[Brent]

I have decided to post some of my ideas. I believe this to be the TOE but it will never be completed. To apply this to everything would take a long time. If the Toe is a puzzle, the pieces will still need to be put together, what I have is the box to the puzzle with a picture of what it looks like when it is assembled.

I am not sure where to start so I may jump around abit.

Reality

If matter has its' own independent reality, that it exists, it must exist somewhere. If I am on the earth in our solar system, in our galaxy, in our universe, then our universe would have to in something larger and that something would have to exist somewhere and so on and so on, which does not make any sense to me. But if matter does not have its' own independent reality, that it's reality is dependent on something and if that something doesn't happen the matter doesn't exist, then there is nothing really here. If there is nothing is doesn't need to exist anywhere because it creates it's own space and reality while the something happens.

Something From Nothing

How do you get something from nothing. It is not hard, I bought a house with no money.
0 = house + mortgage
0 = (+1) + (-1)
The reality is that if you have nothing you can have a positive one and a negative, just not a the same time.
Yes, time, you cannot have them at the same time or there will be nothing.


Brent Harrington

[Brent]

Nothing vs Space

What is the difference between space and nothing? What is nothing? What is space?

Suppose we have a large volume of space. Inside this space there is a smaller volume of nothing. What is the difference? Suppose we took a picture of space and nothing and compare. Look at the pictures down to the detail of the smallest measurable size what would you see. Well, if you could make space to stand still, like a picture, the frame would be full of small electric charges. If you did the same for nothing there would be no charges. The difference between the smallest measurable size of nothing and space is only the charge. The nothing has no charge, the space has a charge
Nothing is a volume with no charge. Space is a volume with charge.

SPACE = NOTHING
(+1) + (-1) = 0

FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION
This is the basic rule for how things work. The important thing to note is that the time between the action and the reaction is inversely proportional to the velocity of the object acted on, relative to space and is limited by the speed of light.

[Brent]

Wow i just explained the mysteries of the universe and it got lost after pushing the submit reply button.WTF

[Graybeard]

Brent ... for long posts I always copy and paste to notepad ... in case you suffer a timeout or disconnection ... then you can just paste it back in

cool bananas ... greg

[dleviwing]

Brent;
I’m sure Maxwell does not mind you borrowing his ides but it’s called “permittivity of free space”. Also refer to permeability. Read up on Maxwell’s equations. Just google permittivity for more links.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Physics-1358/meant-permitivity.htm
Welcome to the “Reinvent the Wheel Club”. It shows you're thinking though.

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Brent; I’m sure Maxwell does not mind you borrowing his ides but it’s called “permittivity of free space”. Also refer to permeability. Read up on Maxwell’s equations. Just google permittivity for more links. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Physics-1358/meant-permitivity.htm Welcome to the “Reinvent the Wheel Club”. It shows you're thinking though.

Dear dleviwing, Brent and Toequesters,

Most developers of new/resurrected models should be very grateful once a reviewer pointed out what their articles were based on.

Citations and sources with academic reputations like “permittivity of free space” and "Maxwell" will make these new works be easier to pass peer reviews.

To extend conceptions which have been worked out independently by a known figure in physics will promote your article and not to be premeditately rejected as an alternative speculation from an amateur.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[Brent]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Brent ... for long posts I always copy and paste to notepad ... in case you suffer a timeout or disconnection ... then you can just paste it back in cool bananas ... greg

Thanks, thats the second time it has happened to me.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Brent; I’m sure Maxwell does not mind you borrowing his ides but it’s called “permittivity of free space”. Also refer to permeability. Read up on Maxwell’s equations. Just google permittivity for more links. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Physics-1358/meant-permitivity.htm Welcome to the “Reinvent the Wheel Club”. It shows you're thinking though.

If my theory is correct it should agree with everything else that is correct. I am not finished yet. The lost post had some good stuff. Also, everything that I post comes out of my head. This is all pure thought, if it is the same as somebody elses thoughts, well simple minds seldom differ or great minds think alike, one of those two.

Yes, I have re-invented pretty much everything that there is at one time or another. I was born 200 years too late, thats all.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by bottomlander Dear dleviwing, Brent and Toequesters, Most developers of new/resurrected models should be very grateful once a reviewer pointed out what their articles were based on. Citations and sources with academic reputations like “permittivity of free space” and "Maxwell" will make these new works be easier to pass peer reviews. To extend conceptions which have been worked out independently by a known figure in physics will promote your article and not to be premeditately rejected as an alternative speculation from an amateur. Best Regards. Bottomlander

Thanks, for pointing that out.

[dleviwing]

Bottomlander;
When your thinking results in concepts already presented and acclaimed in physics, it means that you either have an excellent analytical mind or you are plagiarizing the ideas of the masters. As you can see, I’ve credited Brent as having the independent thinking of an analytical mind. Not many have that ability but it is much easier to study what has already been accomplished rather than waste time simply expressing it with different words and calling it a new idea. Particle physicists are attempting to do that now by calling the domains of permittivity “Higgs Bosons” and “virtual particles”. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

You are right Brent, great minds do think alike; sometimes. Teachers should be able to reduce some of the thinking.