Mathematics

It seems that mathematics is needed to support any theory that is proposed.

I think this is a fallacy because errors can be included in any formulas or there may be missing components.

An example of a missing component below, to refute one of the greatest mathematicians in science was Isaac Newton. It is said that his math predicted the collapse of the hydrogen atom and Quantum math was needed to explain why this did not happen.

I can explain this problem without math.

The missing component that was not included in the Newtonian formula, I believe, was that the 'magnetic interaction' between the electron and proton was left out.

The electron's orbital motion around the proton causes the proton to spin synchronously with the electrons movement because of the coulomb attraction. The resulting magnetic fields are then mutually repulsive. This repulsion, in addition to the electron's orbital momentum, balances out to keep the HA from collapsing.

This can be proven easily by the use of the 'left and right' hand rules.

The right hand rule applies to the electron's motion and the left hand rule (opposite polarity) applies to the proton spin. The adjacent side of the proton spin is in the same direction as the electron's motion.

So if you clench your fists and place them closely together with the extended thumbs pointing in the same direction outward, you will notice that the fingers point upward to indicate that the magnetic fields of both particles are moving in the same direction in both hands. When this happens, there is a repulsive effect between the two fields.

This is also proven in the way a bar magnet, as illustrated, has an expansion between the two poles indicating that an intrinsic force is present to cause this expansion. This force acts perpendicularly to the motion of the field lines.

This is an example of why math may not provide the proper solutions.

I call this 'mental visualization', that to me, is more important than math.

Einstein's idea of a 'curvature of space' caused him, in an after thought, to realize that his 'static' universe would collapse if he did not introduce a component to oppose the gravitational effects.

I wondered why, and so I came to the conclusion that ‘if’ his 'curvature of space' could affect the motion of orbiting bodies around a gravitational force, then this could also cause an erosion of the orbital momentum. So, his static universe would collapse.

This would also violate the ‘conservation of momentum’ law.

Well, I think he was wrong about this also.

Matter is structured in such a way that it will not collapse. The example given above of the HA's stability is one such example. This is on the atomic level.

On the cosmological level, there is also a resistance to collapse. It is the 'linear momentum inertia' that resists any force acting on a body in motion in a straight line. Newton’s first and third laws of motion explain this.

Galaxy clusters have a tremendous increase in gravity caused by a 'mysterious' dark matter problem. This increase can be from 10x to 20x times greater that the calculated mass of the observed components. In spite of this, the structures do not collapse because the orbital momentums of the bodies increase to counter the added effects to maintain a balance.

NS