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

1. Apr 17, 2004

### 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)

2. Apr 17, 2004

### IooqXpooI

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

3. Apr 18, 2004

### PRyckman

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

4. Apr 18, 2004

### pallidin

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.

5. Apr 19, 2004

### 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

6. Apr 19, 2004

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
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

7. Apr 19, 2004

### 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.

8. Apr 19, 2004

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
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

9. Apr 19, 2004

### 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.

10. Apr 19, 2004

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
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

11. Apr 19, 2004

### 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.

12. Apr 20, 2004

### chroot

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

- Warren

13. Apr 20, 2004

### PRyckman

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

14. Apr 20, 2004

### 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.

15. Apr 20, 2004

### Math Is Hard

Staff Emeritus
Here you go..

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

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.

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
16. Apr 20, 2004

### 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

17. Apr 20, 2004

### Math Is Hard

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

18. Apr 20, 2004

### 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.

19. Apr 20, 2004

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
PRyckman,

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

- Warren

20. Apr 20, 2004