Dot-Wave Unified field theory

[jerrygg38]

[QUOTE=jedaisoul;245203]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]

Originally Posted by 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:




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

Originally Posted by CraigD

[list][*]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

Originally Posted by jerrygg38

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

yet here

Originally Posted by jerrygg38

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

Originally Posted by jerrygg38

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]

Originally Posted by CraigD

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?

[Roadam]

Thing is that even if you destroy the proton, where does the energy go? Unless your dots have some strange ability, the usual thing it would happen I guess is the generation of some other particles which would carry away the energy. Either in the state of EMW or heat.

[jerrygg38]

Originally Posted by Roadam

Thing is that even if you destroy the proton, where does the energy go? Unless your dots have some strange ability, the usual thing it would happen I guess is the generation of some other particles which would carry away the energy. Either in the state of EMW or heat.

The proton breaks down into the u-mesons and the pi-mesons, they in turn break down into photons and positrons and electrons. Everything breaks down into phothons. The dots are the photons in the purest form.

Everything turns into heat and photonic energy which flows ourward from a rocket engine or is used to heat stream for electric power generation.

The lowests quanta of light energy is a pair of dots.

As we look into space we find areas of pure empty space. These are filled with the dots. there may be protons there but it may very well be that the electrons and protons already self destructed.

In the end of the process, the universe ends in cold death. All the material universe converts into photonic energy which is the dots. The plus minus dots then converge back to the inner radius of the universe and then the dots converge into black holes and billions of simultaneous big bangs reoccur. thus we go from a mechanical universe to an electrical universe and then back to a mechanical universe at the black holes. then we return to this state of both mechanical and electrical energy.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by jerrygg38

...The plus minus dots then converge back to the inner radius of the universe and then the dots converge into black holes and billions of simultaneous big bangs reoccur. thus we go from a mechanical universe to an electrical universe and then back to a mechanical universe at the black holes. then we return to this state of both mechanical and electrical energy.

Hello, jerrygg38,
I've enjoyed reading your posts.
You've had one heck of a career, working on all those great projects.
I'm not quite as old as you, but I worked for Texas Instruments, McDonnell Douglas, and others. I worked with laser pointing devices, infra-red imaging detectors, designed one of the first computer networks, and built my own telescopes. Congratulations on all your achievements.

As you have discovered, the folks here at Hypography don't really know how to take you, or how to understand your dot-waves. But I think I do. You started with conversion tables, right? A guy could go blind reading all the conversion tables out there in engineering books. And you had a lot of time on your hands.

So, you probably discovered one day that if you worked the MCS and the MRS units right, making sure that some units canceled out and other didn't, then you came up with some astonishing results. And your dot-wave theory was born.

That's a pretty good hobby for a 70-year old man. It keeps you occupied and it certainly is a worthwhile use of your time. Not a waste of time, like playing video games or reading romance novels. You're not the kind of guy who would spend his last years wasting his time. I can tell that about you. You've got determination. I admire that.

Now, as to whether or not your theory is correct, these other folks seem to think that's the most important thing. Where's your proof! But you and I know that's not the most important thing. What's important is your determination and your commitment to discovering something about the universe and sharing it with humanity.

I'd say you've done a pretty good job at that. You know, I used to work in graduate school reading the scientific papers sent in by folks just like you, folks who had a new theory about math or science. I had to figure out if the authors knew what they were talking about. Reading your theory took me back to those good old days, so, thanks a lot.

It wasn't easy figuring out whose theory made sense and whose didn't. It's still not easy. But you're doing what you love, and it's making a difference in your life, right? Life would be pretty damn boring if you didn't have this wonderful hobby. I applaud your creativity.

I guess you know by now that these other rapscallions don't think much of your theory, but maybe they're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Maybe they'll come around some day. But you've done a good job stating your case. I guess all there is to do now is just wait for the right reader to come along. Best wishes to you, jerrygg38. Best of wishes for your theory. It will always be right here at Hypography for all the newcomers to read, if they want to. Someday, somebody will understand it. You take care of yourself.

Pyro / Nelson

[jerrygg38]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Hello, jerrygg38,
I've enjoyed reading your posts.
You've had one heck of a career, working on all those great projects.
I'm not quite as old as you, but I worked for Texas Instruments, McDonnell Douglas, and others. I worked with laser pointing devices, infra-red imaging detectors, designed one of the first computer networks, and built my own telescopes. Congratulations on all your achievements.

As you have discovered, the folks here at Hypography don't really know how to take you, or how to understand your dot-waves. But I think I do. You started with conversion tables, right? A guy could go blind reading all the conversion tables out there in engineering books. And you had a lot of time on your hands.

So, you probably discovered one day that if you worked the MCS and the MRS units right, making sure that some units canceled out and other didn't, then you came up with some astonishing results. And your dot-wave theory was born.

That's a pretty good hobby for a 70-year old man. It keeps you occupied and it certainly is a worthwhile use of your time. Not a waste of time, like playing video games or reading romance novels. You're not the kind of guy who would spend his last years wasting his time. I can tell that about you. You've got determination. I admire that.

Now, as to whether or not your theory is correct, these other folks seem to think that's the most important thing. Where's your proof! But you and I know that's not the most important thing. What's important is your determination and your commitment to discovering something about the universe and sharing it with humanity.

I'd say you've done a pretty good job at that. You know, I used to work in graduate school reading the scientific papers sent in by folks just like you, folks who had a new theory about math or science. I had to figure out if the authors knew what they were talking about. Reading your theory took me back to those good old days, so, thanks a lot.

It wasn't easy figuring out whose theory made sense and whose didn't. It's still not easy. But you're doing what you love, and it's making a difference in your life, right? Life would be pretty damn boring if you didn't have this wonderful hobby. I applaud your creativity.

I guess you know by now that these other rapscallions don't think much of your theory, but maybe they're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Maybe they'll come around some day. But you've done a good job stating your case. I guess all there is to do now is just wait for the right reader to come along. Best wishes to you, jerrygg38. Best of wishes for your theory. It will always be right here at Hypography for all the newcomers to read, if they want to. Someday, somebody will understand it. You take care of yourself.

Pyro / Nelson

Thanks for the wonderful comments. I just finished rewritting the manuscript.
I used to be able to come up with the $6000 and have 1000 copies printed by McNaugton &Gunn. I sold some but gave most away to libraries. Right now I will only be sending out the manuscripts in a clear cover report folder. It is free for the asking. Some people want to pay for the postage and printing costs. It costs me $2.50 postage and about $6.00 for folder and paper and ink. (Non-profit). Payment later if they like the work. Anyone who wants an autographed copy can email me at jerrygg38@nc.rr.com.
Right now I am looking for a job so I can buy the 1000 copies. I also work as a small handyman business. Mostly older customers who cannot pay much.
In Virginia Breach I had a good worker John who had some handicaps but was a good worker. When I left I gave the customers to him along with a good supply of tools. I enjoy helping people out.
I miss the good old days at Sperry when the jobs were fun. Things went downhill arout 1991 and then they downsized in 1993. Out in the street for me and 250 other older engineers.
Anyway thaks for the comments.

[modest]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

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?

Originally Posted by jerrygg38

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).

A quick check verifies the figures. Figuring half the distance to the moon using Jerry’s numbers:

Initial velocity = = 0 m/s
Acceleration = a = 9.8
Time = t = 6300 sec.
Velocity = v = = 61,740 m/s

this converts to 138,108 miles per hour which is near the 137,400 Jerry gives

= 194,481 km

Which is roughly half the distance to the moon. Decelerating the second half of the trip would double the distance in equal time, so this is correct. Mars and Venus checked out about the same. I think Pluto would be a bit less than 25 days.

As far as Alpha Centauri, you’d have to take relativistic effects into account. Using the relativistic rocket equation for proper time of the passenger:

Half the distance to Alpha Centauri is 2.15 lightyears and acceleration (in light-year units) is 1.032 lightyears/years^2.

Rearranging and rewriting the equation above in a computer friendly format where c = 1 we get:

T=1/a*LN(((a*d)+1)+SQRT(((a*d)+1)^2-1))

where a = 1.032 ly/y^2 and d=2.15 ly:

T=1/1.032*LN(((1.032*2.15)+1)+SQRT(((1.032*2.15)+1)^2-1))

T=1.78 years

Doubling in order to decelerate the second leg of the trip makes our journey to the nearest star at 1g roughly a 3.56 year affair.

~modest

[maddog]

jerrygg38,

I have finally read this thread and excuse me if I give you that "Spock" look and say
"interesting...".

Your theory apparently at the root depends upon only two particles, one
a minutely small + charge and mass, the other with a minutely small - charge and mass. You make up a composite particle made up of one + and one - charged particle. With these you make all the known (and unknown-?) particles in the universe).

I can consider alternate theories as I often do. What problem I would have with this one, is how it can account for all the known interactions.

From what you have said, you account for the electron, proton, neutron.

e - composed of number of - dots to equal its charge.
p - composed of number of + dots to equal its charge.
n - composded of number of +- (composite) dots to equal its mass.

You mention a neutrino yet do not describe its composition.

You do not describe the what constitutes the following particles:

Muon, Positron (anti-particle of electron), Anti-Proton, Anti-neutrino.

I suppose due to the similarity of the electron with a muon
(same charge) that you just add some +- composite dots. Though what
do do with the anti-particles ?

I have not bothered to ask about quarks as your interpretations removes the need for SU(2)xSU(3) symmetry or Chromodynamics. I do wonder what you do with the other Baryons and Mesons that have been discovered
by the worlds current and past accelerators ?

I you don't consider the need for Antimatter then how do you explain the
interaction observed as Hydronium {} to emit gamma rays (highly energetic photons).

Second what force would hold the electrons or protons together given EM's nature to repel like charges ?

Third it appears you only have two forces EM & Gravity. So what holds nuclei together ?

In case you didn't ever learn the name of the professor you were thinking of, it was Dr Richard Feynman, inventor of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics).

How do you account for Electron Tunnelling and whole interaction of Semiconductors ?

How do you explain the Thompson 2-slit experiment for both light or electrons when emitting on single photon or electron per second ?

How do you explain what is going on in any material that can undergo superconduction ?

How do you explain Bose-Einstein Condensation ?

How do you explain Particle Entanglement or EPR Paradox ?

I also didn't know whether you consider the need for a Magnetic Monopole.

How do envision Gravity as a force behaving near the Planck Scale ?

How about the notion of Parity ? How do you make this work with only
two particles to make up things ?

What prevents a neutron from accepting one more + or - dot to deviate from a neutral particle.

What makes neutrinos so weakly interacting if they are actually made of + or - particles. Are the other WIMP like particles -- so as to explain Dark Matter ?

Given the from WMAP data, how do you account for the need for Einstein's Omega-0 or Dark Energy (or not) ?

How does fission and fusion work without the Weak or Strong Forces ?

How do you deal with De Broglie waves for the electron for example ?

I could keep going. I am more interested in finding/knawing on these first though.

Any good theory of merit deserves to meet a good challenge. This is what strengthens such a theory.

I am curious.

maddog