[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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).

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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]

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.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.
   

[Kryptid]

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.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.