Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Theory of Everything Discovered!

  1. Apr 17, 2004 #1
    T=E/d

    Time Energy Distance
    Distance is one plancks constant
    Time is one frame rate of time.
    Energy defined by E=mc^2

    Plain and simple guys. Lets see the lower Energy is the higher the relative frame rate. On earth that frame may be 901.28 and the frame rate travelling near light speed 1.0001000100010001

    Therfor travelling one second at near light speed would equal 901 seconds on earth.

    I can explain nearly every theory with this. Including wave particle duality, and interference patterns.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 17, 2004 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Let's see. E = mc^2 and E = dT so dT = mc^2 and therefore m = dT/c^2. So to find the mass of anything, find how far it went (d) in a given time (T), multiply the two together and divide by the square of c. Suppose it goes twice as fast, then the distance per unit time is twice as big and so is the mass. Mass goes up linearly with speed. That doesn't agree with relativity or particle physics experiments, so I really doubt whether you can explain existing physicsw with this.
     
  4. Apr 17, 2004 #3
    Humility is probably the only way we might be allowed to discover the mind of god.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2004
  5. Apr 17, 2004 #4
    almost proved me wrong

    its not E=Dt however
    it is E=D/T and
    D=E(t)

    And Distance is always equal to one. The universe does not care about our forms of measureement, one kilometre could be represented as 1 just as 1.8 centimetres could aswell. Distance is always one. If you double the speed then you only double the time.
     
  6. Apr 17, 2004 #5
    further

    time is not defined as how far energy travelled in a given time, energy always travels at the same rate regardless of time. Time is defined as how fast time is moving in given distance. And distance in equation is not moving it is static. Therefor the equation is not the amount of distance travelled it is the amount of distance containing the energy. And time is not measured from a starting point, but also as a static figure, a figure which shows relativity between different amounts of energy.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2004
  7. Apr 17, 2004 #6
    Further... I'm not quite sure yet, but I may even be able to explain gravity with that equation, precisely HOW gravity moves us.! I'm trying to get the word out about this equation, I don't want to go into detailed explanations until people are interested.
     
  8. Apr 17, 2004 #7

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm completely interested. Please continue.

    Now, if T=e/d = d/e and distance is always 1, then you're saying that either T= e or T= 1/e?
     
  9. Apr 17, 2004 #8
    T=1/e
    However to be accurate 1 must be the smallest measurable distance. fortunately you can find this distance by D=E(t) . Lets say you use one kilometer as a radius. And are measuring the energy contained. Well this amount of energy over one 1d space would cause a black hole. Therefor you divide the entire equation until Energy is less than one, and time is greater than one. That will give you the smallest distance that exists, or... plancks constant

    And I only realized how to explain gravity with this equation today, so I'm not yet sure it's true however I think it does work.

    How can we find an electron at a given place and time, only in theory can we do that correct? It only exists as a potentiality in both.
    Lets say that an electron has a 50/50 chance at any given time to be found on either the left, or the right of a line. If time figured from my equation is a lower time number(greater energy) on the left, and visa versa, then that given electron will actually spend 51% of its time on the left, therefor the force acted upon the entire atom is moved left, closer to the center of energy, and then the cycle continues. It is time that causes matter to move together, gravity doesn't even exist.

    However that is the outskirts of the theories i have found to be in this equation, that wouldn't be the best judge on my equations validity
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2004
  10. Apr 18, 2004 #9

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    This is over the top, and you don't care to match with science or experiment, so this thread belongs in theory development, and it's going there.
     
  11. Apr 18, 2004 #10

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Please explain the double slit experiment in terms of your idea. Be sure to state distances, wavelengths etc in units which we can actually measure in our labs, using rulers and other conventional measuring instruments.
     
  12. Apr 18, 2004 #11
    I don't have any science equipment to measure anything let alone something like the speed or mass of light. Which is why the best I can do is thought experiments. So I will explain the double slit experiment in that way as it's the only way I know how.

    Ps. Self Ad Joint, Don't be mad at me, I don't know where the theory development forum is, nor do i know hot to submit this to any peer reviewed journals, so this is where I stand.

    Double Slit experiment:

    We know that photons only ever eixst in probability until they interact with something. At the point where the wave is travelling through the slits, it has probability to exist is in both slits. Therefor the probability of the photon or electron showing up on the screen is greatest in the middle.

    At the point the photon strikes the detector screen it choses a course. I't does not choose that course until it hit's that screen, therfor the waves of it's two probabilities have already interacted, because at the moment it becomes a particle it is connected to time.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2004
  13. Apr 19, 2004 #12
    Self Ad joint, you never made any further comments past the ones about d(t) that i said to be D/T If it's m=(D/T)/c^2 what do you think of that?
     
  14. Apr 19, 2004 #13

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "Self Ad Joint" -- is that like a sleazy do-it-yourself advertising firm?

    - Warren
     
  15. Apr 19, 2004 #14

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So what pattern would one see on the detector screen? How - and why - would that change if one slit were covered?
     
  16. Apr 19, 2004 #15

    TeV

    User Avatar

    :smile: :biggrin:
    "Self Ad Joint" maybe the name of a liberal firm from Netherland distributing a good pot?Sorry,I couldn't resist (I see in Theory development forum lotz of crapy posts allowed.Maybe this one will pass too :redface: )
     
  17. Apr 19, 2004 #16

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Heh, pretty much anything goes in TD.

    - Warren
     
  18. Apr 19, 2004 #17

    TeV

    User Avatar

    Well,many hippies in the past claimed they discovered Theory of Everything while smooking a good pot..So,the post is still subject related I think :smile:
    (Hope,our Selfadjoint and the folks from the Netherlands don't mind this little "nonscientific" conversation ).
     
  19. Apr 19, 2004 #18
    Well I explained to you the reason why there is a higher probability of the photon striking near middle,Also how the photon can interact with itself to begin with.

    With one slit covered the photons do not make an interference pattern, and are just randomly scattered in the direction of the wave. This is because there is only one wave, Only one potentiality exists, it is not possible that the light went through both, to split into two potentials.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2004
  20. Apr 19, 2004 #19

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    OK, next: can you account for the interference pattern, as observed with both slits open, in quantitative terms? In other words, the relative intensity I on the detector screen is the following function of (some variables describing position on the screen, distance of slits from screen, width of the slits, distance between the slits, wavelength(s) of the light, ...). If, perchance, the result is exactly the same as one can obtain from textbook physics, please say so.
     
  21. Apr 19, 2004 #20
    uncertainty principle
    n.
    A principle in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty with which another conjugate quantity may be known. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=uncertainty+principle

    Therefor, if we limit the space light can travel through, and wait for it to hit a screen, we are measuring its place and direction. If you give it two paths to travel, by that principle it must increase it's uncertainty. Just as making the slits bigger would increase the radius of its possible courses of travel.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Theory of Everything Discovered!
  1. Theory of everything (Replies: 0)

  2. Theory of Everything (Replies: 4)

  3. Theory Of Everything (Replies: 2)

Loading...