[jerrygg38]

 Chemist says:
And the difference is nor "small".
GG: You are correct that the simple equationis only good for the MKS system. The purpose of the equation was to show that the numereical value of the constants are related by simple numbers 2, pi, e, 137.036. I do not calculate things using the numeric equivalent equations. All my equations come from standard unit equations with coulombs, kilograms, meters, and seconds. So when I calculate the time of the universe I use the standard 4 units. I only use the three units to get an idea of what a universe of a different light speed has for mass and charge as related to our light speed.

[rstormview (OP)]

The declaration that a hypothesis is 'wrong' is an opinion, not even near as valuable as a science-based logical hypothesis. Opinion is how Fundamentalists justify their actions. If the weight of science were to hypothesise a logical science based alternative creation, would this cause Fundamentalists to question?

[Kryptid]

The declaration that a hypothesis is 'wrong' is an opinion

Not if the reason that it is declared wrong is based on observational data. It isn't "an opinion" that the phlogiston hypothesis is wrong, for example. We have mountains of experimental evidence showing that it is wrong.

All my equations come from standard unit equations with coulombs, kilograms, meters, and seconds.

A good equation will work regardless of the measurement system used in its calculations. If it works in one system, but not another, then the equation is wrong.

[rstormview (OP)]

I have asked countless times for "Observational Data" to explain if protons attract electrons why do they not hit and become absorbed? They don't hit, they become hydrogen. Quantum is the faux science which explains this mystery. If science accepts that electrons are "homers" you get the workable definition of gravity that eluded Einstein.

[Bored chemist]

The declaration that a hypothesis is 'wrong' is an opinion,

Unless it is backed up by evidence.
The evidence in this case is the dimensional analysis.
It is unequivocal.
Your idea is proven wrong.

The fact that you don't  understand this fact does not stop it being true.

All my equations come from standard unit equations with coulombs, kilograms, meters, and seconds

All those equations also work in the fps system
That's the point of "consistent units".
You can choose any set of consistent units you like, and the equations will still work.
So, if the equations only "work" in one (consistent) unit set the equations are wrong.

I have asked countless times for "Observational Data" to explain if protons attract electrons why do they not hit and become absorbed?

Hydrogen exists.
This observation is sufficient to show that your simplistic idea (That protons ought to get hit by electrons) is wrong.

[Bored chemist]

Once you understand this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(units_of_measurement)
you might recognise why we know you are wrong.

[Kryptid]

I have asked countless times for "Observational Data" to explain if protons attract electrons why do they not hit and become absorbed?

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is backed up by observational data: https://phys.org/news/2016-06-experimental-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle.html, https://www.sciencealert.com/new-research-says-the-uncertainty-principle-might-be-slightly-more-certain

Quantum is the faux science which explains this mystery.

Quantum mechanics is falsifiable, yet has passed many, many experimental tests. Evidence for quantum mechanics comes in the form of the double slit experiment, quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, Bell's theorem, the Casimir effect, quantum superposition, and photographs of the hydrogen atom that depict electron orbitals with the shape predicted by quantum mechanics, to name a few. There is nothing "faux" about it.

If science accepts that electrons are "homers" you get the workable definition of gravity that eluded Einstein.

Would you please explain what you mean by "homer"?

[jerrygg38]

Kryptoid said:
The numerical value is close, but it's not the same as the gravitational constant (6.6743 x 10-11). The modern value of the gravitational constant is accurate to within 22 parts per million, whereas your value differs from the modern measurement at the thousandths position. Besides that, the units are incorrect. The gravitational constant is not measured in H/m, but rather m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2.
GG: In my GG-MKS system chart in my book, 
Grav Constant = Met^3/ Kg Sec^2  but my coulombs are Kg Sec/Met
 Yes the numbers are slightly different but the equation is a best fit numeric equation which is close enough for my purposes. I believe that there are ideal numbers for the constants and light speed Co which would be measured in an area of space that  was free from high gravitational densities and velocities. So I search for ideal numbers.  My ideal light speed is slightly higher than we measure.

[Kryptid]

but my coulombs are Kg Sec/Met

Please demonstrate in what sense a coulomb is a kilogram-second/meter.

Yes the numbers are slightly different but the equation is a best fit numeric equation which is close enough for my purposes.

Not close enough for scientific purposes, however. Especially when you consider that the number isn't even remotely close when the calculations are done in imperial units. An accurate equation is unit system neutral. It gives the right answer whether you use metric, imperial or some system used by aliens.

I believe that there are ideal numbers for the constants and light speed Co which would be measured in an area of space that  was free from high gravitational densities and velocities.

According to relativity, that would make no difference. The speed of light is invariant to the observer.

[Bored chemist]

My ideal light speed is slightly higher than we measure.

Then it is wrong.

[Bored chemist]

close enough for my purposes.

What purpose is there to being knowingly wrong?

[jerrygg38]

Bored chemist says
GG: My ideal light speed is slightly higher than we measure
BC: Then it is wrong.
GG: That I believed in 1981-3 as I studied the various constants of the universe and saw that they fit together more perfectly with slightly different numbers. The Earth is moving and the sun is moving and the galaxy is moving. It would be interesting to get a measurement of the speed of light on the moon and on a moving spaceship in a very weak gravitational field. Would they be the same? Perhaps, perhaps not. I do not know for sure. Why are you so certain?

[jerrygg38]

BC: What purpose is there to being knowingly wrong?
GG: Because initially I was looking for more perfect numbers for the universe so that the constants vary by 4, pi, e, 137.036 etc. For example the inverse fine constant is an electron spinning around 137 times in one plane while the plane spins137 times in a perpendicular plane Thus
(FC)^-1 = 137/Cosine (360/274) = 137/0.999737 = 137.036
  Anyway it seems to me that the universe works on a mathematical set of numbers.

[jerrygg38]

Naked 2.14.20 8am
Discussion with Kryptoid
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:29:51
GG: but my coulombs are Kg Sec/Met
Kryptoid: Please demonstrate in what sense a coulomb is a kilogram-second/meter.
For the assumption that the universe could be specified in terms of coulombs, meters, and seconds or Kilograms, Meters, and seconds, A study of 8 leading possibilities show that Coulombs = Kilograms seconds per meter or alternatively Kilograms = coulombs meters per second is the best fit.
   Scientifically what does this mean? In Engineering schools electrical models are produced to turn transient mechanical problems into ordinary electrical problems. This enables complex problems to be solved readily.
  So I produced a best fit electrical model of the universe. Is it true for everything or is it a tool to learn more about the universe from an electrical perspective? In 1981-3 it seemed completely true to me. However it may only be a best fit model.
  Looking at Plank’s Constant the units are
h = Cou Met^3/Sec^2
If h is a true constant. As the universe expands the meters will expand and the seconds will expand for a constant light speed. Therefore the charge of an electron and proton will decay. It also means that after big bang the charge of an electron and proton was much higher. They radiate dot-waves.
  So to me my conversions give me another tool to study the universe long term. Is the model true? I believe it is. Can I find evidence to prove it? I can’t but perhaps others can in the future.
   In any event the conclusions I have is that the universe at light speed Co is radiating away into the light speed Cs dimension.
 





Discussion with Kryptid:
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:29:51
GG: Yes the numbers are slightly different but the equation is a best fit numeric equation which is close enough for my purposes.
Kryptid: Not close enough for scientific purposes, however. Especially when you consider that the number isn't even remotely close when the calculations are done in imperial units. An accurate equation is unit system neutral. It gives the right answer whether you use metric, imperial or some system used by aliens.
GG: Since I use the MKS system for my calculations the results are the same. They are not the same for my numerical approximations as I study the numerical relationships among the constants of the universe.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:29:51
I believe that there are ideal numbers for the constants and light speed Co which would be measured in an area of space that was free from high gravitational densities and velocities.
Kryptid: According to relativity, that would make no difference. The speed of light is invariant to the observer.
GG: I believe that relativity is a mathematical best fit solution to the universe. I doubt if you somehow got on a piece of a planet traveling at 0.2C that you would get the same results as here upon the earth.  It is just that since we live on a very linear portion of space that Einstein’s equations work so very well.



Report to moderator    Logged

[jerrygg38]

Naked 2.14.20 8am
Discussion with Kryptoid
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:29:51
GG: but my coulombs are Kg Sec/Met
Kryptoid: Please demonstrate in what sense a coulomb is a kilogram-second/meter.
GG:For the assumption that the universe could be specified in terms of coulombs, meters, and seconds or Kilograms, Meters, and seconds, A study of 8 leading possibilities show that Coulombs = Kilograms seconds per meter or alternatively Kilograms = coulombs meters per second is the best fit.
   Scientifically what does this mean? In Engineering schools electrical models are produced to turn transient mechanical problems into ordinary electrical problems. This enables complex problems to be solved readily.
  So I produced a best fit electrical model of the universe. Is it true for everything or is it a tool to learn more about the universe from an electrical perspective? In 1981-3 it seemed completely true to me. However it may only be a best fit model.
  Looking at Plank’s Constant the units are
h = Cou Met^3/Sec^2
If h is a true constant. As the universe expands the meters will expand and the seconds will expand for a constant light speed. Therefore the charge of an electron and proton will decay. It also means that after big bang the charge of an electron and proton was much higher. They radiate dot-waves.
  So to me my conversions give me another tool to study the universe long term. Is the model true? I believe it is. Can I find evidence to prove it? I can’t but perhaps others can in the future.
   In any event the conclusions I have is that the universe at light speed Co is radiating away into the light speed Cs dimension.
 





Discussion with Kryptid:
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:29:51
GG: Yes the numbers are slightly different but the equation is a best fit numeric equation which is close enough for my purposes.
Kryptid: Not close enough for scientific purposes, however. Especially when you consider that the number isn't even remotely close when the calculations are done in imperial units. An accurate equation is unit system neutral. It gives the right answer whether you use metric, imperial or some system used by aliens.
GG: Since I use the MKS system for my calculations the results are the same. They are not the same for my numerical approximations as I study the numerical relationships among the constants of the universe.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:29:51
I believe that there are ideal numbers for the constants and light speed Co which would be measured in an area of space that was free from high gravitational densities and velocities.
Kryptid: According to relativity, that would make no difference. The speed of light is invariant to the observer.
GG: I believe that relativity is a mathematical best fit solution to the universe. I doubt if you somehow got on a piece of a planet traveling at 0.2C that you would get the same results as here upon the earth.  It is just that since we live on a very linear portion of space that Einstein’s equations work so very well.



Report to moderator    Logged

[Kryptid]

Kryptoid: Please demonstrate in what sense a coulomb is a kilogram-second/meter.
GG:For the assumption that the universe could be specified in terms of coulombs, meters, and seconds or Kilograms, Meters, and seconds, A study of 8 leading possibilities show that Coulombs = Kilograms seconds per meter or alternatively Kilograms = coulombs meters per second is the best fit.
   Scientifically what does this mean? In Engineering schools electrical models are produced to turn transient mechanical problems into ordinary electrical problems. This enables complex problems to be solved readily.
  So I produced a best fit electrical model of the universe. Is it true for everything or is it a tool to learn more about the universe from an electrical perspective? In 1981-3 it seemed completely true to me. However it may only be a best fit model.

Saying that it's the "best fit" isn't an answer at all. I want an actual explanation. Tell me how measuring the kilograms, meters and seconds in a system will tell me the magnitude of charge in that system.

GG: Since I use the MKS system for my calculations the results are the same. They are not the same for my numerical approximations as I study the numerical relationships among the constants of the universe.

Why do you still not understand that an equation must be valid in all measurement systems in order to be correct? I already showed you that the equation for determining the circumference of a circle from its diameter works regardless of the measurement system.

Looking at Plank’s Constant the units are
h = Cou Met^3/Sec^2
If h is a true constant. As the universe expands the meters will expand and the seconds will expand for a constant light speed. Therefore the charge of an electron and proton will decay. It also means that after big bang the charge of an electron and proton was much higher.

Given that the meter is defined in terms of light's speed, and light speed is invariant, meters do not expand over time. The expansion of the Universe simply means that there are more meters separating its individual components.

I believe that there are ideal numbers for the constants and light speed Co which would be measured in an area of space that was free from high gravitational densities and velocities.
Kryptid: According to relativity, that would make no difference. The speed of light is invariant to the observer.
GG: I believe that relativity is a mathematical best fit solution to the universe. I doubt if you somehow got on a piece of a planet traveling at 0.2C that you would get the same results as here upon the earth.  It is just that since we live on a very linear portion of space that Einstein’s equations work so very well.

We already know from the Michelson-Morley experiment that the measured velocity of light is not affected by the observer's velocity. Much more recent experiments using optical resonators have greater refined our precision and we now know that the speed of light is invariant down to a factor of at least 10^-17.

[Bored chemist]

Why are you so certain?

Because I keep myself reasonably well informed and, above all, I can use Google.
So, I looked at your "point"

It would be interesting to get a measurement of the speed of light on the moon and on a moving spaceship in a very weak gravitational field.

And I think about it.
Unlike you , I assume that the measurements have already been taken because countless billions have been spent on research.
So, I ask myself, what form would those experiments take?
Well, do we have measurements of the speed of light on spacecraft?
By far the commonest spacecraft are satellites.
Is there any reason why someone would have measured the speed of light on a satellite?
It depends what you mean by "measure", but there are functions of satellites that depend critically on the way in which em radiation moves about within them
And those satellites work.
So we know that the way in which radio waves move within satellites is the same (to a good approximation, and with calculable predictable changes) as it is here on the Earth's surface.

So there's actually ample evidence that the speed of light is (nearly) the same in space as it is on Earth.

Anyone who actually thinks about it with an open mind will realise that this must be the case- or lots of things that rely on relativistic science would simply not work.

So the question isn't why am I so certain, but why are you too dim to realise this?

The colour of gold is a relativistic effect.
If the speed of light changed then the color of gold would change.
Well, guess what... it doesn't.

[jerrygg38]

Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:12:46

Kryptoid: Please demonstrate in what sense a coulomb is a kilogram-second/meter.
GG: For the assumption that the universe could be specified in terms of coulombs, meters, and seconds or Kilograms, Meters, and seconds, A study of 8 leading possibilities show that Coulombs = Kilograms seconds per meter or alternatively Kilograms = coulombs meters per second is the best fit.
   Scientifically what does this mean? In engineering schools electrical models are produced to turn transient mechanical problems into ordinary electrical problems. This enables complex problems to be solved readily.
  So I produced a best fit electrical model of the universe. Is it true for everything or is it a tool to learn more about the universe from an electrical perspective? In 1981-3 it seemed completely true to me. However it may only be a best fit model.
Kryptoid: Saying that it's the "best fit" isn't an answer at all. I want an actual explanation. Tell me how measuring the kilograms, meters and seconds in a system will tell me the magnitude of charge in that system.
GG: The equations give me the total charge in any system given the total kilograms in that system.  A neutron with a mass of 1.67493E-27 Kg contains 8.50793 dot-waves each with a charge of 3.47119E-60 coulombs for my electrical model. As you know when you break apart the neutron you measure things which have relatively high mass and high charge as compared to the dot-waves.
   So when you look at the photons and the fields you get an idea of what they are made of. Can I prove anything? The big bang compressed all the dot-waves to produce protons, electrons, photons, sub-particles etc. This is what you see and measure. My dot-waves are the prime structure of the universe and cannot be readily seen and measured. So I cannot measure them yet they exist in my opinion.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:09:44

GG: Since I use the MKS system for my calculations the results are the same. They are not the same for my numerical approximations as I study the numerical relationships among the constants of the universe.
Kryptoid: Why do you still not understand that an equation must be valid in all measurement systems in order to be correct? I already showed you that the equation for determining the circumference of a circle from its diameter works regardless of the measurement system.
GG: Very good illustration.  In my general mechanical force to electrical force equation the units should work out as well. Not for my simple units equations of course. I have a very difficult time calculating things in slugs and Newton’s since that was 60 years ago. Yet the basic physics equations should work equally well to your example since they relate mechanical force to electrical force. The example you calculated did not include the differences in mass, length, light speed etc. in the two systems. I looked at your calculation but I remember that a unit valid equation in the French system is equivalent to the unit valid calculation in the English system and most likely in any valid system.
   You did prove to me that my simple numeric calculation for the MKS system is not good for the British system. You are correct. In my book I call it a numeric equation for the MKS system.  And I will have to explain that better. This does not affect my time since big bang of 13.78 billion years since that came from a standard unit’s type equation which should be valid in all systems.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:12:46
Looking at Plank’s Constant the units are
h = Cou Met^3/Sec^2
If h is a true constant. As the universe expands the meters will expand and the seconds will expand for a constant light speed. Therefore the charge of an electron and proton will decay. It also means that after big bang the charge of an electron and proton was much higher.
Kryptoid: Given that the meter is defined in terms of light's speed, and light speed is invariant, meters do not expand over time. The expansion of the Universe simply means that there are more meters separating its individual components.
GG: That is certainly one valid conclusion. Yet I look at a universe in which it is possible that meters expand and seconds expand producing a constant light speed. Such a universe in my opinion is possible and yet very difficult to prove or verify.  If everything slowly doubled in size including the ruler, how could you prove that to be true? If tomorrow you grew from 6 feet in height overnight and the Earth also doubled in size, how would you know? Most likely you would feel it but suppose it happened slowly over 13.78 billion years?
   As the dot-waves radiate from the Co dimension to the Cs dimension, the spacing between galaxies will increase and gravity will tend to keep the size of the planets and galaxies nearly the same. So you would be quite correct. However in my opinion what I say is possible.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 13:09:44
I believe that there are ideal numbers for the constants and light speed Co which would be measured in an area of space that was free from high gravitational densities and velocities.
Kryptid: According to relativity, that would make no difference. The speed of light is invariant to the observer.
GG: I believe that relativity is a mathematical best fit solution to the universe. I doubt if you somehow got on a piece of a planet traveling at 0.2C that you would get the same results as here upon the earth.  It is just that since we live on a very linear portion of space that Einstein’s equations work so very well.
Kryptoid: We already know from the Michelson-Morley experiment that the measured velocity of light is not affected by the observer's velocity. Much more recent experiments using optical resonators have greater refined our precision and we now know that the speed of light is invariant down to a factor of at least 10-17.
GG:  Thanks for the latest info. You are most likely correct since the speed of light Co appears to be an absolute constant. I only question that the measurements might appear differently depending upon the platform used for the measurements.  How could you get a decent measurement if you had a platform traveling at 0.999C? Or a star with a gravitational field 1 million times more than ours?

[rstormview (OP)]

Once again, post Big Bang science is attempting to debunk a pre-Big Bang hypothesis and deploying Quantum faux science to do it..

[jerrygg38]

Bored Chemist comments:
BC: Because I keep myself reasonably well informed and, above all, I can use Google.
So, I looked at your "point"
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 12:16:13
It would be interesting to get a measurement of the speed of light on the moon and on a moving spaceship in a very weak gravitational field.
BC: And I think about it.
Unlike you , I assume that the measurements have already been taken because countless billions have been spent on research.
So, I ask myself, what form would those experiments take?
Well, do we have measurements of the speed of light on spacecraft?
By far the commonest spacecraft are satellites.
Is there any reason why someone would have measured the speed of light on a satellite?
It depends what you mean by "measure", but there are functions of satellites that depend critically on the way in which em radiation moves about within them
And those satellites work.
So we know that the way in which radio waves move within satellites is the same (to a good approximation, and with calculable predictable changes) as it is here on the Earth's surface.
So there's actually ample evidence that the speed of light is (nearly) the same in space as it is on Earth.
Anyone who actually thinks about it with an open mind will realise that this must be the case- or lots of things that rely on relativistic science would simply not work.
So the question isn't why am I so certain, but why are you too dim to realise this?
GG: Many people have told me that I was the smartest person they ever met. Yet you think I am dim. That says a lot about you.
   As I see it, the differences in light speed upon the Earth in satellites will be rather small. You have to move to a very non-linear area of space to find measurable differences. And we cannot get there.
BC: The colour of gold is a relativistic effect.
If the speed of light changed then the color of gold would change.
Well, guess what... it doesn't.
GG: How do you know? Can you detect very minute differences in color? The color of the red photon from the sun is not a fixed color but a spectrum.