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 traveling near light speed may be 1.0000001t and time on Earth 8103.0993t relative to each other
(roughly one second traveling 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 traveling near light speed may be 1.0000001t and time on Earth 8103.0993t relative to each other
(roughly one second traveling 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. there's 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 that's 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 believe 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?