[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

Solving for Vb*
Vb* = 1.21667E-28 meters per second

You didn't show your work. How did you arrive at that value?

[Bored chemist]

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).
M_h 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.

[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.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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

[Halc]

So from what textbook/course did this value come from?

He says the government. I think they voted on it. We all trust what the government tells us, right?

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.?

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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

[Kryptid]

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.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

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.

[Origin]

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.