Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jerrygg38 on 04/02/2020 20:46:09
-
Naked 2.4.20 3pm
What is the time of the universe from the big bang to the present?
We can find the time from the early hydrogen atoms to the present using an electrical model. The early hydrogen atoms have a much higher mass and electrical charges than at the present. It was very tiny. As the atom radiated dot-waves it lost energy and got larger. At the same time there were both positive and negative current flows from our light speed Co dimension to the light speed Cs dimension.
The force between two hydrogen atoms was
G Mh Mh /R^2 = 2Uo(QC/137.036) (4 pi Q Vb*) Cos 30 degrees /R^2
On the left side of the equation is the standard Newtonian force
The Uo term is the electrical permeability
The term QC/137.036 term is the electron moving in the Bohr orbit
The term 4 pi Q Vb* is due to a current flow of the charge Q as it expands
The 2 term at the beginning is due to the force of the first atom upon the second and the second atom upon the first
Finally the Cosine 30 degree term is a typical vector phase angle
Solving for Vb*
Vb* = 1.21667E-28 meters per second
R(bohr) = 137h/2pi Me C = 5.29178E-11
Therefore
Tu = R(bohr) / Vb* = 4.34940E17 seconds
Tu = 13.7827 billion years.
Therefore the time of the universe since after the creation of the very tiny hydrogen atom to the present time is 13.78 billion years. At the big bang, the clock of the universe ran very fast so if we counted clock ticks it was almost an infinite time ago. The above time is a normalized time based upon our present much slower clock.
-
Solving for Vb*
Vb* = 1.21667E-28 meters per second
You didn't show your work. How did you arrive at that value?
-
While you are at it, please post a list of what the letters mean and what values and units they have. And if you can learn to use subscripts and superscripts that will help
Something like
G The universal gravitational constant 6.6742(10− 11) m3/(kg ⋅ s2).
Mh The mass of the hydrogen atom 1.6735575 × 10-27 kg
Then we might actually be able to read your post in order to comment on it.
-
Kryptid asks:You didn't show your work. How did you arrive at that value?
I just plug the numbers into the equation. The equation I write is self-evident to me. I have always been an answer person. I always write the solutions on my test and try to work backwards. When I design complex logic circuits I just write the solution. That is the way my brain works. It is okay for engineering because the technicians build what I design and they prove that it works well.
-
Halc: The standard method of measuring is to note Hubble's law, which yields a 'constant' of about 70/km/sec per megaparsec, which, if units are cancelled, equals the inverse of the age of the universe. That's how the figure of somewhat under 14 billion years (measured in Earth frame) was first computed.
GG: All I know is what the astronomers estimated and explained on tv science shows. Thanks for the info.
-
BC says:While you are at it, please post a list of what the letters mean and what values and units they have. And if you can learn to use subscripts and superscripts that will help. I copied your work and look what it did to the exponents. If I put it on word and pasted it, I would get the same results so I use E and the hat symbol. Somehow you get good results but I do not know how to do that.
Something like
G The universal gravitational constant 6.6742(10− 11) m3/(kg ⋅ s2).
Mh The mass of the hydrogen atom 1.6735575 × 10-27 kg
Then we might actually be able to read your post in order to comment on it.
GG: I only think in terms of my units. My equations are all standard physics type equations and the units balance out.
-
I just plug the numbers into the equation.
That doesn't tell us how you arrived at the numbers in the first place.
The equation I write is self-evident to me.
It isn't to anyone else.
I always write the solutions on my test and try to work backwards.
And that's exactly what I suspect you did. I think you took the existing measurement for the age of the Universe and then ran it backwards through your equation to arrive at the values you did.
-
And that's exactly what I suspect you did. I think you took the existing measurement for the age of the Universe and then ran it backwards through your equation to arrive at the values you did.
GG
Yes and no. The equation is just written from the current flow of the electron around the Bohr orbit in the ground level and the flow of the charge Q as the electron expands. The electron is a sort of AC type wave and the flow of current out of the electron into the light speed Cs dimension is also a kind of AC type wave shape. The only problem is what is the phase angle between these currents? 30 degrees with a cosine of 0.866 is a very common phase angle in electrical engineering. Since it matches the astronomical data fairly well it seems to me the most likely answer.
-
I only think in terms of my units.
Then you presumably must be content to talk to yourself.
I just plug the numbers into the equation.
Are you really too dim to recognise that we want you to say what numbers, and what equation you are using?
-
BC says: Are you really too dim to recognise that we want you to say what numbers, and what equation you are using?
The unit equations are all from standard physics books. KQQ/RR is the force between 2 charges at a distance R. K = 8.98756E9 and Q = 1.60218E-19 as per Government standard values. GMa Mb/RR is the force between two bodies G = 6.67223E-11 as per Government values. All equations and values can be found in physics 1 course.
-
All equations and values can be found in physics 1 course.
So from what textbook/course did this value come from?
Vb* = 1.21667E-28 meters per second
-
Kryptoid asks:
So from what textbook/course did this value come from?
GG: I guess it is necessary to explain everything. All my unit equations are within the standard physics text books. The equation for Vb* is my equation which is derived from pieces of standard equations and standard units.
-
I guess it is necessary to explain everything.
Yes, show all of your work.
The equation for Vb* is my equation which is derived from pieces of standard equations and standard units.
So where is the equation so we can see it?
-
Halc says;
He says the government. I think they voted on it. We all trust what the government tells us, right?
GG: The equation for Vb* is my equation. The standard equations are in basic physics books and the constants are from US Government standards.
Why should I not trust that the speed of light is 2.99792E8,G=6.67260E-11, etc.?
-
Kryptoid asks:
So where is the equation so we can see it?
GG: It is on the first page at the start of this discussion
-
GG: It is on the first page at the start of this discussion
Which one is the equation for Vb*? All I see is a straight up statement of what Vb* equals (which is 1.21667E-28 meters per second, according to you). without any calculations being done to show how you arrived at that value.
-
To Kryptid
G Mh Mh /RR = 2 Uo (QC/137.036) [4 pi Q Vb*] Cos 30 / RR
G = Grav constant, Mh = mass of hydrogen atom, Q = charge of electron, C= speed of light, Vb* = expansion rate of Bohr orbit from near zero to present, 30 degrees is my selected phase angle.
-
Vb* = expansion rate of Bohr orbit from near zero to present, 30 degrees is my selected phase angle.
So basically you pick a Vb based on nothing to give the answer that you want. That ain't science my good fellow, that is little more than numerology.
-
The early hydrogen atoms have a much higher mass and electrical charges than at the present.
What do you mean by this? Hydrogen is electrically neutral so I assume you mean that electrons and protons had a higher charge. I also assume you mean that electrons and protons had a higher mass. It seems that you have no evidence what so ever that this is true or even remotely possible. A higher charge and mass of the protons and electrons would have a profound effect on the formation of stars and heavier elements.
Why do you think that protons and electrons had a different mass and charge? Is there any evidence at all for this or is this just something that seems to make sense to you?
-
Naked 2.6.20 10am
Origin asks:
Origin: What do you mean by this? Hydrogen is electrically neutral so I assume you mean that electrons and protons had a higher charge.
GG: Yes.
Origin: I also assume you mean that electrons and protons had a higher mass. It seems that you have no evidence what so ever that this is true or even remotely possible. A higher charge and mass of the protons and electrons would have a profound effect on the formation of stars and heavier elements.
GG: Not necessarily since the ruler and time clock changes as well. The highest radiation of dot-waves was right after the big bang. This expanded the universe greatly. This means that a lot of things are common mode so the universe appears much the same a billion years ago as today. The greatest changes were right at the beginning.
Origin: Why do you think that protons and electrons had a different mass and charge? Is there any evidence at all for this or is this just something that seems to make sense to you?
GG: I get my information from my unconscious mind as per Carl Jung’s definition of the human mind. It is a problem solver and is able to look into the higher light speed dimension. It gives me the information in dreams or audio/visual communication while I am awake. I study what it tells me. In general it always solves the problems that I cannot solve. So I depend upon it. I study the physics of the universe and try to understand what I have been told. This part of my brain is a solution producer. It gives answers but the steps are missing. I try to provide the steps but often I cannot. Some of my bosses at Sperry thought I used witchcraft to produce the solutions which always worked well.
The Co light speed dimension came from the higher Cs light speed dimension at big bang. Our physical universe radiates back to the Cs dimension where Cs = 18833Co. The black holes are the biggest radiators and this expands the universe. The early protons and electrons radiated heavily. Today the radiation is rather modest.
In order for the universe to appear the same today as one billion years ago, the radiation must be such that the charge to mass of the electron and proton remain constant. Thus there are an equal percentage of plus, minus, and bipolar dot-waves radiating at the same time.
Since there are many non-linear areas of space, it may be so that there are super electrons and super protons today. Yet if they flow toward us they will tend to radiate rapidly.
-
I get my information from my unconscious mind as per Carl Jung’s definition of the human mind.
I get my information from my conscious mind. My data is from experiments, observations and measurements.
What I am discussing is called science.
What you are discussing is called fantasy or delusion.
Why are you here? You do know this is a site to discuss science, not your silly fantasies. At least I know for sure that it is useless to have a logical discussion with you...
Does this site have an 'ignore' feature?
-
Vb* = expansion rate of Bohr orbit from near zero to present
Again, this is not an equation explaining how you arrived at the value for Vb*.
-
K = 8.98756E9
What units?
-
Origin says: I get my information from my conscious mind. My data is from experiments, observations and measurements.
GG: Yes that is experimental physics. Do you know that there are physicists who only deal with theoretical physics and they study a wide variety of ideas. These people appreciate my books. They need new ideas to study. You prefer things that are more concrete to you. And in this group of forums, some only will look at tried and true ideas. So you should stay in those forums. Here people express many new ideas some of which make no sense whatsoever.
-
Bored Chemist asks:
What units? (for K)
K can be expressed in many different units.
I use the permittivity eo = Coulomb Seconds cubed /meters^4
For standard units you can use
Volts = K Q/ r the voltage is the constant K time the charge Q over the distance R.
Thus K = Volt meters/ coulomb, likewise it can be expressed many other ways for the standard physics system.
-
Origin says
So basically you pick a Vb based on nothing to give the answer that you want. That ain't science my good fellow, that is little more than numerology.
GG: Yes I study numbers and the constants of the universe looking for a set of number that is common to all that I study. My methods are to solve the problem and try to find the steps to prove the results. In general I solve the problems. For example on one physics test the professor added a question for extra credit that would take a huge amount of time and no one every found a simple formula to solve it. It was done by trial and error and the answer was known but it took quite a long time for mathematicians to do the work. The day of the test I was rather sick I could not think so I cheated. I turned on my unconscious mind and I blanked out during the test.
The professor was shocked that in a few minutes I came up with a formula and calculated the exact answer. I do not know. I just was not there during the test. So my methods are different for sure. My situation is strange and freaky. Sometimes I am taken over and have no ability to function independently from whatever controls me. So I am just forced into obedience and I always wished to be free of the power which controls me.
-
I turned on my unconscious mind and I blanked out during the test.
How about we put that unconscious mind of yours to the test? Can it come up with a formula for, say, predicting the half-life of any isotope based on the number of protons and neutrons in it?
-
Kryptid said
Again, this is not an equation explaining how you arrived at the value for Vb*.
GG: I showed the total equation and then the final solution from plugging in the numbers into the equations. So I am not sure what you want. Perhaps you want the words to explain how I produced the mechanical and electrical force equations. On the left side is standard physics for the force between to hydrogen atoms. On the right side is the force between the magnetic field of atom one due to the motion of the electron in the Bohr orbit. This is a complicated motion that spins all around the atom. In addition there is a magnetic field produced by the loss of charge of the electron in atoms 2 as the atom expands. This too has a complex motion. Then we have the effect of atom 2 on atom one. Now the only thing missing is the phase angle between these two magnetic fields. They are really AC type fields so we need a phase angle. The most likely phase angle is 30 degrees. The net result is an electrical equivalent to the gravitational attraction.
The question is what is the actual scientific solution? I have an engineering model solution. The actual solution involves very complex dual dimensional math. That is beyond my ability. You have a loss of charge flowing from the Co dimension to the Cs dimension. That expands the atoms. At the same time you have Co/Cs oscillations extending from the first atom and the same is true from the second atom. Then you get complex wave equations. I prefer the engineering models which are easier for me to understand.
-
So I am not sure what you want.
I want to know how you arrived at a value of 1.21667E-28 meters per second for Vb*. You are not showing me that. You keep giving me the run-around instead by referring to an equation that Vb* is already a part of.
-
Naked 2.7.20 9AM
Kryptoid said
I want to know how you arrived at a value of 1.21667E-28 meters per second for Vb*. You are not showing me that. You keep giving me the run-around instead by referring to an equation that Vb* is already a part of.
GG: I am having a hard time understanding what you are saying. How I wrote the equation was from an electrical analogy of a magnetic attraction between the field produced by an electron spinning around the proton and the expansion field of an opposite electron in another atom. That is just a model I used for the calculation. It gives me an answer in the ballpark of what the astronomer’s got.
In my “Doppler Space Time” copyright 2000 book which was sold by Quality Books I did not use the cosine 30 degrees and I got 15.75 billion years. At that time I did not have a home computer and I typed my book and sent it to the printer for 1000 copies which cost me $6000. My first four books cost me $24,000 and I made no profit. Nowadays on Amazon a book cost me basically nothing.
In any event Doppler sold good but my biggest income was from the tax breaks on my regular salary as an engineer.
The question is what does the equation mean? The force of gravity is due to interactions between the Co dimension and the Cs dimension. Currents flow from the hydrogen atom into the Cs dimension. As it does the hydrogen atom expands. Thus there is a current flow. It is a DC flow which has an AC waveshape. So this becomes an electrical analogy for the very complex inter-dimensional reaction.
As for the calculation the equation becomes
Vb* = G Mh Mh / 2 Uo(QC/137.036) (4 pi Q)Cos 30
G = 6.67260E-11, Mh = 1.67353E-27, Uo = 1.25664E-6, C= 2.99792E8, Q= 1.60218E-19
Solving for Vb* (repeating the calculation)
Vb* = 1.21667E-28 meters per second. (I got the same answer today as in my revised Doppler equation.
Anyway hopefully I have answered your question.
When I worked for Con Edison it took some people a week to calculate a complex electrical distribution system which was tied together by many sources two of which could go out. Then they had to calculate Y-Delta current flows. They also used an analog type computer which took almost as long to set up. But I saw an electrical analogy similar to a Thevenin type equivalent so that I could do the job in less than four hours. In a similar manner my hydrogen calculation is an analogy.
And the work of Newton is an analogy as well. He produces simple equations to explain how the universe works. For some strange reason our very complex universe operates upon some very simple equations.
In my design of the Aegis system, I did the electronics but the programmers used 1000 simultaneous equations to define the motion of the shells for the 5 inch guns. Newton’s original equations were but in the end simple you had to account for the rotation of the Earth, the humidity, the speed of the wind and the direction of the wind and many other factors and you had to do this real time.
-
Kryptid asks:
How about we put that unconscious mind of yours to the test? Can it come up with a formula for, say, predicting the half-life of any isotope based on the number of protons and neutrons in it?
GG: Thankfully my unconscious mind is relatively quiet. From Childhood till 1970 it would speak at various times. Then I tried to end all conversations. In 1981 a big battle occurred and I fought it as best I could. Occasionally I would ask for help and it would return. At my age it is very difficult to stir up my hypomanic mind to bring me into contact with my inner being. It pushes me on the edge of insanity. When I was a child it was a gift I relied upon. Later this ability was more of a curse than a gift. Yet I survived. Perhaps I should have taken medicine to calm my brain but then this gift/curse would have been damaged.
-
Uo = 1.25664E-6
G = 6.67260E-11
G(units) = Uo(units)
Setting that aside, are you sure you used the right numbers?
You have chosen to make it difficult for us to tell and you have failed to say what the numbers are.
-
Vb* = G Mh Mh / 2 Uo(QC/137.036) (4 pi Q)Cos 30
G = 6.67260E-11, Mh = 1.67353E-27, Uo = 1.25664E-6, C= 2.99792E8, Q= 1.60218E-19
Thank you. I want to check the math, but this is a little complicated. Maybe I'll do it later. Anyway, you should put the proper units for your equation in there. This is what they should be:
G (gravitational constant) = 6.674 x 10-11 m3kg-1s-2
Mh (mass of hydrogen atom) = 1.6735575 x 10-27 kg
μ0 (permeability of free space) = 1.256637 x 10-6 H/m
c (speed of light) = 299,792,458 m/s
qe (electron charge) = 1.602177 x 10-19 C
GG: Thankfully my unconscious mind is relatively quiet. From Childhood till 1970 it would speak at various times. Then I tried to end all conversations. In 1981 a big battle occurred and I fought it as best I could. Occasionally I would ask for help and it would return. At my age it is very difficult to stir up my hypomanic mind to bring me into contact with my inner being. It pushes me on the edge of insanity. When I was a child it was a gift I relied upon. Later this ability was more of a curse than a gift. Yet I survived. Perhaps I should have taken medicine to calm my brain but then this gift/curse would have been damaged.
It seems a little convenient that the only evidence you had in favor of your idea being correct is now untestable.
-
Kryptid says
It seems a little convenient that the only evidence you had in favor of your idea being correct is now untestable.
GG: It is my effort to bring my solutions to the minds of those scientists and mathematicians who will find them worthwhile to study. So I email a lot of professors and some of them ask for an autographed copy of my book. One years later won a Nobel prize. In general I have never good enough words to explain my work. And I am still studying new information from the scientists that I get on the internet. Since I believe in the Fifth dimension, my work goes into collective memory and in the future my ideas will flow into the minds of those who will appreciate them. In any event I like being a handyman and fixing houses and appliances. I like to pain. And I like to study the universe. It is a hobby. I was lucky to have interesting engineering jobs since 17.5 years till 55 years of age. I did a lot of fun things. Climbed on the Verozenno Bridge while they were building it. It was very scary because below the thin side rail was only water below. And I am afraid of heights but I did it. We went places where sometimes the police would pull their guns on us. Fortunately they were not trigger happy. I tested waterproof equipment by buying a kiddie pool and jumping in with a bathing suit at Sperry. A lot of fun.
-
I use the permittivity eo = Coulomb Seconds cubed /meters^4
The accepted unit (in which the value is usually quoted) is Farad per meter.
Please show that the unit you chose is equivalent (with a value of K = 8.98756E9)
-
I like to pain.
I'm just leaving that one there.
-
Bored Chemist asked:
Setting that aside, are you sure you used the right numbers?
You have chosen to make it difficult for us to tell and you have failed to say what the numbers are.
GG: Sperry Gyro was like an ivory tower with lots of physicists and engineers and mathematicians with little to do some of the time. So I was able to get several of them to proof read my Doppler Space time of year 2000. Therefore my original work was checked for accuracy by some very bright people. This insured that my calculations were quite correct mathematically.
-
Sperry Gyro was
Nobody cares.
Answer the questions.
-
Bored says
Answer the questions.
GG: I thought that I did. Perhaps you should be more specific in your questions.
-
Bored Chemist says
The accepted unit (in which the value is usually quoted) is Farad per meter.
Please show that the unit you chose is equivalent (with a value of K = 8.98756E9)
GG: I work with my units or no units at all. Since you recognize the constant by the number, you can use your units and see that they match. In any event to go to the old units is a step backwards for me.
-
Since you recognize the constant
I didn't.
That's why I asked.
I work with my units or no units at all.
OK
You just declared that you aren't interested in doing science.
What are you here for?
-
Bored Chemist says:
OK
You just declared that you aren't interested in doing science.
What are you here for?
In some ways you remind me of an old technician I worked with. He smoked heavily and had surgery to remove one lung. then he went back to work and smoked heavily again. Then he died because he needed at least one lung to breathe.
People tend to be set in their ways. They learn rules and regulations and scientific dogma. Anything that violates the scientific dogma is invalid. Well I am a free thinker. Whatever anyone believes may or may not be true. You are locked into units. Yet my different units help me to understand the universe. It does not bother those who read my books. People want new ideas. That is what I do. It may not be scientific dogma but it is intuitive science. Einstein's work was intuitive or visionary. That is true of most new theories and ideas. That is how man makes progress.
-
People tend to be set in their ways.
They sure do
I work with my units or no units at all.
Do you plan to actually try to communicate better?
-
They learn rules and regulations and scientific dogma. Anything that violates the scientific dogma is invalid.
You apparently do not not know what the word dogma means. Look it up (not in your unconscious mind, use a dictionary).
-
Bored Chemist
Do you plan to actually try to communicate better?
GG: Originally for the MKS system of units all you needed was kilograms, coulomb, meters, and seconds. Just four units does everything. Yet unless you use Coulombs, meters, and seconds or Kilograms meters, and seconds you fail to see the relationships between the electrical world and the mechanical world. Having three units makes things clearer.
More units were used to honor the physicists of old yet they only confuse what is happening in the universe.
-
Dogma: a doctrine or body of doctrines formally or authoritatively affirmed. Webster.
In my opinion science and religion are similar. You go to school and are taught what the authorities believe. They rely upon what they can see and measure and specify that only what can be readily proved is true. Yet they cannot see the higher dimensions. So the Dogma is that science is limited to what they perceive as the real world. Yet more exists so we have religious Dogma and Scientific Dogma. Yet both examines parts of our total existence.
-
Bored Chemist
Do you plan to actually try to communicate better?
GG: Originally for the MKS system of units all you needed was kilograms, coulomb, meters, and seconds. Just four units does everything. Yet unless you use Coulombs, meters, and seconds or Kilograms meters, and seconds you fail to see the relationships between the electrical world and the mechanical world. Having three units makes things clearer.
More units were used to honor the physicists of old yet they only confuse what is happening in the universe.
OK, so you don't realise that the pound/ slug (or poundal) /foot/ second system is, like SI, a "consistent set" of units.
There wasn't a Mr Slug, or a Dr Poundal.
Wouldn't it be better to learn about units rather than posting stuff that's wrong?
-
Dogma: a doctrine or body of doctrines formally or authoritatively affirmed. Webster.
You were able to copy it down but not smart enough to understand it. Too bad. Dogma is belief without evidence. That is the opposite of science. What a pin head...
-
BC says
You were able to copy it down but not smart enough to understand it. Too bad. Dogma is belief without evidence. That is the opposite of science. What a pin head
GG: I understood it quite well but all the evidence you have is a partial viewpoint of reality. You get agreement with various measurements. You produce best fit equations and explanations. But you cannot see beyond your own limitations.
-
BC says
You were able to copy it down but not smart enough to understand it. Too bad. Dogma is belief without evidence. That is the opposite of science. What a pin head
GG: I understood it quite well but all the evidence you have is a partial viewpoint of reality. You get agreement with various measurements. You produce best fit equations and explanations. But you cannot see beyond your own limitations.
One good thing about learning to use the quote function is that it stops you embarrassing yourself by misattributing stuff.
Do you not realise that imperfect evidence is still better than none?
-
and specify that only what can be readily proved is true.
That's wrong in multiple ways. Firstly, science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. Secondly, science does not declare uninvestigated claims to automatically be wrong. Rather, it simply asks for evidence (see point one). Without evidence, there is no reason for science to accept a claim as true. That doesn't automatically make the claim wrong, mind you. But in order for science to accept anything, it must pass verifiable observational tests. If that cannot be done, then the claim cannot be scientific one.
-
BC says:
Do you not realise that imperfect evidence is still better than none?
GG: That would seem true.
-
Kryptoid says:
That's wrong in multiple ways. Firstly, science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. Secondly, science does not declare uninvestigated claims to automatically be wrong. Rather, it simply asks for evidence (see point one). Without evidence, there is no reason for science to accept a claim as true. That doesn't automatically make the claim wrong, mind you. But in order for science to accept anything, it must pass verifiable observational tests. If that cannot be done, then the claim cannot be scientific one.
GG: What you say makes sense. However I am looking for the underlying structure of the universe. And evidence is not readily obtained. So my effort fits more into the realm of religion or philosophy rather than science which has its own rules and regulations. Yet my visionary mind sees things which appear true to me and I send it out to the world.
My work interests some theoretical physicists who are always looking for new ideas to explore. And some mathematicians like it as well. To me it is self evident that there are other dimensions that cause our physics to behave like it does. I am still working on my ideas. And they change as time goes by.
-
My work interests some theoretical physicists who are always looking for new ideas to explore. And some mathematicians like it as well. To me it is self evident that there are other dimensions that cause our physics to behave like it does. I am still working on my ideas. And they change as time goes by.
Hello jerrygg38
I wonder what is the added value of your work?.
You claim that:
Therefore the time of the universe since after the creation of the very tiny hydrogen atom to the present time is 13.78 billion years. At the big bang, the clock of the universe ran very fast so if we counted clock ticks it was almost an infinite time ago. The above time is a normalized time based upon our present much slower clock.
So, it is quite correlated with the BBT.
Why don't you try to estimate the size of the Universe?
Don't you think that there must be a correlation between the size of the Universe to its age?
If the Universe is infinite how can you fit it in only 13.78 billion years?
-
Bored Chemist says
OK, so you don't realise that the pound/ slug (or poundal) /foot/ second system is, like SI, a "consistent set" of units.
There wasn't a Mr Slug, or a Dr Poundal.
GG: Ok I looked up the problem with units on the internet and see that it is a complicated mess. I like one section where no units are specified just the numbers. So I was not correct to assume that it did not matter which set of units you use. In any event the MKS system is most used in engineering and that is what I use. In my book I has the coulomb meters and second units and what I call the GG/MKS system which uses kilograms meters and seconds. In general for my calculations I use formula which contain kilograms coulombs meters and seconds. My three unit system allows me to look at other universes of different light speeds. It also enables me to glimpse what the Cs dimension looks like. However all my calculations are standard engineering equation calculations as far as values and units. And I know that various scientists use different units in their work. In any event I will double check the time of universe calculation for the MKS system but I will not check the other systems that others use.
Wouldn't it be better to learn about units rather than posting stuff that's wrong?
-
However I am looking for the underlying structure of the universe. And evidence is not readily obtained.
And yet, when someone does provide evidence- for example that your idea is wrong because it doesn't work if you change the units- you ignore that and carry on.My three unit system allows me to look at other universes of different light speeds.
It's a figment of your imagination.
-
Naked 2.9.20 3pm
How was the time of the Universe derived>
Force = G Mh Mh / RR
G = 6.67260E-11 Meters^3 / Kilograms Seconds^2
Mh = 1.67353E-27 Kilograms
R = meters
Force = Kg M/S.S = Mass x Acceleration (standard physics)
Force = 2Uo (QC/137.036) x 4 Pi Q Vb* Cosine 30 / RR
The Force between two charges is
F = KQQ/RR
where K= 1/ 4 pi eo (eo = epsilon)
eo = 8.85418E-12
K= 8.98756E9
Uo eo = 1/CC
Uo = 1.25664E-6
K = 1/ 4 pi eo = ¼ pi [1/Uo C C)= Uo C C / 4 pi
F = Constant x {[Uo C C /4 pi] Q Q /RR]
The currents are spherical flows and the most likely solution would involve 4 pi for each charge Q. In addition a factor of 2 would apply since each atom has a force on the other atom. In addition the expansion velocity Vb* is used for C for the interaction between the expanding current flow in atom one and the Bohr velocity in atom 2 and vice versa. Since we are dealing with an expanding and rotating DC magnetic field, a phase angle of 30 degrees is appropriate.
The whole purpose of the calculation is to achieve the radius of the universe from the big bang to the present. This gives u the time of the universe from right after the big bang and the longest wavelength of an original dot-wave in terms of a normalized radius. From this the equivalent rest mass of a dot-wave was obtained 1.96867E-71 Kg. The electron then contained 4.62718E40 dot-waves with a charge of 3.47119E-60 coulombs.
The accuracy of the calculations is not that important. It is only important that the electron has a huge amount of negative dot-waves which were crushed together as the waves combined at big bang. Then they radiate outward into the light speed Cs dimension.
All the equations are standard engineering type MKS equations. The constants are the best fit to match the differences between spherical current flows 4 pi and regular linear current flows. The 30 degree phase angle is a common phase angle in electrical distribution systems. The 13.78 billion years since right after the big bang matches the astronomical solution fairly well.
In the future mathematicians should be able to produce better results but I am happy with ballpark engineering approximations to help people understand how the universe works.
-
where K= 1/ 4 pi eo (eo = epsilon)
What units are you using?
-
The accuracy of the calculations is not that important.
LOL
-
The accuracy of the calculations is not that important.
Are you serious?
-
Naked 2.10.20 9am
Dav Lev says:
Hello jerrygg38
I wonder what is the added value of your work?
GG: The idea that there are two light speed dimensions instead of just a single time dimension. This enables the universe of light speed Co to be completely erased as we head toward maximum size. Then the universe of light speed Cs will compress to form another big bang. We then have a perpetual oscillating universe with a normalized time of 1088 billion years. Normalized at our clock ticks because as the universe stretches out the clock gets very slow and by a fixed clock it would appear nearly infinite to us. No creator is necessary and any possible Gods are evolved collectives of man in the Cs dimension.
You claim that:
Quote from: jerrygg38 on 04/02/2020 20:46:09
GG: Therefore the time of the universe since after the creation of the very tiny hydrogen atom to the present time is 13.78 billion years. At the big bang, the clock of the universe ran very fast so if we counted clock ticks it was almost an infinite time ago. The above time is a normalized time based upon our present much slower clock.
Dav Lev: So, it is quite correlated with the BBT.
Why don't you try to estimate the size of the Universe?
Don't you think that there must be a correlation between the size of the Universe to its age?
If the Universe is infinite how can you fit it in only 13.78 billion years?
GG: The universe that we see and measure is 13.78 billion light years from here. So that is the size that is within our measurements. I use a simple sphere in my calculations. What is the actual size? If the radius from any point is 13.78 billion light years, a simple solution would be 2pi times that amount or 86.58 billion light sears all around. In addition we can assume that the light speed Cs dimension is mostly self-contained within the same space as the light speed Co dimension.
However it is possible that some of the light speed Cs photonic energy extends beyond our 13.78 light year radius. Since Cs = 18833Co, the outer possible radius would be 259,519 light years from big bang.
To make matters even worse, we could also be a part of a spectrum of higher and higher light speed universes leading to light speed near infinity. That would make the entire structure of the universe infinite.
So there are many possibilities and I am happy with a simple engineering model. When I push my mind to the limit, my inner brain sends me pictures of a huge assortment of universes. So we are one of many possibilities. Some will produce man and life and others will not. Some will produce stars and planets and others will merely oscillate with waves. I am glad I am not a physicist because it is fun building things that work and can be readily seen. But physics is a great hobby form. Yet it is difficult as you need a good memory and high brain power. My memory is not very good and I rely upon my inner mind for the answers.
-
Bored Chemist says
What units are you using?
I just use the engineering MKS units that I learned from 1956 at Brooklyn Polytechnic. I have to look them up in the internet because I got rid of all my books a few years ago for lack of space.
-
Kryptid says
Are you serious that the accuracy of the calculation is not important.
GG: Yes. I am looking for an engineering ballpark solution so that future mathematicians can produce more scientific results. The first pyramid was not very good but the later ones were. My work is the first dual light speed solution from an engineering level viewpoint.
-
GG: The universe that we see and measure is 13.78 billion light years from here.
That's not true. The diameter is more like 92 billion light-years: https://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html
Yes.
Your equations being inaccurate is evidence against both the validity of your model and against the accuracy of your unconscious mind (assuming that's where you got the equations from).
-
Naked 2.11.20 6pm
To all:
Bored Chemist and Kryptid criticized my work and pointed out that the calculation for the gravitational constant in terms of Uo did not work for the British system of Units and perhaps many other systems. They then declared the work invalid. So I studied the equations using slugs and newton’s and found that the answers do not match.
The units do match however
G Mh Mh/ RR = Force and
Uo Q Co Q Vo/ RR = Force where Co is the speed of light and Vo is the expansion speed of the hydrogen atom. They point out that for another system the numbers are different. So I had to return to my work of 1981-3 and the question I had. Is my effort the true nature of the electrical universe? Alternatively is my effort a best fit electrical model of the electrical/mechanical universe?
Since I do not have the means by which the constants in the equation are produced and since they are a trial and error best fit solution, I cannot answer that question. The constants used to match the force equation for the MKS system of units was simply 4 pi and the inverse fine constant. Once we go to another system with feet and slugs, it will require a different match. The units are okay but another constant must be used to match the force equation.
Is the equation valid? It assumes that the universe is expanding and the hydrogen atom is expanding at the same rate. That is one possibility. In addition it assumes that the hydrogen atom is radiating dot-waves at an exponential function and that the entire universe is doing the same thing common mode. This is a possible solution for sure but not the only solution.
Anyway my electrical analogy equation produced over 15 billion light years in 1981-3 and for my latest work I added a 30 degree phase factor which gave me 13.78 billion light years.
To me my model is a good representation of the structure of the universe. To others it is not scientific because I have no ability to derive the constants required. I just match them. Anyway thanks to Bored Chemist and Kryptid for pointing out that the true answer must match in whatever set of units are used.
-
Kryptid said
Your equations being inaccurate is evidence against both the validity of your model and against the accuracy of your unconscious mind (assuming that's where you got the equations from).
Thanks for the article. According to my inner mind, the universe is a sphere. The rate of expansion at the beginning was (CoCs)^0.5 or 137.233 times 13.78 = 1889 billion light years for a constant rate. However the universe slows over time. That is for a perfect sphere. For my model I use 13.78. The problem is that the ruler and time clock changes as the universe expands so all I can do is produce a ballpark engineering model.
Anyway I like the article. All I want to know is how the universe works the exact numbers is for the mathematicians and scientists to figure out in the future.
-
Bored Chemist and Kryptid criticized my work and pointed out that the calculation for the gravitational constant in terms of Uo did not work for the British system of Units and perhaps many other systems. They then declared the work invalid. So I studied the equations using slugs and newton’s and found that the answers do not match.
Good.
You can stop now, you have confirmed that you are wrong.
-
Bored
Chemist says:
Good.
You can stop now, you have confirmed that you are wrong.
GG: In my work I only used the MKS system for the calculations. And I got good answers. You and others specified that if I used the British system my answers did not match. I agree that the calculations do not match. But why should they? And how could they? The constants I used to match the force equations of the electrical and mechanical forces are standard electrical/mechanical equations. the units match as force in the British and the French units. Most likely in other units as well. One simple equation in my book I specified as a numeric best fit equation. It was not meant to match all unit standards. The equation means nothing. It just illustrates that the units in the mks system are related by simple numbers. I only calculate things by using standard type MKS units so they should match everything.
The problem is that once you put in the entire mechanical/electrical force equation you are dealing with all the units, mass, length, grav. constant in metric and british, Then they have to match.
-
I agree that the calculations do not match. But why should they? And how could they?
If I calculate the circumference of a circle using either metric or imperial units, the results will match each other. A circle with a diameter of 1 inch will have a circumference of 3.14159... inches (because we multiply the diameter by pi). That same circle, in metric units, has a diameter of 2.54 centimeters. Multiply that by pi to get the circumference of 7.97954... centimeters. As it turns out, 3.14159... inches is equal to 7.97954... centimeters. In other words, they match. Using two different measurement systems yield the exact same answer for the circumference of the circle. So to answer your question: they match because that's how math works.
-
Naked 2.12.20 6pm
To Bored Chemist
Bored Chemist says that since the units do not match in one simple equation the work is wrong.
GG: I agree that the units do not match for the simple numeric equation
G = 16 pi e Uo/(137.036)^3 = 6.67223E-11 for the MKS system of units.
This equation is a numeric best fit equation. It is good if you use the MKS system. It is invalid if you use the British system or any other system. It illustrates that the constants tend to be connected by simple numbers such as pi, e, 137.036, etc.
My calculations use standard MKS system units. The time since big bang uses the following units
G M M/ RR = Force = Uo Q Co Q Vo/ RR
Kg Met/ Sec^2 = Kg Met/Sec ^2
No matter what units you choose, in the end they will become Force = Mass x Acceleration
The units will match because the above equation uses the gravitational constant units, the units of mass and the units of distance on the left side and the units of electrical permeability, Charge, speed of light, Velocity and distance on the right side.
It is this equation with the constants I put in which should match in any system. Otherwise the standard electrical force to mechanical force equations used for over one hundred years in France and England would never have produced the power required for the electrical generating stations.
Anyway you are correct that the simple numeric equation does not match and therefore is not a valid equation for calculating anything. And to be perfectly honest I never looked into the problem of different systems. So thanks for pointing that out but although I used my own units or no units, my equations are always aligned to the MKS system.