Foundation of Everything

Here's a link to a version of the executable compiled with the 'Please work for ME' flag set. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.gamert.co.uk/downloads/WindowsME/Gamert.exeLet me know it makes life any easier.

You double the mass, but because the relationship between energy and mass remains constant at 1 to 1, you also get an increase in energy.
The Density remains constants, in this instance it is the primary relationship being used.
When you set the focus on the relationsip, to the get the triangle to recalculate the relationship and leave energy alone, that's when density changes.
When M is moved along the horizontal, and the angles remain the same, E must move on the vertical, otherwise the angles would have to change.

Here's the layout of the triangle.Mass is the horizontal
Energy is the vertical
Relationship is the hypotenuse (for the example anyway)The first part was correct, and so was what you did in the second.You missed one point - check the format file boyles-law in the format directory of where ever you loaded the program.
You see from that there is a calculation for displaying density.You're right in that the angle doesn't double, but the TAN value of the angle does.The Tan of 0.785 radians = 1
The Tan of 1.107 radians = 2Here's a useful link about Triangles for everybody, even allows you to calculate sides and angles.
triangles

Here's a bit of reasoning that sort of resulted in the HTL.What is the most basic multi-relationship construct in the Universe ?A point
A point has no dimensions and has no relationship with anything other than itself.2 points
There is a relationship, but it is the same from which ever point you take. Doesn't allow a lot of manipulation.3 points
Now we're cooking.
We have multiple relationships between each point, each of which can be manipulated effecting other relationships.Conclusion.
The most basic multi-relational construct in the Universe must be the Triangle.The actual analysis was some what more complex than that, but it gives you the basic principle.

That's basic trigonometry for you.You have to remember that this is an abstract tool.We are using the triangle to represent the relationship between energy and mass, and in this case we are using the angle opposite energy to represent density.If you double one of the sides, you do of course double the tan of the opposite angle, and if you half one of the sides, you double the tan of the angle adjacent to it.Using this basic rule of trig, and remember this is an abstraction, we can use the right angled triangle to represent a great number of relationships.If instead of Density, we label that angle Frequency.
F = E / Plank's constant.If you double then energy, you double the frequency.Same result as we got with Density.
You can do the same thing for Ohm's Law, using Current to represent the Energy side. The only difference here is that resistance is inversely proportional to an increase in current.
So we take 1/tan to provide the results.Do you spot the common trend here ?
All of these laws and formulae rely on the same basic relationships.
They can all be represented using the basics rules of trigonometry.The basis for the HLT is that everything to do with Energy also must adhere to these basic rules of trigonometry.

Fair comment, I not saying anything that isn't already common knowledge. Like I said, this is simplicity, not rocket science.You'll agree that from the example you done, the results are correct.
There is nothing new here, all the standard relationships can be represented by the HLT.The only difference with your comment is that I'm sayingWhere Energy is concerned ALL physical relationships are of the form:
x = y/zYou asked for a simple example, which you've now done.Now let's spice it up a bit.
This would be so much easier if the software would work on your machine, but it's proberbly good for me to write it out long hand anyway.Up until now you've been dealing with a right angled triangle.
Where in the HLT the right angle represents Space. I know it's a very general term.The HLT can provide 2 seperate views. When Space is a right angle, what you have is an internal view. You from your point of reference.
This is what you have been dealing with up until now.There is also an external view.When an object is moving at a velocity, from the reference point of the object it's velocity is zero (internal view). External to the object, it can be seen to have velocity.The HLT allows you to apply a Velocity, external to the object.
Because it is external, it is not one of the internal angles.The offset of the Energy from the perpendicular, represents velocity.
In the internal view the angle is zero, no Velocity.Note : throughtout this, Mass remains on the horizontal.The Velocity angle can be applied to the Speed of Light to provide an actual velocity.
Speed of Light / sine(Velocity)Now, as we increase the Velocity angle, the Space angle internal to the HLT decreases.
This Space angle is relevant to the relative properties of the object.
When at rest, the Space angle represent a relative value of 1.
So if we divide the mass by the sine of the Space angle, we notice, at rest there is no difference.However, as we apply velocity to the object, and the Space angle decreases, if we now apply the relative factor to the mass we see that its value has increased.
To determine the Time dilation, we can apply the same rule to the Time angle.We can now redraw the HLT using the new values to provide us with an external view of an object travelling at a velocity.I hope you're following this.We can also work the problem the other way.
Take an object at a known velocity, determine its mass.
If we multiply the mass by the value of the Space angle, we can determine the internal (at rest) mass of the object.Now, all the way through, we are still using the same Triangle, and the same set of rules.

Which comments about physics laws have I made in error.The only laws I have referenced are Conservation, Ohm's and Boyle's.If it's about Boyle's Law using Density instead of Pressure.
Pressure would be an external force, and would be without reference in an internal view.Please explain.

The examples from the program you have requested are somewhat hard to provide, since nowhere in the HLT is distance mentioned.The HLT has no references to distance, only energy and its relationships.When measuring redshift, you are measuring the frequency of the light you receiving and then comparing that to a value 'you were expecting'.I suppose you could use the HLT to determine the properties of the light you received, and again for the light you were expecting and then calculate the differences.
As for taking the light you received and then telling you what you should have expected and why it has changed, it's not really within the remit of HLT.If you have loaded the program, you will see there is a template for calculating redshift with reference to the velocity of the object, but it is one instance of one object, what happens to it a million miles later is another instance.

My apologies if I have misinterpretted something from your specialist field, but heh we're all human - well most of us.Nobody can know everything, it would be a pretty boring place it we did.To quote Einstein - "I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be simple."As you mentioned, a repeat of another post, it does nothing more than show f = x/y.
Now in my book, that meets Einstein's basic criteria.I know it's not saying very much, but what did you expect a thousand line formula, whatever the principle of the Universe is, it will be simple.As for 'it doesn't do a thing from a physics standpoint.'
As I keep saying, the equations are nothing new, but now you have a tool that reduces everything down to a simple set of relationships.
--------------When I said that the HLT has no reference to distance, I was correct.However, I've been looking over the HLT with reference to your 'redshift distance' question and there is a way to determine the distance travelled.
I suppose it's all about knowing how to ask the question.There is one caveat to this and that is that this would measure the distance travelled in 'static' space. It cannot take expansion into account, but then I'm sure you would be able to factor that afterwards.I'm sure you could tell me the rate of redshift / distance, in a non-expanding universe scenario, or maybe even take an average.Because Frequency is inversely proportional to resistance, the resistance can be determined for the distance using the drop in frequency.
We can use this distance as length, and using a minimal cross-section, provide a volume and consequently calculate the mass.
We would essentially us the value of the distance as the mass and assume a cross-section of 1.We now have the Mass and the Resistance (the D angle). Because there is no relative velocity involved we can use the internal view and set Space to 90 degrees.
We now have enough data to draw the HLT.We leave the vertical side, labelled E alone, this for our purposes could represent the Energy of 1 photon, but it will remain constant.Now, if we double the mass, using the same cross-section, we have effectively doubled the length, hence the distance.
Doubling the distance - mass, we have also effected the angle D, doubling the resistance (tan(Angle D)).
(Frequency is inversely proportional to resistance)
The Frequency will have been halved (1/tan(Angle D)).Remember, this is not the actuall frequency, but the frequency variance factor, based on your original value.By knowing the difference in Frequency - ie the redshift, you can plug the numbers and determine what the distance would be.I've not worked the numbers on this, but I'm sure you will look over this, and if I'm wrong provide numerical proof as to any errors.As to your other questions.Where Boyle's Law is concerned, the easiest, and most convenient label that could be used is Temperature, as per Boyle's Law. Hence why we left it constant.Cback through the posts for an answer about BlackHoles, although theoretically, you could keep increasing the density of a BlackHole infinitely, so never actually achieve a singularity.As for your Astronomical arguments about the mass of a photon, what I gave you was one range of values, I would have thought that should have meant something to you.You do seem to be very dismissive, without actually providing any sound reasoning or numerical proof, just lots of questions and off the cuff remarks.If there is a fundemental flaw to the HLT, then please share it.
If my value range for the photon is wrong, then show me why it is not possible to determine the mass using HTL - even though I seem to have it so close to some accepted values..

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.

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'.

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

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.

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.

FrankThere is a version of Gamert for Windows98 available from the Gamert web site.