Dot-Wave Unified field theory

[jerrygg38]

Where did you get Bohr expansion velocity, or at least who else uses it?

 

Even if it is true, this would mean that atoms are getting bigger, and so the universe is getting bigger and we are getting bigger, and thus we cant measure the difference of the size of an atom.

 

 

JG: From 1981 to 1989 I studied the numerical relationships between the constants of the universe. I had a lot of free time at Sperry. In general my job was to design great systems and solve the problems others could not solve. I did not have the regular job like the regular Engineers. With 1500 Engineers, scientists, and mathematicians there were at least 50 like myself (BSEE summa *** laude) or alternate. Thus weeks at a time I could devote myself to my studies and discussions with my fellow workers.

Many people got paid even when they had no work. One Engineer who had no work for several years was told by his boss that he had to work overtime. This excited him and he asked the boss what great job he was going to do. The boss told him "Do what you are doing now but more of it".

It was funny, When I worked at Arma for a short time they had a whole group of people who were ordered to do nothing. If they were caught doing some company business they would be fired on the spot. The government would come along to inspect to insure they were absolutely doing no work.

Then one day they had a problem with the LEM. The whole team went from standby to working hard to solve the problem.

So I had plenty of time since 1981 to 1993 to discuss dot wave theory with some extremely brilliant minds all day long at times. Now it is true we do not belong to the physics club. Thus this is my hobby.

 

Anyway it is my belief that the Bohr orbit is correct. A lot of other people believe it as well. (The Sperry club). When we look at the dot-wave at present, the size of the dot wave is:

 

Rn = 1.31959E-15 (radius of the neutron as a perfect sphere)

Volume of neutron = (4/3) pi (Rn)^3

Volume of Dot = (4/3) pi (Rd)^3

#dots per neutron = 2.28198E41

Therefore the size of a dot according to physics solutions for atoms

Size of dot today

Rd = Rn / (#bipolar dots)^0.3333

Rd = 2.15941E-29

 

When we go to the big bang, the dot size shrinks. The ratio of the mass of the proton today to the proton right after big bang is

Ratio = 1.35465E8meters

 

Therefore the size of the dot at big bang is

Rd = 2.15941E-29 / 1.35465E8 = 1.59407E-37meters

 

This should be the same size of the dot within a black hole.

 

As the dots expand, space expands. The center of the galaxies have black holes and in general are a constant distance apart. The galaxies expand as the dots expand. Thus at big bang (over a billion simultaneous explosions around the universe- not a single point), the forming galaxies were 1.35E8 smaller. They have expanded but the photonic wavefront of the universe moved at the speed of light to a radius of 15.9 billion light years.

Thus the physical universe does not change size. We exist from 15.9 billion years to 31.8 billion years for the photonic field. at full expansion this field compresses and erases the present universe. In the future it will be an antimatter universe.

The Indian picture of the snake eating its tail is true for the universe. The present universe will be eaten by the future universe forever. It is foolish to believe the far galaxie are moving at the speed of light away from us. This is against Einstein. They would have infinite energy if that was true. Thus Hubble & Company interpreted the red shift incorrectly. Radar Engineers have no problem understanding that. The mathematicians can go astray because they do not need to have physically realizable solutions.

Engineers need practical solutions. Thus an Engineering solution to the universe must be practical and must work. Galaxies flying apart at the speed of light is not physically realizable. It really does not matter because it was Engineers who got us to the moon using Newtons equations.

I am sorry to hurt the feelings of many great physicists but a time comes when people must look at the universe from a practical physically realizable viewpoint. The Quantum Mechanical solution based upon the double slit experiment is false. The great professor Fenn.... (forgot his name for the moment) said no-one could explain the double slit without quantum mechanics was foolish. The physical nature of the physical universe does not require the strange solution he proposed. It is funny. Engineers laugh at his solution. And they laugh at an expanding universe at light speed.

The radar data in the secret library verified Einsteins basic equations quite well. So we know that originally his non-expanding universe makes sense. He was just led astray by the Hubble data which he accepted. Sad.........

The Hubble data is true but all it shows is that the photonic field from the galaxies is expanding and that the field centers at the center of each galaxy. We then read the red shift because the photonic field of the far galaxies has expanded and in doing so lost energy per unit distance.

Oh well to answer your question, we are getting bigger and bigger common mode. This is why gravity exists. The expansion of the Bohr orbit encounters the dot-waves of space which push back upon it. The electrical equation of gravity is one solution. The more complex solution is a general gas type solution in which the dot wave hit the atoms continuously producing Heisenberg uncertainty reactions which continually change electrical energy into mechanical energy.

However this solution is for physicists. When we change the coulomb and the AC coulomb-kilogram into spins of radians per seconds, this is beyond my ability as an EE to write equations or describe the universe. Once the physicists understand the true physical nature of the universe, then they can write better equations from a scientific viewpoint then myself. Thus in the end the great mathematical and physics mind of millions of people can produce the final equations. All I do is reach into the beyond to produce the engineering solution.

[jerrygg38]

But how do you support your theory without using circular reasoning?

 

JG: I just tie my theory into existing theory. Thus it must agree with the data in my physics and electrical books. However I correct those books as required.

 

 

Care to elaborate on these "fancy" calculations?

 

JG: I just have and will show more calculations

 

And by Photonic converter do you mean one of those quantum cascade lasers? The quantum cascade lasers were thought of and were first demonstrated in 1994 by Jerome Faist, Federico Capasso, Deborah Sivco, Carlo Sirtori, Albert Hutchinson, and Alfred Cho at Bell Laboratories.

And I belive those lasers are being developed already.

 

JG: I have very limited knowledge of such things. Basically I learn of some new ideas from TV or limited books which I scan.

 

 

See this is why I have a reason to doubt you. There is no such thing as an aegis class destroyer, The aegis system and the ship that it is mounted on have no relation to each other. The first ships who where built with it were modeled after the Spruance-class destroyers.

 

JG: I am sorry. I forget things. I have to look at my resume. My system was used on the Beklnap and newer Aegis destroyers. I still have my Dept. of Navy Sea Systems command cup. It shows the gun for the CG26 Gun Weapon system. Even when I worked for Sperry, I paid little attention to the various names of the ships. I went on several of them but in general my Boss and the Senior Engineer did the communication with the Navy officials.

I did the design and they did the talking. And they had good memories and I never had a good memory for names. I remember faces quite well but cannot remember names at all.

Anyway the first system was the CSC in which we had a man in the gun. The SDC/GMP was unmaned and had to be waterproof as it was in the same room as the shells. I never saw the room. My boss did. I never saw the SDC/GMP aboard ship. I only saw the CSC aboard ship. They sent me to Dahlgren Virginia to discuss the hardware with the software people. The government programmers did the softward. The also sent me to Louisville to test out the gun. funny a navy gun in Louisville. They used to shoot down all the planes as they left the airport. Funny shooting down commercial airlines. So the system worked. They shot down all the targets. Of course no one was hurt. No one even knew that they were being shot down. A strange video game using the million dollar CSC to shoot down real planes. Everytime the computer told them they shot the plane down they would clap.

 

 

"I also find it interesting that you do not mention that you worked for Lockheed Martin."

 

JG: Lockheed Martin took over a lot. My older daughter works there. No I worked at Sperry Gyro which became Sperry Rand at Great Neck LI NY.

I forgot to say that in 1970-1972 I worked for Port of NT authority. I did the lighting towers at LaGuardia and the fuel pumping relay station which used old fashioned relay logic instead of modern computers. It was funny building computers out of relays. A whole building instead of modern electronics. They said the Local 3 electricians would not work computers.

 

Anyway Sperry Rand was taken over by Burroughs/Unisys. Then started the layoffs. It was still Unisys during the layoffs of 1993. I still have the Unisys lifetime medical plan. The Engineers union fought to maintain it and they won. I lost everything in 1993 because I was 2 weeks short of 55. However after 10 years we got a small class action settlement and I won back the lifetime medical plan for me and my wife.

 

You also mention that we are "close-minded" and only belive what we were taught. I belive I should mention, as it has been mentioned before and will be mentioned again, that we as a scientific community are VERY open minded. But our "flaw" is that we want theory's and other new idea's to be backed up by something other than circular reasoning.

 

JG: That sounds great. I do not know how old you are. One Chair at a leading Florida university was very honest. He said he was about my age and could not review the theory. He said he had a young professor that would review it. That is the problem. The people in power have 30 or 40 years behind them. To tell them that their understanding is wrong and that they have been preaching wrong ideas for 30 years, is too much for them to bear.

 

The young do have the ability to confront new ideas. This is especially true if they have not moved upward into the positions of power. However I may be a great problem solver but my wife thinks I am an idiot with respect to many things. So I am half idiot/half genius.

 

 

if there is a "massless" atom photon or otherwise, does it exist? Everything has mass, no matter how small it is.

 

JG: That is what you believe. Why do you believe this??? In order to find truth you must deny everything. Then you must build up truth slowly. You make a statement that everything has mass.

I say that is wrong. Everything has energy. The dot by itself has no mass. It only has momentum and energy. It has charge but no mass.

 

the bipolar dot does have mass. Thus energy takes two forms. Electrical energy without mass and mechanical energy with mass. That is where physics has gone astray. Unfortunately people make laws which seem to be true but are only partially true. Einsteins orbital laws are excellent but not Einsteins linear laws. So you have beautiful orbital laws and incorrect linear laws produced by the great Einstein.

 

Half truths are made into whole truths.So everyone learn half truths and half falsehoods.

 

 

 

But isnt photonics the science of generating, controlling, and detecting photons?

 

JG: I never heard the word until I thought it up a few months ago. Then I started hearing about it. I like the photonic converter to describe the conversion of mass into photonic energy.

 

Please help me to understand this.

-Theory

 

JG: I will try the best I can. I am limited in my ability to express myself. At sperry I had to describe how my designed worked. No one understand it. However we had technical writers. I would explain to them and they would produce the required technical books. I try my best but I do not always express myself well.

[Theory5]

First off, please do not change what I say or put in my quotes.

 

Second no other companies were mentioned in the making of the aegis system, only lockheed martian.In my research I meant to say.

 

 

JG: That is what you believe. Why do you believe this??? In order to find truth you must deny everything. Then you must build up truth slowly. You make a statement that everything has mass.

I say that is wrong. Everything has energy. The dot by itself has no mass. It only has momentum and energy. It has charge but no mass.

 

Einstin said that mass = energy

Also he said that Mass and Energy are the same thing.

And if you want to go around disproving einstin then you better have the math to prove it.

JG: I never heard the word until I thought it up a few months ago. Then I started hearing about it. I like the photonic converter to describe the conversion of mass into photonic energy.

Photonics isnt a type of energy as I said before it is the science of generating, controlling, and detecting photons

 

JG: I have very limited knowledge of such things. Basically I learn of some new ideas from TV or limited books which I scan.

TV? TV doesnt have many correct science "facts".

You should purchase some newer text books and read up on those if you are using your outdate book from 1960. A lot has changed since then.

[Roadam]

You still haven't answered my question about that velocity. How do you know atoms expand? Because if atoms were getting bigger even the meter would get bigger so we wouldn't notice it.

 

Dont throw in a big text of explanations. Tell how you got to it and from what. The basics.

But I guess you don't want to be proven wrong.

 

The purpose of engineers is making new things and making our dreams a reality. But unfortunately you cannot shape the inner workings of the universe.

 

So keep your dreams, I am going to bed.

[jerrygg38]

First off, please do not change what I say or put in my quotes.

 

JG response: I am not sure what you mean by that. I put JG for my responses. Should I put quote in front of your words?

 

Second no other companies were mentioned in the making of the aegis system, only lockheed martian.In my research I meant to say.

 

JG response: To the best of my knowledge Lockheed Martin bought out the military section of the Unisys company. Sperry Gyro at Lake Success NY was basically destroyed. I believe the Trident system went to Lockheed Martin in Uniondale N.Y. and the Gun system group went to Pennsylvania. I could call my ex-shop steward for the basic facts.

 

 

JG: That is what you believe. Why do you believe this??? In order to find truth you must deny everything. Then you must build up truth slowly. You make a statement that everything has mass.

I say that is wrong. Everything has energy. The dot by itself has no mass. It only has momentum and energy. It has charge but no mass.[/qoute]

 

Einstin said that mass = energy

Also he said that Mass and Energy are the same thing.

And if you want to go around disproving einstin then you better have the math to prove it.

 

Photonics isnt a type of energy as I said before it is the science of generating, controlling, and detecting photons

 

 

TV? TV doesnt have many correct science "facts".

You should purchase some newer text books and read up on those if you are using your outdate book from 1960. A lot has changed since then.

 

JG response: My work is breaking the code. The textbooks may be good for people with large memory ability. I have a calculating brain not a memory brain. The big trouble is data overload. There are so much information that the brain gets overloaded and cannot function. Why flood my brain with things I am not interested in. I read the elegant universe. Most of it is funny. The pictures are quite funny.

[jerrygg38]

You still haven't answered my question about that velocity. How do you know atoms expand? Because if atoms were getting bigger even the meter would get bigger so we wouldn't notice it.

 

JG: You are correct we are dealing with common mode expansion. That is why people cannot measure the expansion. that is why people do not understand the simple force of gravity.

 

Dont throw in a big text of explanations. Tell how you got to it and from what. The basics.

But I guess you don't want to be proven wrong.

 

JG: I am very happy to be proven wrong. The big problem is that I am my own worst judge. I was horrified in 2006 to realize that Doppler Space Time had a major flaw in it. I had three sister solutions. I chose the first one and worked on that for years. I replaced that with the second for Doppler Space Time. Then I realized that the third sister solution was the correct one. Two years have passed since 2006 and I have not found any fault with this last solution. I deny the truth of everything every day. It is tough. If you come up with an idea which will deny my latest solution, then I am out of luck because this is my last choice.

 

The purpose of engineers is making new things and making our dreams a reality. But unfortunately you cannot shape the inner workings of the universe.

 

So keep your dreams, I am going to bed.

 

JG: Have a good nights sleep. My brain does not sleep. It works all night long. When I awaken I study the new answers I conceived overnight.

[jerrygg38]

Hopefully I have answered all the questions so far. Let us now look at the universe from a wave perspective. We use the MRS system. this system has the units of meters, radian, and seconds. Thus everything in the universe can be described in terms of meters, radians per second, and seconds.

 

Coulombs are radians per second. Thus DC coulombs in this system are a simple angular rotation. The simple point charge is actually a spinning wave. It spins 360degrees in all planes. It spins slowly but billions of little dots produce a faster and faster net spin. Thus we see the summation of very slow spins which produce complex total spin patterns.

 

Kilograms are also radians per second. However we have to add a plus dot spin and a minus dot spin together to produce a more complex AC type spin. It is the more complex spin that has the property of mass.

 

The universe of radians per second for coulombs is a strange universe. We like to look at charge as a point. The whole basis of our understanding tends to be point charges and somewhat solid masses. The minute we move to wave theory we start to move away from our ordinary senses.

 

The solution coulombs equals radians per second comes from studying conversion charts and looking for the best solution. You have to pick the best fit and then study it. It took me from 1981 to 1989 to produce one solution. Then it took many more years to produce the Doppler Space Time solution. It takes a huge amount of time to study many possibilities and forever to study them all. It is only from 2006 to the present that I am studying the latest solution.

 

Anyone can produce charts of possible solutions. Computer people most likely can use computers to produce the best fit solutions. All I have is a TI-30X hand calculator. This is better than the slide rule I started with.

 

It takes me years to study a solution. Let us now look at the MRS solution.

 

The bipolar dot is spinning. This means that the dot itself enlarges in time. It means that at big bang, the dot itself is very small. Later the dot becomes larger.

Does the universe drive the dot or does the dot drive the universe. In string theory the string wind or unwind (as I understand it from Brian Greene)

 

The same thing is happening with the dots. when they spin faster they are smaller. When they spin slower they are larger. Thus we could consider that the dots oscillate from min to maximum on their own.

 

Many possibilities exist. We can also say that there is a driving function which controls the dots. Thus:

 

R(dot) = (1.85533E-33) e^-9.3611Cosine@ (11-37)

 

In equation 11-37 we have the dot radius varying as an exponential sinusoid being driven by the driving function @. this means that the entire universe could be synchronized by a higher driving function. This ensures that all galaxies explode simultaneously at over one billion black holes.

 

We could argue that the size of the dot is driven by the universe. However the alternate is that a higher level of the universe drives our light speed C universe. I do not know which is correct. Both are possible.

[Theory5]

Its Simple.

If you cant understand the basic equations that govern the laws of space and time then you cant make theorys about the laws that govern space and time.

I think I am done here.

[jerrygg38]

Its Simple.

If you cant understand the basic equations that govern the laws of space and time then you cant make theorys about the laws that govern space and time.

I think I am done here.

 

 

JG: The electrical solution I understand. The MRS system meters, radians, and seconds is not easy to understand but does present an additional avenue to study. The MRS system has only been studied by me the last 3 months. The MCS system meters coulombs seconds has been studied by me for over 20 years.

 

Anyway thanks for your comments although you appear too negative for me. I guess negativity is part of your nature. Your symbol is very negative. Try to balance your self with some positive thoughts. Life is not all down and out!

[CraigD]

In reading your posts, jerrygg38, A couple of questions come to mind:

• If the unit of charge in your theory is +/-7.062e-39 e, how does it explain the absence of any directly or indirectly measured elementary particle with charge other than 0, +/-1/3, +/- 2/3, and +/-1 e? (source: wikipedia article “list of particles”)
  

More important, however, is the following question:

• Does your theory make any testable predictions different than well-accepted theories, such as standard particle physics or classical mechanics and electrodynamics? If so, what is such a prediction?
  

When posting at hypography, members need to follow the site rules, the first of which is

In general,

back up your claims

by using links or references.

This means that when you make claims such as

Einstein believed that mass and charge were sisters

you must back them up with links or reference to credible sources.

 

Also, you mustn’t make up terms without explaining them in conventional terms.

 

As a general rule, you should avoid criticizing well accepted theory by calling it “silly”. You should not attempting to support your claim by bragging that you have solved problems that engineers were unable to solve, leading them to “believe you used witchcraft”, or that you have “solve the rubic cube by merely spinning the sides without any thought whatsoever”. In addition to being incredible and unsupported (problems that you could rectify by posting links or references to credible literature describing your apparently supernatural abilities, or, say, a youtube video of you solving a Rubic’s cube), such arguments are examples of a logical fallacy, which, as is also stated in the rules, are to be avoided.

 

;) If you are consistently unable to follow the site rules, your posting privileged at hypography will be suspended. :Exclamati

[jerrygg38]

In reading your posts, jerrygg38, A couple of questions come to mind:

• If the unit of charge in your theory is +/-7.062e-39 e, how does it explain the absence of any directly or indirectly measured elementary particle with charge other than 0, +/-1/3, +/- 2/3, and +/-1 e? (source: wikipedia article “list of particles”)
   
  JG: Firstly my studies involve the smallest subparticle in the universe, the dot. This means it cannot be measured. The question of why you get 1/3, 2/3, and 0, and 1 is a question of large scale high energy physics rather than basic fundamental smallest particle physics. Things are different. Since this is New Theories I assumed that people would be interested in a theoretical theory. If they want proven theories then it should have been "existing modifications to proven theories." I study what cannot be seen or measured. As far as the 1/3 is concerned, that is a different area of study. My analysis of the proton specifies that it is made up mainly of three major ingredients. If you chop the proton apart you will chop the total charge into 3 parts. If the charge to mass ratio is constant, then you will get Q=1/3.
  Thus it seems quite likely that 1/3 is a good number for the charge. But that is not the basic interest in the dot theory.
  According to my calculations there are 1.416E38 positive dots in a proton. For 1/3 there are 0.472E38 dots for 1/3 charge.
  How can you measure these dots? Light is composed of plus and minus dots. Thus the dots show up in the photons. For every level of energy of a photon, the number of dots can be calculated.
  Dots also show up in the electrical field. The field itself is composed of space dots each one has q=1.13E-57Coulombs. The electromagnetic field is dots in motion.
   
  

More important, however, is the following question:

• Does your theory make any testable predictions different than well-accepted theories, such as standard particle physics or classical mechanics and electrodynamics? If so, what is such a prediction?
   
  JG: I just explain the theories by my dots. My theory does not replace the other theories. I just add into them.
   
  

When posting at hypography, members need to follow the site rules, the first of which is

 

JG: Ok. I will hit the color blue I answer. Are other colors okay?

 

 

In general,

back up your claims

by using links or references.

This means that when you make claims such as you must back them up with links or reference to credible sources.

 

I present a complete theory so I have no sources other than myself. It is my theory. Doppler Space Time is my book. When I use data from my physics books I refer to them.

 

Also, you mustn’t make up terms without explaining them in conventional terms.

 

Ok I will try my best.

 

As a general rule, you should avoid criticizing well accepted theory by calling it “silly”.

 

Okay. Sorry to hurt feelings. It is very upsetting to people to have their beliefs damaged. I will just say I disagree and state why.

 

 

 

You should not attempting to support your claim by bragging that you have solved problems that engineers were unable to solve, leading them to “believe you used witchcraft”, or that you have “solve the rubic cube by merely spinning the sides without any thought whatsoever”.

 

JG: Ok I will try to restrain my personality and humourous comments. It is true but what I think is funny others may be horrified at.

 

In addition to being incredible and unsupported (problems that you could rectify by posting links or references to credible literature describing your apparently supernatural abilities, or, say, a youtube video of you solving a Rubic’s cube), such arguments are examples of a logical fallacy, which, as is also stated in the rules, are to be avoided.

 

ok

 

 

 

;) If you are consistently unable to follow the site rules, your posting privileged at hypography will be suspended. :Exclamati[/quote

COLOR=blue][/color]

ok. We will see how it goes. Most groups that I have dealt with do not want to hear any new ideas. So they throw me out. I undestand that.

 

The only good thing is that I have a small group of readers who always want a copy of my latest work. Some colleges do put my books in their libraries and some students email me and thank me for my ideas. This is very small but I feel the right ideas into the right mind will achieve advancement for mankind.

[jerrygg38]

I have spent the last week rewritting my manuscript. I seem to be failing to bring my theory to light to others. I have reformated it to present the most important point first. Then as the book progresses I reinforce the points up front.

I will now post the new introduction in chapter 1. I would appreciate all comments both good and bad.

 

CHAPTER 1- THE DOT WAVE THEORY

SECTION 1-0 INTRODUCTION

 

In this chapter, the Dot-Wave Unified Field theory will be introduced. The theory is based upon the proposition that the entire universe is composed of a multiplicity of three basic things. The first is a positive dot-wave of charge 1.13144E-57 coulombs. The second is a negative dot-wave of charge 1.13144E-57 coulombs. The third ingredient for the structure of the universe is a bipolar dot-wave of mass 7.33982E-69kilograms. Every particle, sub-particle, and photon is composed of the dot-waves. Empty space itself is packed with dot-waves.

 

The Dot-Wave theory specifies that the universe operates upon a very simple principle that electrical energy transforms into mechanical energy and visa versa. Thus a positive dot-wave and a negative dot-wave combine to produce a bipolar dot wave. The positive and negative dot-waves have electrical energy and momentum. They do not possess the property of mass. Bi-polar dot waves have zero net DC charge. They have the property of mechanical energy and mass.

 

The Top equation of the universe is a transformation equation. Two opposite dot-wave charges combine to produce a bipolar dot-wave mass. Thus:

 

QD + (-QD) = MD (1-1)

 

In equation 1-1 we see that a positive dot-wave and a negative dot-wave transform to produce a massy dot-wave. Equation 1-1 is the Top Equation of the Universe. Although coulombs and kilograms appear as different properties, they are related by energy equations and are also related by the above transformation equation. Thus coulombs and kilograms are sister transformational units.

 

2.26288E-57 coulombs = 7.33982E-69kilograms (1-2)

 

1 coulomb = 3.24357E-12 kilograms (1-3)

 

Therefore:

 

1.60218E-19 coulombs = 5.19678E-31kilograms (1-5)

 

In equation 1-5, when a proton with charge +Q combines with a neutron with an electron with charge –Q to form a neutron, the gain of mass from electrical energy is:

 

Mass increase = 2 x 5.19678E-31 = 1.039356E-30kg (1-6)

 

Some of the mass increase of the neutron comes from the conversion of electrical charge to mass. Only a small amount of energy comes from the neutrino in the press. Thus the proton loses plus dot-waves while the electron loses minus dot-waves when the neutron is formed. The result is additional bipolar dot-waves are produced in the process.

 

We can also express the kilogram in terms of coulombs. Thus:

 

1 kilogram = 3.08302E11 coulombs (1-7)

 

In equation 1-7 we find that if we take one kilogram of material and completely convert it into photonic energy, we will obtain 3.08302E11 coulombs of dot charge in the form of plus dot-waves and minus dot-waves. The sun is continuously converting kilograms of matter into photonic energy. In the process many protons and electrons themselves are reduced to pure photonic energy. Thus the main engine of the sun is the destruction of the protons and electrons into photonic energy.

 

The bipolar dot-wave energy is:

 

EBIPOLAR DOT = MDC2 = 6.59668E-52 (1-8)

 

Each individual dot-wave has an equivalent electrical energy of half the bipolar dot-wave energy. Therefore:

 

ED = 3.29834E-52 (1-9)

 

The interaction between the dots within the particles and the dots of space produce the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. They cause the Double slit experiment results. This will be explained in later chapters. The above calculations will be explained in this chapter and chapter 2.

 

Since mass and charge are transformations of each other, we can replace mechanical equations for gravity with sister electrical transform equations. This will enable us to calculate the time of the universe since big bang. It will enable us to calculate the radius of the photonic wave since big bang. This coincides with the outer radius of the universe.

 

The transformation equations for gravity enable us to understand the reasons for gravity. Thus we can produce an electrical sister equation for the gravitational constant. The mechanical gravitational equations are the result of interactions between the dot-waves of one mass, the dot-waves of a second mass and the interactions of the space dot waves. This produces very complex wave type equations which are beyond the scope of this book. The electrical equations are Thevenin type transformation equations. These equations provide a dual solution to the mechanical wave type solution.

 

As will be shown later coulombs and kilograms are transformations of each other and both can be replaced by a wave unit of radians per second. Thus the electrical world and the mechanical world can both be described in terms of wave motion.

 

I hope that this helps clarify what I am saying.

[jedaisoul]

Hi Jerry, I've enjoyed reading your ideas, but I have a few comments that I hope you will take in the manner they are intended:

 

The big problem is that in order for man to survive upon this earth he must replace obsolete energy sources with proton to photonic converters.

This is an unsupported claim. When the non-renewable energy sources are depleted, if we have not found some other source of economically viable energy, we will have to make-do with nuclear and renewable energy sources. There is no reason to assume that man will cease to survive upon the Earth, That is just an attention grabbing sound bite with no logic to support the claim. I'd expect that of the media, but not from someone who claims to have a serious interest in the subject.

 

What is true is that it will be unlikely that we will be able to afford tio be so profligate and thoughtless in our use of energy. The same applies to the other non-renewable resources. But these lessons have been learned, and ignored, many times before. For example, farmers who continually take more out of the soil than they put back, either have to move on or end up living in an arid desert.

 

So mankind will have to change his attitude to non-reneable resources of all kinds. That is very different from claiming that we will cease to exist.

 

The dot theory shows the dot structure of the proton from an Einsteinian energy viewpoint which shows that 3.482MEV added spherically to a proton will produce 938.272MEV of photonic energy. This is not added by linear accelerators but by spherical pulsating electromagnetic fields.

Have you had the opportunity to build such a machine on a test scale?

 

Our spaceships can travel on a beam of light. The beam is dangerous when in operation but once it is shut off the photonic engine is non-radioactive. Thus any fuel such as water or iron can be used.

We can get to the moon in 3.5 hours. We will ride the light beam at constant acceleration of G. Halfway to the moon we will reverse to a deceleration of -g. Thus except for a reversal of one minute, we will never be weightless. The photonic fuel cell is a very gentle method of space travel.

In Doppler Space Time 2000 we can get to Mars or Venus in a little over 2 days. Pluto requires 25 days. We can also get to Alpha Centauri in reasonable time.

These claims seem unrealistic, but I admit I have not done the maths. How do you get from the Earth to the moon in 3.5 hours at only 1 G? Even if that is true, how much energy (in the form of light) will need to be expelled to drive a spaceship, say 1,000 kilograms, at 1 G? Won't that have an effect similar to setting off a nuclear bomb (in terms of the light output)?

 

Note: I believe that the photon drive is already being developed, to take unmanned probes to the outer reaches of the solar system (and beyond) using the energy from the sun to provide the propulsion. But the accelleration is extremely slow and the time taken is in decades.

 

I find the following comments condescending:

Someday the scientists will realize that they most go to the basics. They will then discover the dots.

[snip]

The scientists went astray when they omitted the Einsteian energy increase from the Bohr model.

 

I thionk you also need to reconsider the following:

I have been banned by so many groups over the years.

Unfortunately most people are preconditioned to believe the status quo. That is fine. This will not produce the photonic engine. Perhaps in another hundred years the powers that be will realize that the universe is a simple place. Then we can move forward. On the other hand global warming may destroy everything before then.

Oh well. Most people give me three seconds. They they decide what I say does not agree with what they have been taught. I understand that. They cannot overcome their programming. Few people have the ability to do that.

They cannot think on their own. We are only programmed robots. We do not compute! A few of us think beyond our programming.

Most groups that I have dealt with do not want to hear any new ideas. So they throw me out. I undestand that.

 

You might benefit from reconsidering the reasons why you have been banned so many times. Saying: "They cannot think on their own" and "Most groups that I have dealt with do not want to hear any new ideas. So they throw me out. I undestand that" just reveals how little you understand. I find that groups like this are interested in new ideas. Indeed that is a major reason why the groups exist. But there are rules. You get thrown out for repeatedly breaking the rules, not for expressing revolutionary ideas.

 

Lastly:

So there is hope for man. They have gone astray for the last fifty years. My work will go out and things will change. Many will deny me but eventually man will come to understand the truth of what I say.

This is simply messianic. It shows you in a very poor light. You need to consider not how closed minded people are, but how open minded they are to even listen to your ideas when they are interspersed with such egotistical nonsense.

[jerrygg38]

Hi Jerry, I've enjoyed reading your ideas, but I have a few comments that I hope you will take in the manner they are intended:

 

 

Quote from jedaisoul: This is an unsupported claim. So mankind will have to change his attitude to non-reneable resources of all kinds. That is very different from claiming that we will cease to exist.

 

JG: Ok your ideas sound good. Man can always survive somewhere if the only problem is global warming, etc. A few people could be atop the highest mountains. The big problem is that our way of life is going down hill. (I was thinking into the far future not the next few hundred years.)

[jerrygg38]

Hi Jerry, I've enjoyed reading your ideas, but I have a few comments that I hope you will take in the manner they are intended:

 

 

 

 

Have you had the opportunity to build such a machine on a test scale?

 

 

[

These claims seem unrealistic, but I admit I have not done the maths. How do you get from the Earth to the moon in 3.5 hours at only 1 G? Even if that is true, how much energy (in the form of light) will need to be expelled to drive a spaceship, say 1,000 kilograms, at 1 G? Won't that have an effect similar to setting off a nuclear bomb (in terms of the light output)?

 

 

Note: I believe that the photon drive is already being developed, to take unmanned probes to the outer reaches of the solar system (and beyond) using the energy from the sun to provide the propulsion. But the accelleration is extremely slow and the time taken is in decades.

 

I find the following comments condescending:

 

 

I thionk you also need to reconsider the following:

 

 

 

 

 

You might benefit from reconsidering the reasons why you have been banned so many times. Saying: "They cannot think on their own" and "Most groups that I have dealt with do not want to hear any new ideas. So they throw me out. I undestand that" just reveals how little you understand. I find that groups like this are interested in new ideas. Indeed that is a major reason why the groups exist. But there are rules. You get thrown out for repeatedly breaking the rules, not for expressing revolutionary ideas.

 

Lastly:

 

This is simply messianic. It shows you in a very poor light. You need to consider not how closed minded people are, but how open minded they are to even listen to your ideas when they are interspersed with such egotistical nonsense.

 

COLOR="Blue"][/color] No. All my work is theoretical. I have no ability to do such things. If I had the money I could start the project but it would requre about 10 billion dollars and a team of about 100 engineers, physicists, and workers. All I can do is propose the machine. I guess I could draw up a design patent for it but that too involves money.

 

I just calculated these things in my Doppler Space Time book in 2000. Using S=0.5at^2 and V=at, and ignoring that we have to take off from the Earth at 2g initially until we clear the atmosophere, the trip to the moon will reach a maximum velocity of 137,400 miles per hour at the halfway point. The trip to Mars or Venus will reach a speed of 2.08 million miles per hour. ( I have not rechecked the numbers since the printing of the book).

 

I have not calculated the amount of energy required but the process for the production of the photonic field is quite nuclear. Certainly it is a kind of nuclear bomb but a very slow discharging one. Of course unless the design is right, it is possible to produce a proton bomb by mistake.

 

 

Some people worried about that at CERN. The linear acceleration of the proton should destroy it but if they built a spherical type device at CERN, then they could destroy quite a lot.

 

 

Thanks for your comments. Whether good or bad I am happy for some feedback.

[CraigD]

In response to this question

[*]Does your theory make any testable predictions different than well-accepted theories, such as standard particle physics or classical mechanics and electrodynamics? If so, what is such a prediction?

jerrygg38 replies

JG: I just explain the theories by my dots. My theory does not replace the other theories. I just add into them.

yet here

The sun is continuously converting kilograms of matter into photonic energy. In the process many protons and electrons themselves are reduced to pure photonic energy. Thus the main engine of the sun is the destruction of the protons and electrons into photonic energy.

contradicts the widely accepted and strongly experimentally confirmed theory that the energy generated by the sun is the result of nuclear fusion with.

 

A compelling body of evidence supports the theory that stars are powered by fusion, among it the confirmed spectroscopic observation that as sun-like stars become older, they contain decreasing amounts of hydrogen, and increasing amounts of helium. To replace this theory with a very different one, this theory must at least make predictions that match observed data. To replace an accepted theory, an alternative theory must make some prediction different than those to which it is an alternative, and those predictions confirmed.

 

Jerrygg38, your claims do neither of these. Nothing you have posted to date at hypography makes any experimentally verifiable prediction, but rather you have stated such things as

Firstly my studies involve the smallest subparticle in the universe, the dot. This means it cannot be measured.

A claim that asserts itself to be un-testable is not a scientific theory, but rather in the class of statements Pauli termed “not even wrong”.

 

It’s not my intention, Jerry, to be harsh in my criticism, but with such deficiencies, your writing has nearly no scientific worth. You appear to have spent a lot of time and effort on it, but to have done so without the guidance from yourself or others necessary to inform you of the vital importance of not just writing ideas that appeal to you, but considering how to test them. If you hope to write acceptable, science, let alone science so compelling that it results in engineering proposals attracting billions of dollars in investment and solving important practical problems, you must I think start over with this critical principle in mind.

[jerrygg38]

In response to this questionjerrygg38 repliesyet here contradicts the widely accepted and strongly experimentally confirmed theory that the energy generated by the sun is the result of nuclear fusion with.

 

A compelling body of evidence supports the theory that stars are powered by fusion, among it the confirmed spectroscopic observation that as sun-like stars become older, they contain decreasing amounts of hydrogen, and increasing amounts of helium. To replace this theory with a very different one, this theory must at least make predictions that match observed data. To replace an accepted theory, an alternative theory must make some prediction different than those to which it is an alternative, and those predictions confirmed.

 

Jerrygg38, your claims do neither of these. Nothing you have posted to date at hypography makes any experimentally verifiable prediction, but rather you have stated such things as A claim that asserts itself to be un-testable is not a scientific theory, but rather in the class of statements Pauli termed “not even wrong”.

 

It’s not my intention, Jerry, to be harsh in my criticism, but with such deficiencies, your writing has nearly no scientific worth. You appear to have spent a lot of time and effort on it, but to have done so without the guidance from yourself or others necessary to inform you of the vital importance of not just writing ideas that appeal to you, but considering how to test them. If you hope to write acceptable, science, let alone science so compelling that it results in engineering proposals attracting billions of dollars in investment and solving important practical problems, you must I think start over with this critical principle in mind.

 

 

 

Yes. It appears that the main body of radiation from stars is as you state. The scientists have done a good job of calculating such things. I do not disagree with them. However unless some of the protons disintegrate within the stars, then the photonic converter would be impossible.

 

If some of them do disintegrate then a powerful source of energy can be achieved. The same would be true of the atom bomb. If some protons disintegrated in the process, then more energy would have been released than expected. I recall that the atom bomb scientists achieved more energy than they expected. Perhaps the pressure did cause some protons to explode.

If no protons disintegrated than the proton converter is invalid.

 

As far as thing being testable, that is beyond my ability. All I can do is produce a theory of the universe in which the calculations and experimental data already established agrees with my calculations and theory.

 

The Proton converter theory is not part of my Dot-wave Unified Field theory. It is just a separate theory based upon my calculations of the Einsteinian energy levels of an electron as it enters the proton. These levels indicate the binding energy of the proton is 3.4MEV. However can the proton be destroyed by some process? All I suggest is that a spherical field is worth a try. However I am hoping that at CERN they will discover more data which will indicate that the proton can be destroyed.

 

My only purpose is to bring to light the possibility. I sent the information to the Department of Energy. They send it to one of their physicists. He responded that my ideas were interesting but that I should send them for peer review. Well I am an outsider. So all I can do is self-publish my work and send them to libraries. In this way, people will accept or reject what I have to say.

 

Since I have many different theories in my books, the rejection of one or more does not negate my effort. I do not make any money on this. It is just my hobby.

Anyway thanks for your comments. You may very well be right about the sun. The possibility of proton destruction may be slim. However then what hope have we to reach the stars?