A Unifying Theory

[rstormview2]

_______________________________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, more logical than that?

Below is the only proposition I am aware of that postulates what gravity is, hypothesizes ‘time’ before “The Big-Bang”, what black holes probably are. The Eureka moment came from an inversion of one of sciences assumptions. It may contradict some accepted unchallenged theories, but it is interestingly logical.

 

 

A UNIFYING THEORY

There cannot be nothing. There was always something. It is proposed that ‘something’ was an infinite, endless, timeless force field operating on all frequencies and in every direction oscillating at light speed like a multi-layered surface of the sea.

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

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

The precise collision of frequencies at the negative peak created an electron.

The precise collision of frequencies at zero peak produced a neutron.

Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the natural conclusion is 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’s electrons that attract, but with relatively little mass, it is electrons that do the moving. This led to the obvious conclusion that protons attract.

Therefore the proposal is, in close proximity, homing electrons are repelled by protons into circulatory orbits which creates hydrogen, the most common element in the Universe.

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

Within infinity’s billions of years, hydrogen gathered into a cloud until there was a gigantic cloud of near infinite size. Consider the potential of infinity nearly full of an explosive hydrogen cloud.

It is proposed that the size density of this concentration caused the core to heat and explode.

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

The Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe as we know it, but an event within infinity. The universe is not the creation of an intelligence, but a logical, inevitable creation of a force field operating with infinite space and infinite time.

[exchemist]

_______________________________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, more logical than that?

Below is the only proposition I am aware of that postulates what gravity is, hypothesizes ‘time’ before “The Big-Bang”, what black holes probably are. The Eureka moment came from an inversion of one of sciences assumptions. It may contradict some accepted unchallenged theories, but it is interestingly logical.

 

 

A UNIFYING THEORY

There cannot be nothing. There was always something. It is proposed that ‘something’ was an infinite, endless, timeless force field operating on all frequencies and in every direction oscillating at light speed like a multi-layered surface of the sea.

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

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

The precise collision of frequencies at the negative peak created an electron.

The precise collision of frequencies at zero peak produced a neutron.

Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the natural conclusion is 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’s electrons that attract, but with relatively little mass, it is electrons that do the moving. This led to the obvious conclusion that protons attract.

Therefore the proposal is, in close proximity, homing electrons are repelled by protons into circulatory orbits which creates hydrogen, the most common element in the Universe.

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

Within infinity’s billions of years, hydrogen gathered into a cloud until there was a gigantic cloud of near infinite size. Consider the potential of infinity nearly full of an explosive hydrogen cloud.

It is proposed that the size density of this concentration caused the core to heat and explode.

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

The Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe as we know it, but an event within infinity. The universe is not the creation of an intelligence, but a logical, inevitable creation of a force field operating with infinite space and infinite time.

But electrons are not repelled by protons. So there is no mystery requiring an explanation. In fact, in s orbitals (those in which the electron has no orbital angular momentum), electrons go right up the nucleus. 

[Mariel33]

_______________________________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, more logical than that?

Below is the only proposition I am aware of that postulates what gravity is, hypothesizes ‘time’ before “The Big-Bang”, what black holes probably are. The Eureka moment came from an inversion of one of sciences assumptions. It may contradict some accepted unchallenged theories, but it is interestingly logical.

 

 

A UNIFYING THEORY

There cannot be nothing. There was always something. It is proposed that ‘something’ was an infinite, endless, timeless force field operating on all frequencies and in every direction oscillating at light speed like a multi-layered surface of the sea.

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

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

The precise collision of frequencies at the negative peak created an electron.

The precise collision of frequencies at zero peak produced a neutron.

Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the natural conclusion is 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’s electrons that attract, but with relatively little mass, it is electrons that do the moving. This led to the obvious conclusion that protons attract.

Therefore the proposal is, in close proximity, homing electrons are repelled by protons into circulatory orbits which creates hydrogen, the most common element in the Universe.

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

Within infinity’s billions of years, hydrogen gathered into a cloud until there was a gigantic cloud of near infinite size. Consider the potential of infinity nearly full of an explosive hydrogen cloud.

It is proposed that the size density of this concentration caused the core to heat and explode.

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

The Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe as we know it, but an event within infinity. The universe is not the creation of an intelligence, but a logical, inevitable creation of a force field operating with infinite space and infinite time.

 

Thanks for your view. A lot of what you say seems not just logical but oddly satisfying. What still gets me though is any notion of observer and observed.

Any infinite standard containing a difference of observer and observed would appear to be a violation.

[sanctus]

Why should one collision create a fundamental particle (electron) and the other a hadron (proton made up of 3 fundamental particles:quarks)?

How would you get other particles in this setup? Like muons, tau, neutrinos of 3 flavors or the gauge bosons?

[exchemist]

This seems to be from some bloke called Ron Williams, who is really interested in writing sci-fi stories (unpublished): http://www.rstormview14.talktalk.net

 

There is no sign that he understands any science, which may be why he suggests it is all too complex.

Edited November 25, 2016 by CraigD
Fixed broken link

[AntDeath]

If you like simplified science of the universe take a look at my free website (with no adverts)

My explanations of the universe can be found on the drop down menu at the top. www.antonydeath.com

There are no difficult equations, it is simply explained for the benefit of qualified and unqualified reader.

It unites quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, relativity, gravity. It explains the dual nature effect of light and other startling revelations. It even makes a small but significant correction to the way the work of Albert Einstein is presented.

There are two obvious challenges to my work.

One for those with an education in these things and one for those who do not.

Obviously I can answer these questions.

Thanks

Antony

[DrKrettin]

It unites quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, relativity, gravity. It explains the dual nature effect of light and other startling revelations. It even makes a small but significant correction to the way the work of Albert 

 

I can't see where you even begin to address any of these topics in any way which is other that totally trivial and meaningless.

 

Please present some evidence for this assertion from your site:

 

The centre of our planet is the location of the centre of the universe and is still generating energy.