[Brent]

How To Make a Universe- The Little Bang.

If a charge is introduced to nothing this would produce a magnetic field that produces a an opposing charge. This should cancel the charges so that there remains nothing but since the production of the charge is limited by the speed of light there is a time lag between the introduced and the produced charge.
So, a charge is introduced to nothing. This produces opposing volumes of charge surrounding the introduced charge and this induced charge induces a charge into its' surrounding volumes. Alternating charges spread out at the speed of light in all directions from the introduced charge. The Little Bang.

Now we have a large volume of little volumes of charge or space. Suppose one of the little volumes, for some reason, loses it's charge and becomes neutral again. This would be a volume of no charge or nothing as I defined before. This volume of no charge is surrounded by volumes of charge. Due to what I will call electrical pressure for lack of a better term moves charge from the volumes with charge into the volume of no charge. This is not an induction of charge but a movement of charge. This movement of charge into the uncharged volume produces a positive charge in that volume. This positive charge produces a magnetic field which causes the surrounding volumes of charge to become negative. The fields collapse inducing an equal and opposite charge which leaves the volume a C.The volume becomes neutral again, surrounding charge moves in producing a positive charge and so on and so on.

Space is nothing that has been electrically disturbed.
A neutron is a volume on no charge or nothing.
A proton is the result of charge moving into the volume of nothing.
An electron is the reaction of the surrounding volumes (space) to the positive charge of the proton
Light is an alternating electromagnetic field that moves at the speed of light relative to space.
Space moves at the speed of light relative to the alternating electromagnetic field we call matter.
Gravity is the movement of the charge from the charged volumes(space) to the uncharged volumes(matter)
Thats all for today.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Brent

How To Make a Universe- The Little Bang.

If a charge is introduced to nothing this would produce a magnetic field that produces a an opposing charge. This should cancel the charges so that there remains nothing but since the production of the charge is limited by the speed of light there is a time lag between the introduced and the produced charge.
So, a charge is introduced to nothing. This produces opposing volumes of charge surrounding the introduced charge and this induced charge induces a charge into its' surrounding volumes. Alternating charges spread out at the speed of light in all directions from the introduced charge. The Little Bang.

Your logic is impeccable Brent,enjoyable post.



regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Well, that explains why you can’t get anyone to listen to your ideas Brent. You are trying to redefine what is already defined and what is already known. Your wheel is rather square so it won't roll.

[Brent]

We have a volume of charges. Inside that volume is a small volume of no charge. Charge from a small volume of charge moves
into the small volume of no charge which is basic electricity. This charge moves at C at the moment it enters the volume of
no charge. Another charge moves in to replace the charge that moved to the volume of no charge. Another charge moves into
replace that charge and so on so that it appears that the charges are moving towards the volume of no charge. The velocity of
the replacement charges decrease as there distance from the volume of no charge increases. This makes the charges appear as
if they are accelerating towards the volume of no charge.
Light is these volumes of charges. These volumes, charged one after the other, in a straight line through space. The volumes
charge at C but they do not move anywhere. The thing we call light moves at C relative to these charges but the charges don't
move anywhere for light to happen.
So when the charge moves into the volume of no charge, the charge is essentially at rest with the volume of no charge but
moves from the charged volume to the volume of no charge at C.
A charge moves into the volume of no charge producing a positive charge. This causes the volumes surrounding the positve
charge to become negative. Now there is no more movement of charge, so the fields collapse. The volume now ejects a charge at
C, which causes an equal and opposite charge which cause another opposite charge and so on in a straight line at C through
space. Somehthing I want to make point of is that the charge that moves into the volume of no charge is accelerating up to C.
It was already a charge before it accelerated, I will make a guess that it gains charge doing this.
Once the charge is ejected from the volume, the volume returns to having no charge and the process repeats itself
continuously.

Thats all for today

I will eventually post all of it. Maybe it will make sense then, maybe not

[Brent]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Well, that explains why you can’t get anyone to listen to your ideas Brent. You are trying to redefine what is already defined and what is already known. Your wheel is rather square so it won't roll.

Yup, I am going to redefine it so that it will be correct. Again, if it is all already known, why is this site here.

It won't roll, hell, it will not only roll it will accelerate.

If you get it but you don't like it that is fine. But If I am just confusing that's different.

I have gone from nothing to hydrogen atoms. Tomorrow I will grow a universe and explain gravity/inertia to tie it all together. You will like it but won't admit it.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

Your logic is impeccable Brent,enjoyable post.



regards michael.

It seems I was editing my post at the same time you were posting and added some things you didn't read before you made your post.

I understand if you want to retract your statement.

[Graybeard]

Dear Brent ... just trying to follow your ideas.

Originally Posted by Brent

How To Make a Universe- The Little Bang.

Now we have a large volume of little volumes of charge or space. Suppose one of the little volumes, for some reason, loses it's charge and becomes neutral again.

Why would the 'little volume' surrounded by charge become Neutral?

Originally Posted by Brent

This would be a volume of no charge or nothing as I defined before.

This volume of no charge is surrounded by volumes of charge. Due to what I will call electrical pressure for lack of a better term moves charge from the volumes with charge into the volume of no charge. This is not an induction of charge but a movement of charge. This movement of charge into the uncharged volume produces a positive charge in that volume.

Why would a 'movement' of charge result in a 'Positive' charge in the Neutral volume and not, say, a negative charge?.
Why would a Neutral volume accept either 'positive' or 'negative' charge.

Originally Posted by Brent

This positive charge produces a magnetic field which causes the surrounding volumes of charge to become negative. The fields collapse inducing an equal and opposite charge which leaves the volume a C.The volume becomes neutral again, surrounding charge moves in producing a positive charge and so on and so on.

This is the normal propagation of the electomagnetic field.

If the surrounding volumes have enough charge to 'affect' the neutral small volume by making it positive, at what point does the small volume become so charged that it now can overcome all the charge of the surrounding volumes and 'affect' them so that they become negative

I liked your initial explanation better, see below.

Originally Posted by Brent

Light travels through space at C. Light does not travel at less than C in matter, it travels through more space, a longer distance when traveling through matter as opposed to an equal length of space. Light travels through the space not the matter. The space is accelerating towards the earth and the molecules in the water and the light is travelling through the space, (in Fizeau's experiment). The light traveling with the flow of the water will travel through less water than the light traveling against the flow of water due to the water that flows during the time light takes to travel through the experiment.

Therefore the results of the experiment are because light travels through more space against the flow than it does with the flow not because aether is dragged by the matter or because of a relativistic addition of velocities.

I think another way of saying that light is alway constant is that varying velocity can be made to appear constant provided that space and time units vary in proportion. Alternatively light may take a 'longer' course thru matter, reflection and refraction may account for this course.

still puzzled ... greg

[N0B0DY]

"0 = (+1) + (-1)
The reality is that if you have nothing you can have a positive one and a negative, just not a the same time.
Yes, time, you cannot have them at the same time or there will be nothing."

I think it is possible for both to exist at the same time if we consider inverse perspectives: one from point A towards point B; and another from point B towards point A.

I think you're right that the result would be nothing because light is both points and the space between in forward time, and gravity is both points and the space between in backward time. Propagation is instantaneous, so the result is T=0.

To produce observable motion in forward time at c, gravity must divide light into energy masses which interact to form your angular momenta that keep their symmetry through simultaneous positive and negative reference frames.

[dleviwing]

You need to develop some credibility Brent or nothing you say will be listened to. So far it all appears to be gibberish.

If you feel that you are the next Newton or Einstein, let’s hear some facts that can be experimentally verified; you did say you could prove your theory!

[Brent]

Now there is a volume of space and a hydrogen atom. the hydrogen atom takes in charge and emits charge at C. This emitted charge creates more space. In this space when equal and opposite charges meet at the same time in the same volume, their charges cancel, the volume becomes neutral and the volume becomes another hydrogen atom. This atom makes more space where charges will get cancelled and so on. Stars are created, planets form and the universe grows from nothing to what we have today. The universe is growing, the universe is the most basic form of life.


Gravity
A man in a box accelerated at 9.8m/s/s through free space cannot tell whether he is being accelerated through free space or sitting on the surface of the earth. I will assume everyone is familiar with this Einstein thought experiment.
Now when the man in the box is accelerating at 9.8m/s/s through free space, let us consider the man in the box to be at rest and free space to be accelerating through him at 9.8 m/s/s. That would mean accelerating space through the man in the box is equivalent to accelerating the man in the box through space which is equivalent to sitting on the surface of the earth.
Being on the surface of the earth is equivalent to have space accelerate through you at 9.8 m/s/s.
Gravity is caused by space accelerating towards the earth. The earth is a large volume of small volumes of no charge. Charge flows from space into the earth. This flow of charge is accelerating as it flows towards the surface of the earth.

How to experimentally verify this theory, see Michelson/morley experiment and michelson/Gale experiment. These are very
useful but previously the wrong conclusions have been drawn from them.

The Michelson/morley experiment did not detect motion relative to space but they were looking for horizontal motion not
vertical motion. The horizontal motion of space relative to the earth is only due to the earth rotating in space and the
space isn't rotating. The horizontal motion would only be the velocity that the surface of the earth rotates at.

The Michelson/Gale experiment conclusions were that motion relative to space was not detected. Again the were trying to measure velocity relative to space horizontally but on a larger scale. I believe it was Michelson who said "all we did was prove the earth is
rotating". Yes, they experimentally verified that the earth is rotating relative to space.

Volumes of charges are accelerating towards the earth. The earth is a large volume of small volumes of no charge.

If this were true then the earth should be neutral.

If space is electrically charged, a large volume of small volumes of charge, and the earth a large volume of small volumes of no charge is neutral, a ground, Then if I were to put a dielectric between space and the earth it should become charged. If I were to use a big dielectric like a cloud, it should build up a charge, maybe big enough to dicharge to the earth.

I will save inertia for tomorrow.