Foundation of Everything

You have consistantly failed to grasp the concept that I have proposed.'Every complex system can be reduced to a simple set of rules'
Murray Gell-Mann.What I have proposed is a simple set of rules. Rules by which everything can be determined.
You keep insisting on trying to evaluate it in isolation at a complex level.Far from not being able to calculate redshift, you have said that my solution would work, but only over short distances. This is where you are getting lost in the complexity.
If you change the distance by expansion, then you must go through another iteration, using the new values that you have determined work beyond that short distance.
this next iteration will only work, again for a short distance.
The way you determine the distance due to expansion adds a level of complexity which a single iteration of the rules cannot cater for.
But as with the way you calculate redshift distance, it requires a number of iterations to provide the final figure. Which is exactly the same as is required with the simple set of rules.Each of your examples relies on a level of complexity
By referencing GR, again you have added another level of complexity.As far doing the wrong physics, until you can grasp the difference between simple rules and complex systems, it will always appear to you to be the wrong physics.

Well your tool is not a very useful tool then.But back to the photon mass.Please show me your calculation.Because if it predicts a photon mass then it is wrong!In fact your 'tool' is the equivalent of doing a calculus problem without the 'complexity' of the calculus. You are in effect calculating out every infinitesimal sum by habd.Please explain how this is a step forward?You tool brings nothing to the table.[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 12-09-2003]

OK let's put it this way.What can you do with HLT that I cannot do already in a faster manner by conventional means?

What can you do with HLT that I cannot do already in a faster manner by conventional means?Get your back up - it would seem !By the way, thanks for providing confirmation, in a round about way, that the HLT will handle redshift distance.The Topic of the thread is : Foundation of Everything.
All I have offered is simplicity.The idea behind this was to publish a tool that can demonstrate a simple set of rules. A set of rules that go a long way towards a Foundation of Everything. A set rules that can be used to construct complex systems.I have never offered a faster way of doing anything, but hopefully a simpler, consistant explanation of what is happening, and why.
Hence the the title of the topic.Conventional means, as you call them, are specialist formulae. Each formula is the best at what it does, that's why you use them. But outside of their intended specialist field, they are of little or no use whatsoever.If you are hoping that a new theory explaining everything in the Universe will provide a faster method for you, than the existing formulae you have, then I think you are setting your expectations 'a little high'.

From what you've said and demonstrated so far, there's no explanation of what is happening, and ther's not even a hint of why. What you've presented is a somewhat limited calculator with a graphical interface.

Well you have resorted to the time honoured last resort of all the other cranks in history.Accuse others of not following.Let me tell you something sonny.Your tool DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. IN FACT IT OBSCURES THINGS.Your initial statements on conservation laws were in error - which lends me to believe you don't know any physics.I HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED YOU FOR HOW YOU GOT A PHOTON MASS OUT OF HLT.YOU HAVE SO FAR NOT PROVIDED THIS EXAMPLE. MAINLY BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT WOULD FALL APART ON CLOSE EXAMINATION.You have not offered simplicity. You have made simpler topics more cloudy.In fact the more I think of it I can think of many fundamental topics your tool will not handle.I'll make a wager with you right now.Not a single peer reviewed Physics Journal will accept a publication of this NONSENSE. Yes it is nonsense.I don't know what you guys do for a living but I wouldn't quit the day job just yet and forge a career in physics.If you think doing redshift/distance piecemeal is elucidating then good luck but I don't think you'll find many takers.

The 'What' is Energy and its relationships.A change in output will result from a change in relationships. The 'Why'.

Sorry, that's still not a hint of why (it's too trivial to be useful), and it's still sounding like a limited calculator with a graphical interface.Why is the characteristic impedance of the vacuum 376.730313461... ohms?How do you calculate your mass for the photon?

He also thinks that particle exchange can only cause repulsive forces (in message 4, IIRC). It appears that his knowledge of physics is confined to a few poorly-remembered analogies.

I think you mean his nonsensical statement in message #8 about emissions from a gravitating object. I guess the concept of energy being transmitted by gravitational radiation is giving him trouble.LOL - Yes his physics knowledge seems rather based upon incorrect rememberances of a NOVA episode on PBS.WEBFEET,HERE IS A CHALLENGE FOR HLT:Calculate the gravitational energy radiated by the Earth in it's orbit around the Sun. I can perform this from first principles in a couple of minutes or by using the quadrupole formula in a few seconds. Show me a HLT calculation of this. Please state your answer in Watts.

You're right. I should have looked it up. ISTR reading a popular book on QM in which transmission of "force" by particle exchange was likened to two skaters tossing a bowling ball back and forth. I don't remember which book it was. The author noted that this analogy was not entirely satisfactory because it modeled only repulsive "force". I think WebFeet is stuck on that or a similar analogy.

My statement about the 'Graviton' was not put as eloquently as I would have preferred.
What I was implying was that maybe the search should be centred around the source to look for what is tavelling in that direction, or what is not.You gave me a question which in your view could never be solved using the tool, yet I provided you with a perfectly viable solution. Which you discounted as being 'piecemeal'. How do you do the calulation at the moment if not by piecemeal.I asked you to provide numerical proof that the tool doesn't work, as yet you haven't supplied anything.

I asked first:Show me the photon mass calculation, please.Or answer my challenge of calculating the loss of energy by the Earth in it's orbit do to gravitational radiation.Your response about 'how do I do the calculation at present if not by piecemeal' shows you just don't know any GR.Space on here does not permit but check out for yourself Friedmann equation, Robertson-Walker metric. You should be able to find many calculations of redshift/distance and look-back times for differing cosmologies on the web.

Webfeet,I think what would really help your case would be to have decent documentation behind the ideas underlying the HLT and describing how the relationships tie together. For a newcomer, much of what you've declared so far is unfathomable.Maybe a set of diagrams showing how you arrive at the (special) relativistic equations of motion for example?Personally, I'm only looking to see if the product can be in any way useful for simplistic relationships and even that's out of my own curiosity. There are others on this board far more knowledgable then I to question the accuracy of your photon mass calculation (how did you arrive at that anyway?)I'd suggest you post some explanatory documentation either here (or one of the number of other forums you've posted this too) or on your website. Its far too difficult to understand what you're getting at without this as a starter (the software alone won't do this).PE

You were perfectly correct in stating that whatever formula I used to calulate the mass of a photon, it would be the wrong one.
In my error, I was attempting to determine a relationship centred on a base frequency, which could only ever produce a relativistic mass.On my website I stated the HLT came about as a bi-product.
Well, I've taken the problem of the photon back to the original theory behind the HLT, and can confirm (rather too easily for my liking) that what you have said about the photon is correct.The photon has no mass.
Regardless of how much energy is involved, the photon can NEVER have any mass.
Also, the photon can never have any time.This doesn't mean that I have lost any faith in the HLT or the underlying theory, maybe just in myself.The photon is represented in the HLT by E = R -> which results in zero mass and zero time.I think that's a large enough helping of humble pie for now.