Foundation of Everything

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

Fair enough.Let me put my "automatic naysayer"'s hat on for a second.I've just had a look at the site you linked to originally and it doesn't say anything about the thinking behind the Hooper-Luck triangle but instead asks me to download some software (which I'm too suspicious to do, I'm afraid). And I can't find anything else on the web on it. This sends my crank-dar tingling.Can you provide a brief explanation of what the HLT is and why its so good?(+ maybe why this should not be dismissed as simple tricks and quackery?)PE

Webfeet, Maybe you could take me through this screen? Now bear in mind, that I know absolutely nothing about your product here.To start with:What do all the numbers represent (especially the 'Relationship' value)?
What exactly is meant by the initial triangle and results triangle?More questions as I think of them.PE

Whoa.....slow down!You see, my issue with this is that I've got no idea what you're talking about. I suspect the same is true for many other posters here.I'd like to know what your triangle approach actually does, not what it doesn't do, nor what it isn't. You may have worked with the idea for years if not decades - I've no way of knowing, so you have to temper it for people who might be completely new. You're leaping right into the detail without explaining the big picture.Granted it something to do with triangles, and conservation of energy. Beyond that, you haven't really told me any more.So what exactly is the software?What does it do?How about a very simple example - practically, how could I use the program to derive, say, the law of conservation of momentum?Its not just that I'm instantly sceptical here (although I am), but I can't understand why anyone should be interested in this product if its completely indecipherable except to its writers.PE

I suppose thats Windows ME for you.Shame, as I was quite looking forward to trying it. If only to understand what on Earth you were talking about.Unless anyone out there knows anything about computers....?PE

Dang it - still doesn't work I'm afraid. Devil. Vomit. Eiderdown. Again.Let's go for the long way round:

quote:

---

To best see the results, select the template menu from the top of the main screen and load up the Boyles-law template. You will see the column names in the Results window change.
For this example we're using Density in place of pressure.
Increase the mass from 5 units to 10 units. You will notice that the energy has increased from 5 to 10 units and the value of the Relationship has increased.
Also notice that the value for Density and Time has remained the same.

---

I take it you mean that we start with R as the hypoteneuse. Density and time are represented by the two angles? Let me know if I'm wrong here.So E = 5, M = 5, R = 5*(root 2)Obviously if we multiply E and M by 2, the angles don't change, and R doubles.Correct so far?

quote:

---

Now set the focus on Relationship. We want to alter the relationship between Energy and Mass, up until now we have had it at 1 to 1. We want the program to recalculate the relationship based on a new set of figures.
Reduce the mass from 10 back down to 5.
You will see that the value of the Relationship has changed, but energy has remained the same.
You should also notice that density has changed. The Results window shows that the value of the Density has doubled, and with it the volume has been reduced.

---

OK, so now:E = 10, M = 5, R = 5*(root 5)Angles (radians):a goes from 0.785 to 1.107
b goes from 0.785 to 0.464But this isn't a doubling.
(thinks)
.
.
.
Ah, maybe I have to reconfigure the triangle so that E is the hypoteneuse? i.e.E = 10
M = 5
R = 5*(root 3)angles (let's say a = the right angle in the previous triangle, where R was the hyp.):a goes from 1.57 (pi/2) to arctan(R/M) = 1.047
b goes from 0.785 (pi/4) to 1.57 (pi/2), the way I have b and c round
c goes from 0.785 to arctan (M/R) = 0.524So, I figure that (what I called) angle b was what you intended to be the density. Is this how it is supposed to work?Can you remind me what angles a and c are under this scheme again?PE

If you double one of the sides of a right angled triangle, then of course the tan of the relevant angle will double as well.So what?What has this got to do with density?PE

If all you're saying is that there exist many physical relationships of the form:x = y/zthen you're not really saying very much, are you?PE[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 12-06-2003]

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