Foundation of Everything

Here's a new theory/concept I've found that I thought I'd share.
It simplifies everything down to the basic relationship of Energy.http://www.gamert.co.ukNot only a theory,but some free software to back it all up with.

If this is the whole God created everything during the Big Bang by an engery-matter converstion, it's been said before.

No, this is a Abstract Tool demonstrating the relationship between energy and mass.
From it you can determine Ohm's Law, Boyle's Law, Relativity and loads more.

As theories go, this is one of very few that does not rely on Constants or Magic Numbers. In fact it's the only one I know of.There is only 1 constant value used - pi, which doesn't really count because it is a natural number.The speed of light is used, but only to convert results into everyday context - it isn't actually used to determine any of the results. Essentially the speed of light is 1.What other theories, without the use of Magic Numbers can give you the relative time at the singularity of a blackhole, or relativistic mass at 2/3 speed of light or even the velocity of an object from its redshift.

So may I ask just what conclusions you have been able to draw from the use of the hooper-luck triangle? Have you been able to make predictions about as yet unobseved phenomena? Or is this at best a mathematetical curiousity?

A mathematetical curiousity it may be, but a fairly fundemental one.
The main concluision from the Triangle is that there is a simple set of rules that governs everything in our Universe, and along with the rule that the internal angles of a triangle always adds up to 180, everything always balances out.Some basic findingsPhotons do have mass.
The speed of Gravity and the speed of light are governed by the same principle.
Lorentz was more in tune with relativity than Einstein.
Time is not a dimension.The singularity of a blackhole has similar properties as the pre-BigBang Universe.

WebfeetAlrighty then,what is the mass of the electron calculated to be?
What is the principle that governs both gravity and the speed of light? Just imagine relativity and gravity united at last. Could you be a little more specific?What is time then according to the theory? Now this is interesting since I have never been informed by any science journal just what the pre-Big Bang conditions were.Please explain.[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-05-2003]

Sidelined, do I sense an amount of scepticism ?My calculations put the size of a photon (I assume you meant photon and not electron) as approxiamtely 2x10^-15 that of an electron.Why is Lorentz more in touch with Relativity ?
Einstein stated that matter does not shrink, it is time that is slowed.
From the Triangle, which I assume you've had a play with, you will notice that Time is internal to the system, even when at zero velocity. What happens to Time is depandant on Energy and its Relationships.Before the BigBang, it is accepted by those people who believe in the BigBang theory, that all the energy in the Universe was contained within a singularity. In this singularity because it is dimensionless, there can be no mass and no time, there was only energy.
Now take a look at the blackhole, at the singularity there is absolute density, no time and loads of energy. Very similar don't you think ?As for Gravity, ask you self a question.
Why, if Gravity acts towards an object, are scientists trying to find emmissions from the object ? Wouldn't the force of those emmissions be going in the wrong direction ?

No.You have a lot of learning to do before you are capable of caclulating or discussing what goes on at the sub-atomic level.

There are experimental limits on the mass of a photon.A cast iron upper limit is (7.3 x 10^-21) times the mass of an electron.More indirect evidence puts an upper limit of (1.7 x 10^-32) times the mass of an electron.So your 2x10^-15 number is already way too high.This Hooper-Luck triangle thing (I haven't looked at it yet) but it sounds like a joke.By the way a black hole singularity and a big bang singularity are not the same mathematical object. A black hole singularity is embedded in a pre-existing spacetime, a big bang singularity is not.What the heck is your emissions question about?

Here's a quote taken from an article in USATodayWe have, however, put an upper limit on the photon rest mass. In 1994, the Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft measured the Earth's magnetic field and physicists used this data to define an upper limit of 0.0000000000000006 electron volts for the mass of photons, with a high certainty in the results. That would put my numbers 'in the ballpark'Let me know where you got your figures from.

At the BlackHole singularity, there is no space time as you put it.
What exists beyond the singularity is not part of the singularity, so how can it have any influence on it.
If the external space-time has some influence over the singularity, then it would presumably have some measue of time or space, so would cease to be a singularity.As for the emmissions, you asked about Gravity. What do you understand as being the properties of a Graviton, and why, if they are so abundant in the Universe has one never been detected ?

er....that article gives as the upper limit of photon mass to be: In fact, its in the paragraph after the one you quoted!Now, if my counting of zeroes is anywhere as good as it used to be, I make that 3.9*10^(-22). Which is about 10^7 times smaller than your "in the ballpark" number.PE

Here is a pretty recent result.http://physics.about.com/library/weekly/aa022303b.htmThe much more stringent result is from galactic magnetic field constraints. I don't have a link right this second.

Until you asked I'd never actually calculated the mass - when I did, in my haste, I used a straight 1 to 1 relationship between energy and mass for the electron - wrong on my part.
The answer I gave you related essentially to 1 electron volt - which as everybody knows should have been 0.51 MeV - so my number was wrong by a factor of 10^-7.I stand corrected.