jerrygg38's Dot-wave Unified Field theory

[Sayonara]

How do you reconcile an attempt to describe the universe from the ground up with the approach of using existing physical laws derived from observation of the universe which operates with mechanisms different to your own?

[insane_alien]

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.

 

this is a very simplistic view and does not account for photons, neutrinos, mesons, ant matter and so on. quite simply, it is wrong.

 

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.

 

actually it is not that simple, a neutron is not simply a proton with an electron stuck on, it requires a different ratio of up quarks to down quarks.

 

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.

 

okay, so you have introduced these three particles, but what is positive in this case? is it electric charge, magnetic charge, fluffiness?

 

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.

 

unless the universe actually has more than three types of particles.

 

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.

 

hmm, care to elaborate on why 4 particles would be a fundemental flaw?

 

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.

 

as an engineer in training i know that you ignore reality at your peril and your machine/plant/system will likely not work if you ignore reality. also, complexity has never stopped anything from working as long as it is built correctly. the human body is immensely complex beyond the understanding of all of humanity combined yet it works fine.

 

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.

 

what type of 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.

 

why are the fields limited? and why is the limit the edge of the galaxy OR universe? are the limits really that arbitrary? why would the field end at the edge of the galaxy? what if the dot is not in the center of the galaxy? will the field end in the middle of the galaxy and outside the galaxy if this is the case? how do you calculate the extent of its influence? how do you explain the neutral conducting plane? why can't we see it? what is it made of?

 

just some questions that spring to mind upon reading that, i would appreciate an answer to all of them if possible.

 

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

 

so its electric charge, you should mention this earlier, infact, properties of the dots should be one of the first things you do.

 

The characteristics of the dots are:

Charge, electrical energy, momentum, zero mass, light speed velocity[/qupte]

 

so everything is going at light speed? why do we observe objects moving slower than the speed of light then?

 

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.

 

you haven't really proven the existance of the dots yet.

 

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

 

but you said all the dots had light speed velocity, so doesn't that mean all fields are magnetic in nature?

 

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.

 

isn't that what you are doing now, and why mention this if you think it is wrong?

 

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.

 

i thought you said all dots were moving at light speed? so now we have stationary dots?

 

and stationary relative to what? are you proposing a universal rest frame? an ether of sorts?

 

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

 

not sure how this follows and i don't think heisenberg would be happy with you tinkering with his principles especially putting his name on something that isn't his.

 

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

 

so dots can change into other types of dots? shouldn't this cause any object with mass to evapourate as its mass turns into photons and scoots away before reapearing as mass again?

 

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

 

can we see some evidence?

[jerrygg38]

The universe we live in can be described in terms of kilograms, meters, seconds, and coulombs.

 

Here we have four units. Why are four units necessary? It does not make sense to build a universe requiring four units. Three should be sufficient. That means we can describe the universe in terms of coulombs, meters, and seconds or kilograms, meters, and seconds. Mass and charge must be related to each other in some manner.

 

Therefore we can produce charts of conversion equations and see what fruit occurs. If the charts are correct we should be able to produce equations for the universe. These will produce gravitational equations, the radius of the universe, the cycle time of the universe, etc. Thus the unified field theory must be based upon the correct conversion chart.

 

How do we produce these charts? Let us look at the basic equations of the universe.

 

F= KQQ/RR

Force equals coulombs constant k times charge Q squared divided by distance R squarred.

 

h = energy x time

 

Plank's constant h equals energy times time

 

F = GMM/RR = K QQ/RR

 

The gravitational constant times mass squarred divided by distance R squared equals force. Notice the form of the equation specified that mechanical forces and electrical forces are equivalent. This ties the electrical world to the mechanical world.

 

The obvious solution to Einstein long ago was that mass = Charge. I saw a photograph of Einstein writing this on a chalk board long ago. Unfortunately I discounted this as a sister solution but not the first sister solution. I was wrong. It took me 25 years to finally agree with Einstein.

My reasoning was that if no one proceeded with Einsteins solution, it must have been incorrect. Einstein was old. He never finished this analysis. He just felt it was true.

 

V = KQ/R

 

Voltage is coulombs constant times charge divided by distance R.

 

Uo Eo = 1/ CC

 

The electrical permeability times the electrical permivity equals one over the speed of light squared.

 

B = Uo I / R

 

The flux density B equals the electrical permeability B times the current I divided by the distance R.

 

With these equations we can now produce charts of conversion tables using the following relationships

 

M = Q (meters to any power / (seconds to any power)

 

 

We now have a general equation which relates mass to charge. Mass can be

M = Q

M = Q/C

M= QC

M = I (current)

M= IC

M = I/C

 

The above are only some of the solutions studied. After years of study the Author sends the manuscripts to various schools for responses.

 

In 1988 the Author was typing on an 1898 underwood typewriter and xeroxing the work. The results were poor. I tried to do the universe with only two units.

Once the Author finished a work, time passes and the Author restudies the work and self-destructs it.

Many are sent out all over the world and only a few professors review the work. My greatest critic is myself since for every solution I see many alternatives.

By 2000 I self published Doppler Space Time. Although it did not produce all the answers, it did produce some. The book was liked by some. Some professors gave me good comments.

 

However it was not good enough. I did not understand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I did not understand the exact nature of light nor the bipolar dot.

 

By 2006, all my calculations were destroyed. Einstein made a lot of mistakes. My Doppler Space Time gives the same answer as Einstein for orbital motion but linear motion is different. We live in a Doppler Universe.

However Einstein was correct in that mass = Charge.

 

Years of work destroyed. Tens of thousands of dollars of borrowed money for my books wasted. 25 years of effort to solve the universe down the drain in one moment of realization that mass and charge are interchangeable.

Einstein was correct and I was wrong for doubting him.

 

this is a very simplistic view and does not account for photons, neutrinos, mesons, ant matter and so on. quite simply, it is wrong.

 

JG: Photons are composed of the dots, neutrinos will be explained separately, mesons are composed of dots,, antimatter is simply the reversal of the proton as the antielectron. Same stuff made up of dots

 

 

 

actually it is not that simple, a neutron is not simply a proton with an electron stuck on, it requires a different ratio of up quarks to down quarks.

 

JG: A neutron is a proton merged together with an electron which enters at 0.9186C. Up quarks and down quarks are mathematical formulations whereas everything is made up of plus dots, minus dots, and bipolar dots. If you needed quarks and the like,the universe would never exist.

 

 

 

okay, so you have introduced these three particles, but what is positive in this case? is it electric charge, magnetic charge, fluffiness?

 

The plus dot has a charge of 1.13144E-57 coulombs. There are 1.1605E38 positive dots in a proton. The same number of minus dots in an electron. This is a huge number. Everything you see is composed of huge numbers of dots.

 

 

 

unless the universe actually has more than three types of particles.

 

JG: Only three basic particles are necessary

 

 

 

hmm, care to elaborate on why 4 particles would be a fundemental flaw?

 

 

JG: There are protons, electrons and neutrons which produce everything on a large scale. The microscopic scale works the same way. Electrical energy becomes mechanical energy and visa versa. The electron moving into the proton becomes the neutron. I have only two particles a plus and a minus dot and an interaction of the plus and minus to produce the biplar dot.

The plus dot has no mass only momentum. The bipolar dots is the conversion of electrical energy into mass.

 

 

 

as an engineer in training i know that you ignore reality at your peril and your machine/plant/system will likely not work if you ignore reality. also, complexity has never stopped anything from working as long as it is built correctly. the human body is immensely complex beyond the understanding of all of humanity combined yet it works fine.

 

JG: Yes. however three things electron/proton/neutron produces you.

 

 

 

what type of charge?

 

JG: ?

 

 

 

why are the fields limited?

 

JG: In part of my theory I eliminate the fields as interactions between all the dots in space. However that is not necessary for most the the theory. My theory has many subsets of the theory.

 

and why is the limit the edge of the galaxy OR universe?

 

JG: Take a positive field reaching outward into space. Then place a negative field a billion light years away. At some point the fields will meet and match and form a neutral conducting sphere. If you take all the plus charges in the universe and all the negative charges, you will form a perfect sphere.

 

As a subset of my theory, the galaxies exist upon the surface of a sphere which has a circumference of 100 billion light years. The center is 15.9145 billion years from the surface and the outer sphere is 31.8290 billion light years from the center.

 

are the limits really that arbitrary?

 

JG: The universe size is readily calculated from the hydrogen atom.

 

why would the field end at the edge of the galaxy?

 

JG: For standard field theory, the field ends because it is neutralized. For my subset dot only theory, as we move further out in space, the dots do not move in a radial direction from us but only perpendicular. Thus the outer shell of the total universe has zero outward light speed and only light traveling in an orthogonal direction.

 

what if the dot is not in the center of the galaxy?

 

JG: There are dots everywhere.

 

will the field end in the middle of the galaxy and outside the galaxy if this is the case?

 

JG: In general the big bang occurs billions of times simultaneously to form billions of galaxies. The fields from the center of the galaxies extend outward at the speed of light. However light has three dimensions. Where we are it appears that light moves equally in all dimensions. As we move outward we find that the photons lose their radial outward velocity and turn in a perpendicular plane.

 

 

 

how do you calculate the extent of its influence?

 

JG: I use the equation:

 

(Cx)^2 + (Cy)^2 + (Cz)^2 = 3 (Co)^2

 

We could also use spherical coordinates for a better answer. In this equation we see that a light sphere can have photons traveling in all directions at the same speed Co. Yet as we move outward in the Z direction, the light speed Cz will reach zero and the CX and Cy speed will increase to

 

Cx = Cy = (3/2)^0.5 Co

 

Thus as we reach the neutral conducting plane no light will go beyond the barrier.

 

 

how do you explain the neutral conducting plane?

 

 

JG: Halfway between a plus charge and a minus charge is a neutral conducting plane. Likewise far out in space another plane forms.

 

why can't we see it? what is it made of?

 

JG: We cannot see 15.9 billion light years away. The plane is made of nothing.

However a subset of the Unified field theory has coexisting universes of higher and lower light speeds. The neutral conducting plane is a junction between universes.

 

just some questions that spring to mind upon reading that, i would appreciate an answer to all of them if possible.

 

JG: Glad to help. I have 27 years of studying the universe. I have not finished my study. There are a lot of things I have not solved yet. In addition I always have alternate answers to many problems.

 

 

 

so its electric charge, you should mention this earlier, infact, properties of the dots should be one of the first things you do.

 

JG: I have just posted that.

 

The characteristics of the dots are:

Charge, electrical energy, momentum, zero mass, light speed velocity[/qupte]

 

so everything is going at light speed?

 

JG: A standing wave does not move but travels at light speed within a confined small space. The dots in the proton are constantly moving within a confined volume. They keep banging against each other.

 

why do we observe objects moving slower than the speed of light then?

 

JG: Objects can be almost stationary in the universe. You have to be between galaxies. The pencil on the table is relatively stationary but inside everything is moving.

 

 

 

you haven't really proven the existance of the dots yet.

 

JG: I can explain the dots but I have no ability to prove the dots exist since that would require measuring the dots.

The dot radius is 2.15941E-29 meters

 

You cannot measure that. You cannot prove something that small exists. As you look at your screen there are billions upon billions of dots in front of you. You cannot feel them. You cannot see them. You cannot measure them.

 

 

 

but you said all the dots had light speed velocity, so doesn't that mean all fields are magnetic in nature?

 

JG: The moving electric field is the magnetic field. You could destribe the universe in terms of magnetic field if you like.

 

 

 

isn't that what you are doing now, and why mention this if you think it is wrong?

 

JG: There are different ways of describing things. To me as a subset of the theory, the magnetic field is merely dots in circular motion

 

 

 

i thought you said all dots were moving at light speed? so now we have stationary dots?

 

JG: Dots are stationary within a proton as viewed from outside the proton.

 

and stationary relative to what? are you proposing a universal rest frame? an ether of sorts?

 

JG: I have a universal rest frame. My ether is dots in space in constant motion. The rest frame is stationary. The universe is not expanding and flying apart. We have waves of dots which travel outward at the speed of light but slow as they reach the outer sphere. Then they reverse. The wave returns toward us and produces an antimatter universe which eats our universe and the next big bang occurs as the wave reaches 15.9 billion years from the center of the total universe.

 

 

 

not sure how this follows and i don't think heisenberg would be happy with you tinkering with his principles especially putting his name on something that isn't his.

 

JG: It is his principle but the reason for his principle is the constant change from electrical energy and mechanical energy.

 

 

 

so dots can change into other types of dots? shouldn't this cause any object with mass to evapourate as its mass turns into photons and scoots away before reapearing as mass again?

 

JG: That is a matter of probability. In general a tiny amount of mass constantly changes into electrical energy and visa versa. The reason is that matter is constantly interacting with space dots. A proton is constantly changing its mass/electrical energy relationships every split second.

All we see are averages. The bipolar dot mass = 7.33982E-69 kilograms.

You cannot see the changes in the proton. Heisenberg produced the mathematical relationship which clearly shows mass to energy changes which constantly occur in nature.

 

 

 

can we see some evidence?

 

JG: I can explain my theory. I cannot measure the dot. I can only calculate it. I started the theory in my basement with only a slide rule. I have not machines to work with. It would take a billion dollars to build the first photonic converter. I get by on social security and a small pension. All I can do is present my theory.

 

How do you reconcile an attempt to describe the universe from the ground up with the approach of using existing physical laws derived from observation of the universe which operates with mechanisms different to your own?

 

JG: I do not deny the existing laws and measurement. Newtons laws, the Einsteinian orbital calculations do not conflict with my theory. The quantum mechanical mathematical laws are perfectly fine to me.

What I do is go beyond what can be seen or measured. What is seen and measured are large scale interactions of the dots.

 

It takes 1.24109E38 bipolar dots to produce an electron. the physical laws of nature are the laws of huge amounts of dots. The laws of the dots are similar. This is especially true with light energy which is composed of balanced blends of plus and minus dots. The photons are the dots in the purest form.

 

When we break apart the protons in the photonic converter we will have pure dot energy. Thus protons will become photons.

 

I rely upon standard physics books and standard electrical theory. However I reduce everything to the simple dot which has a direct relationship to the radius of the universe.

 

When I discuss the binding energy of the proton, I do not discuss the dot theory. The only thing important is the Einsteinian energy. Pure standard physics is used for much of my work.

[swansont]

"Anybody interested in my work" has been merged into this thread. Discussion of it should take place here.

[Klaynos]

You make a mistake early on, planks constant is not energy times time, it just has that unit.

 

In the special case of photons it can be shown that E=hf

 

Could you please learn to use the quotes properly (see IA's posts) as it makes it nealry impossible to read what you're writing.

 

Your whole "theory" (which is NOT a theory) if flawed on many many counts not least of which is the fact you're ignoring things like colour charge or the other 400 ish particles that have been discovered...

 

Saying quarks are mathematical constructs as if that's a bad thing, the advantage of mathematical constructs is we can use them to make mathematical predictions and guess what the quark ones fit. Your "theory" doesn't do that for dots so it is NOT science.

[jerrygg38]

What tables of conversions?

 

JG: Table of coversions involve finding the relationship between mass and charge. For exampls

M = Q

M=QC

M=Q/c

 

The standard equations of physics can be used to produce charts which reduce everything to three units of coulombs,meters, and seconds.

 

 

Certainly there does not.

 

Please explain this chart in terms of your theory.

 

JG: My theory involves the basic building block of the universe. It does not include all things in physics. Years from now teams of people can produce more complexities to the theory. All I can do is present the basic theory.

 

 

 

[

 

You make a mistake early on, planks constant is not energy times time, it just has that unit.

 

JG: It is not a mistake. I am showing the relationship between the units. The unit of phanks consant can be replaced by energy time time. We have so many units with special names such as amperes = coulombs per second. I do not use amperes. That is misleading.

 

In the special case of photons it can be shown that E=hf

 

JG: Yes.

 

Could you please learn to use the quotes properly (see IA's posts) as it makes it nealry impossible to read what you're writing.

 

JG: I always add JG to my answers. If that is confusing I will try to be better.

 

Your whole "theory" (which is NOT a theory) if flawed on many many counts not least of which is the fact you're ignoring things like colour charge or the other 400 ish particles that have been discovered...

 

JG: The discoveries you speak about are merely large scale products of the dots-waves. You can discover billions of them but they all will be made up of three basic things. 400 particles mean nothing. They are not the fundamental building blocks of the universe.

 

 

Saying quarks are mathematical constructs as if that's a bad thing, the advantage of mathematical constructs is we can use them to make mathematical predictions and guess what the quark ones fit. Your "theory" doesn't do that for dots so it is NOT science.

 

 

JG: When you define science by what you can see and measure, surely my theory does not fit into science as such defined. Yet until we understand the basic structure of the universe we will not progress to build energy sources of the future. Knowing 10,000 particles will not help us. We must understand that the universe is composed of only three things.

[insane_alien]

The universe we live in can be described in terms of kilograms, meters, seconds, and coulombs.

 

Here we have four units. Why are four units necessary? It does not make sense to build a universe requiring four units. Three should be sufficient. That means we can describe the universe in terms of coulombs, meters, and seconds or kilograms, meters, and seconds. Mass and charge must be related to each other in some manner.

 

why are three units necessary? why not 2, 1, 0, 1000000? you keep saying three units are sufficient but you never explain why this is so. also, units are not particles so i'm not entirely sure how this relates.

 

Therefore we can produce charts of conversion equations and see what fruit occurs. If the charts are correct we should be able to produce equations for the universe. These will produce gravitational equations, the radius of the universe, the cycle time of the universe, etc. Thus the unified field theory must be based upon the correct conversion chart.

 

you can only generate a conversion chart if there is a relationship between them.

 

How do we produce these charts? Let us look at the basic equations of the universe.

 

F= KQQ/RR

Force equals coulombs constant k times charge Q squared divided by distance R squarred.

 

h = energy x time

 

Plank's constant h equals energy times time

 

F = GMM/RR = K QQ/RR

 

The gravitational constant times mass squarred divided by distance R squared equals force. Notice the form of the equation specified that mechanical forces and electrical forces are equivalent. This ties the electrical world to the mechanical world.

 

just because you say this equals that does not make it so, G is much much smaller than K. M and Q are different properties and so on. this is crap maths, you should know this as an engineer. the only reason to use such an equation would be to work out the charge required to negate the force of gravity between two objects or vice versa.

 

The obvious solution to Einstein long ago was that mass = Charge. I saw a photograph of Einstein writing this on a chalk board long ago. Unfortunately I discounted this as a sister solution but not the first sister solution. I was wrong. It took me 25 years to finally agree with Einstein.

My reasoning was that if no one proceeded with Einsteins solution, it must have been incorrect. Einstein was old. He never finished this analysis. He just felt it was true.

 

proof? also, einstein got a lot of things wrong in his time, most notably he thought quantum mechanics was bull and this falls within those bounds so i would not call him a reputable source on this topic.

 

V = KQ/R

 

Voltage is coulombs constant times charge divided by distance R.

 

Uo Eo = 1/ CC

 

The electrical permeability times the electrical permivity equals one over the speed of light squared.

 

B = Uo I / R

 

The flux density B equals the electrical permeability B times the current I divided by the distance R.

 

With these equations we can now produce charts of conversion tables using the following relationships

 

M = Q (meters to any power / (seconds to any power)

 

 

We now have a general equation which relates mass to charge. Mass can be

M = Q

M = Q/C

M= QC

M = I (current)

M= IC

M = I/C

 

so your theory is internally inconsistant, mass could be Q/C or Q*C or just Q on its own. either C is one(which it is not) or your theory is wrong.

 

The above are only some of the solutions studied. After years of study the Author sends the manuscripts to various schools for responses.

 

nobody cares how long you have spent on this or how many different institutions you have sent it to, it only matters if it corresponds with reality or not, and so far it doesn't.

 

In 1988 the Author was typing on an 1898 underwood typewriter and xeroxing the work. The results were poor. I tried to do the universe with only two units.

Once the Author finished a work, time passes and the Author restudies the work and self-destructs it.

Many are sent out all over the world and only a few professors review the work. My greatest critic is myself since for every solution I see many alternatives.

By 2000 I self published Doppler Space Time. Although it did not produce all the answers, it did produce some. The book was liked by some. Some professors gave me good comments.

 

However it was not good enough. I did not understand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I did not understand the exact nature of light nor the bipolar dot.

 

superfluous and irrelevant.

 

My Doppler Space Time gives the same answer as Einstein for orbital motion but linear motion is different. We live in a Doppler Universe.

However Einstein was correct in that mass = Charge.

 

doppler space time? doppler universe? you keep bringing more and more stuff in yet you haven't even explained the basics sufficiently.

 

Years of work destroyed. Tens of thousands of dollars of borrowed money for my books wasted. 25 years of effort to solve the universe down the drain in one moment of realization that mass and charge are interchangeable.

Einstein was correct and I was wrong for doubting him.

 

superfluous and irrelevant.

 

JG: Photons are composed of the dots, neutrinos will be explained separately, mesons are composed of dots,, antimatter is simply the reversal of the proton as the antielectron. Same stuff made up of dots

 

how exactly are they a reversal, either you have a set of anti-dots(making 6 particles) or you can't do it.

 

JG: A neutron is a proton merged together with an electron which enters at 0.9186C. Up quarks and down quarks are mathematical formulations whereas everything is made up of plus dots, minus dots, and bipolar dots. If you needed quarks and the like,the universe would never exist.

 

and yet it does and we see clear evidence of quarks and they can decay through the weak force.

 

The plus dot has a charge of 1.13144E-57 coulombs. There are 1.1605E38 positive dots in a proton. The same number of minus dots in an electron. This is a huge number. Everything you see is composed of huge numbers of dots.

 

have you measured the charge of a dot? if not then how do you know that this is the charge of a dot?

 

JG: Only three basic particles are necessary

 

why 3?

 

JG: There are protons, electrons and neutrons which produce everything on a large scale. The microscopic scale works the same way. Electrical energy becomes mechanical energy and visa versa. The electron moving into the proton becomes the neutron. I have only two particles a plus and a minus dot and an interaction of the plus and minus to produce the biplar dot.

The plus dot has no mass only momentum. The bipolar dots is the conversion of electrical energy into mass.

 

this does not explain why more particles would be fundamentally flawed also, protons and neutrons are far from elementary particles.

 

JG: Yes. however three things electron/proton/neutron produces you.

 

theres more to it than that. photons, gluons, etc, etc.

 

JG: ?

 

there is more than one type of charge, have a look at colour charge.

 

 

JG: In part of my theory I eliminate the fields as interactions between all the dots in space. However that is not necessary for most the the theory. My theory has many subsets of the theory.

 

so, will you naswer my question?

 

JG: Take a positive field reaching outward into space. Then place a negative field a billion light years away. At some point the fields will meet and match and form a neutral conducting sphere. If you take all the plus charges in the universe and all the negative charges, you will form a perfect sphere.

 

yes, two opposite charges will cancel at one point but this wasn't what you were talking about.

 

As a subset of my theory, the galaxies exist upon the surface of a sphere which has a circumference of 100 billion light years. The center is 15.9145 billion years from the surface and the outer sphere is 31.8290 billion light years from the center.

 

proof?

 

JG: The universe size is readily calculated from the hydrogen atom.

 

care to walk us through the mechanics of that? you state it like it is common knowledge yet it is not.

 

JG: For standard field theory, the field ends because it is neutralized. For my subset dot only theory, as we move further out in space, the dots do not move in a radial direction from us but only perpendicular. Thus the outer shell of the total universe has zero outward light speed and only light traveling in an orthogonal direction.

 

neutralised by what?

 

JG: There are dots everywhere.

 

i got that bit.

 

JG: In general the big bang occurs billions of times simultaneously to form billions of galaxies. The fields from the center of the galaxies extend outward at the speed of light. However light has three dimensions. Where we are it appears that light moves equally in all dimensions. As we move outward we find that the photons lose their radial outward velocity and turn in a perpendicular plane.

 

redefining cosmology are we? there was only one bang. what causes the light to go into a perpendicular plane? why can we see other galaxies then?

 

 

 

JG: I use the equation:

 

(Cx)^2 + (Cy)^2 + (Cz)^2 = 3 (Co)^2

 

We could also use spherical coordinates for a better answer. In this equation we see that a light sphere can have photons traveling in all directions at the same speed Co. Yet as we move outward in the Z direction, the light speed Cz will reach zero and the CX and Cy speed will increase to

 

Cx = Cy = (3/2)^0.5 Co

 

Thus as we reach the neutral conducting plane no light will go beyond the barrier.

 

so how can we see other galaxies if light cannot pass their barrier? and you never explained how it works, you just said 'it happens' basically.

 

quote]

JG: Halfway between a plus charge and a minus charge is a neutral conducting plane. Likewise far out in space another plane forms.

 

so the galaxy is charged? what is providing the other charge?

 

JG: We cannot see 15.9 billion light years away. The plane is made of nothing.

However a subset of the Unified field theory has coexisting universes of higher and lower light speeds. The neutral conducting plane is a junction between universes.

 

you said it was on a glactic scale not a universal scale. also unified field theory has not been discovered. nor have we seen evidence for variable light speed.

 

JG: I can explain my theory. I cannot measure the dot. I can only calculate it. I started the theory in my basement with only a slide rule. I have not machines to work with. It would take a billion dollars to build the first photonic converter. I get by on social security and a small pension. All I can do is present my theory.

 

so you have no evidence that dots exist at all?

 

JG: I do not deny the existing laws and measurement. Newtons laws, the Einsteinian orbital calculations do not conflict with my theory. The quantum mechanical mathematical laws are perfectly fine to me.

What I do is go beyond what can be seen or measured. What is seen and measured are large scale interactions of the dots.

 

but they do conflict with your theory, none of these predict dots or that charge and mass are equivalent. also if it cannot be measured, of what use is it?

 

It takes 1.24109E38 bipolar dots to produce an electron. the physical laws of nature are the laws of huge amounts of dots. The laws of the dots are similar. This is especially true with light energy which is composed of balanced blends of plus and minus dots. The photons are the dots in the purest form.

 

When we break apart the protons in the photonic converter we will have pure dot energy. Thus protons will become photons.

 

so, whats a photonic converter?

 

I rely upon standard physics books and standard electrical theory. However I reduce everything to the simple dot which has a direct relationship to the radius of the universe.

 

When I discuss the binding energy of the proton, I do not discuss the dot theory. The only thing important is the Einsteinian energy. Pure standard physics is used for much of my work.

 

yet pure standard physics also says you are wrong...

[jerrygg38]

Evidence?

 

 

 

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

 

JG: That is my formal education. Thus the scientific data I use is almost 50 years old. All the quarks and larks and things like that are not part of my study. I only study the basics.

[Klaynos]

You not exiting quotes makes it difficult to read, it'd be far easier if you split the quote up, adn tehn to reply we could just hit quote, far easier for us all.

 

JG: The discoveries you speak about are merely large scale products of the dots-waves. You can discover billions of them but they all will be made up of three basic things. 400 particles mean nothing. They are not the fundamental building blocks of the universe.

 

Show us mathematically how your "theory" makes these same predictions then.

[mooeypoo]

JG: That is my formal education. Thus the scientific data I use is almost 50 years old. All the quarks and larks and things like that are not part of my study. I only study the basics.

 

Can you not see that your theory is based, therefore, on old and incomplete data?

 

You are claiming to explain EVERYTHING in existence (the whole universe, for that matter), with information that is outdated and lacking.

 

 

.... and you expect us to just jump on board without reservations? seriously?

[jerrygg38]

why are three units necessary? why not 2, 1, 0, 1000000? you keep saying three units are sufficient but you never explain why this is so. also, units are not particles so i'm not entirely sure how this relates.

 

JG: The units are used to reduce the clutter. It enables one to look for numerical relationships. The grav constant numerically equals

 

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

 

Why does this form a perfect relationship within measurement error? (The gravitational constant has quite an error band.)

The reason is that the universe exists within certain numerical relationships and an error band. All the constants of the universe are tied together. Why?

Converting the units of mass to charge answers that question.

 

 

 

you can only generate a conversion chart if there is a relationship between them.

 

 

 

just because you say this equals that does not make it so, G is much much smaller than K. M and Q are different properties and so on. this is crap maths, you should know this as an engineer. the only reason to use such an equation would be to work out the charge required to negate the force of gravity between two objects or vice versa.

 

 

 

proof? also, einstein got a lot of things wrong in his time, most notably he thought quantum mechanics was bull and this falls within those bounds so i would not call him a reputable source on this topic.

 

 

JG: Quantum mechanics produces good mathematical results. It does not explain how things work. As an Engineer I want to know how things work.

Einstein was great for Orbital motion. Linear motion is better expressed with Doppler equations which have forward masses and rearward masses. The geometric mean of Doppler is Einsteinian. Thus Einstein produced the best mathematical fit. His clock paradox does not appear for Doppler Space Time.

It is hard to beat Einstein. Sure he made some errors but he produced the most correct concepts.

The red shift of Hubble with stars flying apart at the speed of light is silly. so a lot of scientists presented errors along with their great work. The Michaelson/Morley experiment had two answers. Constant speed of light or variable. They chose constant. Variable gives better results.

 

 

 

so your theory is internally inconsistant, mass could be Q/C or Q*C or just Q on its own. either C is one(which it is not) or your theory is wrong.

 

JG: It is not inconsistant. Each writing of the theory describes one solution.

M=Q (in units) is one sister solution. M = Q/C is a second sister solution. M=QC is a third sister solution. Which is right? Each solution is studied. This takes me years. Once the solution fails to yield good results it is abandoned.

The Dot-wave Unified field theory is based upon the the units of charge being equal to the units of mass. Mass is not charge. Kilograms and coulombs are identical units. Thus mass is produced when a plus dot and a minus dot combine to produce a neutral bipolar dot.

Electrical energy becomes mechanical energy and mechanical energy becomes electrical energy.

Mass and charge are not the same thing. They only have the same units. They are dualities of each other.

 

 

 

nobody cares how long you have spent on this or how many different institutions you have sent it to, it only matters if it corresponds with reality or not, and so far it doesn't.

 

JG: The only reason that it does correspond to your reality is that I may be gifted in understanding things but am not gifted in presenting things to other.

When I designed things for Sperry Gyro and had to present how they worked to the Navy, I have technical writers who were able to change my ideas into ideas others could easily understand. So I must admit that I am not that gifted in explaining my work to other. Not your fault. Mine.

 

 

 

superfluous and irrelevant.

 

 

 

doppler space time? doppler universe? you keep bringing more and more stuff in yet you haven't even explained the basics sufficiently.

 

JG: I will keep trying. It is difficult to explain new concepts to people who have been taught and programmed in a particular way.

The concept that electrical energy produces mechanical energy and visa versa is okay on the large scale such as a generator. It is difficult when we look at the basic structure of the universe.

 

 

 

superfluous and irrelevant.

 

 

 

how exactly are they a reversal, either you have a set of anti-dots(making 6 particles) or you can't do it.

 

JG: I do not have dots and anti-dots. The protons and anti-proton are large scale entities. Both are made of the same dots.

 

 

 

and yet it does and we see clear evidence of quarks and they can decay through the weak force.

 

JG: I am not saying that you do not see quarks. That is not part of my study. I am only one person. I cannot study all things. My interest is gravity, the size of the universe, the red shift, the Double slot experiment explanation,

the nuclear force, the oscillating dots wave,and various other topics. There are thousands of scientists looking at quarks and an assortment of laboratory products. That is beyond my interests or studies.

 

 

 

have you measured the charge of a dot? if not then how do you know that this is the charge of a dot?

 

JG: Since the electron has a charge of 1.60218E-19 coulomb, it is only necessary to know how many dots the charge is made up of. The coulomb is not a little piece of charge which is thrown into a mixture of quarks and larks, etc. That is silly. The coulomb is subdivided into a charge cloud and the dots are the little charges which make up the cloud. The dot charge is the lowest charge in the universe.

 

 

 

why 3?

 

JG: I was not successful in producing a universe with only 2 things. Three does it. I can build universes from three things. Perhaps others can build universes from 4 or 5 things. I only need three.

 

 

 

this does not explain why more particles would be fundamentally flawed also, protons and neutrons are far from elementary particles.

 

JG: Most scientists like Einstein deny that the universe is a very complex place. The more complex you make it, the harder it is to produce it in the first place. I do not need charges. I am happy with vibrations of radians per second. Thus columbs can be replaced by radians per second.

 

 

 

theres more to it than that. photons, gluons, etc, etc.

 

JG: You are looking at big things. The three ingredients can produce billions of billions of things. That is not my interest.

 

 

 

there is more than one type of charge, have a look at colour charge.

 

JG; I have never heard of colour charge. What is it? In any event you are thinking big. The world of the big is different than the world of the small.

 

 

 

 

so, will you naswer my question?

 

JG: I have tried.

 

 

 

yes, two opposite charges will cancel at one point but this wasn't what you were talking about.

 

 

 

proof?

 

 

 

care to walk us through the mechanics of that? you state it like it is common knowledge yet it is not.

 

 

 

neutralised by what?

 

 

 

i got that bit.

 

 

 

redefining cosmology are we? there was only one bang. what causes the light to go into a perpendicular plane? why can we see other galaxies then?

 

JG: One simultaneous big bang involving billions of galaxies. The galaxies are centered on a sphere. The light goes in all directions to the radius zero and the radius 2Rgalaxy. We can see those galaxies in the 15 billion light year range. Since the Universe has a circumference of 100 billion light years, we cannot see all the galaxies. They are out of range. Of course this is part of my cosmology theory and not the dot-wave theory.

 

 

 

 

 

so how can we see other galaxies if light cannot pass their barrier? and you never explained how it works, you just said 'it happens' basically.

 

JG: Light does not pass the outer barrier of the total universe at 31 billion light years from the center. We see all galaxies until the light weakens and turns black.

 

quote]

JG: Halfway between a plus charge and a minus charge is a neutral conducting plane. Likewise far out in space another plane forms.

 

so the galaxy is charged? what is providing the other charge?

 

JG: The galaxy is neutral. What I am saying is that a proton has a field which is neutralized by the electrons field at huge distances. The same is true of the individual dots.

 

 

 

you said it was on a glactic scale not a universal scale. also unified field theory has not been discovered. nor have we seen evidence for variable light speed.

 

JG; In glass light travels slowly. Near a black hole light slows. Around the sun, light slows. Light is variable.

 

 

 

so you have no evidence that dots exist at all?

 

JG: Many people believe that the electron is a cloud

 

 

 

but they do conflict with your theory, none of these predict dots or that charge and mass are equivalent. also if it cannot be measured, of what use is it?

 

JG: It takes time for me to get my work across.

 

 

 

so, whats a photonic converter?

 

JG: converts protons to photons

 

 

 

yet pure standard physics also says you are wrong...

 

JG: There is nothing in pure physics which I do not use.

 

 

Going on a trip today. Be back tonight or tomorrow.