[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Note: This topic was split off from: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81590.0 Did the universe begin life inside a black hole? - moderator.

If the Universe was inside a black hole, it was the black hole itself, whatever a black hole is.

My two cents theory:

All black holes inside the Universe are rotating. In a black hole, matter is organized in a very simplified way, information is conserved in an equivalent of folding. There is matter, which is spacetime itself, from the inner horizon up to the outer horizon. Only when all the Universe forms a single black hole, the inner horizon vanishes The black hole stops rotating and we get a singularity of the Higgs field. There is no singularity of the EM field nor of the gravitational field. Every bit of information is its own center and its singularity, and it is connected with every other bits of the Universe in a kind of causal set, only once with the EM field and also only once with the gravitational field. The Higgs field produces a flat space with a finite horizon but your horizon is unreachable because it moves with you while it is expanding or contracting. Asymmetries are the fundamentals. There is an unstable quasi-static black hole at both ends. Time has only one direction.

Inflation doesn't need a special energy, it is caused by the gravitational blue shift of massive particles vs the expansion of the surrounding vacuum energy in an early phase. The speed of light is constant everywhere. Time is absolute but the passage of time is relative. This is the wavelength that is changing. You must take account of the expanding horizon to solve special relativity.

Elementary particles are spinors of EM spacetime intersecting the gravitational spacetime. All elementary particles have an electric charge, including the neutrinos. Neutrinos wavelength oscillates near more massive particles and they only interact at three specific wavelengths (the value of the electric charge oscillates and they become virtually interactionless). The electron tunnel effect is the same mechanism... Dirac wins.

The expansion may be represented by a lagging gravitational field behind the EM field. Matter is positively charged when highly compressed because the electron wavelength is longer than those of the proton constituents. As the Universe is cyclical, you need a negatively charged counterpart which should have its own Higgs. This counterpart is also related to the second and third families of particles through the W and Z bosons. This is Dark Matter. Dark matter only interacts with ordinary matter in the EM spacetime field near the static black hole. The Higgs produces all elementary particles. This is the basic quantization number. Its mass = proton mass divided by the fine structure constant with corrections due to the W and Z. The neutrinos are key parts to understand.

There could be two families of Dark matter with two beautiful Higgs particles. Unfortunately, they are only observables through gravity... In the contrary, why would the second and third families be unstable? At what point the second and third families become stable bits of information and why? Where the multiple Higgs meet each other.

Every time an experiment verifies entanglement relations it is also a demonstration of the Higgs field. Remember that the Higgs field is faster than light, which means it is a synchronization field, not an energy field. All particles of the Universe are entangled (at least for each individual type of matter-DM) in a complex quantized relation, which means detectors are a key part of the solution.

The volume of the Universe is proportional to the number of particles in it. If there is no new particle produced, the Universe collapse. This includes gravitons, that's why it is the volume and not the surface... The Universe must reach a maximum size because there are no infinities...!!!

Gluons are gravitons. A graviton is made of two gluons because it is a dual relation.

[tony liddicoat]

put in terms that a layman like myself would understand, are you saying that a black hole can only exist when the gravitational force of the collapsing star reaches a point at which its spin increases to such an extent that the speed of light is exceeded. therefore, as nothing can exist in our universe that exceeds the speed of light, a black hole is formed due to both the gravitation and the spin.

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

No, the collapse is standard but what you are saying is pretty interesting, you might be right but it seems forbidden... In my theory, the only possible true black hole is the static one, the black hole at both ends. What we call black holes are not true black holes because there is no total collapse yet, no singularity. The thing is any black hole in the Universe has a rotation relative to its external entanglement with the rest of the Universe. It cannot be zero, though it may be near zero potentially. The Higgs field is the hidden continuity made of straight lines. All fields are one dimensional and they are made of spacetime, the Higgs, the EM and the gravitational or Einstein field. Massive particles are intersections of these three fields. They are spinors. The standard spacetime is just the prolongation of the particles (à la quantum field theory). The connection between gravity and EM is perpendicular. The electric charge is emergent from the pressure of the flow of EM spacetime due to its curvature in the spinor... Only the EM connection relative to the detector in a relation with the rest of the Universe is an observable, that's why electrons appear to have no size... and why it's not the case for protons having three quarks...

One basic thing to understand any collapse is that only the EM field allows repulsion...

It is a real and deterministic Universe allowing a continuity while you have a quantization at the same time. It explains why we are stuck with probabilities in practice. We may only measure the quantization part and infer the continuity because it is a necessary complement. Then it becomes real...

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

If one basic thing to understand any collapse is that only the EM field allows repulsion then why the Universe is expanding...?

Yes!

Dark matter is a necessary ingredient.

And a Universe with infinities would not allow logical computations, taking everything into account while keeping a realist point of view. Who is foolish enough to pretend the Universe is not real? Even if we were in a computer it would be real...

Some particles have no mass if there are no infinities.

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Entanglement is a proof that the Universe is finite. The discrepancies between observation and the calculated value of the vacuum energy is caused by the inclusion of extra imaginary particles. The unitarity of the wave function includes all particles of the Universe in an entanglement summation which is always equal to one for the particles considered with all its external relations. For example, two electrons may only be maximally entangled at 1/2 or if you prefer, 50%, meaning there is a leftover of 50% of entanglement with all other particles in the Universe which conserves unitarity, energy and momentum.

When a measure is done, the position of the detector influences the result because the measured particle becomes highly entangled with it. When the detector is at 90 degrees from the maximally 50% entangled dual relation you only measure some of the 50% leftover of the rest of the Universe! In the perfect cases, the detectors entanglement enhances the measurement by a factor of 2, from 25% when both detectors are perpendicular to each other up to 50% when they are aligned or anti-aligned (from 25%+25% up to 50%+50%). More on that later. Just remember that entanglement relations depend on the distance. As both particles approach the detectors, the detectors become entangled with the particles from the bottom up, keeping the maximally entangled dual relation of both particles intact until they reach the detectors, assuming sufficient starting distances for a valid approximation of the detectors at infinity from the particles to get an enhancement factor of two. Thus, if everything is aligned or anti-aligned the leftover becomes insignificant compared to the detectors relations with the system. The detectors have consumed most of the 50% bottom relations and the leftover is insignificant and you get what appears to be a 100% entanglement relation between both particles though it is just 50% in reality.

The increase in entropy is not fundamental. Every Planck time, new connections are formed as the Universe expands and more particles are created, that's all. It is still limited by the speed of light. The entropy is the number of degrees of freedom. This allows the increase in complexity and the evolution of life... The brain seems to be a natural extension.

[Hayseed]

I never really cared for the modern theories, but there could be other explanations for entanglement.   For instance.  We have the conservation of charge.  What if, instead of + and - charge we had left and right handed charge.  So, a conservation of handedness.

And what if we balance and sync that charge conservation with a common gravity field.   And when one charge flips, the other flips thru the g field. The gravity field, might even insist on this left = right property.

OR......Maybe handedness is quicker than c.  Gravity itself, might be a product of handedness.  More than 99% of all mass momentum(energy) is right handed.

Many possibilities.  Maybe it wasn't a big bang, maybe it was a fast release.

[tony liddicoat]

could dark matter be particles arriving into our universe through a black hole thus expanding our universe?

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

From the point of view of my theory, a multiverse seems unnecessary. But the compression of matter in a black hole recycles the excess of electric charges and creates the jets. It depends on how much matter and dark matter fall in and at which point they combine. So, no it is not arriving into our universe, but yes, there is a contribution to the expansion of the universe through the radiation process.

[tony liddicoat]

so as particles are sucked into the black hole at its equator they are forced  out at the slowly spinning equators?

[puppypower]

Dark matter is an addendum that is needed to help close the universal energy balance. Previous observation and assumptions within the universe, did not add up relative to some observations, so fudge was added, even though dark matter and dark energy had never been seen in the lab. This need was due to the relative reference assumption.

The relative reference assumption cannot create a single universal energy balance, since relative is the opposite of absolute. Relative reference cannot see and add things up in a way that is the same for all references, so fudge was added to approximate this.

As a loose analogy of the problem, say we had a train heading to the station, and a man waiting at the station. Both the man on the train and the man at the station, assume they are in relative motion, and the other person is stationary. Since a moving train plus man, has more kinetic energy than a single moving man, the relative reference assumptions, by both men, will end up with two different energy balances.  This is the relative reference problem.

Using the earth, as the most convenient center for a relative reference, was not a good choice, since it now needs an addendum, to explain observed energy that is not consistant with this only relative reference. They added imaginary matter and imaginary energy never before seen in the lab; fills in the visual blind spot.

The analogy is like the stationary man, in the train experiment, being told that 5000 gallons of fuel was used in this train and stationary man experiment. This messes up his relative motion assumption. However, the stationary man refuses to change his relative reference. Instead,  knowing more energy is needed, he decides to add tanned matter and tanned energy to balance it out and fill in his blind spot. That can sort of work, but it would be better to use the absolute reference of the train since this is where the energy is, Here there is no blind spot.

The heart of the problem is 99.999% of the data we get from the universe, is visual evidence. This evidence comes from various wavelength energy emissions, from radio waves, to visible light, to gamma. The visual sense using eyes and machines, if used exclusively, can get stuck at relative reference. One needs more than one sense to escape the 99.999% data trap.

In the train example, if the two men only used their eyes, relative reference appears to work for both. The visuals will appear to add up for both references. What would change this, is if we added another sense, such as the sense connected to body sensations and and gut feelings. In this case, the first man can feel subtle vibrations from the train, as it moves on the track. This very subtle sway is not easily seen with the eyes.  If one noticed that the train was moving, due to body sensations of motion, now we have a solid energy balance reference, unbiased by visual only based relative reference, Now we do not need dark matter or energy to clarify the energy balance for the train.

If you look at any textbook example, used to explain relative reference, the logic and math always depends on visual confirmation. There is an unconscious convention and trick to this, connected to the practical reality of dealing with primarily visual data collection. Textbook examples, never add a second sense; motion sense, that is not easily fooled. If the man on the train was getting motion sickness, this would be ignored in favor of 99.999% visual conformation for the station. 

I suppose, the earth moves around the sun and on its axis, but we do not sense any of this motion. We confirm all this the motion based on our eyes and how the light and seasons change. We may not be able to add the sensation of motion, but will need to maintain relative motion based on the preponderance of the evidence collected being only visual.

This is why I found I way to by-pass the experimental limitations and necessary conclusions associated with primarily visual evidence. The work around is to assume the speed of light reference is the ground state of the universe; lowest free energy potential. Since the speed of light is the same in all references, each relative reference becomes half absolute instead of entirely relative.

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

so as particles are sucked into the black hole at its equator they are forced  out at the slowly spinning equators?

That's what I think but still outside of the black hole outer horizon. According to the standard explanation, it is produced outside the minimal stable orbit if I remember correctly.

[Jolly2]

Note: This topic was split off from: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81590.0 Did the universe begin life inside a black hole? - moderator.

If the Universe was inside a black hole, it was the black hole itself, whatever a black hole is.

My two cents theory:

All black holes inside the Universe are rotating. In a black hole, matter is organized in a very simplified way, information is conserved in an equivalent of folding. There is matter, which is spacetime itself, from the inner horizon up to the outer horizon. Only when all the Universe forms a single black hole, the inner horizon vanishes The black hole stops rotating and we get a singularity of the Higgs field. There is no singularity of the EM field nor of the gravitational field. Every bit of information is its own center and its singularity, and it is connected with every other bits of the Universe in a kind of causal set, only once with the EM field and also only once with the gravitational field. The Higgs field produces a flat space with a finite horizon but your horizon is unreachable because it moves with you while it is expanding or contracting. Asymmetries are the fundamentals. There is an unstable quasi-static black hole at both ends. Time has only one direction.

Inflation doesn't need a special energy, it is caused by the gravitational blue shift of massive particles vs the expansion of the surrounding vacuum energy in an early phase. The speed of light is constant everywhere. Time is absolute but the passage of time is relative. This is the wavelength which changes. You must take account of the expanding horizon to solve special relativity.

Elementary particles are spinors of EM spacetime intersecting the gravitational spacetime. All elementary particles have an electric charge, including the neutrinos. Neutrinos wavelength oscillates near more massive particles and they only interact at three specific wavelengths (the value of the electric charge oscillates and they become virtually interactionless). The electron tunnel effect is the same mechanism... Dirac wins.

The expansion may be represented by a lagging gravitational field behind the EM field. Matter is positively charged when highly compressed because the electron wavelength is longer than those of the proton constituents. As the Universe is cyclical, you need a negatively charged counterpart which should have its own Higgs. This counterpart is also related to the second and third families of particles through the W and Z bosons. This is Dark Matter. Dark matter only interacts with ordinary matter in the EM spacetime field near the static black hole. The Higgs produces all elementary particles. This is the basic quantization number. Its mass = proton mass divided by the fine structure constant with corrections due to the W and Z. The neutrinos are key parts to understand.

There could be two families of Dark matter with two beautiful Higgs particles. Unfortunately, they are only observables through gravity... In the contrary, why would the second and third families be unstable? At what point the second and third families become stable bits of information and why? Where the multiple Higgs meet each other.

Every time an experiment verifies entanglement relations it is also a demonstration of the Higgs field. Remember that the Higgs field is faster than light, which means it is a synchronization field, not an energy field. All particles of the Universe are entangled (at least for each individual type of matter-DM) in a complex quantized relation, which means detectors are a key part of the solution.

The volume of the Universe is proportional to the number of particles in it. If there is no new particle produced, the Universe collapse. This includes gravitons, that's why it is the volume and not the surface... The Universe must reach a maximum size because there are no infinities...!!!

Gluons are gravitons. A graviton is made of two gluons because it is a dual relation.

Ok a gravaton isn't 2 gluons. We've only seen the waves not the particles as such.  Gravaton is simply an energy wave on space, causing a ripple in the space, they are called gravity waves, but that's only because some want to link them to gravity. There is no definite reason to do so.

The more energy changes the colour of the gravaton, blue gravaton is high energy, red gravaton low energy. But they are just energy ripples in space and disappear as the energy disappears. Like dropping a stone in water, the ripples are an expression of the energy from the stone.

A sun exploding for example will cause a gravity wave, but its just the energy causing a wave in space as it passes through it.

Not gravity, it's not space its energy affecting the space it travels over.

....

Black holes are not holes. They are suns that dont produce light. Black hole suns. Giant masses that grow as more matter travels into their event horizon, I suppose your asking if one exploded could that have been the origin of the big bang?

It would have been a huge black sun to have contained all the matter and energy we see in the universe, and it wouldn't answer the question of how it developed in the first place.

But I suppose it's an interesting idea.

[Jolly2]

Note: This topic was split off from: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81590.0 Did the universe begin life inside a black hole? - moderator.

If the Universe was inside a black hole, it was the black hole itself, whatever a black hole is.

My two cents theory:

All black holes inside the Universe are rotating. In a black hole, matter is organized in a very simplified way, information is conserved in an equivalent of folding. There is matter, which is spacetime itself, from the inner horizon up to the outer horizon. Only when all the Universe forms a single black hole, the inner horizon vanishes The black hole stops rotating and we get a singularity of the Higgs field. There is no singularity of the EM field nor of the gravitational field. Every bit of information is its own center and its singularity, and it is connected with every other bits of the Universe in a kind of causal set, only once with the EM field and also only once with the gravitational field. The Higgs field produces a flat space with a finite horizon but your horizon is unreachable because it moves with you while it is expanding or contracting. Asymmetries are the fundamentals. There is an unstable quasi-static black hole at both ends. Time has only one direction.

Inflation doesn't need a special energy, it is caused by the gravitational blue shift of massive particles vs the expansion of the surrounding vacuum energy in an early phase. The speed of light is constant everywhere. Time is absolute but the passage of time is relative. This is the wavelength which changes. You must take account of the expanding horizon to solve special relativity.

Elementary particles are spinors of EM spacetime intersecting the gravitational spacetime. All elementary particles have an electric charge, including the neutrinos. Neutrinos wavelength oscillates near more massive particles and they only interact at three specific wavelengths (the value of the electric charge oscillates and they become virtually interactionless). The electron tunnel effect is the same mechanism... Dirac wins.

The expansion may be represented by a lagging gravitational field behind the EM field. Matter is positively charged when highly compressed because the electron wavelength is longer than those of the proton constituents. As the Universe is cyclical, you need a negatively charged counterpart which should have its own Higgs. This counterpart is also related to the second and third families of particles through the W and Z bosons. This is Dark Matter. Dark matter only interacts with ordinary matter in the EM spacetime field near the static black hole. The Higgs produces all elementary particles. This is the basic quantization number. Its mass = proton mass divided by the fine structure constant with corrections due to the W and Z. The neutrinos are key parts to understand.

There could be two families of Dark matter with two beautiful Higgs particles. Unfortunately, they are only observables through gravity... In the contrary, why would the second and third families be unstable? At what point the second and third families become stable bits of information and why? Where the multiple Higgs meet each other.

Every time an experiment verifies entanglement relations it is also a demonstration of the Higgs field. Remember that the Higgs field is faster than light, which means it is a synchronization field, not an energy field. All particles of the Universe are entangled (at least for each individual type of matter-DM) in a complex quantized relation, which means detectors are a key part of the solution.

The volume of the Universe is proportional to the number of particles in it. If there is no new particle produced, the Universe collapse. This includes gravitons, that's why it is the volume and not the surface... The Universe must reach a maximum size because there are no infinities...!!!

Gluons are gravitons. A graviton is made of two gluons because it is a dual relation.

Ok a gravaton isn't 2 gluons. We've only seen the waves not the particles as such.  Gravaton is simply an energy wave on space, causing a ripple in the space, they are called gravity waves, but that's only because some want to link them to gravity. There is no definite reason to do so.

The more energy changes the colour of the gravaton, blue gravaton is high energy, red gravaton low energy. But they are just energy ripples in space and disappear as the energy disappears. Like dropping a stone in water, the ripples are an expression of the energy from the stone.

A sun exploding for example will cause a gravity wave, but its just the energy causing a wave in space as it passes through it.

Not gravity, it's not space its energy affecting the space it travels over.

....

Black holes are not holes. They are suns that dont produce light. Black hole suns. Giant masses that grow as more matter travels into their event horizon, I suppose your asking if one exploded could that have been the origin of the big bang?

It would have been a huge black sun to have contained all the matter and energy we see in the universe, and it wouldn't answer the question of how it developed in the first place.

But I suppose it's an interesting idea.

Just reminded me of Einstein idea about the big crunch. That all the universe will one day come together, I suppose if galaxies started to merge their blacks suns would mere, and as each galaxy did so the black sun at the center would get bigger and bigger, then in the end, after all the galaxies had come together there would just be one giant black sun containing everything. If that exploded we'd start again.

Explosion retraction, explosion retraction, a fixed cycle.

[evan_au]

What if, instead of + and - charge we had left and right handed charge.  So, a conservation of handedness.

There is a quantum property of spin, in addition to the property of charge.
- The property of spin creates a magnetic field around a charged particle
- And particles can be "spin up" or "spin down", when measured relative to a magnetic field.
- Spin can be integer (Bosons) or half-integer (Fermions)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)#Quantum_number

More than 99% of all mass momentum(energy) is right handed.

Could you explain that statement, please?
For example, right-handed relative to what?

the big crunch. That all the universe will one day come together

The idea of the "Big Crunch" was abandoned after the accelerating expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1990s.
- But accelerating expansion introduced the possibility of a "Big Rip", where expansion accelerates so much that galaxies, solar systems, planets, and eventually atoms are torn apart.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

[Jolly2]

the big crunch. That all the universe will one day come together

The idea of the "Big Crunch" was abandoned after the accelerating expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1990s.
- But accelerating expansion introduced the possibility of a "Big Rip", where expansion accelerates so much that galaxies, solar systems, planets, and eventually atoms are torn apart.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

No I know, einstein didn't like expansion as it implies more a evolutinary reality,  and he preferred the notion of a fixed universe. Still expansion could be an expression of the big bang, that has yet to run its course. There may be acceleration doesn't mean it couldn't one day stop. And slowly galaxies will come together or that a few galaxies merge and they with increased strength start to pull the others and so start to work against expansion.

One nice thing about the idea is we know what was before the big bang,  a universe like the one we have expanding and contacting


Still the big RIP would also then have two universes that could follow the same path and contract to each having a giant black sun those suns could then also attract each other and the universe would come back together.

Like mass expansion, RIP, the ripped universes form into two giant black suns, they attract back to each other and emerge as one black sun one universe that again explodes, with a big bang.

Same expansion and contraction with a RIP in the middle.

[Jolly2]

More than 99% of all mass momentum(energy) is right handed.

Could you explain that statement, please?
For example, right-handed relative to what?

The left.

Best guess.

It's true the  left hand of God brings justice, in the temporal sense.😊

.....

Maybe he is referencing spin?

[Hayseed]

I will explain it, or at least try to........but it will turn out, like explaining the import of a helical orbit vs a elliptical orbit.   Everyone is blinded to this crack. We get cracks in this universe, but no one recognizes them for the cracks they are.  Cracks are very revealing. If you are allowed to look.

Electron and protons are EXACTLY the SAME STRUCTURE.  The handedness of that charge.......sets the energy "personality" of the charge.  There are NO component parts of a charge, only dissolving fragments.  In a right handed charge, the M momentum is parallel to the charge(E) momentum.  In a left handed charge the M p, is anti-parallel to the E p.  The right handed charge has a contracting(high energy) personality.  The electron has an expanding(low energy) personality.

Mass is the density(and therefore the momentum) of confined motion. Almost all the energy and all the mass in this universe...............is right handed.

And probably the direct or close to direct, cause of gravity.  An emergent force.

The only entities inside an atom are.......electrons, protons, E fields and M fields.  That it, and that's all that's needed.  No weak force, no strong force, no force carriers.

And by the way.....all stable rotations(the quantum levels) have a diameter to circumference ratio of 4.  One of the PHYSICAL requirements for stable rotation.  Another requirement is that only integer turns may be added or subtracted from the structure. The requirements for stable spin are physical, not mathematical, nor informational.

Ok, so how do we relate this to the physical motion of charge.  The handedness part?  Take two hula hoops and lay them on the floor.....we will observe both hoops from this top direction.  Paint both hoops white.  Cut and straighten out the hoops into a poles.  Paint a one turn red stripe around the length of the pole.  One right turned stripe and one left turned stripe on the other pole.  Those stripes are solenoids.  There are many more turns in particles......one turn is for explanation.  Now bend the poles into a torus(hula hoop) and line the stripe up.  There will be an enclosed M dipole, inside the stripe.  The white torus and poles are space holders only.  Only the stripe is the particle.  That stripe rotates in a counter clockwise direction when looking down at the hula hoops.  Both stripes are turning left from our view, but as they turn left, one is spinning right and one is spinning left as they turn.   A spin within a spin.  TWO accelerations.

The internal right handed spin, contracts the torus solenoid and the left handed spin expands the torus solenoid.  With M momentum.  Charge(the E field) can not be added or subtracted.  But the amount of M flux is variable with energy.  The E amount is not variable. But the E density is variable .....with the diameter of the charge.  The diameter is controlled with M flux.

The M flux of the electron is in opposition to the rotation of the charge(E), but in agreement to the proton rotation.  We have a right handed universe.

[Kryptid]

Electron and protons are EXACTLY the SAME STRUCTURE. 

Not at all, actually. Protons contain three quarks, whereas electrons have no inner structure (that we know of). Protons interact with the strong force, but electrons do not. Protons are also over 1,800 times more massive than electrons.

The only entities inside an atom are.......electrons, protons, E fields and M fields.

You're forgetting neutrons.

That it, and that's all that's needed.  No weak force, no strong force, no force carriers.

The weak and strong force are quite necessary to account for what we know about atomic structure. Without the strong force, the nucleus could not be held together against the mutual electric repulsion of the protons. Without the strong force, the quarks couldn't be held together inside of protons and neutrons (yes, we have detected quarks in particle accelerators). The weak force is necessary to account for certain kinds of decay (besides, we have detected the force-carrying particles of the weak force).

[Hayseed]

Neutrons are manufactured by SOL.  They are necessary for heavier atoms.  It's a magnetic structure requirement.  For the ATOMIC enclosed dipole is what holds the nucleus together.  Just like the enclosed dipole holds the charge together.  A neutron is an electron that has been accelerated down to a size that just fits around the proton, in a co-planar position.  They are counter rotating.  Electrically, they are a damped electric dipole.  The net energy is the common M dipole axis with no net charge.  I.E.....a spare magnet.  They fit in between protons in larger atoms.  The nucleus is a string of alternating protons and neutrons bound with a totally enclosed M dipole going thru the center of each particle, forming a ring of particles.....a nucleus. 

H1 is not an atom.   It's a dipole.  H2 is not a molecule.  H2 is the lightest atom.  The nucleus is a string of alternating electrons and protons.  Image a funnel.  A funnel connects a small hole......to a large hole.  Please listen closely.  We are going to connect some holes.  Put a small o-ring on the smaller lip of the funnel, and a large o-ring on the large lip.  Hold that funnel up, side-ways, so we have vertical o-rings.  The small o-ring is the proton, the large o-ring is the electron.  Put the proton on the left and electron on the right.  The proton is rotating toward you at a high rate with a dense M dipole, represented by the body of the funnel.  The electron is rotating away from you at a slow rate and a less dense M dipole, again represented by the body of the funnel.  These two M dipoles are additive.  Like refrigerator magnets. They attract.  This will draw the two rotating charges together, UNTIL, the E fields equalize in density.  That has to be done with distance.  If the electron tries to come any closer, it will be repelled, just like it was attracted.....because of E density.  The proton is heavy with spin, so it is the electron that does all the in and out motion from the proton, vibrating around this density equalization barrier or gradient.  This is atom dipole oscillation. 

A H2 atom has two dipoles in series....forming a loop.  Back to back sorta speak.  So the funnel body has a curve in it now.  Look at how the internal M pole, has such a great variance in density, because of the internal areas, trying to corral it.  The M dipole(holding the nucleus together) is very weak at the electron.  If one of those electrons gets ejected, the nucleus falls apart.

Now back to the straight funnel dipole.  This is what a star does.  It manufactures neutrons. The sun supplies an endless source of accelerations on particles.....but we need just the right one. That right one will push that electron into the proton at a very high rate.  And the electron has to be contracted also, to meet that E field density. So as the electron approaches, it shrinks.  When the electron is just one quantum spin rate under what the proton is....it slips in co-planar with the proton.  This neutralizes the E fields and adds the M dipoles.  There is no oscillation, but there is a wobble, which is continuously reset in a nucleus, but once outside, it will wobble off the electron in about 11 minutes.

This neutron is just a hair larger than a proton.  And it lays, inside the electron....in a nucleus.  Now.....if the electron gets ejected, the nucleus remains.  The neutron, keeps the internal M dipole small and dense and strong, binding the atom, and allowing ionization....the absence of an electron.

[Kryptid]

Neutrons are manufactured by SOL.

What do you mean by "SOL"?

For the ATOMIC enclosed dipole is what holds the nucleus together.

Not according to existing scientific evidence.

A neutron is an electron that has been accelerated down to a size that just fits around the proton, in a co-planar position.

No, it isn't. Conservation of lepton number would be violated by the observed products of neutron decay if that was true.

The nucleus is a string of alternating protons and neutrons bound with a totally enclosed M dipole going thru the center of each particle, forming a ring of particles.....a nucleus. 

The nucleus isn't a ring of particles: they are roughly spherical (although heavier nuclei are pear or football-shaped).

H1 is not an atom.   It's a dipole.  H2 is not a molecule.  H2 is the lightest atom.

Please supply a citation from a reputable source to back up these claimed definitions.