jerrygg38's Dot-wave Unified Field theory

[jerrygg38]

The Earth and Sun are pushed together by space. Space is filled with the primary subparticles called dot waves. As the Earth and Sun expand over time, this pushes against space and space pushes back. The net result is a force between Earth and Sun.

[Klaynos]

The Earth and Sun are pushed together by space. Space is filled with the primary subparticles called dot waves. As the Earth and Sun expand over time, this pushes against space and space pushes back. The net result is a force between Earth and Sun.

 

Got any evidence or formalisation of this?

[jerrygg38]

Got any evidence or formalisation of this?

 

Yes. I explain the structure of the universe in my Dot-wave Unified Field theory. I will be glad to discuss the theory here if people show interest.

Firstly as far as an attractive force is concerned, many physicists cannot conceive of two objects attracting each other. Such attraction requires a very strange mechanism to achieve it.

If the universe is composed of the most simple basic subparticles, such as positive and negative dot charges and neutral bipolar plus minus combinations, then things behave in a similar manner to the general gas laws.

Space then is filled with a huge amount of tiny charged particles. The electric field is composed of these charges and the magnetic field is composed of these moving charges. In my theory, the value of the charge is

1.13144E-57 coulomb.

The dots of the universe comprize the electromagnetic field. They have the property of charge, momentum, energy but not mass. Thus the photons are composed of plus and minus dots. Mass is composed of bipolar dots. A plus dot and a minus dot lose electrical energy and produce mechanical energy or mass.

 

Since the universe is completely electrical in nature, the gravitational constant can be written as:

G = K (Mp +Me) Me / 8 QQ

 

Where K is coulombs constant, Mp is the mass of the proton, Me is the mass of the electron and Q is the charge of the electron or proton.

 

The expansion of the hydrogen atom since big bang gives rise to the gravitational force. The force between two hydrogen atoms can be written as

F = 2 Uo (QC/137.036) x (4pi Q Vb*) RR

 

Vb* is the expansion velocity of the Bohr orbit since big bang.

This solves to be 1.053667E-28 meters/sec

This gives us a time since big bang of

T = 5.02227E17 or approximately 15.9145 billion years.

 

It is the expansion of the Bohr atom which causes pressure upon space and this causes a net force between sun and Earth.

[npts2020]

Why would distance between objects or mass make any difference then?

[D H]

Moderation note: This thread was split from this discussion on gravity.

[jerrygg38]

Why would distance between objects or mass make any difference then?

 

JG: The newtonian laws correctly described the forces between objects. The inverse squrare law of distances applies to most physical interactions,

the more mass an object has, the greater the concentration of dot waves within the object and the other object.

Each object will produce a stronger pressure upon space and space will push back stronger.

From a electric viewpoint, the greater the charge the stronger the forces between charges. The magnetic field acts in the same way, the more mass, the greater the field.

[D H]

Since the universe is completely electrical in nature,

There are four fundamental forces. Electromagnetism is only one of them.

the gravitational constant can be written as:

G = K (Mp +Me) Me / 8 QQ

 

Where K is coulombs constant, Mp is the mass of the proton, Me is the mass of the electron and Q is the charge of the electron or proton.

No, it can't, for several reasons:

1. What you wrote is not even a well-formed expression. Is the QQ at the end part of the denominator or the numerator? The only way to rescue this "equation" is to put that QQ in the numerator (I assume you meant the square of the elementary charge), so I'll do that:
    
   [math]G=\kappa \,(M_p+M_e) M_e Q^2 / 8[/math]
    
    
   
2. But even that doesn't make sense. It has the wrong units. The gravitational constant has units of length³/mass/time². The right-hand side of your "equation" has units of length³×mass³/time². The expression can be made dimensionally correct by putting the mass terms in the numerator rather than the denominator:
    
   [math]G=\kappa \frac{Q^2}{8(M_p+M_e) M_e}[/math]
    
    
   
3. So now the right- and left-hand sides of the equation agree dimensionally. How about numerically? G is of course 6.67300×10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2 in SI units. The right-hand side, on the other hand, evaluates to 1.8917×10²⁸ m³kg^-1s^-2. Oops.
    
    
   
4. Even if the result was close (and the above does not qualify as close), you can't just throw a bunch of physical constants and numbers together and call it a "theory". What is the rationale for your equation? Without a rationale, all you have is numerology, and very, very bad numerology at that.

[mooeypoo]

Excuse me, but neither the sun NOR THE EARTH expand over time.

 

The Earth doesn't expand at all.

 

The Sun expands *AND* contracts. It does NOT expand over time.

 

As for particles/subparticles in space - naming them means someone found them and recognized them. Who was that someone? you? Show us how you found these? what are they? what do you mean by "subparticles"? really really small dustlike-particles or muons/gluons/whatever-else ? You can't continue to a conclusion until you explain this (and the rather ludicrous statement about the earth and sun expanding).

 

Also, it seems some new visitors to the forum, lately, are insisting on looking only one ONE set of forces in the universe, and insist they are the ONLY forces in existence. Be it "F=ma" driving all (preposterous. Explain sun spots with F=ma?), or Electromagnetism being everything (preposterous. Explain the fall of the twin towers by electromagnetism alone).

 

Physics has a COLLECTION of laws and forces we know and recognize that explain multiple phenomena. They sometimes work quite well together (Gravity is, many times, very similar in behavior to electrostatics) and sometimes they don't (which is why physicists still look for the mysterious "unified theory").

 

If you ignore a set of rules and decide to ONLY look at one set and one set alone, you will have serious problems explaining the phenomena in the universe that do not conform, necessarily, to this set of rules. Unless you are prepared to explain *EVERYTHING* in the universe with only a single set of force equations, I suggest you open your collection just a tiny bit, and see what other laws and forces exist that may affect and explain phenomena you may think otherwise have no explanation.

 

~moo

[jerrygg38]

Excuse me, but neither the sun NOR THE EARTH expand over time.\

 

JG: The proton has expanded since big bang. Each galaxy was incredibly small at big bang.The basic universe that we live in remains constant over time. All the galaxies occupy the surface of a sphere with 100 billiion light year circumference. At big bang galaxies form on the surface of this sphere. there are billions of them. They expand somewhat over 16 billion years but contracted space time extends outward at light speed.

You do not know that things are expanding because it is common mode. We are expanding right now. This causes gravity. If the earth and sun and galaxy were not expanding gravity would not exist.

 

The Earth doesn't expand at all.

 

JG: Sorry everything expands

 

The Sun expands *AND* contracts. It does NOT expand over time.

 

JG: Everything expands because the protons and neutrons and electrons are expanding.

 

As for particles/subparticles in space - naming them means someone found them and recognized them. Who was that someone? you?

 

JG: Yes. I have been studying them since 1981.

 

Show us how you found these?

 

JG: I will be glad to. I just finished my work and will be glad to discuss it herein.

 

what are they? what do you mean by "subparticles"? really really small dustlike-particles or muons/gluons/whatever-else ? You can't continue to a conclusion until you explain this (and the rather ludicrous statement about the earth and sun expanding).

 

JG: The dot-waves are the fundamental subparticle of nature. Everything is composed of dot-waves. My work was not easy. I had to try every combination I could think of and study it. It took many years just to understand the dot a little. 25 years just to reach the dot-wave. Now 2 more years for the Dot-wave unified field theory.

 

This is my hobby and my mountain. I climb into the world of the dot and the world of the universe. They are tield together.

 

 

 

 

Also, it seems some new visitors to the forum, lately, are insisting on looking only one ONE set of forces in the universe, and insist they are the ONLY forces in existence. Be it "F=ma" driving all (preposterous. Explain sun spots with F=ma?), or Electromagnetism being everything (preposterous. Explain the fall of the twin towers by electromagnetism alone).

 

JG: I know it is a difficult concept. The fact that mass and charge have the same units does not mean they behave the same. For example a ball on a hill has potential energy which a moving ball on the ground has kinetic energy. They both have the same units of energy but they behave differently.

 

I tried long ago to describe everything in pure electrical DC terms. It did not work out. I made everything of plus dots and minus dots. It was a good first try but it did not answer the questions. I also denied that mass = charge as proposed by Einstein long ago. It must be wrong since nobody followed through.

I trield mass = charge/ velocity and mass = Charge x velocity. These produced sister results and a basic gravitational equation but did not produce the understanding necessary.

 

So finally I came to understand the bipolar dot. This was mass. For example a photon consists of a balanced blend of plus and minus dots. They are massless. When they enter an electron they merge into bipolar dots which constain mass.

 

A moving object constantly adds plus and minus photonic dots to produce bipolar dots and visa versa. the whole structure of the universe depends upon plus dots merging into minus dots to produce bipolar dots. Electrical energy becomes mechanic energy over and over again.

 

Physics has a COLLECTION of laws and forces we know and recognize that explain multiple phenomena. They sometimes work quite well together (Gravity is, many times, very similar in behavior to electrostatics) and sometimes they don't (which is why physicists still look for the mysterious "unified theory").

 

JG: That is what I have produced.

 

If you ignore a set of rules and decide to ONLY look at one set and one set alone, you will have serious problems explaining the phenomena in the universe that do not conform, necessarily, to this set of rules. Unless you are prepared to explain *EVERYTHING* in the universe with only a single set of force equations, I suggest you open your collection just a tiny bit, and see what other laws and forces exist that may affect and explain phenomena you may think otherwise have no explanation.

 

JG: Although my equations may seem strange, they always return to newtonian physics.

 

~moo

 

Hopefully I have explained things to you.

[D H]

No, you haven't. Have you taken this quiz?

[Klaynos]

You've still not answered my request for formalisation (this has to be mathematical) or evidence (which has to be experimental)... Once you've got them I'll move on to evaluating your idea (go mooey for having a go but I'm bored of playing word games with people) and then you can make some decent predictions (got to be mathematical), and show how your theory matches the current evidence better than current theories, and making falsifiable experiments...

[mooeypoo]

Hopefully I have explained things to you.

 

you haven't even tried.

 

Statements are worthless unless they are based on evidence. You've given none.

[jerrygg38]

You've still not answered my request for formalisation (this has to be mathematical) or evidence (which has to be experimental)... Once you've got them I'll move on to evaluating your idea (go mooey for having a go but I'm bored of playing word games with people) and then you can make some decent predictions (got to be mathematical), and show how your theory matches the current evidence better than current theories, and making falsifiable experiments...

 

 

JG: Once we produce a set of conversion charts for mass to charge then we can study numerical relationships to produce valid numerical equations. For example if mass and charge have the same units of coulombs we can use all the known equations of physics to produce a table of units for all things.

the gravitational constant then has the units of

G = met^3 /Coulomb Sec^2. Thus the grav constant is the cube of meters divided by coulombs divided by seconds squared.

 

The numerical formula for G become

 

G = K (Mp + Me) Me / 8 QQ this equation gives the gravitational constant in terms of coulombs constant, the mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, and the charge Q. This gives the correct numerical answer to within the margin of error of the gravitational constant.

G is a variable all over the universe. The electrical constants are more accurate all over the universe.

 

The force of gravity is due to the expansion of the Bohr orbit. Therefore it is easy to produce a numerical equation which constains a Bohr orbit expansion velocity. From this we can calculate the outer radius of the galaxy since big bang. The time since big bang comes to

5.02227E17 seconds or approximately 15.9145 billion years.

 

Once we know the radius of the galaxy outer field, we can calculate the bipolar dot mass.

 

The radius of the galaxy is

Rg = Tg C = 1.50564E26

 

The longest wavelength is twice the radius of the galaxy outer field

 

Using h = 6.62608E-34 and C = 2.99792E8, the smallest energy in the universe is

E = 6.59668E52

 

The dot pair bipolar mass is E/ C^2

 

Md = 7.33982E-69

 

This is the smallest mass in the universe. We can then calculate how many bipolar dot-waves in the neutron as

 

# bipolar dots/neutron = Mn/Md = 2.28198E41

 

The neutron is made up of very low energy dot waves whose wavelength is twice the distance from the neutron to the radius of the outer shell of the universe and the galaxy in particular.

 

Of course this is new and unusual for most people. It is simple but new. Yet my method ties the smallest level of energy to the outer shell of the universe. Thus gravity is tied to the smalles subparticle and the largest distance in the universe. That is the way the universe works.

[D H]

For example if mass and charge have the same units of coulombs we can use all the known equations of physics to produce a table of units for all things.

Mass and charge are fundamentally different. The burden is upon you to show some kind of evidence that they are the same. Handwaving and just saying they are the same is not evidence. Your model has to be able to explain how the top quark, which has 2/3 of the charge of an electron, has a heck of a lot more mass than an electron. Your model has to be able to explain everything from electron and quarks, to apples falling on peoples' heads, to galaxies, and beyond.

 

That is the way the universe works.

No, it is not.

[mooeypoo]

A hypothesis is *possible* if it is based on reality (hence, if it has evidence on its side) *and* as long as there is no cases that blow it out of the water.

 

Case in point:

 

An incredibly massive neutral conductor.

 

Mass = incredibly big.

Charge = 0 (yes, that's a zero).

 

Since these neutral conductors (and non conductors) *exist*, your hypothesis is, simply put, shown to be absolutely false.

 

~moo

[Klaynos]

Expansion in the Bohr orbit... want to cite some peer reviewed papers on that one?

 

Universe expansion != local expansion.

[jerrygg38]

Expansion in the Bohr orbit... want to cite some peer reviewed papers on that one?

 

Universe expansion != local expansion.

 

 

JG: I have no peers. I am an independent thinker. The way I work is the same way I design electrical circuitry.

 

I look at the problem and write down answers. Then I study the answers. Each morning I awake with corrections. Most of my thinking occurs at night during sleep. I awake with the results of the prior nights thinking.

 

That is the way I designed the SDC/GMP signal data converter/gun mount processor for the 5 inch guns on the Aegis class destroyers. After I was finished the Navy called it the Maytag since it worked the first time and every time.

 

In the same way I solved the Rubic Cube one night by spinning the sides for a few hours. Then I let my inner mind take over and in a trancelike state I merely spun the sides in a few seconds and the cube was solved.

 

In order to solve the physics of the universe, I spent several years looking at the numerical relationships between all the constants of the universe. I notices that all the numbers were close to each other by certain correction factors.

 

Then I studied tables of conversions between mass and charge. Certainly there had to be some relationship between the two. It took me about from 1981 to 1989 working part time about 40 hours per week until I came to the first formulation. Then I studied that for several years.

 

I self published 4 books which I sold on the internet or gave away to university libraries. In 2000 I produced Doppler Space Time but after one year I was not happy with the results. It had the basic equation for gravity but the wrong conversion chart. It used

M= QC

This is a sister solution which says mass = coulomb meters per second

 

Although you may not believe it, the universe is a simple place and mass and charge have a relationship.

 

Thus the entire universe can be represented by only three units which can be coulombs, meters,and seconds or kilograms, meters, and seconds.

However for the non-electrical engineer the option is

radians per second, meters, and seconds. Thus when we look at the dot wave we can describe it as a vibration.

The importance of this as shown in my Chapter 11 of the Dot-wave Unified field theory is that we can look at the dot wave at big bang of 1.59407E-37 meters. Thus the dot-wave can be considered an oscillating string which varies from a very small size at big bang to the present size today.

 

It can also be assumed that there could be a driving function of an exponential sinusoid which drives all the dot waves. This function would be

(1.85533E-33) e ^ (-)9.3611cosine theta

 

The importance of the dot-wave unified field theory is that it competely produces a multi-light-speed universe from an Engineering viewpoint. It is a workable universe. Whether or not correction factors must be added to give more accurate results are not important. What is important is that in the future we will be able to produce the photonic energy source which will only require a ten foot diameter device rather than the mile long linear accelerators.

Thus as soon as man understands the dot-wave theory he can start to build the energy sources of the future.

the downside of this discovery is that the military can produce photonic beams which will destroy everything in their path. Thus in a split second incoming missles can be destroyed. Unfortunaely spaceships with photonic energy sources can destroy enemy cities at will. Thus the good of producing pure clean photonic energy also enable the complete destruction of mankind.

 

On the other hand, global warming will destroy us soon enough. So future man has the choice of moving forward with clean energy or destroying mankind.

 

If I had the money I could build the first photonic converter in a few years. However I do not have many years to go so all I can do is explain the dot-wave theory to mankind. In general I get better results from the European countries. It takes time however. Many people liked Doppler Space Time. Unfortunately two years ago I awoke on morning with the realization that the work was not correct. Thus 25 years of my hobby work produced the incorrect sister solution. I should have accepted the Einsteinian solution at the beginning. However this is my hobby. It is fun studying the universe and looking at all the solutions.

 

Mass and charge are fundamentally different. The burden is upon you to show some kind of evidence that they are the same. Handwaving and just saying they are the same is not evidence. Your model has to be able to explain how the top quark, which has 2/3 of the charge of an electron, has a heck of a lot more mass than an electron. Your model has to be able to explain everything from electron and quarks, to apples falling on peoples' heads, to galaxies, and beyond.

 

 

No, it is not.

 

JG: My learning ended in 1966 after 10 years of night school. It is only a few months ago that I read a book on string theory. I work with my old college text books. I am not interested in the top quark. I am interested in the fundamental building block of the universe. My dot-waves can produce everything but who cares what can be produced in atomic smasheres as more and more energy is added to protons and electrons, etc.

Going back to basics, the physics do not understand that the electron merges into the proton to form the neutron.

At the radius of the proton 1.32142E-15, the electron reaches a velocity of 0.9186C. This gives it an Einsteinian mass of

M = 2.530338 Me

 

thus the Einsteian mass of the electron as it enters the proton is over 2.5 times its rest mass. The 0.9186C is common to all the major subparticles.

In my Weidner &Sells physics book the K mesons have a mass of 967Me and decay into 3 pi mesons. Why?

Both the U-mesons and the pi-mesons have a velocity of 0.9186C at the neutron radius. The Einsteinian mass/energy is

M(u) = 206.84 x 2.530338 Me = 523.375Me

M(pi) = 273.23 x 2.530338 Me = 692.19 Me

 

the mass of the proton is 1836.149Me

 

the delta mass between a proton and a K-meson is

Delta mass = 869.149Me

Four delta masses = 3476.596 Me

Two pi-mesons at 0,9186C have a mass energy of

two high speed pi-mesons = 1384.38Me

Four high speed u-mesons have a mass of

four high speed u-mesnons =2093.5Me

Total product of surplus energy of 4 neutrons = 3477.88 Me

 

The total difference between the differential mass from the protons destruction and the mass/eneergy of four high energy u-mesons and two high energy pi mesons is

Delta energy = 1.284Me

 

This is an error of 0.037 percent. Therefore when 4 protons are hit they produce four K-mesons and six pi-mesons. Alternately a pair of protons and neutrons proved an equalivalent match.

 

It is important to correct the errors of the past. Physicist have overlooked the Einsteinian energy level in all the interactions. They build huge proton destroyers while not understanding that the proton is simply a structure of dot waves very similar to the electron.

[D H]

Then I studied tables of conversions between mass and charge.

What tables of conversions?

 

Certainly there had to be some relationship between the two.

Certainly there does not.

 

Please explain this chart in terms of your theory.

[Klaynos]

In that case I'm going to tell you that the bohr radius is NOT expanding.

[swansont]

G is a variable all over the universe.

 

Evidence?

 

My learning ended in 1966 after 10 years of night school.

 

Interesting. Mine has not ended, nor (I suspect) has it for most of the other people here.

[jerrygg38]

It appears that no one in this group is interested in the dot-wave unified field theory. No use wasting my time or your time. If anyone wants me to proceed please indicate. Otherwise I will look for another group.

[mooeypoo]

Hang on one minute, now.

 

We were all contributing and participating in a discussion about your work.

 

You just refused to answer our questions, and instead resorted to circular explanations that strayed away from the main points we were making.

 

Don't go and present this as if no one is interested. We are interested to see your work - you just never SHOWED it.

 

We're not interested in dreams and myths because they do not represent reality, they represent mythology and fantasy. If you want to show us how your theory is SCIENTIFIC (this *is* a science forum), you should base it on reality and not just on your personal wishful thinking.

 

• Evidence need to be shown.
  
• A full logical argument for your hypothesis need to be made.
  
• Mathematical proof must be made.
  
• Support by observations, and explanations of current phenomena using this theory *MUST* be presented to the fullest.
  

 

 

ONLY after these conditions are met, we can discuss switching the current theories (that *work* mathematically as well as theoretically, and that explain, VERY WELL, the behavior in our universe).

 

You just don't seem to want to contribute anything useful to the debate other than a repetitive statement of how much time you thought this through.

 

You're in a science forums. You *chose* to come to a science forum. Meet our scientific rigor (which we apply to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE, not just you), and stop complaining about people not being interested. We wouldn't have wasted our time posting responses and questions if we were simply uninterested.

 

 

~moo

[Bignose]

But jerry, you didn't show any interest in my banana slinky theory or mooeypoo's pink elephant theory. Turnabout is fair play, both of these have played by the exact same rules you applied. If you want people to take you seriously, abide by the rules of this forum and abide by the principle of science, and you'll get a much warmer reception. Otherwise, sorry to be so blunt, but I doubt you'll be missed. It won't be too long before another person just like you comes along, anyway.

[foodchain]

Is a dot wave self similar, does it mean new york will be here tomorrow? Does a dot wave "move" why or why not? What are properties of a dot wave or is it some abstract concept that in some roundabout way can be used basically to say dinosaurs were dot waves?

[jerrygg38]

Okay. Perhaps I should start slower with the basic understanding of how I arrived at the mass to charge conversion tables. I do this in the theory but I do jump on to the equations, which may seem strange to many. The whole basis of the dot-wave unified field theory is that the entire universe can be described in simple terms. The minute we only have three basic units, everything becomes easy to understand.

 

Today I am going to Mount Airy with the family to enjoy some leaves and enjoy the Mayberry exhibits. I have only lived in NC for 8 months.

I will get back on the air tomorrow.

 

Let us look at the basic structure of the universe. Let us build a universe in the most simple manner. The present universe we live in has three basic building blocks at the atomic level. The proton, the electron, and the neutron. The proton is positive, the electron is negative. Notice the neutron is composed of a positive entity and a negative entity. Thus two things produce a third thing. Everything we see is made up of these three things.

 

In a similar manner, the most simple universe can be produced by a positive entity called a plus dot and a minus entity called a minus dot. When we combine the two things we get a neutral dot called a bipolar dot.

 

Thus the most simple universe we can make is composed of three things.

Anyone who needs more than three basic things negates the simplicity of the universe. Those who need quarks and super quarks and the like negate the simplicity of the fundamental structure of the universe. If you need more than three simple things then there is a fundamental flaw in your design.

 

As an Engineer, I build practical things. What I build must work. It is not necessary for me to understand all the details of the things that I build. However in the end, the thing must work. Thus I build universes which must work. If more than three ingredients are necessary to build a universe, then it is too complex to work.

 

Let us look at the properties of the dots. For the moment we will look at standard physics where the fields are part of the properties of the dots. Later we can eliminate the fields as interactions of the dots themselves. Thus we will start with basic physics.

A plus dot is a small charge. The field extends outward to a neutral conducting plane billions of light years away. A minus dot is a small charge whose field extends to a neutral conducting plane billions of light years away. Thus the fields end at the radius of the galaxy or universe.

 

The dots obey the electrical laws. Same charge dots repel while opposite charges attract.

 

The characteristics of the dots are:

Charge, electrical energy, momentum, zero mass, light speed velocity

 

We see that the dots are in constant motion, the posess momentum, they have zero rest mass, they have small charges. This is the basic building block of the photons. Thus photons are composed of plus and minus dots.

 

The electrical fields are composed of the dots. The magnetic fields are compose of moving dots.

 

Light and the electrical world are a world of dots. We could try to build a world only of plus and minus dots. The Author did this for many years. Mass consisted of mixtures of plus and minus dots. thus a proton had positive dots plus a blend of plus and minus dots. The electron had negative dots plus a smaller blend of plus and minus dots.

 

Although a somewhat reasonable approach, this solution failed to answer many important questions. From 1981 to 2006, the author attemped to explain the universe this way. The Author was wrong. Something was missing.

 

The bipolar dot was missing. Let us look at the characteristics of the bipolar dot where a plus dot and a minus dot form together in a "well".

 

The bipolar dot has zero electrical DC charge

The bipolar dot as a bipolar DC oscillation which is an AC field.

The bipolar dot tends to be stationary.

The bipolar dot has inertial.

The bipolar dot has mass.

The bipolar dot has energy.

 

We now have the solution for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which can be renamed the "Heisenberg mass to electrical energy conversion principle"

 

MASS IN THE FORM OF BIPOLAR DOTS CONTINUALLY TRANSFORMS INTO ELECTRICAL ENERGY IN THE FORM OF PHOTONIC PLUS AND MINUS DOTS AND VISA VERSA.

 

The above law is the way the universe works. Light becomes matter and matter become light.