Foundation of Everything

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

This whole thing seems pointless.Some of your comments about physics laws are in error.I would like to see you place on here an example using the program to derive redshift distance relationship and look back time etc.

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.

Do you know what energy conservation is a consequence of?Do you know what determines momentum and angular momentum conservation? (And it isn't energy conservation)Could you please tell me why you believe energy conservation applies to the entire universe?Do you have any idea of the consequences of photon mass? There are astrophysical arguments that constrain the mass much more than you stated.Could you show me your calculation of the photon mass with GAMERT?Could you respond to my comment early in this thread about you not understanding the difference between a black hole singularity and a big bang singularity?Could you please explain what you mean by 'energy' in your Boyle's Law example?From what I have seen of GAMERT it does nothing. In fact it obscures things rather than clarifies them.I repeat, it doesn't do a thing from a physics standpoint. As someone pointed out earlier it does nothing more than show f = x/y and kicks out numbers. I can do in my head (or with a calculator) anything it does.What more can it do?

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..

I don't have much time right this second, but a couple of comments:I deliberately asked the redshift/distance question because I know your program cannot derive it. It is inherently non-linear.It is useless to say the distance in a 'static' space because we are not in a static space. So any distance you derive is based on a linear Doppler shift approximation which is good only for very small redshifts.Most people forget that the better interpretation of redshift is that of the expansion of the space itself which is inherently non-linear. Hence we have redshifts greater than 1 which classically implies recession velocities greater than c. This paradox is the consequence of applying special relativity to a situation where it does not apply. That is the metric of spacetime we need to use on the largest scales is that of a curved spacetime and not an asymptotically flat Minkowski metric. I cannot use the same coordinate system to represent myself and the distant (high z) galaxy. This is also borne out of the fact that energy conservation in general relativity is a local law that applies only with the said flat (Minkowskian) metric. When using a dynamic FRW metric it is not possible to formulate a 'conservation of energy' rule - You cannot make a meaningful statement of the total energy and hence derive a conservation. This is because energy conservation is dependent on the arrow of time and the problem becomes which (or whose) time do you use. For example the total energy of the Universe in a Hamiltonian approach is zero, in other calculations you get other values (pseudotensor methods.)Thus there is no way HLT can handle this.It will automatically give wrong values because it uses the wrong physics. To me that means it is worthless in these questions.I'm still unclear by what your 'energy' is in the Boyle's law example.Also how did you get a 'mass' for the photon. Please show me the HLT calculation.The reason I pointed this out is that it is already known to have an UPPER limit way less than this. In fact the value is almost undoubtedly ZERO. Any value you have determined is almost undoubtedly WRONG. There are big consequences of a photon mass that are not observed, hence the very small upper limits from astrophysical observations. Any non zero value that HLT determines (and I'd love to see how you did it) is based upon WRONG physics, period. If you show me how, I'll show you why it's wrong.AND to address the basic issue of what you are doingYour tool might reduce everything down to a simple relationship as you say - BUT IN DOING SO IT DOES THE WRONG PHYSICS IF IT DOES THIS REDUCTION.Sure it works for a simple f=x/y relationship but my God I can do that in my head already. HLT gains me nothing and obscures if anything.I can show you get the wrong redshift/distance.
I can show your photon mass calc. (if you show it) is wrong.
I also would like to see your black hole calculation. I am still puzzled why you mentioned a UV photon? That seemed to me to hint you don't know any GR. Please expound - i.e. show the HLT calculation to derive this.

This is true, but only if you allow compound functions for the values of x,y & z.For example - what is the relationship between kinetic energy and velocity.
Easy: E = (m/2)v^2but this cannot be expressed in terms of E and v in the form x=y/z without redifining the question to 'what is the relationship between kinetic energy and the square of the velocity.'