Distance equals one unit in any scale, energy and time are reciprocal

  • Level: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PRyckman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
99 replies · 13K views
russ_watters said:
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
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 don't 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 don't think that's 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 theory 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 I am pretty sure most of the people here will stop reading your posts (if they haven't already...)
 
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. there's 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.
 
Last edited:
PRyckman said:
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.
 
Last edited:
I have a question, PRyckman. Are you just randomly throwing symbols and exponentials into 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.
 
possibilities?

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!
 
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 relevant 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...
 
Ok

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 traveled 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?