The Ultimate Unifying Theory?

[ronnie33]

Preface

Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? black holes, bent space/time, string-theory, multiverses and the search for a God particle. Possibly, are the answers more simple?

Below is the only proposition I am aware of that postulates what gravity is, and therefore what Black holes possibly are, and hypothesizes 'Time' before the Big Bang.

The Eureka moment came from an inversion of one of science's assumptions. If this inversion is proven correct, then out comprehension of our universe is also upside down. The proposal may contradict an accepted unchallenged theory, but it is provocatively logical'

 

A UNIFYING THEORY

There cannot be nothing. There was always something. It is proposed that 'something' was an infinite, endless force field operating on all frequencies and in every direction oscillating at light speed like a multi-layered surface of the sea. Within this environ, atoms became created from the precise collision of frequencies from every direction which momentarily arrested light speed.

A precise collision of frequencies at the positive peak spewed out a proton.

A precise collision at a negative peak created an electron and a precise collision at zero peak produced a neutron.

Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion was that protons attract. What is more difficult to explain is how this attraction somehow reverses into repulsion in close proximity and directs electrons into orbiting protons to create hydrogen.

The proposal is that it is electrons that attract, but with relatively insignificant mass, it's the electrons that do the moving and in close proximity are repelled by protons into orbits creating hydrogen.

 

The above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attraction of a mass of electrons, modest from the molten interior of Earth, massive in our Sun.

 

 

Within infinity's billions of years, hydrogen gathered into a cloud of explosive potential. It is proposed that within infinite space and infinite time, the continual and unrestricted growth of this concentration of hydrogen led inevitably and eventually to cause the core temperature of this cloud to heat from its own gravity, from minus 173.15 degrees C (the temperature of a single hydrogen atom) to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, plus 500 degrees C.

This Big Bang, fuelled with material from a hydrogen cloud of near infinite size, spewed this near infinite matter into space; enough material to furnish our universe. The resultant interactions from heat, gravity and velocity caused more complex assortments of matter to evolve into suns, residue material formed planets, et cetera, et cetera.

The above suggests the Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe as we know it, but a logical event within infinity and therefore was not the creation of some superior intelligence but the logical and inevitable creation of a force field operating within infinite space and infinite time.

Ronnie33.

[Sensei]

Neutron is not made of proton and electron. That would violate Lepton number conservation (and more).

Neutron mass is 0.782 MeV/c^2 higher than sum of proton and electron.
939.565 MeV/c^2 mass of free neutron
938.272 MeV/c^2 mass of free proton
0.510998928 MeV/c^2 mass of free electron (or positron).

Proton (in proton-rich nucleus) is decaying to neutron, emitting positron (antimatter) and neutrino. It's called beta decay plus. Or positron emission.

p+ -> n0 + e+ + Ve

Neutron (in neutron-rich nucleus and free one) is decaying to proton, emitting electron, and antimatter antineutrino. It's called beta decay minus

n0 -> p+ + e- + Ve

Decay of free neutron release energy which is difference between mass of free neutron and sum of masses of proton and electron, multiplied by c^2:

n0 -> p+ + e- + Ve + 0.782 MeV

 

939.565-(938.272+0.511)=0.782

 

Neutron bound in nucleus f.e. Tritium release much smaller energy:

H-3 -> He-3 + e- + Ve + 18.6 keV
(42 times less energy than above)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

(in other example it can release much more)

Edited December 19, 2016 by Sensei

[swansont]

The proposal is that it is electrons that attract

 

 

Trivially falsified with an electroscope.

 

 

Within this environ, atoms became created from the precise collision of frequencies from every direction which momentarily arrested light speed.

 

Frequencies are a property of oscillations. Frequencies don't collide.

 

minus 173.15 degrees C (the temperature of a single hydrogen atom)

The temperature of a single particle is not defined.

 

 

This falls well short of being a theory. What testable predictions can you make? Do you have a mathematical model? I see no equations here. What evidence do you have that you are right, and the accepted physics is wrong?

[Strange]

Below is the only proposition I am aware of that postulates what gravity is

 

Congratulations on being inquisitive and imaginative. Unfortunately, science needs to be based on data and evidence. Your idea seems to be lacking in both respects.

 

We already have two very good theories that can actually make useful predictions. Can your "theory" do that?

 

 

There was always something. It is proposed that 'something' was an infinite, endless force field operating on all frequencies and in every direction oscillating at light speed like a multi-layered surface of the sea.

 

This doesn't make much sense. For example, I don't see how something can "oscillate at light speed". If you think of something that oscillates, such as a pendulum, you can see that the speed is fastest in the middle of the swing then slows down and reverses at the end. Can you clarify what you mean?

 

Also, what evidence do you have for this "force field"? What experimental tests could we do to detect it?

 

 

Within this environ, atoms became created from the precise collision of frequencies from every direction which momentarily arrested light speed.

 

How can frequencies (a measure of the rate of oscillation) collide?

 

 

 

A precise collision of frequencies at the positive peak spewed out a proton.

 

This appears to violate conservation of charge, mass, spin and several other properties.

 

 

 

Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion was that protons attract. What is more difficult to explain is how this attraction somehow reverses into repulsion in close proximity and directs electrons into orbiting protons to create hydrogen.

 

This is explained by quantum theory. Can you explain precisely what is wrong with that theory? (Or is the problem just that you are unfamiliar with it?)

 

 

 

The above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attraction of a mass of electrons, modest from the molten interior of Earth, massive in our Sun.

 

There are many reasons why this is wrong. For example:

 

1. Electrons repel because they have the same electric charge.

2. We can shield the electric charge but not gravity.

3. Matter has an equal number of positive charges (protons) and therefore the net attraction is zero.

And so on ...

 

 

 

Within infinity's billions of years, hydrogen gathered into a cloud of explosive potential. It is proposed that within infinite space and infinite time, the continual and unrestricted growth of this concentration of hydrogen led inevitably and eventually to cause the core temperature of this cloud to heat from its own gravity, from minus 173.15 degrees C (the temperature of a single hydrogen atom) to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, plus 500 degrees C.

 

Where does the figure of -173.15 degrees C come from?

What does "the temperature of a single atom" mean? (Temperature is defined in terms of the kinetic energy of collections of particles.)

What do you mean by the "flashpoint"? If you mean the temperature at which it will combust in air, then where di the air come from in this scenario?

 

 

 

This Big Bang, fuelled with material from a hydrogen cloud of near infinite size, spewed this near infinite matter into space;

 

The big bang cannot be modelled by an explosion.

 

After all that, we can see that you had no need to copy from Word after all. I am disappointed to see that this is not because of the detailed mathematics behind your idea. Instead it seems like some random and fairly uninformed guesswork.

 

I suggest asking some questions in the Physics section so you can learn something about science. If you are interested.

Where does the figure of -173.15 degrees C come from?

This is 100K. That is the only significance I can see. So we appear to have an element of numerology, as well as random guesses.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Strange