Recent content by mibaokula

if no-one votes for any of the above theories or have any theories that use sound physics, the thread descends into just that. ill just try to reply to what anyone says :)

if we keep going into a cycle of what things are made of and what not, we may never answer the more important questions.

yeah, forget about that. I'm digressing from the original question if two bodies are moving at 99.9999999999999999999% the speed of light (hence they fit into Einstein's idea of reference frames and have inertia/mass) in the opposite direction, what happens and someone said that light can...

if you've heard of the grand unification theories: electroweak and electro-nuclear, they postulate your ideas kinda. they say that as you get closer to the start of the universe, there is only energy and one type of energy - a unification of electromagnetic, strong, weak and gravitational forces...

i just thought this up on a whim. But why are physicists trying to sum up what the universe is by what i call fundamentals (or super magnification). Why don't physicists try to explain what the whole universe is by looking outside rather than do so by looking at what its made of. Taking a really...

isnt the common belief that mass is energy? E=mc^2 suggests such an idea. if you look at it in terms of the anihilation of a positron and electron, their mass is converted into energy right? if you look at theories like string theory(s), everything at super magnification is made up of "strings"...

in other words, energy is not created or destroyed etc. if there is net no energy, there must be a particle of positive energy and then a particle with negative energy to balance out (perhaps not the best example). if you believe in the big bang (the universe came from nothing), why have we not...

...erm... please elaborate?

i agree with you - but that's why i voted for string theory, because i felt it was the closest to an idea of a TOE; by other, i meant other scientific theories

yeah, something like that. i kinda figured that if string theory is valid and we want to see those curled up dimensions, we're going to have to "become" the string if you know what i mean

i should have added "none of the current theories" as an option. doh!

so do you think that we are looking at it completely the wrong way? or could we at least be on the right track?

E6 is listed as a possible TOE on wikipedia; is this similar in any way to your E8 model? does your theory have any relation to E8XE8 heterotic string theory?

could someone explain these theories?

so energy cannot be created or destroyed but particles can?