# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG  (Read 7523 times)

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« on: 17/01/2009 02:00:33 »
SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG

Let us find an Engineering method to calculate the minimum size of the universe at big bang. For this analysis we will use a method similar to the method used in Doppler Space Time except we will use the Plank length as the minimum size of the dot. Thus the dot-diameter is equal to the Plank length.

First need to find out the mass of the universe. Since we know the mass of a neutron, we can find out how many neutrons there are in the universe. Then we can calculate the number of dots in the universe. Finally we can calculate the size of a ball containing that many dots.

We know that the universe exists as a spherical shell 15.9 billion light years from the common center. The force equations operating upon a mass Mx within the spherical shell is:

G Mu Mx / Ru^2 =      Mx C^2  / Ru                  (8-8)

In equation 8-8 the mass of the universe Mu stands at the common center of the universe at a distance Ru from the mass Mx upon the surface of the universe. This force is counterbalanced by the mass Mx that is moving away from the center of the universe at light speed C. This force is similar to an orbital force. Thus we have the mass times the velocity squared and divided by the distance.

The equation is independent of the mass Mx. It could have been a proton. It could have been a dot mass. The equation simply says that the gravitational force on any object depends upon the total mass of the universe and the gravitational constant and the distance from the universe to the common center. Solving for the mass of the Universe we get:

Mu = [C^2] Ru / G                        (8-9)

Since G = 6.67428E-11, Ru = 1.5052393E26, and C = 2.99792458E8, we get:

Mu = 2.0269477E53Kg.                     (8-10)

Since Mn = 1.67492721E-27Kg, the number of neutrons in the universe is:

# Neutrons = Mu/Mn = 1.21017E80               (8-11)

Since the # dots per neutron is 2.2813727E41, the dots per universe is:

# Dots per universe = 2.276085E121 dots            (8-12)

The volume occupied by the dots will be the number of dots times the volume per dot. The radius of the package will be the radius of the dot times the cube root of the number of dots. Therefore:

R universe = (1.6162525E-35) 2.8339756E40 = 4.580418E5   (8-13)

Since I miles = 1609.334 meters, we get:

R universe = 284.4157 miles                  (8-14)

Equation 8-13 gives us the size of the universe at big bang. However this is the size of the sum of all the lower light speed universes. The light speed C universe sits above this size. It has the same volume but a different thickness.

If we assume that we have the series:

C, C/2, C/4, C/8,……………….C/2N                  (8-15)

We can assume that the volume of each higher lightspeed universe is equal to the total volume occupied by all the lower light speed universes. Therefore:

V' = Va + Va/2 + Va/4 + Va/8 + ………. Va/ 2N         (8-16)
Therefore:

V (total) = 2Va                        (8-17)

We can now solve for the thickness of our universe at big bang. The total radius of the universe will be:

R = [2^0.333333]  Ru (big bang) = 1.25992 Ru (big bang)         (8-18)

R = 5.77095E5 meters                     (8-19)

The thickness of our universe is:

Thickness = 0.125992 Ru = 1.19054E5 meters         (8-20)

Thickness = 73.9767 miles                  (8-21)

The universe at big bang is a layer 74 miles thick upon a radius of 284 miles from the common center.

It is worth noting that Planks length of 1.616E-25, the radius of the proton at 1.321E-15, and the radius of the universe at 1.505E26 form a series of measurements which are apart by approximately a power of 10 to the 20th. However one measurement is missing. That is:

L = 1.616E-35 x 1.505E26 / 1.321E-15 = 1.841E6         (8-22)

We see that the radius of the universe shown by Equation 8-19 fits into the series. Thus

R x pi = 1.8130 E6                     (8-23)

Equation 8-22 is only 1.5- percent difference from equation 8-22. Therefore the radius of the universe at big bang fits perfectly into the series of constants.

R min =   π [PL] x Ru / Rp                  (8-24)

R min =  5.78398E5 meters                  (8-25)

The percent difference with equation 8-19 is:

Percent difference = 0.225 percent               (8-26)

We see that equation 8-24 gives us the minimum radius to within 0.225 percent of the original method. Therefore we have great confidence that we have the minimum radius of the universe at big bang.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #1 on: 23/01/2009 21:14:15 »
You would have to invent a whole new Big Bang theory. The first thing your new theory would need to explain is where did the neutrons come from?

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #2 on: 24/01/2009 22:03:05 »
You would have to invent a whole new Big Bang theory. The first thing your new theory would need to explain is where did the neutrons come from?

We live in a triplicity. There is a sandwich of a dual electrical universe and a single mechanical universe. Electrical energy is massless. The contraction of plus electrical energy and minus electrical energy produces mechanical energy which becomes neutrons.

Where did the massless electrical energy come from? Massless energy always existed.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #3 on: 25/01/2009 20:00:02 »
You would have to invent a whole new Big Bang theory. The first thing your new theory would need to explain is where did the neutrons come from?

We live in a triplicity. There is a sandwich of a dual electrical universe and a single mechanical universe. Electrical energy is massless. The contraction of plus electrical energy and minus electrical energy produces mechanical energy which becomes neutrons.

Where did the massless electrical energy come from? Massless energy always existed.
Like I said; whole new Big Bang theory, but nothing wrong with that But you do have a whole lot of work ahead of you.

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #4 on: 25/01/2009 22:35:34 »
You would have to invent a whole new Big Bang theory. The first thing your new theory would need to explain is where did the neutrons come from?

We live in a triplicity. There is a sandwich of a dual electrical universe and a single mechanical universe. Electrical energy is massless. The contraction of plus electrical energy and minus electrical energy produces mechanical energy which becomes neutrons.

Where did the massless electrical energy come from? Massless energy always existed.
Like I said; whole new Big Bang theory, but nothing wrong with that But you do have a whole lot of work ahead of you.

Well I have been working on it for 27 years so I am basically finished with my theory. I have a complete set of simple equations and explanations. No complex mass involved because the universe operates on very simple equations.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #5 on: 25/01/2009 22:51:03 »
Is the shape of your original universe before the Big Bang a sphere or disk? Or something else?

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #6 on: 26/01/2009 02:14:01 »
Is the shape of your original universe before the Big Bang a sphere or disk? Or something else?

It is a sphere minus the center of half the radius. As the universe expands at light speed, the thickness of the universe shrinks. Now we are a surface of minimal thickness like Einsteins flat universe with flat people except we are not quite flat yet. In the future we will get thinner and thiner.

The center is occupied by a series of universes each of half our light speed going down toward light speed zero. As we move away from the common center, we reach light speed 2C, 4C, etc. Upward toward light speed infinity.
the reason I put these universes into the picture is that the light speed dimension must be accounted for. It could be argued that we came from light speed infinity and are a particular operating point in the light speed spectrum. However since we are a planar surface, there is plenty of room for a spectrum of light speeds.
Since we are separated from the other universes, we can coexist quite well without any interference. The only problem is that our big bang coincides with the big bangs of all the other universes. In the end, unless we oscillate around a particular variable light speed operating point for continuous creation, all the universes will erase at the same time as if they never were.
Thus I still allow for the possibility of continuous creation although I think we are going to be erased.
The erasure of the entire universe turns mechanical energy back into massless electrical energy from whence we came.

As an Engineer building feasible universes, I only look at simple 3- dimensions of distance and three time dimensions in which the electrical universe are a split second before the mechanical universe and a split second afterthe mechanical universe. I can only conceive of the universe in physical descriptions which I can readily visualize. It may very well be that mathematicians and physicists can conceive of other shapes.
In spite of this I am convinced that the universe works with simple equations for the whole process and simple models. Once we get down to the infinity of complex relationships, things can get quite mathematical.
But I believe that it only require three simple things to produce the entire universe.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #7 on: 26/01/2009 13:33:56 »
Well; that description of the universe is a pretty tough pill to swallow; but you know what; it makes about as much sense as the mainstream Big Bang theory which must dispose of the laws of physics to explain the existence of the universe as we now observe it.

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #8 on: 27/01/2009 02:31:14 »
Well; that description of the universe is a pretty tough pill to swallow; but you know what; it makes about as much sense as the mainstream Big Bang theory which must dispose of the laws of physics to explain the existence of the universe as we now observe it.

As I understand the mainstream big bang, they bring the entire universe to a very tiny size. Since the smallest distance we see is the plank length, it seems quite impossible to make the universe that size. It could be argued that every neutron could be reduced to the plank size. That would reduce the universe to much smaller than I predict. However at least it would be a possibility.

The important thing is that the Plank size is 1E-35, the neutron wavelength is 1E-15, and the universe is 1E26 approx. That means something exists which is 1E5 or 1E6. Simple math. The universe works with simple math.

that size is a double check on my size. Just like the equation
4 pi Q Tu = 1
In this equation we get the time of the universe from big bang to be about 16 billion years. the study of the constants of the universe brings us overall equations which define the universe to within 2 percent. My equations always match the neumerical equations by 1 to 2 percent.
the numerical equations are just a mathematical study without any need to understand anything about the physics of the universe.
Anyway numerical analysis is where I started with in 1981. A lot of scientists are horrified by numerical mathematical analysis. Yet some mathematicians believe that the universe operates upon mathematical answers. I believe that too. It is only the last three months where I produced my forward equations for the gravitational constant. Backwards from the electrical world it is
G = K (Mp+Me)Me/ 7.99272718QQ
This equation is an inverted equation which does not match the usual units. However from a mathematical perspective you can look at the universe in the normal manner or in an inverted manner. Unfortunately few people understand my methods. They cannot understand that when something has the units of
coulombs meters/second or coulombs seconds/meter, they are identical in units. Likewise as far as the universe is conserned coulombs = kilograms.
People find this hard to understand. So they cannot appreciate the real universe until they learn the fact that the universe does not care what they think about man made units.
In any event as an Engineer I cannot crush the universe down to Plank length. My machines are not strong enough. The mathematicians and scientists can imagine all sorts of things but the Engineer can only do what he can do. This universe was built by an Engineer!

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #9 on: 27/01/2009 03:00:43 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
In any event as an Engineer I cannot crush the universe down to Plank length. My machines are not strong enough. The mathematicians and scientists can imagine all sorts of things but the Engineer can only do what he can do. This universe was built by an Engineer!
Being a fellow engineer, I have to agree with you about that; I have not quite grasped your concepts however

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #10 on: 27/01/2009 21:44:23 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
In any event as an Engineer I cannot crush the universe down to Plank length. My machines are not strong enough. The mathematicians and scientists can imagine all sorts of things but the Engineer can only do what he can do. This universe was built by an Engineer!
Being a fellow engineer, I have to agree with you about that; I have not quite grasped your concepts however

Just to start to grasp my concepts, I had to keep banging my head on my basement wall in New York for two years from 1981-1983. It was necessary for me to believe that everything I had been taught and thought had flaws in it. We were told that the light speed was constant. Then it was necessary to study what a variable light speed universe would be like.
We started to learn by 1981 that the universe was expanding. Then I had to study a non-expanding and an expanding universe. I had to produce a series of equations from the constants of the universe and study them.
Once you give up the foundation of current teachings, you are left with a world of infinite possibilities.

Many years past. Then the question is if the universe is expanding, what does that do? If the universe is expanding, then the hydrogen atom is expanding as well. What does that do?
Why should two expanding hydrogen atoms attract each other? What forces exist within a hydrogen atom that no one presented?
The outward expansion of the hydrogen atom produces a outward current flow. the charge Q is moving slowly. Thus there is a spherical outward current flow.
In addition we have a charge of the electron revolving around the proton. This produces a current flow as well. Then I believed in 2000 that the current flow of atom 1 attracted the corresponding current flow in atom 2. Thus two hydrogen atoms electrically attracted.

I used this equation in Doppler Space Time. But now I realize I was wrong. There is no dual force of attraction between the two hydrogen atoms. The equation was good but I did not appreciate what it meant.
Today I realize that the equation I wrote was correct but my explanation was faulty. The force upon the single hydrogen atom causes it to expand and when it expands it loses energy and this puts pressure upon space and space pushes back. Space pushes back to the center of gravity of the two atoms. Thus the electrical force repels and space itself causes the attraction.
My equations were the same
F = 2(Uo (QC/137.036)x(4 pi Q Vb*) /RR =G Mh Mh / RR

Vb* =1.0539E-28 meters per second
Tu =15.91 billion years

The two in front of the equation is because 2 atoms are used. The left equation is a pure EE type electrical equation which shows that a hydrogen atom has a repulsive force acting on it due to the two differnt current flows. A billion atoms have a billion times the force. This is the force of gravity. You see it is a simple electrical force.
The hydrogen atoms expands slowly over time and loses energy as it does so. (My dot-waves keep expanding and losing energy to the expansion of the universe)
So by banging my head on the wall over and over again for years, some interesting equations pooped out. In any event I now understand that I never had a force of attraction between two hydrogen atoms. It is so hard to produce a force of attraction. For the DC terms, the plus of the proton repels the plus of the electron and the minus of the electron repels the minus of the other electron. The two cross proton/electron balance out with the negative forces. So we end up with nothing. It is only the fact that the hydrogen atom is expanding that we get another force which must be studied. Unfortunately I do not get all my answers at once. I make progress and then think I have it right. Then it takes years at times to realize my mistake and make more progress.
the problem with physics is that in order to make prograss every one will have to bang their heads on a wall to get out all the errors of the past.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #11 on: 28/01/2009 12:40:30 »
You describe a long process and a lot of thinking. There are some conclusions in your thinking that might need work, it seems to me. For example I'm not sure that if space itself is expanding that the space between the innards of atoms must also be expanding. This is because if light and all other things expanded along with space, there would be no way we could observe the expansion.

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #12 on: 30/01/2009 02:06:06 »
You describe a long process and a lot of thinking. There are some conclusions in your thinking that might need work, it seems to me. For example I'm not sure that if space itself is expanding that the space between the innards of atoms must also be expanding. This is because if light and all other things expanded along with space, there would be no way we could observe the expansion.

That is true. We cannot detect common mode expansion. If the hydrogen atom expanded at the same rate as space-time everything would be common mode and the red shift could not be detected.

However if you look at a galaxy, with a strong gravitational field, the galaxy itself does not expand as rapidly as space. The photonic and electromagnetic energy from the galaxy flows into space-time. This produces pressure to expand space. At the same time, the hydrogen atom slowly expands. thus our ruler expands and space expands much more. Space expands at the speed of light C to the outer radius. Our galaxy ruler only expands slightly.
the velocity of expansion of the hydrogen atom today is only
V = 1.054E-28 meters per second, while the radius of the universe expands at light speed C. When we look at the far stars they appear to be moving at light speed C. But our ruler is expanding so slowly that there is very little common mode error.
The reason is that the gravitational field protects and perserves our measurements.

What you say used to bother me. Then I started to draw a block diagram of the energy within a galaxy and within outer space. It becomes obvious that the energy lost from the galaxy flows into outerspace. This is like hot things within a baloon radiating heat and causing the baloon to expand but the hot things only expand slightly.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #13 on: 30/01/2009 02:20:34 »
After reading your response a couple of times I glean from it that you are saying that space can expand so that local areas expand by a certain amount and remote areas expand at an exponential rate from local. I can visualise this, but it doesn't feel good as a model of reality. I have trouble understanding what it is that causes this exponential expansion rate. I know that there is speculated dark energy around, but it seems a little far fetched to me.

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #14 on: 30/01/2009 02:39:48 »
After reading your response a couple of times I glean from it that you are saying that space can expand so that local areas expand by a certain amount and remote areas expand at an exponential rate from local. I can visualise this, but it doesn't feel good as a model of reality. I have trouble understanding what it is that causes this exponential expansion rate. I know that there is speculated dark energy around, but it seems a little far fetched to me.

My universe is filled with dot-waves. Every cubic meter of outer space has huge amounts of dot-waves flowing through it at the speed of light.
The galaxies pump out more dot-waves into outer space. This causes the pressure of the dot-waves to expand space.
It is pure general gas law except all dot-waves travel at light speed C. the dot-waves constantly bombard the galaxies. This is the gravitational force pushing inward toward the galaxy center of gravity.
Unlike the general gas law the dot-waves do not operate at low velocities. The conservation of momentum of the dot-waves is :
(spherical + angular +linear)momentum = constant

Therefore spherical momentum can change into angular and linear momentum. Only the total momentem is conserved. In the general gas law we only have linear and some angular momentum. We do not have spherical momentum as such.

This means that two dot-waves can collide and there will be absolutely no change of energy between them. there energy is constant. The only thing that can change is the components of the momentum. Thus the dot-waves are similar to the general gas law but cannot exchange any energy.

The galaxies pump out more and more dot-waves. They lose mass in so doing. this is equal to the backpressure of the dot-waves of space.

They presently do not recognize that the same stuff that makes up the electron, proton, and neutron and all the quarks, etc is only higher density stuff that space is filled with.

Hopefully this will help you. The only advantage we both have as Engineers is that unless we can picture something in our minds, then any explanation is meaningless to us. The mathematicians and physicists can produce strange explanations but how can they be valid if we as physical people cannot picture the solution. After all we are physical beings and not mathematical beings. Therefore we must be able to relate the universe to our own abilities since our mind has the ability to understand everything.
We are always at a loss for the right words to explain things. We do not know all the answers as of yet. but someday we will know the answers. Then even a bright junior high school student should be able to understand the universe.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #15 on: 30/01/2009 12:26:44 »
After reading about your dot-waves I can see that it makes a lot of sense. It could explain the mysterious Dark Energy that we speculate about. You would probably have to rename it though. Now days everything has to be named quantum something or other

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #16 on: 01/02/2009 00:32:05 »
After reading about your dot-waves I can see that it makes a lot of sense. It could explain the mysterious Dark Energy that we speculate about. You would probably have to rename it though. Now days everything has to be named quantum something or other

As I see it, at the big bang at least half the energy flowed into space. However that is only an estimate because it was not necessary for all the energy in the universe to have existed at the big bang radius. Some electrical energy was still flowing into the small radius. thus there is a hysteresis loop of surplus energy. The big bang explosion sprayed out the concentrated mass/energy but the surplus energy merely reach toward the minimum radius and rebounded back toward the outer radiu8s.

Some scientists feel there is about 4 times the mass/energy in the dark matter. I have no way of calculating it and such a number is quite acceptable to me.All it means is that not all the mass energy reached the minimum radius at the same instant. Not all the electrical energy became mass at the big bang. Therefore it was not a perfect process as energy was flowing outward from the big bang prior to the explosion and energy was entering the big bang and flowing outward after the initial explosion.

Yes everything has to be quantum something. This is okay with me since  most of the quantum theory appears pretty good. Some corrections are necessary however.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #17 on: 01/02/2009 01:41:34 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Yes everything has to be quantum something. This is okay with me since  most of the quantum theory appears pretty good. Some corrections are necessary however.
We can't call them Quantum Dots, that's already taken. Its part of the speculated Quantum Computer they dream of.

I still can't visualize your dot-wave. The name itself does not bring to me a vision of what it is.

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #18 on: 01/02/2009 12:32:56 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Yes everything has to be quantum something. This is okay with me since  most of the quantum theory appears pretty good. Some corrections are necessary however.
We can't call them Quantum Dots, that's already taken. Its part of the speculated Quantum Computer they dream of.

I still can't visualize your dot-wave. The name itself does not bring to me a vision of what it is.

I added some stuff on your photon theory. I said the dot-waves are bits and pieces of the photonic wave.

Quantum theory breaks everything down to the interactions with the electron. Thus we have charge Q basically and energy
E= hf

In the dot-wave theory, the charge Q is broken down to the smallest possible charge. Notice in your photonic electro-magnetic field, you have energy levels much lower than the electron's energy level. You also show electrical fields. Well that cannot be since you do not have the charge Q to produce the fields. The fields are made up of much lower charge levels.

If you take a charge Q at a point in space, it has a field. What makes the field? The field is produced by the dot-waves of space. Around the electron charge -Q you will find huge amounts of charges of tiny amount 1.291E-57coulombs.
If the tiny charges in space did not exist then the electrical field would not exist. It is hard for me to understand how years ago people produced equations for electrical fields and waves and photons and did not break them down into component parts.
You drew an interesting picture of the photon but you cannot make a photon without it consisting of a structure. You cannot have a magnetic field without it being made up of something.
Maxwell made some interesting equations but failed to recognize that his equations are meaningless unless you can physically build an electrical field out of something.
A mathematician can produce great equations but unless there is some physical reality behind the equations they are meaningless.
There is no real mystery behind the universe. It is merely a ball of dot-waves.
Another way of looking at a phton of frequency f is

F = N fd

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.

therefore we have a universe of bipolar waves. You keep adding them together and get a photon.For example the Red photon has a wavelength of 0.6563micron
It has 4.588E32 bipolar dot-waves
Thus I break the photon down to a huge amount of pieces.

People liked to break the electron down to a mass 0.9109E-30kg and a charge of 1.602E-19 coulombs. They like to make it a single structure without a substructure.
If the big bang compressed space-time to produce the proton and electron, they can only be made from what existed before the final compression. Therefore it is quite unreasonable to say that the electron does not have a fine structure. They are happy to break the proton into a positron and photonic energy.
So all I do is quantize the charge and energy to the lowest possible energy level. The lowest level lets us understand the smallest amount of the electrical field possible. Hope this helps.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #19 on: 01/02/2009 13:47:19 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
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?

#### K.Margiani

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 108
• I only try to help of mammals kingdom.
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #20 on: 01/02/2009 15:11:52 »
Vern we do not really know the size of the universe, yes! I want to ask, do you believe that everything started from us?

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #21 on: 01/02/2009 17:12:47 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
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!!!!!!!!!!

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #22 on: 01/02/2009 19:01:11 »
Vern we do not really know the size of the universe, yes! I want to ask, do you believe that everything started from us?
No; I think we are just incidental unimportant pollutants in an otherwise pretty well organized system. We exist here in this universe just trying to figure out if it has some meaning. So far; who knows?

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #23 on: 01/02/2009 19:05:15 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
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!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think you are shaking everyone up And I doubt that either of us has changed anyone's mind. I do find your thinking process compelling, but I would think that by now you would have come to realize that the phenomena of relativity is an overriding basic thing that must come from the most fundamental constituents of all physical things.

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #24 on: 05/02/2009 22:34:01 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Thanks for the questions.

I don't think you are shaking everyone up And I doubt that either of us has changed anyone's mind. I do find your thinking process compelling, but I would think that by now you would have come to realize that the phenomena of relativity is an overriding basic thing that must come from the most fundamental constituents of all physical things.

That is certainly possible.  I like to look at the universe from an infinite light speed reference system.  Then I must correct everything due to our gravitational fields. My Doppler Space Time equations produce correction far from the Earth. The Earths gravitational field then equalizes everything. In the end, The Doppler Equations yield the same results as Einsteins equations.
In the past I made the error to believe that the Doppler corrections occurred in the here and now. Lately I realize that they appear prior to the photons reaching the Earth.  Thus any differences with Einstein are destroyed.
Yet I maintain that a high speed particle coming toward us from the left and another from the right approach each other at nearly 2C. In this case there are not gravitational corrections. Thus there are situations where the Einsteinian solution is incorrect.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG
« Reply #24 on: 05/02/2009 22:34:01 »