[Bored chemist]

Since you recognize the constant

I didn't.
That's why I asked.

I work with my units or no units at all.

OK
You just declared that you aren't interested in doing science.
What are you here for?

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Bored Chemist says:
OK
You just declared that you aren't interested in doing science.
What are you here for?
   In some ways you remind me of an old technician I worked with. He smoked heavily and had surgery to remove one lung. then he went back to work and smoked heavily again. Then he died because he needed at least one lung to breathe.
   People tend to be set in their ways. They learn rules and regulations and scientific dogma. Anything that violates the scientific dogma is invalid. Well I am a free thinker. Whatever anyone believes may or may not be true. You are locked into units. Yet my different units help me to understand the universe. It does not bother those who read my books. People want new ideas. That is what I do. It may not be scientific dogma but it is intuitive science. Einstein's work was intuitive or visionary. That is true of most new theories and ideas. That is how man makes progress.

[Bored chemist]

 People tend to be set in their ways.

They sure do

I work with my units or no units at all.

Do you plan to actually try to communicate better?

[Origin]

They learn rules and regulations and scientific dogma. Anything that violates the scientific dogma is invalid.

You apparently do not not know what the word dogma means.  Look it up (not in your unconscious mind, use a dictionary).

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

 Bored Chemist
Do you plan to actually try to communicate better?
GG: Originally for the MKS system of units all you needed was kilograms, coulomb, meters, and seconds. Just four units does everything. Yet unless you use Coulombs, meters, and seconds or Kilograms meters, and seconds you fail to see the relationships between the electrical world and the mechanical world. Having three units makes things clearer.
   More units were used to honor the physicists of old yet they only confuse what is happening in the universe.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Dogma: a doctrine or body of doctrines formally or authoritatively affirmed. Webster.
   In my opinion science and religion are similar. You go to school and are taught what the authorities believe. They rely upon what they can see and measure and specify that only what can be readily proved is true. Yet they cannot see the higher dimensions. So the Dogma is that science is limited to what they perceive as the real world. Yet more exists so we have religious Dogma and Scientific Dogma. Yet both examines parts of our total existence.

[Bored chemist]

Bored Chemist
Do you plan to actually try to communicate better?
GG: Originally for the MKS system of units all you needed was kilograms, coulomb, meters, and seconds. Just four units does everything. Yet unless you use Coulombs, meters, and seconds or Kilograms meters, and seconds you fail to see the relationships between the electrical world and the mechanical world. Having three units makes things clearer.
   More units were used to honor the physicists of old yet they only confuse what is happening in the universe.

OK, so you don't realise that the pound/  slug (or poundal) /foot/ second system is, like SI, a "consistent set" of units.
There wasn't a Mr Slug, or a Dr Poundal.
Wouldn't it be better to learn about units rather than posting stuff that's wrong?

[Origin]

Dogma: a doctrine or body of doctrines formally or authoritatively affirmed. Webster.

You were able to copy it down but not smart enough to understand it.  Too bad.  Dogma is belief without evidence.  That is the opposite of science.  What a pin head...

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

BC says
You were able to copy it down but not smart enough to understand it.  Too bad.  Dogma is belief without evidence.  That is the opposite of science.  What a pin head
GG: I understood it quite well but all the evidence you have is a partial viewpoint of reality. You get agreement with various measurements. You produce best fit equations and explanations. But you cannot see beyond your own limitations.

[Bored chemist]

BC says
You were able to copy it down but not smart enough to understand it.  Too bad.  Dogma is belief without evidence.  That is the opposite of science.  What a pin head
GG: I understood it quite well but all the evidence you have is a partial viewpoint of reality. You get agreement with various measurements. You produce best fit equations and explanations. But you cannot see beyond your own limitations.

One good thing about learning to use the quote function is that it stops you embarrassing yourself by misattributing stuff.

Do you not realise that imperfect evidence is still better than none?

[Kryptid]

and specify that only what can be readily proved is true.

That's wrong in multiple ways. Firstly, science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. Secondly, science does not declare uninvestigated claims to automatically be wrong. Rather, it simply asks for evidence (see point one). Without evidence, there is no reason for science to accept a claim as true. That doesn't automatically make the claim wrong, mind you. But in order for science to accept anything, it must pass verifiable observational tests. If that cannot be done, then the claim cannot be scientific one.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

BC says:
Do you not realise that imperfect evidence is still better than none?
GG: That would seem true.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Kryptoid says:
That's wrong in multiple ways. Firstly, science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. Secondly, science does not declare uninvestigated claims to automatically be wrong. Rather, it simply asks for evidence (see point one). Without evidence, there is no reason for science to accept a claim as true. That doesn't automatically make the claim wrong, mind you. But in order for science to accept anything, it must pass verifiable observational tests. If that cannot be done, then the claim cannot be scientific one.
GG: What you say makes sense. However I am looking for the underlying structure of the universe. And evidence is not readily obtained. So my effort fits more into the realm of religion or philosophy rather than science which has its own rules and regulations. Yet my visionary mind sees things which appear true to me and I send it out to the world.
   My work interests some theoretical physicists who are always looking for new ideas to explore. And some mathematicians like it as well. To me it is self evident that there are other dimensions that cause our physics to behave like it does. I am still working on my ideas. And they change as time goes by.

[Dave Lev]

  My work interests some theoretical physicists who are always looking for new ideas to explore. And some mathematicians like it as well. To me it is self evident that there are other dimensions that cause our physics to behave like it does. I am still working on my ideas. And they change as time goes by.

Hello jerrygg38
I wonder what is the added value of your work?.
You claim that:

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.

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?

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Bored Chemist says
OK, so you don't realise that the pound/  slug (or poundal) /foot/ second system is, like SI, a "consistent set" of units.
There wasn't a Mr Slug, or a Dr Poundal.
GG: Ok I looked up the problem with units on the internet and see that it is a complicated mess. I like one section where no units are specified just the numbers. So I was not correct to assume that it did not matter which set of units you use. In any event the MKS system is most used in engineering and that is what I use. In my book I has the coulomb meters and second units and what I call the GG/MKS system which uses kilograms meters and seconds. In general for my calculations I use formula which contain kilograms coulombs meters and seconds. My three unit system allows me to look at other universes of different light speeds. It also enables me to glimpse what the Cs dimension looks like. However all my calculations are standard engineering equation calculations as far as values and units. And I know that various scientists use different units in their work. In any event I will double check the time of universe calculation for the MKS system but I will not check the other systems that others use.
Wouldn't it be better to learn about units rather than posting stuff that's wrong?

[Bored chemist]

However I am looking for the underlying structure of the universe. And evidence is not readily obtained.

And yet, when someone does provide evidence- for example that your idea is wrong because it doesn't work if you change the units- you ignore that and carry on.

My three unit system allows me to look at other universes of different light speeds.

It's a figment of your imagination.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Naked 2.9.20 3pm
How was the time of the Universe derived>
   Force = G Mh Mh / RR
G = 6.67260E-11  Meters^3 / Kilograms Seconds^2
Mh = 1.67353E-27 Kilograms
R = meters
Force = Kg M/S.S = Mass x Acceleration (standard physics)
Force =  2Uo (QC/137.036) x 4 Pi Q Vb* Cosine 30 / RR
The Force between two charges is
F = KQQ/RR
where K= 1/ 4 pi eo   (eo = epsilon)
eo = 8.85418E-12
K= 8.98756E9
Uo eo = 1/CC
Uo = 1.25664E-6
K = 1/ 4 pi eo = ¼ pi [1/Uo C C)= Uo C C / 4 pi
F = Constant x {[Uo C C /4 pi] Q Q /RR]
The currents are spherical flows and the most likely solution would involve 4 pi for each charge Q. In addition a factor of 2 would apply since each atom has a force on the other atom. In addition the expansion velocity Vb* is used for C for the interaction between the expanding current flow in atom one and the Bohr velocity in atom 2 and vice versa.  Since we are dealing with an expanding and rotating DC magnetic field, a phase angle of 30 degrees is appropriate.
   The whole purpose of the calculation is to achieve the radius of the universe from the big bang to the present. This gives u the time of the universe from right after the big bang and the longest wavelength of an original dot-wave in terms of a normalized radius. From this the equivalent rest mass of a dot-wave was obtained 1.96867E-71 Kg. The electron then contained 4.62718E40 dot-waves with a charge of 3.47119E-60 coulombs.
   The accuracy of the calculations is not that important. It is only important that the electron has a huge amount of negative dot-waves which were crushed together as the waves combined at big bang. Then they radiate outward into the light speed Cs dimension.
   All the equations are standard engineering type MKS equations. The constants are the best fit to match the differences between spherical current flows 4 pi and regular linear current flows. The 30 degree phase angle is a common phase angle in electrical distribution systems. The 13.78 billion years since right after the big bang matches the astronomical solution fairly well.
    In the future mathematicians should be able to produce better results but I am happy with ballpark engineering approximations to help people understand how the universe works.
   

[Bored chemist]

where K= 1/ 4 pi eo   (eo = epsilon)

What units are you using?

[Bored chemist]

The accuracy of the calculations is not that important.

LOL

[Kryptid]

The accuracy of the calculations is not that important.

Are you serious?