space itself. The distance between individual particles increased because of that expansion, not because they were moving away from each other through space like in an explosion.

If all the stuff was at the big bang point then an explosion would be the right word.

Nope, for the reason I explain above.

[jerrygg38]

Kryptoid to Rstorm: It was a very rapid expansion of space itself. The distance between individual particles increased because of that expansion, not because they were moving away from each other through space like in an explosion.
GG: That makes sense to me since at the inversion a lot of light speed Cs photons were flowing into the Cs dimension. This expanded space rapidly.



Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 14:36:31

If all the stuff was at the big bang point then an explosion would be the right word.
Kryptid:Nope, for the reason I explain above.
GG: I do not believe that the stuff was in a lump. The energy was flowing into the Co dimension from the Cs dimension.

[Bored chemist]

I do not believe

Science isn't about belief; it is about evidence.
You have none.

[jerrygg38]

Bored chemist says:
Science isn't about belief; it is about evidence.
You have none.
GG: First comes belief. Later comes evidence. Within 100 years scientists and mathematicians will come to understand the dual light speed universe we live in. they will provide the evidence.

[Kryptid]

I want to point out that I detected a mistake in the calculations I did in reply #130. I ended up with 4.92117 x 10^-11 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m, but I should have replaced the meters with feet. When I make this correction, the answer ends up being 1.499973 x 10^-11 (slug•ft²/s²•A[/sup]2)/ft. This new number is still different from the imperial gravitational constant (3.4397 x 10^-8 ft³•slug^-1•s^-2).

Likewise, the vacuum permeability of 9.2685 x 10^-7 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m would be more properly stated as  2.8250387 x 10^-7 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/ft

[rstormview (OP)]

This Post has been hi-jacked. Quantum is faux science invented to answer questions that failed to be answered within the physics of Newton and Galileo. This failure was not to realise that the basic property of an electron is to seek stability, and in finding stability it altered DNA and was the cause to the endless. variety of life forms in the planet. I will end this Post with a repeat of the original Post

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 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 infinity’s 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 which billions upon billions of years was able to provide.
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@hotmail.com

[Bored chemist]

Quantum is faux science invented to answer questions that failed to be answered within the physics of Newton and Galileo.

How come it works then?
If you say it's false, then you must be able to show some case where it gives the wrong answer- ie a case where QM does not  give the same result as an experiment.

So, go on; cite that experiment.

[Kryptid]

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

You sure do love to claim that hydrogen can burn without oxygen, don't you?

[rstormview (OP)]

THE SCIENCE-BASED THEORY OF CREATION, posted above, has been reproduced in the BBC's Science Focus website. Perhaps now a dialogue/debate/argument will begin.

[Kryptid]

THE SCIENCE-BASED THEORY OF CREATION, posted above, has been reproduced in the BBC's Science Focus website. Perhaps now a dialogue/debate/argument will begin.

Can you provide a link?

[Bored chemist]

Quantum is faux science invented to answer questions that failed to be answered within the physics of Newton and Galileo.

How come it works then?
If you say it's false, then you must be able to show some case where it gives the wrong answer- ie a case where QM does not  give the same result as an experiment.

So, go on; cite that experiment.