Where fd is the frequency of a single bipolar dot-wave. This is the smallest frequency in the universe as have a wavelength equal to twice the radius of the universe.

It may take a little while for all of your post to soak in to my thick skull. This quoted piece seems a little vague. We do not really know the size of the universe, so how can we quantize your dot wave. And, do you think of the dot-waves as all being identical?

All the dot waves have the same amount of energy. They all have the same wavelength. If we could put all the dot-waves together at a single point, they would most likely null out. Thus every dot-wave in the universe is different. they are centered at different places. They have a phase angle with respect to each other.

Dot-waves have a spherical oscillation in the here and now. They also have an orbital rotation in the here and now, and they have a linear momentum as well.

(Spherical + Angular + Linear) Momentum = constant

In general we do not discuss the spherical oscillation in physics. What is the spherical oscillation of a proton? We give it spin, we give it linear motion but we do not allow it to spherically oscillate.

However mass is a spherical oscillation. When the dot-wave oscillates from the dot-radius to the plank radius it has mass.

In any event, in the universe the dot-waves are all similar but each one is slightly different.

As far as us knowing the radius of the universe is concerned, it is easy to calculate as long as you look at the universe as a perfect sphere. We live on a spherical surface. Any point on the surface is a common distance from a true center. We can never reach the center because we only exist on the surface. If we draw a circle of 3 inches and then take a compass and draw 3 inch circles all around the original 3 inch radius. we will produce an outer circle of 6 inches in radius. If we do this on a spherical ball, we will produce an outer ball of 6 inches in diameter.

Now we return to the big bang. We were thicker than a simple surface but after awhile we became a surface. the common center is C times the time of the universe since big bang. The outer surface is 2C times this amount. A light sphere is moving away from the common center as the universe expands and is moving outward at the speed of light as well.

Therefore as far as we are conserned we live inside a universe which is expanding at the speed of light C in all directions. (Variations of this are possible)

In order to find out the radius of the universe or the radius of the light bubble, we need to know the time since big bang. The astronomer's have their methods. Around 14 or 15 billion years.

It doesn't really matter since the exact time is not that important. All it does is change the mass of a dot. Since there are so many dots, the mass of the dot is not important to any of our calculations. We mostly calculate things on the mass of the electron.

The ruler expands since big bang. The time clock expands as well. Therefore we could say that there was an infinity of time by the big bang clock. Alternately we could use a linear approximation for the time clock. We could also use an e^x function.

I use the hydrogen atom expansion for the time since big bang.

The force of expansion of the hydrogen atom is

F = 2Uo (QC/137.036) x (4pi Q Vb*) / R^2

F = G Mh Mh / R^2

Solving for Vb* = 1.054E-28 meters per second

Therefore using the linear solution,and a Bohr Radius of 5.292E-11meters the time from big bang is

T = 5.021E17seconds

T= 15.91 billion years

This is different than the astronomers. Yet it agrees with the normalized time

4 pi Q Tu = 1

In other words we can find the time of the universe from the charge Q which has decreased common mode since big bang.

Of course variable charge, variable proton mass, etc are all part of variable physics and not the simple physics used today. We exist at an operating point of variable space time. Things change very slowly so we do not readily observe that the charge Q was much larger a billion years ago.

The problem with modern physics is that it like to produce simple rules and regulations which everyone must obey. Otherwise they reject your ideas. However the universe could care less about the rules and regulations formulated by those who get freaked out once you change the charge Q over time.

Unless you are willing to look at the total picture, you cannot readily understand the forest from the trees.

So people do not know the radius of the universe because nobody every told them that the universe formed a perfect sphere. They do not readily understand the dot-waves because nobody ever taught them dot-waves.

Once you know things, then understanding them becomes much easier. In fact the universe gets more simple, the more you know.

It is not that I know things that well. I just try every combination of things I can think of. Then I try them out by trial and error. I have been working on this for 27 years and I could use a few more thousand years to understand things better. There is still so much I do not understand. Each day I study new ideas. Each day I reject some older ideas and accept newer ones. Some times I return to some older ideas. It is a never ending process.

The trouble with modern science is that they have accepted many good ideas but at the same time they have accepted many wrong ideas.

They like constant light speed but who can really say what the light speed was at big bang. All they observe is that the light speed today appears as a constant. They do not know what it was one billion years ago or one billion years into the future.

They have the conservation of energy but if we are riding an e^x function, the energy at big bang was really close to infinity. You cannot assume constant anything unless you study all the other possibilities. They do not teach that in the schools. They teach scientific dogma.Scientific religion.

That is fine but they at least should have a footnote that what is being taught is the latest approximation to physical reality, which will be changed in the future. This freaks the students out since they want to believe what they are taught is absolute truth.

How can we progress if we believe everything which has been accepted in the past? If we rely upon experiments, how can we believe that the experiments are not tainted. How can we find truth unless we question everthing we are taught?

Thanks for the questions. Sorry to shake everyone up. I just seem to enjoy pulling the rug out from everything. I am just used to correcting my school textbooks as I read them.

It is almost that I learned this stuff a long time ago in another life and I am struggling to relearn what I knew long ago. Perhaps we are all in that situation. We relearn the truths of the past. And it may very well be that we will relearn the same truths far into the future. Over and over again!!!!!!!!!!