he is a smart man, but I can’t resist putting my two cents worth in. After all there may be as many theories as there are people. In my opinion, the Universal laws are very simple, (especially the unified field theory) the reason the laws look complex is that we do not understand the meaning of the words that we use to describe them. For instance the fundamental meaning of a simple word such as ‘energy’ can be misunderstood because it has been used in so many different ways that the ‘fundamental’ meaning has been lost (reduced) into a mathematical concept or forgotten all together.
For ‘energy’ to exist, two other ‘existences’ must be there. Fundamental ‘space ‘ and ‘mass’ must exist before ‘energy’ can exist. Fundamental ‘space’ is an area that has absolutely nothing in it. Fundamental ‘mass’ is that mysterious ’something’ that can vary in ‘density’ and ‘move’ in ‘space. Now that we understand some key words, I can paraphrase some passages from a great book that explains how it all began and how everything fits together. (Remember that I am discussing ‘fundamental’ events in cosmology.)
In the beginning God created ‘space’ and ‘mass’.
And the ‘mass’ was without form and that condition is known as ‘void’; (In other words the fundamental ‘mass’ was distributed evenly throughout the available ‘space’.) This even distribution of two fundamental ‘existences’ (‘space’ and ‘mass’) can be compared to ‘water’ since it too is a combination of two ‘elements’.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. In other words there was a ‘force’ left over from the creation process that started the ‘fundamental mass’ moving with in the ‘space’.
And God said, Let there be light: In other words the creation of ‘motion in all frequencies’ occurred. (Example of low frequency is ‘sound’ produced by ‘saying’ a word and example of high frequency is in the form of light.) This ‘motion’ of the fundamental ‘mass’ is what is known as ‘energy’.

Hmm…. I’m beginning to wonder if I should continue this explanation. My conscience is telling me that mankind has used ‘great knowledge’ for great destruction in the past. If this explanation turns out to be ‘great knowledge’, then it too might be used for great destruction.

Any comments?

Johannes