[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Kryptid says:So the number of dot-waves depends on the photon energy, just as I thought. I see a potential problem here: a photon's energy is not absolute but rather varies from one reference frame to another. A spaceship moving towards the Sun will see a particular photon as having more energy than it would if it was moving away from the Sun instead (blueshift vs. redshift). This implies a contradictory number of dot-waves in that photon depending on yreference frame. In one it is made of more and in the other it is made of less. Relativity does allow for certain quantities to differ between reference frames (passage of time, relativity of simultaneity, mass/energy) but I don't think it allows for the total number of objects in a system to differ. If I'm wrong about that, I hope someone more knowledgeable about relativity will correct me on that.
GG: There are two different problems as I see it. Fro a stationary perspective the number of dot-waves in a photon will depend upon the gravitational density. From a measurement perspective you get the Doppler effect. So a spaceship moving toward the sun will see a photon blue shifted while when moving away from the sun it will see it red shifted.  In that case the photon has exactly the same amount of dot-waves within it.

[Kryptid]

Fro a stationary perspective the number of dot-waves in a photon will depend upon the gravitational density.

Gravity doesn't matter. You can imagine the exact same scenario happening in an empty Universe (except for the photon and ship, obviously). The Doppler effect will still change the energy measured for the photon depending on the ship's speed. There are no sources of gravity in this scenario that will affect the photon. Yet the measured energy (and therefore number of dot-waves) will still differ depending on the Doppler shift.

[Bored chemist]

As I see it, photons are soft energy devices and they breathe.

Can I just check on something?
Do you realise this is a science site?

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Kryptoid: Gravity doesn't matter. You can imagine the exact same scenario happening in an empty Universe (except for the photon and ship, obviously). The Doppler effect will still change the energy measured for the photon depending on the ship's speed. There are no sources of gravity in this scenario that will affect the photon. Yet the measured energy (and therefore number of dot-waves) will still differ depending on the Doppler shift.
GG: A photon from the right and a photon from the left of spaceship will have exactly the same energy to a stationary spaceship. Yet the effect of the photon to the spaceship moving toward the photon will be at a higher energy level due to the speed of the spaceship. The spaceship is filled with photonic dot-waves and these will add to the photon  as it hits the spaceship or subtract from the photon when the space ship is traveling in the opposite direction.
   Einstein's rules work because there are basic photonic interactions which are not accounted for in ordinary physics. Thus there are dot-wave interactions and large scale electron/photon interactions.

[Kryptid]

GG: A photon from the right and a photon from the left of spaceship will have exactly the same energy to a stationary spaceship. Yet the effect of the photon to the spaceship moving toward the photon will be at a higher energy level due to the speed of the spaceship. The spaceship is filled with photonic dot-waves and these will add to the photon  as it hits the spaceship or subtract from the photon when the space ship is traveling in the opposite direction.

Okay, perhaps that's fair. Your model is still incorrect because it predicts the wrong value for known constants. You claim that those constants can vary in strong gravitational fields, but that isn't correct. You don't even need relativity to demonstrate that. Conservation of energy in itself is enough to demonstrate that the gravitational constant does not change in high fields of gravity.

Consider Pluto as it is right now. It has a set gravitational potential energy that is determined by the Sun's mass, its own mass, its distance from the Sun and the gravitational constant. Change any one of those parameters and the potential energy changes as well. Now we collapse the Sun down into a black hole of equal mass. The Sun's mass, Pluto's mass and the distance all remain the same. But what if we assume that the high gravity of the black hole increases the gravitational constant? That would result in more force per unit mass, which would increase the gravitational pull on Pluto. This results in a higher gravitational potential energy.

This, however, cannot happen. More energy cannot spring up spontaneously out of nowhere. That violates conservation of energy. This is how we know that the gravitational constant does not change from one scenario to another.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Naked 2.29.20 8 am
Kryptoid said:
Okay, perhaps that's fair. Your model is still incorrect because it predicts the wrong value for known constants. You claim that those constants can vary in strong gravitational fields, but that isn't correct. You don't even need relativity to demonstrate that. Conservation of energy in itself is enough to demonstrate that the gravitational constant does not change in high fields of gravity.
Consider Pluto as it is right now. It has a set gravitational potential energy that is determined by the Sun's mass, its own mass, its distance from the Sun and the gravitational constant. Change any one of those parameters and the potential energy changes as well. Now we collapse the Sun down into a black hole of equal mass. The Sun's mass, Pluto's mass and the distance all remain the same. But what if we assume that the high gravity of the black hole increases the gravitational constant? That would result in more force per unit mass, which would increase the gravitational pull on Pluto. This results in a higher gravitational potential energy.
This, however, cannot happen. More energy cannot spring up spontaneously out of nowhere. That violates conservation of energy. This is how we know that the gravitational constant does not change from one scenario to another.
GG: Thanks for your analysis. I do not have fixed opinions in many cases. I choose the most likely solution. I do not recall saying that the gravitational constant varies with the gravitational field intensity. Yet I may have since I do not have the best of memory.
  Your example makes sense to me. If the mass of the dying sun remains the same, the pull of the sun on the planets should remain the same.
  What I am concerned with is the variation of the gravitational field as the mass of the universe declines through radiation of energy into the fifth dimension. In order to the big bang inversion to occur, the gravitational constant must be near zero at the inversion point. Likewise when the universe reaches toward infinity, the gravitational constant must be very high. For my electrical model, the gravitational constant is
G = Meters squared /Coulomb seconds
  As the universe expands meters gets larger and seconds gets larger for a constant light speed Co. At the same time the coulombs in the universe decreases. Thus near infinity the gravitational constant is near infinite. At big bang inversion meters is very tiny and coulombs is very large. Thus the universe cannot sit in a lump at big bang inversion as the gravitational constant is basically zero.
   When we look at the impedance of the universe for the electrical model we get
Z = Meters cubed/ Coulomb seconds squared. At the big bang inversion we get zero impedance and at near infinity we get nearly infinity impedance.
     I really do not have that much to say about collapsing stars. I believe the scientists have very good answers in that regard. Likewise Einstein and the Quantum physicists have done excellent work. Yet I believe that the universe is radiating away from the Co dimension to the Cs dimension. When it does, the mass of the universe will decay and the constants will change. I take a linear e^x waveshape but it could have been very non-linear with heavy change right after big bang inversion and a much slower change at present. This is for future mathematicians and scientists to discover.

[Bored chemist]

I do not recall saying that the gravitational constant varies with the gravitational field intensity. Yet I may have since I do not have the best of memory.

The point is that G can not vary. It doesn't matter what "cause" is put forward.

[Kryptid]

I do not recall saying that the gravitational constant varies with the gravitational field intensity.

You were using it as an excuse to explain why the value you calculated for G was not the same as the experimentally determined value for G. Your explanation was that the value of G when measured in free space far from any sources of gravity should be different from what we measure in the Earth's gravitational field. My example demonstrates why that is not the case.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Kryptid said:
You were using it as an excuse to explain why the value you calculated for G was not the same as the experimentally determined value for G. Your explanation was that the value of G when measured in free space far from any sources of gravity should be different from what we measure in the Earth's gravitational field. My example demonstrates why that is not the case.
GG: Thanks for reminding me. You say that G is a constant everywhere in the universe independent of the gravitational field. I say that G varies with time.  I previous said that G was related to various constants. such as pi,4, e, 137.036, etc. Thus I have a conflict. Your answer of an everywhere G is a more likely solution. This is especially true since long ago I had a single light speed solution and now I have a dual light speed solution.  So I will have to revise my words in the future. Thanks.

[Bored chemist]

I say that G varies with time. 

Then you are wrong, for exactly the same reason given before. If G varies then the energy stored in a book on a shelf varies- which is a contravention of the conservation laws.

But the real question is, if you are bright enough to rewrite the laws of physics as we know them,
how come you didn't spot that?

[Kryptid]

So I will have to revise my words in the future. Thanks.

You're welcome. It's nice that you are actually willing to look over your work and accept criticism graciously. There have been quite a few others here that wouldn't do that...

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Naked 3.1.20 9 am
Bored Chemists asks
GG said: G varies with time
BC: Then you are wrong, for exactly the same reason given before. If G varies then the energy stored in a book on a shelf varies- which is a contravention of the conservation laws.
GG:  The conservation laws look at the universe as a static entity. The energy is constant. However with a dual light speed solution, the total energy is constant but the energy of our light speed Co dimension decays toward zero as the universe expands toward infinity.
  What is the rate of change of G? If the rate of change was linear then over one hundred years G would have changed by
(100 years/ 13.78 billion years)x 100 percent = 0.0000007 percent.
   So the rate of change for a linear change is too small to be accurately measured. In addition the ruler would have expanded slightly and the time clock would have slowed. This would make any measurement of change basically impossible to find.
  In addition the universe expanded very rapidly at the beginning and thus it was very non-linear making the linear portion having even smaller changes.

[Bored chemist]

The conservation laws look at the universe as a static entity.

No, they look at is as a symmetrical entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

Once again, I find myself wondering why you didn't find out what the current scientific  theories were before trying to show they were wrong.

"What is the relationship between mass and charge?"
Why assume there is one?

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Bored Chemist asks:
Once again, I find myself wondering why you didn't find out what the current scientific  theories were before trying to show they were wrong.
GG: In Engineering school and modern physics classes we were taught the fundamental theories such as the conservation of energy. They failed to adequately explain what happened before the big bang inversion and what will happen in the future. In addition they failed to produce a universe from only two things. So I looked for solutions. Quantum theory and string theory allows for more exciting things such as more dimensions. And I believe  the time dimension is best described as two time dimensions or two light speed dimensions.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Kryptid says:
You're welcome. It's nice that you are actually willing to look over your work and accept criticism graciously. There have been quite a few others here that wouldn't do that...
GG: My work contains the basic conversion from mass to charge as an electrical model. It also contains the expansion of the universe calculation. Then it contains a lot of fluid ideas which is the most likely choice of two or more choices. So I am happy when you criticize a particular choice and help me to see that it is not the best choice. Some of the things I post now are ideas which are only a few days old. So I am still thinking about them. Anyway thanks for your criticism, it helps.

[Bored chemist]

They failed to adequately explain what happened before the big bang inversion and what will happen in the future.

That's because they are science, and science can't do anything without evidence.

So I looked for solutions.

And, because you also have no evidence, what you have is not science. It is a made up crock.