[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

You seem to be conflating similarity of equations with the idea that the equations refer to the same thing.
So E=1/2 C V^2
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor#Energy_stored_in_a_capacitor
and we know that
E= 1/2 k deltaX ^2
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_energy)
but that does not mean that a capacitance is the same as a Hooke's law constant.

[Kryptid]

and the rate of expansion of these atoms since after they were created.

Since when do atoms expand over time?

[Bored chemist]

The electrical model gives us a lot of interesting information.

Like what?

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.

No.
It's a constant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Kryptid asks:
Since when do atoms expand over time?
   Atoms Oscillate between dimensions and radiate energy. When they radiate energy, they lose mass and expand. So you hydrogen atom today has less mass than yesterday yet the difference is very small and the ruler and time clock has changed common mode which makes it difficult to detect.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

 BC says:No.
It's a constant.
GG: That is just what you have been taught but it is not true. The constants of the universe are all variables yet since the time clocks and rulers are also variables, it is difficult to detect common mode changes. So science loses out when it does not take into account the variation of the constants as the universe expands.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

BS: but that does not mean that a capacitance is the same as a Hooke's law constant.
GG: It is far easier to use the standard physics equations to solve and explain most problems. I have done mechanical structural  designs and electrical designs and I would not use electrical equations to design a foundation for a lamppost in the soil or connected to a bridge.

[Kryptid]

Atoms Oscillate between dimensions and radiate energy. When they radiate energy, they lose mass and expand. So you hydrogen atom today has less mass than yesterday yet the difference is very small and the ruler and time clock has changed common mode which makes it difficult to detect.

Without evidence, this is just an empty assertion.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Kryptid says: Without evidence, this is just an empty assertion
GG: The idea is to feed the truth that I see and put it in the minds of those in the future who will provide the evidence. There is nothing I can do as an outsider to provide evidence to anyone. Yet at least some professors of physics and math do say they will read my book. So I send them free copies. One wanted me to attend a seminar but I could not. So I am content to send out my books and get some comments back. And of course my books sell in small quantities all over the world. But I never make a net profit. But that does not matter to me.

[Bored chemist]

I would not use electrical equations to design a foundation

You pretty much did.

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

[Bored chemist]

It seems we have a answer to the question "What are units equations?"
They are a thing the OP made up.

[Kryptid]

GG: The idea is to feed the truth that I see...

Without evidence, you have absolutely no way of knowing that what you have is the truth.

There is nothing I can do as an outsider to provide evidence to anyone.

So what are you doing a science website? You do know that science deals in evidence, right? Not unsupported assertions?

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Kryptoid
Without evidence, you have absolutely no way of knowing that what you have is the truth.
GG: Since I am dealing with the understructure of the universe, evidence is very difficult to achieve. Your evidence is based upon what you can see and measure. You will never be able to measure what I can see. Yet if I tell you what I see, some of you will eventually come to understand the truth of it.

[Bored chemist]

Since I am dealing with the understructure of the universe, evidence is very difficult to achieve.

No
I can easily find evidence that you are wrong.
Simple experiment shows that U₀ isn't G₀

[Kryptid]

You will never be able to measure what I can see.

Then it isn't science. Science requires testability.

Yet if I tell you what I see, some of you will eventually come to understand the truth of it.

Again, you can't know that it's the truth if you have no way of testing it. It's just an unfalsifiable claim. If an alien from an advanced civilization came to me one day and told me what it claimed was the secrets of the Universe, I couldn't know whether that alien was telling me the truth unless I could actually test its claims against observation. It's the same thing with your unconscious. If you can't test it, you can't know that it's right.

[Origin]

Kryptoid
Without evidence, you have absolutely no way of knowing that what you have is the truth.
GG: Since I am dealing with the understructure of the universe, evidence is very difficult to achieve. Your evidence is based upon what you can see and measure. You will never be able to measure what I can see. Yet if I tell you what I see, some of you will eventually come to understand the truth of it.

You clearly do not understand even the basics of physics.
So you have not figured out any new physics, heck you haven't even figured out how to use quotes.