I'm quite certain I've discovered the grand theory

[PRyckman]

D=E(t)

Distance Energy Time

Distance is always 1 because no matter what unit of distance your using it can always be represented as one. If distance equals one energy must be less than one unless it is a point of singularity.

Therefor time is relative to the amount of energy in said distance. The greater that Energy the lower the value for time. So travelling near light speed may be 1.0000001t and time on earth 8103.0993t relative to eachother
(roughly one second travelling near light speed would equal roughly 8013 seconds on earth)

[IooqXpooI]

D=E(t)

Distance Energy Time

Distance is always 1 because no matter what unit of distance your using it can always be represented as one. If distance equals one energy must be less than one unless it is a point of singularity.

Therefor time is relative to the amount of energy in said distance. The greater that Energy the lower the value for time. So travelling near light speed may be 1.0000001t and time on earth 8103.0993t relative to eachother
(roughly one second travelling near light speed would equal roughly 8013 seconds on earth)So you're saying that e=d/t, or e=1/t...Basically, energy wouldn't exactly be too high...Nowhere near mc^2.

[PRyckman]

So you're saying that e=d/t, or e=1/t...Basically, energy wouldn't exactly be too high...Nowhere near mc^2.

Then you are measuring too great a distance
plus a value of 1 would be a black hole it must be less than one. Travelling near light speed would be 0.999999999

[pallidin]

D=E(t)

Distance Energy Time

Distance is always 1 because no matter what unit of distance your using it can always be represented as one.

Are you saying that a 1-mile distance is equivalent to 186,000 miles? That is absurd, and your interpretation of the equation fails on that assumption.

[PRyckman]

No ofcourse not, just any distance you measure with can always be represented as one. You would have one unit that would be equal to 186,000 miles

[chroot]

So rather than having one unit and representing arbitrary distances as multiple of that unit, you'd prefer to have an infinite number of different units, one for each distance to be described?

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Yes because that's the only way it can be relative universe wide. Ps. Theres only one true value for Distance, and that value is the smallest point of distance that exists. I would think that, that distance can be found by dividing the entire equation until E is less than one, and Time is greater than one.

[chroot]

Okay, so now that you agree that you'd like to have an infinite number of different distance units, I'd like to ask you the very important question:

How could one compare them? If my height is one Warren-height-unit, and your height is one PRyckman-height-unit, can you tell me how we could determine who is taller?

- Warren

[PRyckman]

That is not what I agreed to. I agreed that the value for distance must be the smallest possible distance that exists, only then is it represented as one.
The only reason to change it from one would be to compare it to our measuring system.

[chroot]

You quite clearly agreed in post #7 that each distance must be assigned its own unit such that the distance is exactly one such unit. Do you now retract this assertion?

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Okay if that is what I presented, my intentions were that
if d=E(t)
and 1=123141E(a hell of a lot)
Then divide the entire equation until E<1
But you may keep distance equal to one. If you want to understand the size of the distance then start with Say a centimetre and divide into fractions.

I suppose I'm just saying it equal to one because eventually thats the size your dealing with if there exists a point where there is nothing smaller.

[chroot]

So you're saying that 1 = some larger number?

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Yes 1 could equal a kilometre, then divide the equation until at plancks constant(i need to read up on plancks constant)

[PRyckman]

Okay read up on it, No not plancks constant.
My d that equals one is the smallest amount of distance that exists.
However that point may not actually exist.
To back that up, I think if there is a distance that small it's definition shall be the same as pie.

In pie we are trying to find edges on a perfect circle correct?
If that circle is truly perfect the only way we could find edges on it is if space itself isn't perfect.
Therefor If we ever find an absolute value for pie then that is the smallest point of space that can exist.

[Math Is Hard]

(i need to read up on plancks constant)

Here you go..

http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/470_46.html

The dimension of Planck's constant is the product of energy multiplied by time, a quantity called action. Planck's constant is often defined, therefore, as the elementary quantum of action. Its value in metre-kilogram-second units is 6.6260755 x 10^-34 joule-second.

[PRyckman]

thx. that definition was better than the one I have in a book(schrodingers cat) Yes for some reason before I had thought it was the smallest amount of distance that exists in space

[Math Is Hard]

Therefor If we ever find an absolute value for pie then that is the smallest point of space that can exist.

How can a value simultaneously be infinitely small and also approximately = to 3.14?

[PRyckman]

It is not equal to the value of pie, but equal to the amount of distance being measured
when a value for pie is determined.......Every decimal you move down the line (right) you are measuring a point smaller by a factor of ten.

[chroot]

PRyckman,

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Can you restate your questions please?

[chroot]

Post #10.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

I thought I had answered that in post 11
But to answer it in a word
no
In a sentence, I beleive there is a measurement of distance that can go no smaller. And that distance should set the basis for measurement, one unit of that distance.

However If no such distance exists
then you must divide the equation until E<1 and t>1

[chroot]

Okay, so we can take a basic unit of length to be the Planck length, for example. That's fine, people do that all the time. Then I am 1.14 * 1035 Planck units in height. I am not "1" in height, as you've been demanding.

So which is it?

A) There is at least one fundamental unit of length, and distances should be represented as multiples of it.

or

B) There are an infinity of different units of length, and distances should be expressed as 1 of the appropriate unit.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Definitely A

However when reading up on plancks constant I understood it to be an amount of energy. A sound and proven concept, but read nothing of distance. Is that <i>also</i> sound and proven?

If it is then yes I'll say distances should represent multiples of planck units

[chroot]

I didn't refer to Planck's constant, \hbar. I referred to the Planck length,

\mbox{\HUGE \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^3}}} \approx 1.6 \cdot 10^{-35} \, m

which is absolutely a unit of length, not energy.

Okay, so you've relinquished your ideas about lengths always being one, and agree to simply measure lengths in multiples of the Planck length.

You're one step closer to being a real physicist. Physicists commonly work in so-called "natural units," based on units like this.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Yes yes, I did want to work with multiples of a distance. But I wanted that distance to be the smallest distance that exists, if that is planck length, then so be it.

ok if Distance equals that nutty equation you did there
Then measured on Earth averaged at surface what amount of E exists in probability in that distance.Find that number, and you should have a relative time frame rate that you can use to compare other amounts of energy.
t=planck/E

[chroot]

There is also a Planck unit of time:

\mbox{\HUGE \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}}} \approx 5.4 \cdot 10^{-44} \, s

I should note that you would do well to go learn more existing science, because it seems to have already accomplished the the things you wish to accomplish.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Okay now If you knew the energy contained in probability in Plancks distance, in my equation would that result in a given amount of planck time relative to planck distance?

[chroot]

There's also a Planck energy (are you really surprised?)

\mbox{\HUGE \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c^5}{G}}} \approx 1.95 \cdot 10^{9} \, J \approx 543 \, \textrm{kilowatt-hours}

- Warren

[PRyckman]

So what if you made those all represent 1=1=1
building blocks of space?

[chroot]

Many people work in the natural units, as I said. In those units, \hbar = G = c = 1. It simplifies equations significantly. Remember that nature doesn't care what units we use, as long as we're consistent; units are an invention of man.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Would a value of E equaling one be critical mass?

[chroot]

In natural units, an energy of one is 543 kilowatt-hours. I don't know what you mean by "critical."

- Warren

[PRyckman]

The point where too much energy exists in one spot and creates a black hole /singularity.

[chroot]

No, that's defined by the Schwarzschild radius:

r_s = \frac{2 G M}{c^2}

If you pack mass M within radius r_s, you'll have yourself a black hole. If you'd like a fun exercise, try casting that equation in natural units.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

I wouldn't know where to begin, could you tell me the interpretations of such an answer? Oh and what's the equation for pie again?

[chroot]

Well, it's simple. If you pack a given mass, M, into a small enough space, you will create a black hole.

Do you know what defines a black hole? It's simple, really. First, imagine the good ol' Earth. You know that if you throw a baseball up into the air, it'll come to the ground, right? What happens if you throw it really hard, by strapping a big rocket to it? If you can accelerate it up to 11 km/s, the baseball can actually leave the Earth's gravitational field entirely, and never come home.

That speed, 11 km/s, is called the escape velocity, because an object will have to go at least that fast to escape the Earth's gravity.

A black hole is an object with such intense gravity that even light cannot escape. In other words, at some distance from the object, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. The distance from the object at which this occurs is called the event horizon, and the event horizon is at a distance of 2GM/c^2 from the object.

Let's put in a concrete example. How about the mass of the Sun? How small would you have to compress the Sun to turn it into a black hole?

Answer: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=2+G+%28mass+of+sun%29+%2F+c%5E2&btnG=Google+Search

Keep in mind that I haven't mentioned singularities at all. Why not? Because you don't have to have a singularity to have a black hole. All you have to do is get enough mass into a small enough space. Current physical models know of no forces that could prevent such a mass from collapsing all the way to a singularity, and most physicists feel that means that current physical models are wrong!

It is quite likely that a theory of quantum gravity like string theory will eliminate the singularity in our models of black holes.

- Warren

[chroot]

(And there is no such thing as an "equation for pi". Note the spelling, too -- it's pi, a greek letter, not pie, a dessert.)

- Warren

[PRyckman]

So what is the calculation that has been defined to millions of decimal points to no end?
..On topic
Does that Energy have to be in wave form to cause a black hole? (compressed matter would have an extremely high Energy field

[chroot]

Ah, you're saying "what's the algorithm used to calculate the digits of pi?" There are many such algorithms.

The terms 'wave form' and 'energy field' are not part of accepted physics, so I don't know what you mean.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Does the Energy have to have no mass, that causes the black hole, for instance would a bright enough laser focused perfectly cause small black holes?

[PRyckman]

I thought the value for pi was calculated using radius and area for a circle

[chroot]

For a black hole, it doesn't matter whether the stuff inside is mass or energy. It's all the same to gravity.

Pi is defined as the ratio of circumference to diameter. That definition is not useful for calculating its digits with a computer. That requires an algorithm.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

No for a black hole it doesn't matter, for my equation it does :)

Okay could you relate trying to find pi to trying to find edges on a perfect circle?

[chroot]

I don't really care what your equation says, to be frank.

A perfect circle has no sides.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

So then that'd be why you can't find a value for pi?

[chroot]

What do you mean by 'value?' Pi has a perfectly well-defined value.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

and what value is that? 3.14 ?

[chroot]

No, 3.14 is an approximation of pi. What I mean is that pi occupies a distinct spot on the number line.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

And although you don't care could you make an educated guess based on your obvious wealth of knowledge, what passes into a black hole would it be energy or mass when crossing the event horizon.

[chroot]

It doesn't necessarily become either. Once again, as far as gravity is concerned, energy (by that I assume you mean light) and mass are the same stuff.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

hmm, I think I'll need some time to theorize after that statement. So your opinion then is it stays in the form it was before reaching that point?

[chroot]

May I suggest that spend more time reading and less time theorizing? I mean no offense, but you are quite ill-equipped to be formulating new physical theories. You would do well to understand existing physics before attempting to make your own.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

I think understanding the concept is more important than understanding the math, it seems to me I can turn equations into language easier than I can language to math, and you visa verca.
However You didn't answer my question
Is your opinion that Energy stays in the form it was in when crossing the event horizon?

[chroot]

Yeah, light stays light when it crosses the event horizon.

Keep in mind that language is not a very useful tool for either learning or communicating physics. To paraphrase a cliche, an equation is worth a thousand words. Actually, probably even more than that.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

I can answer that question for you, we know incredible energy is given off in the criation disk(i know thats off) This is all energy not matter. Therefor we must assume all mass is transferred into quanta


enough quanta, plancks energy in a certain distance and you have a black hole.

[chroot]

The accretion disk is outside the event horizon. What happens in the accretion disk has nothing to do with what happens inside the event horizon.

Your last sentence, properly worded, should be "Enough matter or energy in a small enough volume, and you have a black hole."

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Therefor to swing it all back to the interference patterns, quanta, or energy is what has an affect on gravity, And that effect can be seen by the interference

[PRyckman]

but if you move infinitely closer to the event horizon more and more mass is being separated into energy?

[chroot]

There is no relationship to interference patterns.

- Warren

[chroot]

but if you move infinitely closer to the event horizon more and more mass is being separated into energy?
No.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Gravity plays no effect, only the minima and maxima of the waves interacting makes the interference?

[chroot]

Wave interference has nothing to do with gravity. Currently, there are two major theories in physics: quantum mechanics, which deals with the double slit experiment and so on, and general relativity, which deals with gravity and black holes. Currently, the two are not related to each other in any way.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

what if gravity and black holes were determined instead by time? Would that relate them? Instead of gravity being a force of energy it is described as I had described it in "what is energy" thread

[chroot]

What if green were really four?

Your ideas make no sense. The gravitational force does not depend on time, and indeed it cannot. The invariance of physical laws to translations in time is equivalent to the conservation of energy. If gravity changed its character over time, then the conservation of energy would be violated, and no one has ever shown even a single example, ever, of energy conservation being violated.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Well time is relative to the amount of energy right? Therefor the amount of energy is greater on earth than halfway between earth and mars. I'm not saying gravity changes character over time, I am looking at one frame of time, not time passing. Energy: kinetic,gravity etc alters the speed at which time passes relative to other areas with diferrent energy.

Are you saying the conservation of energy would be violated if the earth lost mass over time by putting out a gravitational field? If that's what your saying then Gravity must not be energy huh?

[chroot]

I have no idea what "the amount of energy is greater on earth than halfway between earth and mars" means.

"Energy: kinetic,gravity etc alters the speed at which time passes relative to other areas with diferrent energy" is almost correct. Gravitational fields to affect the passage time, cf. gravitational time dilation.

And yes, if the Earth lost mass over time simply by virtue of mainting its gravitational field, then energy conservation would be broken.

- Warren

[Antonio Lao]

Which comes first: the chicken or the egg? Do we quantized distance first then quantized matter and energy? Or do we quantized matter and energy first then quantized distance?

The quantization of matter is the beginning of the atomic theory.

The quantization of energy is the beginning of quantum theory.

The quantization of one-dimensional space (distance) is the beginning of quantized space. This is my research.

Quantized Space = c Energy

Energy = mass c^2

Quantized Space = mass c^3

Note: the three equations above are based on the assumption that continuous space and quantized space are equal but in truth they are not when look upon in microscopic and macroscopic point of view.

[PRyckman]

Sorry to be vague, Energy existing as a potential whether it be infared or xray measured at some point on earth would be greater than the Energy existing as a potential than in space away from such a large body.

Ok now Since Earth isn't losing mass over time maintaining it's gravitational field, then gravity must not contain energy. To again obey the laws of conservation of mass.

If gravity doesn't contain energy is it still a force of E?
Is it not possible that energy creates a force on time and Gravity is just a byproduct of that?

[PRyckman]

That's interesting Antonio, I wonder what chroot will have to say on that.

[chroot]

I still have no idea what you're talking about. Gravitational potential energy increases with distance.

No one ever said gravity "contains" energy, whatever that means. Gravity is a conservative force.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

It takes energy to push or pull something. Gravitational potential energy increases with distance, If you increase the distance in my equation either energy or time could rise. Showing either the potential energy of such distance or the time it would take for them to meet.

[chroot]

I'm not really interested in discussing your little equation, since it isn't even dimensionally consistent. It's also riddled with absurdities. Sorry. I'll let you talk to someone else.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

I'm really interested in those quanta you said antonio.
If I had any mathmatical background I'd make my equation CE=mc^2(mc^3)
and see if it works out.

[PRyckman]

I see how it is riddles with absurdities, which I just haven't explained well enough obviously. But as far as not being dimensionally constant I don't see where your coming from.

[chroot]

Do you know what it means to be "dimensionally consistent?"

- Warren

[PRyckman]

no i suppose i do not, unfortunately i never went to university.

[Antonio Lao]

To be dimensionally consistence, the proportionality constants in all the equations (e.g. c or h) must be capable of lowering or increasing dimension. I am still looking for a way to do just that.

[chroot]

To be dimensionally consistent means the units on one side of an equation are the same as on the other side.

For example, in your equation T = E / d, let's look at the units:

T has units of time. E has units of (mass * distance^2)/(time^2). d has units of distance.

E / d therefore has units of (mass * distance)/(time^2), which is the same as force.

(time) does not equal (mass * distance) / (time^2), so your equation is entirely meaningless. The quantity on the right cannot be compared with the quantity on the left, because they represent two completely different units.

- Warren

[PRyckman]

Antonio If you put your quanta into the equation D=E(t) would it be correct.?

EC^3=mc^2(c energy)

See if you can find a textbook answer to fit that, I've done all the thinking I can for today, bedtime for me.

[russ_watters]

Are you saying the conservation of energy would be violated if the earth lost mass over time by putting out a gravitational field? If that's what your saying then Gravity must not be energy huh? "Gravity" isn't energy.

Hopefully, in your few days of this conversation, PRyckman, you've come to a realization: what you know about physics is barely scratching the surface of what is known by the scientific community. What you have isn't even close to the Grand Unified Theory - in fact, it appears you didn't even know what a GUT until warren explained to you the two halves of physics.

You have a lot of homework to do...

[Antonio Lao]

To make

Continuous space = c Energy,

the assumption that force is equivalent to time is needed.

One definition of force is that it is the time rate of change of the linear momentum.

If the linear momentum is proportional to the square of time then S=cE can be dimensionally consistent.

[Antonio Lao]

To make linear momentum equivalent to square of time, the mass must be inversely proportional to distance and directly proportional to the cube of time. All these reduces to one proportionality that is the following:

mass is inversely proportional to the time rate of change of acceleration.

m = \frac {1}{\frac{da}{dt}}

[PRyckman]

"Gravity" isn't energy.


Thanks for restating exactly what I just said, which you also did in the other thread.

[PRyckman]

So continuous space =Ec
E=Mc2
and by defatul Ec^3=Mc^2(Ec)

If not for mass that calculation would be correct. Hmm, chroot what if we take mass out saying this is something with no rest mass.

Antonio continuos space is ec ? so (Mc^2)c ???

[Antonio Lao]

Yeah.

Continuous space, S is related to mass by the following:

S = mc^3

the proportionality constant in term of power of c are related to the individual probability of occurrence for space (continuous and quantized), energy and mass.

It is most probable (almost 1) for quantized space to change into mass but the rate is very, very, very, very slow. In other words, this high probability process takes a long time to complete.

It is very, very, very, very fast for mass to change into quantized space but the probability is almost zero. In other words, this low probability process takes a short time to complete.

[russ_watters]

Thanks for restating exactly what I just said, which you also did in the other thread. RE: Are you saying the conservation of energy would be violated if the earth lost mass over time by putting out a gravitational field? If that's what your saying then Gravity must not be energy huh? I assumed from the question mark at the end that you were asking a question, so I answered it. Was it meant to be rhetorical? If so, you weren't telling us anything new (and that was my point).

Why did you bring it up?

[PRyckman]

It was rhetorical, sorry I'm not telling you anything new, these are thoughts i came to on my own conclusion. In coming up with this equation I thought of a few of these things myself without prior knowledge that they already exist, including plancks constant, heat death, and gravity not being an energy.
One further, black body radiation.
I came to the conclusion for that because I believe this equation says that our universe is just a black hole in another, and the black holes in ours are universes as well.

I read up on hawking radiation and found the math for it quite perplexing, seem's they can't really put a finger on why it is in bursts

Well I'll tell you why. Stars and Galaxies burn off their energy in stages. There are peak periods of stars, and there are low times. The reason there is no math to fit it is because it is chaos in it's grandest scheme. Not only do you have chaos inside of energies and matter, but you may also have life. Who would harness the energy and do who knows what.

There is another thread, no theory complete without GOD
Well I haven't figured out what he wants but I have narrowed it down to only two possible things.
1. He wants us to rule the universe.
2. He wants us to die.
That's the only two logical choices. Pick yours, I know what I choose.

[PRyckman]

And what about my question there.
Can you take mass out of that equation if Were talking about light.

Because if you did, then the equation would be balanced
Ec^3=c^2(Ec)

Anyways, I'll let you know what I think that equation means. Dimension is always 3 dimensional for matter to exist. Energy and time creates 3 dimensional space. The precise size and shape they create is dependant on the energy. Gravity is not a force but just a footnote in this equation. Since Time and energy directly make space then space could be considered a 3 dimensional space bent and curved. This curving is time. Stretched and compressed at different points in space. Time itself is what gravity is.
Imagine an electron spinning around a nucleus. It only exists at any given point in time in probability. Therefor the force it creates is spread around that probability field. With the higher places of probability having more force.

If an electron had a probability to be found at any given time 50% on the left of a line and 50% on the right of a line, then the affect time has on it's force can be easily shown.

With the time frame rate on the left being 1.1
And the time frame rate on the right being 1.2

So if the electron spent 1.1 seconds on the left then it actually spent 1.2 seconds on the right which would move the force of the electron on the rest of the atom, which would move the entire atom.

[russ_watters]

And what about my question there.
Can you take mass out of that equation if Were talking about light.
No, that equation exists to show the relationship between mass and energy: removing mass makes it meaningless.

There are other equations for dealing with light.

[PRyckman]

If so, you weren't telling us anything new (and that was my point).
Why did you bring it up?

No I'm not telling you new facts, just why they are.
We already know light Time and distance are related. Watch,
Light travels one light year per year. Right there shows you.

Man I had written a lot here and it deleted it, i don't feel likewriting it again.

So i'll skip to important stuff.

I said before how i think gravity is just time.
what if the equation was G=E(t) and t=D/E

Ps. When I'm up to it I'll rewrite what I had written on Hawking radiation and the expansion speeds of our universe in it's infancy

[PRyckman]

okay. Hawking Radiation comes out of a black hole in fluxes that despite peoples best efforts, they can't pin the math down correctly to explain it in all circumstances.

What my theory suggests, is that a black hole, is an entire universe like our own. The energy waxing and waning comes from galaxies of stars climaxing together. The energy in the universe is expelled in bursts. The reason we cannot pin that down in math but can ALmost do it, is because of chaos theory. The chaos of that energy is so immense that it averages out, however if you ever want to be exactly precise you would have to account for everything in the universe, including life.
The reason the wavelength is stretched is because the expansion of the universe inside.

Expansion speed at birth: We know that our universe expanded faster than the speed of light at the point of big bang. That distance is equal to the circumference of our macroscopic universe
(the size of the black hole our universe is). That distance is determined by the amount of mass energy contained. Defined as D=E(t) ,note that time can be seen as energy density.

[PRyckman]

more on black holes, The larger they are the longer they take to lose their energy through Hawking radiation. This is because, a black hole actually does have a relative time to you. The less energy it has the faster time goes relative to us. I've given enough examples with the equation, you can look at it again if you need to see it work.
The more energy you have in the black hole the slower time goes by relative to us. That black holes time frame rate can be determined by it's mass energy and it's size.

As the mass energy in black hole evaporates conditions inside get closer and closer to absolute zero. Obviously absolute zero could be seen as time standing still. The closer it gets to that point the larger time frame rate, ours being much higher, the black hole dissipates much faster.

[zeta101]

PRyckman, none of your posts make sense and your theories just seem to be a "mish-mash" of stuff youve just read and obviously not understood correctly. You dont justify or explain anything you state, and infact i really did think that you were typing meaningless drivel just as a joke to see who would actually take it seriously. However looking at the amount of time youve put into writing these posts i dont think thats the case.

You have a creative mind, but you are wasting it, you will not accomplish anything in the field of science unless you decide to learn some BASIC PRINCIPLES in physics/science. I'm sure the people here will help you with that.

You will never be able to formulate a thoery of everything without having studied physics in depth, its just not possible. You either accept this and decide to learn something about physics (ie learn to walk before you can run) or you can continue ranting, and im pretty sure most of the people here will stop reading your posts (if they havent already...)

[PRyckman]

k, an easy question does planck distance equal planck energy X time ?

And I've studied physics in some degree, but only in my own time. And I don't know enough formulas to figure things out. But I understand both in language. Also when I look at the question of the theory of everything, I think of the universes purpose, God or whichever. Theres only two possible things. The universe is here for a reason, and life may or may not be wanted.

Since if we die we don't know if we get to see god there is only one thing we can do, one purpose life can have. Use energy use as much energy as possible.

[russ_watters]

k, an easy question does planck distance equal planck energy X time ? One thing that may be helpful to you in your quest here is to be able to figure out these things on your own. Look at the units of energy, time, and distance. When you multiply an energy and a time, what are the resulting units? Are they the same as distance?

This is critical to being able to accurately interpret equations you see.

[Alkatran]

I have a question, PRyckman. Are you just randomly throwing symbols and exponentials in to your equations, hoping for a correct answer? Because that's what it looks like.

k, an easy question does planck distance equal planck energy X time ?

I have no idea what planck distance, planck energy (or time, in a way) are. But I know the units associated to DISTANCE, ENERGY and TIME (according to my high school courses to date, I'm sure they left out some crucial points).

Distance: m
Energy: m^2/s^2*kg
Time: s

Energy*Distance = (m^2/s^2*kg)*m= m^3/s^2*kg
Now, does m^3/s^2*kg==s?

There you go. Figure it out for yourself next time, jeez.

[lightbeing]

Ok, I 've noticed that PRyckman, you have an interesting thing started. I think you may be onto something by redefining the distance model you proposed. On a side note , and I am sure you realize, to aviod the deterrent effects that others try to create when one thinks out of the box! It is important to accurate perception when one decides to deviate from the 'normal' and mostly inaccurate existing theories of modern science. Unified Theory to me, takes less than any measurement of time to assess. But, an infinite amount of time (seemingly) to convey. Your distance = 1 for all distances actually makes more sense than to quantize by any other measure. This why it is potentially vague to some. I think when you answered B to your question, it was A to be accurate. Anyway, maybe we all should rethink some of how we describe simple concepts such as distance to really be able to reach anything close to a unified theory of the universe. If we rid ourselves of inaccurate descriptions (assumptions)of time and distance, then we can more accurately provide answers to things that create growingly complex equations to "theorize" inaccurate fundamentals. Ok, the very thought processes that contemplate the theory cannot vidicate the existence of the theory. In part due to the fact that it knows it is somewhat redundant on trying to convey by communicating, or, creating an equation to "sum it up", since, the mind already intimately and completely understands without the equation. This consideration or lack of considering, reveals the infancy of western (modern) physics.
Quite possibly, the unified theory may reveal that distance actually may be irrelevant when the theory is accurately assessed.

Keep going!

[billy_boy_999]

PRyckman, this is a really interesting idea, don't be deterred by people who demand that you flesh out every conceivable equation before you pursue a qualitative idea...

sometimes the mentors ask pertinent questions and demand relevent equations, other times they spend three pages trying to convince you that a relativistic mass dilation is locally applicable and when they have lost the argument they insist the conclusion is meaningless...we are all internet goons here...

[PRyckman]

Alright, well yes russ waters, Multiplying E and T gives me a distance in two ways, I'm still struglling with this as much as you are to understand me though. In any case, Energy travels a certain speed. And given a time that gives a distance. The other way Energyx time gives a distance is if in the case of a black hole. The mass is so concentrated that It tears space, And the size of the hole it creates is directly proportional to the mass contained.

Figure out that equation, and simplify it until you get to the smallest distance or that exists. At that point you will have it's relative time frame rate. Given time may equal 7.34 which would mean that for every second that goes by on your watch 7.34 seconds go by in the black hole.

A thought experiment.

Okay, What if I was one lightyear away from you. And then I suddleny travelled at 99% the speed of light towards you, while shining a flashlight on you.
Since the light I was shining at the beginning of my journey doesn't hit you until I'm 99% done my journey, you receive 100% of that energy in 1% of the time. So you receive 365 days worth of flash light energy over the period of about 3 days.

So does this prove that D=E(t) or does this prove E=mc2 once again.
Further, what if i was going even closer to the speed of light, so that beam of light was squished even more, packing increasingly more energy into a smaller space, at some point would this create a gravity well? or something else extraordinary?