Quote:
|
I think you might be stuck with a physics problem. The nuclei, sans electron clouds, will repel one another. There would be an explosion instead of an implosion.
|
*** From my point of view as a theoretical physicist this conclusion you make is somewhat elementary: my argument is that positives do attract each other as I explained in other posts as is evidenced also by the fact that protons bind together as well as atoms that are of the same [positive] electrostatic charge.
I can even further draw support from experiments done by one scientist, Mr Hutchinson [and this is not an endorsement of that person as a scientist but an endorsement of the revelations of his experiments].
He allegedly [videos shown] successfully got metal to cold melt and water to shrink: when the metal is charged with a high negative charge its atoms begin to repel each other and to move apart. This results in expansion or 'melting' of the metal into a liquid and it becomes like mercury.
Conversely, when water is charged positively, the removal of electrons causes its atoms to pull more strongly together and the water shrinks. If this process is continued, according to my theory also, the water will completely implode as I suggested in my earlier post.
Quote:
|
Can you work out a satisfactory outcome without the black hole?
|
*** The introduction of idea of the black hole was only incidental to my argument above and it was introduced to explain why the universe should be expanding at all. With or without the black hole however the arguments still stand.
Having given further thought to the topic last night it came to my mind that the increased rate of expansion of the universe witnessed by astronomers may not be only an increased rate of expansion in
area that results from
constant velocity of celestial objects. Something much more interesting might be going on there.
I said in a different place that the universe is constantly changing between positive and negative electrostatic states many times [of the order of 10^26 times] per second but that the net charge is positive.
What my theory of the UNOMA also predicts is that the range of the negative field of an object, and hence the universe, is greater that the range of its positive field. This means that the range of the field of an object of size 1 cm say during its positive phase might be say 100 cm whereas the range of the field during its negative phase might be 110 cm.
This has important implications to the phenomenon of the expansion of the universe: if planets are actually
accelerating away from a point then according to my theory they must be in the repulsive zone of the universe, and I trust you can understand my point of view.
I can further extrapolate from my theory to predict that the center of the universe, depending on the universe's stage of development, could be an imploding black hole.
Astronomers, if they have not already done so, would be advised therefore to identify the largest black holes and consider/investigate them as the probable center of the universe.
Roger