Greetings from Planet Bob.

[Planet_Bob]

Hi Everybody,

I've read some of the postings here and there appears to a great variety of interesting solutions, so for what it's worth, here is my Theory of Everything.


My TOE meets the most fundmental criteria in that it is simple. It does not rely on Universal constants or other such slight of hand.

The properties of every object are determined by the relationship to its environment.

That's it.

Now for the science bit.

Relationship = Energy = Mass
Environment Permittivity Permeability


Definitions
Permeability is the ability to allow the passage of one media through another and Permittivity determines how much or at what rate this takes place
This is not restricted to electromagnetism as in Maxwell's work.

The easiest way to visually represent this is in a right angled triangle. Mass as the horizontal side, Energy as the vertical and Relationship as the hypotenuse.

Using the triangle you can map out a typical monday.
You work for 7 hours (Mass) and don't have much energy. Mapping Energy against Mass shows you the rate at which you did your work - the angle opposite Energy.
Now look at tuesday. A little more energy (you've recovered from the weekend) and you see that the rate at which you work has increased.

The answer to getting the same work rate on a monday is to work fewer hours, but not many bosses will agree to that.

A simple example of how this TOE can be used to map out your working day.

Here's a second example.

A volume of Space (Mass) contains a set amount of Energy. This allows you to chart the Pemrittivity and Permeability of the Space. In turn this allows you to calculate the speed of light based on the square root of the inverse of the sum of Permittivity and Permeability.
If this space is reduced, there will be an increase in Permittivity and a reduction in Permeability resulting in no change to the speed of light (nothing new there if it really is constant).

However, if you take the Permittivity and divide it by the Permeability (sine values) and compare the two triangles, you will find that this provides you with the time factor for each location.(This is a bit like Speed = Distance/Time only it's Time Flow = Work Rate / Medium) As the space becomes more compressed, so the time index is extended. This equates to the difference between here in Earth and in the International Space Station.

That also explains why time seems to drag on monday when you're suffering from a heavy weekend, because it actually does.

So, there you have it, my Theory of Everything, plus a couple of very basic examples giving the answer to why monday is never a good day and what that has to do with NASA.

I hope you enjoy it.

[michellemfry]

That's very generous of you to submit your theory with your first post. Kind of like a launch of something, isn't it.

Stay with us, Planet Bob, and have some fun, too.

[baudrunner]

I'll map out Sunday. I go to mass, I renew my relationship, I am drained of energy. Good way to start the week.

[Guille]

Bob,

Welcome to toequest. Please keep around the forums and post all around, evne though you already have you theory you may help others or others help you.

When you assume that mass represents permeability, are you asuming then that the value of the gravity is equal to the value of the magnetic field? And that energy represents permitivity, means that energy is equal to the electric field?

[Planet_Bob]

Bob,

Welcome to toequest. Please keep around the forums and post all around, evne though you already have you theory you may help others or others help you.

Thanks for the welcome.

When you assume that mass represents permeability, are you asuming then that the value of the gravity is equal to the value of the magnetic field? And that energy represents permitivity, means that energy is equal to the electric field?

Mass does not represent permeability. they are both attributes of the same triangle. Mass is a side with permeability being the opposite angle.

Mass
Permeability

The above represents sine law - A/Sin(a) etc.

So, Permittivity is the opposite angle to Energy and Environment is the opposite angle to Relationship.

I hope that makes it clear.

[Guille]

Oh yes, it's much clearer now.

One thing, as all trinagle have three sides, and three angles, then, what is the missing angle-side in eahc triangle? (you only occupy two sides per triangle, as I see it).

[dleviwing]

Steven;
Sorry for the belated welcome.
I like your sense of humor but you may wish to browse the forum for post on "MASS". It is one of the horses that is being beaten to death here on the forum; Time and Gravity are the other two.
Again, welcome to ToeQuest; looking forward to more of your ideas.

[Planet_Bob]

One thing, as all triangle have three sides, and three angles, then, what is the missing angle-side in eahc triangle? (you only occupy two sides per triangle, as I see it).

From the initial post

The easiest way to visually represent this is in a right angled triangle. Mass as the horizontal side, Energy as the vertical and Relationship as the hypotenuse.

The three sides are Energy, Mass and the hypotenuse which is labeled Relationship for simplicity.

[Planet_Bob]

Thanks for the welcome dleviwing.

you may wish to browse the forum for post on "MASS". It is one of the horses that is being beaten to death here on the forum; Time and Gravity are the other two.

They are always beaten to death because they are the primary constituents of a physical universe that nobody has a solid answer for. The only generally considered answers require the existance of undetectable particles or additional dimensions. This then requires a certain amount of faith in their existance. Here's the problem. Physics shifts slightly from being a pure science towards requiring the faith of a religion where the existance of somethings just has to be to accepted.
My view on this is that if nobody has found it, then there is a chance that the thing never existed in the first place, regardless of the evidence. A theory of everything which relies on such faith will never be proven to be or not be the case, much like many religions. It ends up becoming more of a curiosity.

The one thing that the majority of TOE's agree on is that in the Universe consists of Energy. If that is base material, then everything must be constructed from it.
Try it. Come up with a completely self-contained TOE using nothing but Energy. No dimensions. No funny particles or multiverses. Just Energy. After all, that's how our Universe started off, supposedly.

[dleviwing]

Hi Steven;
I quite agree with what you say to some extent, but a great deal of the confusion is due to media hype of the fringe obscurities of the theories and a misuse of the science terminology. I sometimes believe that the scientist in the academic world, being forced to publish to keep their jobs, are prone to do "Alice in Wonderland" type publishing to demonstrate the ignorance of the academic administrative staff; something like an "inside joke".

Scientist in industry seem to have real down-to-earth concepts and understanding.
The term "dimension" is extremely misused by many authors. Dimension simply means a term of "quantitative measurement"; there is no mystery in that so authors and even reputable scientist have given a bit of flare to their work by giving new meaning to the word. (it sells books better) I tend to stick to the old one; it makes understanding what they're saying more rational and meaningful. It is like a secret language so that they know what each other is saying while at the same time keeping the rest of the world rapped up in definitions of myriad confusion and complexity.

Try it. Come up with a completely self-contained TOE using nothing but Energy. No dimensions. No funny particles or multiverses. Just Energy. After all, that's how our Universe started off, supposedly.

You suggestion of trying the concept of a single entity of the universe has been around a long time and referred to as "the stuff of the universe". I have tried it with a greater level of success than I thought would be possible. Rather than calling it "energy" though, I prefer to simply call it "matter" or fundamental matter. Energy gives the illusion of something without physical reality; it is the result of the motion of fundamental matter. (both methods do work however) Without the fundamental key however, understanding the numbers will be illusive and as Feynman stated "we use the numbers but do not fully understand them".(referring to mass)

Without getting into detail, I have found that mass is simply a measure of the quantity of "uniform motion" of an object or system and thus is only a measure of the potential energy of a system.
This physics part however is only part of the TOE, we still need a better understanding as to the "cause of life".
Best wishes;