[Bored chemist]

G(units) = Uo(units) = Meters^2 per coulomb second

What are G and Uo in this equation?

[jerrygg38]

Origin asks:
What is a "units equation"?
Kilograms do not equal Cm/s. Kilograms don't equal ohms.  Kilograms don't equal Tuesday.

In Chapter 5 of my latest book “The Dual Light Speed Universe and the Dot-wave Theory with Quantum Entanglement 2020, I describe “The Conversion of mass to charge velocity”.
   I have studied many solutions in which I produce a universe composed of the units of coulombs, meters, and seconds. Over the years I have studied constant light speed universes, variable light speed universes, constant energy universes, etc. There are many Sister solutions and the most likely conversion for my models is the Sister One solution.
  Are the solutions correct or are they merely an electrical model of the universe? I believe that they are correct but it does not matter because my model provides me with the variation of the constants of the universe as the universe expands from big bang toward infinity and cycles back again.
  We have a series of standard physics equations
(5-11) Force = KQQ/R^2
(5-12) h = Energy x Time
(5-13)  GMM = KQQ
(5-14) Voltage V = KQ/R
(5-15) Uo eo = 1/C^2  (eo is used for the permittivity constant)
  All the above equations are standard physics unit equations. Only kilograms, coulombs, seconds, and meters are necessary to describe the universe.  For example amperes are coulombs per second.
  Using the above equations we can study the sister equations.  The Sister one solution is
Kilograms = Coulombs meters per seconds
 Once we do that we get a series of conversions.
Energy = Coulomb meter^3 / Seconds ^3
What does this mean?  Energy is volumetric. It is charge vibrating in three spatial dimensions and the corresponding three time dimensions where time is distance over light speed.
Planks constant = Coulomb meters^3/Sec ^2
     On page 25 I have a chart of all the important units in terms of the electrical universe. From these units I can match equations for the time of the universe to the astronomical data. I find the equation the force between two hydrogen atoms and the rate of expansion of these atoms since after they were created.
   So we learn a lot from this electrical model. Near big bang the gravitational constant was basically zero and as we stretch out toward infinity the gravitational constant heads toward infinity as well.
Near big bang, the electrical impedance of the universe was basically a short circuit whereas near infinity the impedance of the universe is an open circuit.
   The electrical model gives us a lot of interesting information.

[jerrygg38]

Bored Chemist asks
G(units) = Uo(units) = Meters^2 per coulomb second


What are G and Uo in this equation?
GG: G is the gravitational constant and Uo is the permeability constant.

[Bored chemist]

But I can measure G and U.
They have different values.
Also I can use them in equations and only one of them works.
If I try to set up a satellite using your wrong value for G it crashes.
If I try to design a capacitor using your wrong value for U it won't do what I want.

Do you realise that, if reality does not agree with your idea it is not because reality has made a mistake?

(and you need to stop telling the lie that your idea is a theory)

[Origin]

The electrical model gives us a lot of interesting information.

Your fantasy gives no information about reality.  Clearly you have no interest in actual science and just want to make up stuff for some reason.  Since this is just a soap box for you to spout absurdities I will move on.
Have a nice Groundhog day.

[rstormview (OP)]

I applaud the response from "That there cannot be 'time' without Mass". So Universal Time began with the Big Bang? Seems is getting to grips with the omnipotence of Infinity.

[jerrygg38]

BC: But I can measure G and U.
They have different values.
Also I can use them in equations and only one of them works.
If I try to set up a satellite using your wrong value for G it crashes.
If I try to design a capacitor using your wrong value for U it won't do what I want.
GG: I always use the standard physics equations for standard calculations. Everything I ever designed has worked quite well.

BC: Do you realise that, if reality does not agree with your idea it is not because reality has made a mistake?

(and you need to stop telling the lie that your idea is a theory)
GG: In my opinion my work is a theory. Therefore to me it is the truth. To your way of thinking it is not.

[Kryptid]

In my opinion my work is a theory.

Not according to the definition of a scientific theory it isn't. There is no "opinion" involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Characteristics

[rstormview (OP)]

HYPOTHESIS: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
In philosophy: A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
Science seems to be ducking 'further investigation' in favour of vociferous, baseless, criticism.

[jerrygg38]

HYPOTHESIS: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
 R: says:In philosophy: A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
Science seems to be ducking 'further investigation' in favour of vociferous, baseless, criticism.
GG: To K and R: Interesting. Being an unpaid free agent I tend to follow my own beliefs. Technically what K says may be correct and R has made the definitions clear. So what is my work? It is an intuitive theory. I put the data in my conscious mind and my unconscious mind works on it. And then it gives me an answer sometimes in dreams while asleep, sometimes in audio/visual communication while I am quite awake. Then my conscious mind studies the solutions and look for faults in them. And the battle goes on as I fight to understand. Anyway in difficult engineering problems the solutions were always true. During test when I let my unconscious mind take over I always got 100%. In the 1956 electrical comprehensive H.S. exam I was the only 100% in New York State. So for practical exams it always works. I could not solve the Rubik Cube but once I turned on my unconscious mind it did it in a few seconds. It is just smarter than me.

[Bored chemist]

In my opinion my work is a theory.

That's not a matter of opinion.
You are simply wrong,

[Bored chemist]

HYPOTHESIS: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence

Science seems to be ducking 'further investigation'

Science is waiting for the magical transformation from absolutely no ****ing evidence whatsoever to "limited evidence".
Come back when something changes.

[Bored chemist]

Science seems to be ducking 'further investigation' in favour of vociferous, baseless, criticism.

This is a base fro criticism of the suggestion.
We are waiting for any sort of progress.

I can measure G and U.
They have different values.
Also I can use them in equations and only one of them works.
If I try to set up a satellite using your wrong value for G it crashes.
If I try to design a capacitor using your wrong value for U it won't do what I want.

Do you not understand that?
If a hypothesis leads to a prediction which is wrong, you must reject the hypothesis.

[jerrygg38]

Bored Chemist says:Do you not understand that?
If a hypothesis leads to a prediction which is wrong, you must reject the hypothesis.
GG: I am BSEE(summa cum laude) from Brooklyn Polytechnic. All my regular calculations are per standard equations. I use the conversion equations to provide me with an electrical model of the universe. This model is either the truth or the best electrical equivalent model of the universe. In this way it helps me to understand how the universe works. All the equations I use to calculate things work on the standard units as well as my simplified electrical units. And this is common to various physicists who eliminate the standard set of units.

[Bored chemist]

Bored Chemist says:Do you not understand that?
If a hypothesis leads to a prediction which is wrong, you must reject the hypothesis.
GG: I am BSEE(summa cum laude) from Brooklyn Polytechnic. All my regular calculations are per standard equations. I use the conversion equations to provide me with an electrical model of the universe. This model is either the truth or the best electrical equivalent model of the universe. In this way it helps me to understand how the universe works. All the equations I use to calculate things work on the standard units as well as my simplified electrical units. And this is common to various physicists who eliminate the standard set of units.

And yet, you don't understand the simple fact that, because your idea gives the wrong answer, it is wrong.

But I can measure G and U.
They have different values.
Also I can use them in equations and only one of them works.
If I try to set up a satellite using your wrong value for G it crashes.
If I try to design a capacitor using your wrong value for U it won't do what I want.

Do you realise that, if reality does not agree with your idea it is not because reality has made a mistake?

(and you need to stop telling the lie that your idea is a theory)

[rstormview (OP)]

I am not getting the asked for counter hypotheses, I am getting vociferous opinion. Opinions aren't very scientific.
I say again, I still getting post Big Bang rebuttal opinion to a pre-Big Bang hypothesis. In answer, I again summarise my position.
 In the SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION post, if the polarity inversion hypothesis  ‘carries’, we get a seductive and long awaited definition of Gravity which, in turn, suggests an ongoing creation of Hydrogen throughout infinity.
Ongoing H creation throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.
This suffusion was infinite so it spewed out enough material to furnish the Universe we evolved into via 160,000,000 years of dinosaur evolution.
The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo, but there are acres of Quantum disciples whose 'opinions' vociferously disagree.
To ensure we are on the same page, my only request to the ‘vociferous’ is that your opinions begin with your own pre Big Bang theories
Rstormview

[jerrygg38]

Bored Chemist says
And yet, you don't understand the simple fact that, because your idea gives the wrong answer, it is wrong.
GG: I used to teach control system design after work at Sperry and sometimes at Polytechnic as a substitute for my boss. In order to solve mechanical problems electrical solutions were chosen. A capacitor was used for a mass. This enabled transient mechanical problems to be readily solved using electrical equations. The question is whether my conversion charts is an electrical analogy or physical truth. You say it is false. Is it? Flux density has the units of Meters per second squared. What does that mean?  Voltage is Meters cubed per seconds cubed. Again I do not know what that means. Yet my conversions allow me to look at the variation of the constants of the universe from the big bang to the future. And it produces the light speed equations  E= MCC , E = QCCC, and M= QC These three equations enable me to calculate the mass and charge of a particle when it oscillates into the light speed Cs dimension. My unconscious mind tells me that the higher light speed dimension exists. It is able to encounter it as it picks up information from that dimension. It can see and sense what my conscious mind cannot. So the total human mind has the ability to look beyond our light speed Co dimension and see beyond our limited existence.

[rstormview (OP)]

Once again post-Big Bang opinion to rubbish a Pre Big Bang hypothesis.
Tony Blair said, to undermine Fundamentalism we need to show our ideas are better than theirs. If science hypothesises creation was an inevitable conclusion of an electromagnetic field operating within infinity the hypothesis does not favour the 'paradise' hypothesis.

[Kryptid]

The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo

No it doesn't. Quantum physics is strongly supported by observational evidence. That's not an opinion.

[rstormview (OP)]

The missing "REALITY" of the A SCIENCE BASED THEORY (HYPOTHESIS) OF CREATION was raised several times.
Protons attract electrons is accepted current "reality". Except electrons do not hit the protons and become absorbed they orbit the protons and create Hydrogen. So what happened to reality?