Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Origin of distance

Origin of distance - Physics Forum

Origin of distance - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-19-2006, 08:13 PM
Dick
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Origin of distance



Since distance is so important to my fantasy, I got to wondering what
would really be the smallest distance and not borrow Planck's QA which
didn't satisfy my mind anyway.

Scrapping all of our earth-centric conventions as "in the beginning"
there was no earth or sun nor anything but energy, an infinite source
of energy, setting there at rest but full of potential, an infinite
source of potential energy.

How far could the first release of energy/mass go?

I think "inertia" holds the answer. With infinite source of energy to
be released how could anything hold it back? First establish some
notation, d0 is the Singularity, d1 is the first measurable distance
traveled by the stuff. What could limit reaching d1? The same thing
as limits the movement of light - inertia. Light is energy in the
beginning, right?

Need to stop for a moment and take a look at time.
Using V=d1t, lets take it apart. V will use the dimensions inherited
from d and t. What is t, surprise it is also d.

By convention 't" is expressed in seconds, hours, days etc.
What is a day? It is the distance traveled in one day's earth
rotation. AND that is 24,900 meters. I hope I pulled the right
number. Not that it is important, what matters is the ability to make
distance an equivalent to time. Now we can forget time. Replace "t"
with d1 meters/1 earth orbit or 24,900 meters.
V=d1/24,900. A ratio, set in desired conventional terms. The distance
traveled becomes a ratio of item-distance traveled compared to earth
travel distance. Faster is the ratio of d1/d(earth).

Back to the beginning. I can predict that the first release of an
infinite amount of energy will be limited by inertia. The distance
traveled from e0 to emax can be set as our cosmological unit of
distance d1. How about the distance traveled from emax to e2? It
will be longer, but more constant. That is the problem, emax-e2 will
be longer and not qualify as absolute d(min). There may be cases
where energy starting from rest needs to be expressed. To satisfy the
requirement there not be a smaller unit, I think we must set the first
distance as limited by acceleration.

Anyway, there is my cosmological unit of distance. I bet it can be
quantified by experiment. Just have enough energy to allow unlimited
flow until limited by inertia and measure the distance traveled.
Don't have a Heisenberg problem as we only need distance traveled
until max energy propagation is reached. I bet there are those that
could even calculate/predict the size. Once this quantum distance is
formalize, all other measurements are just ratios.

dick
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-19-2006, 09:28 PM
Mr Clarke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Origin of distance

"Dick" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

You seem to be wrestling with yourself; using conventional physics
constants (originally intended for use by the Weights n` Measures
Regulations Department) and the new concepts of light running out
of puff when it becomes too heavy to be light any more!

-------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke (Still a Layman, after all this time).
-------------------------------------------------------



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [Only registered users see links. ]

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-19-2006, 10:21 PM
j
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Origin of distance

"Dick" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Well, you better tell us why Planck's metrics are unsatisfactory, otherwise
you are on your own in this fantasy which you propose and never seem to take
our suggestions. It's two-way now, Dick. You have to feed-back or it's the
end.


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-19-2006, 11:42 PM
Dick
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Origin of distance

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:28:34 +0100, "Mr Clarke"
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


I am quite pleased with this contribution. If there was a Big Bang,
then there was a beginning. I think it is fair to assume infinite
energy. I am seeking the measure of the smallest distance, similar to
Planck's distance constant, but I thought of a way to use a basic set
of concepts. The energy was most likely not moving until it moved.
<g>
Starting from distance 0, the energy would move into virgin space (not
a sexual comment, thank you). The first significant landmark (not
even possible) would be when the moving energy reached the speed of
light. However, not wanting to start that convention again, I decided
that I would just assume there was such a distance at which the energy
could no longer accelerate. That would be an average speed since it
had to accelerate from 0 to light speed. With our current knowledge
we can determine how many meters the energy would travel then take
half of that distance to become distance 1.

Why use d1 - d0? Because I am speculating it is the smallest possible
distance in the universe.

Why do I care? This smallest distance becomes "now-min" which is
needed for other thoughts that are caught up in this web.

dick
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-20-2006, 12:14 AM
j
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Origin of distance

"Dick" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote


Another way to consider it is: there was no such thing as space until it was
made by events, and there is no such thing as space outside of it.


For all we know the universe was moving faster than light in the early
stages, if there were any.


That would be the speed of light. We do not yet know if there is something
(like the proposed tachyon) which moves faster than light.


Actually, Sir, there are state changes which occur without acceleration, or
at least within Planck's metrics - in other words, in a space that is not
available to observation. Zero to C is an example.


WAIT! I get it! You are Zeno reincarnated in rural Western Texas, making way
through a case of Texas Pride beer making fools of us! I should have known!
Welcome back, Man! Wow! The fun begins!


Aw, just take the Planck thing and be happy and let's move on.


Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-20-2006, 12:23 AM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Origin of distance

Dear j:

"j" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Certainly not as provable from measurements in this Universe.


The initial inflation was very fast, yes. But at no point was
anything moving "faster than c" compared to anything "adjacent"
to it. The heavens would not have suddenly gone dark, had there
been eyes to see during that time.


Virtual exchange particles travel all speeds... even faster than
c. You just cannot send signals with them.


The concept of an "unknowbly short duration" has been considered
for some time. The photon seems to be the very definition of
LaPlace's impulse, Dirac's delta function. A finite effect in
infinitely short time.


No such luck...

David A. Smith


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-20-2006, 02:10 AM
j
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Origin of distance


"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


If you are contradicting my posit, then I would be most grateful for an
explanation. (English is so difficult sometimes, so please forgive.)


Which works out to be Planck's metrics, n'est pas? The same as you noted
with the additional wording that the measure is what is beyond observation?


David. This is important. What is wrong with Planck's metrics. Please?


Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-20-2006, 02:59 AM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Origin of distance

Dear j:

"j" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

My apologies. Simple sentences are always good. With explicit
references...

I am saying that if there is space outside this Universe, we
could never be aware of it.


The mathematicians I referred to imagined continua, not
arrangements of discrete "building blocks". At least for these
functions.


I was trying to say is that "Dick" is unlikely to take "Planck
units" and be happy. Planck units still invoke time, and Dick
wants to do without time.

Personally, I don't think the continuousness of spacetime will
extend even down below the size of a molecule, much less down to
Planck granule size.

David A. Smith


Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-20-2006, 05:59 PM
Dick
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Origin of distance

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:14:43 -0500, "j" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


Perhaps. I try to keep my assumptions as close to the "reality" I
observe as possible. I have not experienced anything as "no space."
My computer sits in a space that existed before the computer. I have
a similar problem with the "Singularity" and creation of space.
Ironic isn't it, I question the existence of "time" but question the
non existence of space. The singularity, that bundle of energy (?)
existed somewhere. I find it hard to accept it existed in no space.
Forget where did it come from. No, let's not forget. What if the
Singularity was from a collapsed universe. Did space contract as its
matter collapsed into a Singularity.

I am searching for 'absolutes' using my experience with the world as a
guide. I believe our scientists are making things needlessly
difficult however, I do not resort to "that is how god did it." Your
suggestion gets very close to the philosophy expressed in the movie,
"The Never Ending Story." Was that Spencers notion? I know I have
read such a philosophy. It has an appeal. There is also a notion
that we are the projection of a supernatural. That we are a
holograph. Lots of possibilities. I choose to stay with a steady
state explanation. Hmm, I weaken already, I don't know how to account
for the beginning, nor do I like the "now you see it, now you don't.


I am aware that entanglements might act faster than light, but I
believe that is on a supposition the particles entangled transfer no
"information." As for the universe expansion, how would we know?
We could not see anything expanding faster than light could we. I was
wondering if the singularity even expanded "at" light speed due to
inertia. If you have any links, I will see if I can understand the
concepts. (surely there are no experiments?)


Isn't this idea just theoretical?


"Sir?" Did I make you angry?

I would enjoy trying to understand, throw me a link. My mind balk at
the notion of instant acceleration to C.


Excuse me, I don't drink beer, I would be happy to make up some Rob
Roys.
I can't use it. First this stuff is my fantasy and I don't want to
give it substance by including well known stuff. Second, I can't
think in terms I don't understand. Lastly, I am building my thought
or recognizing there existence, one thought at a time. I rejected
using Planck after early using it. It struck me as dishonest to use a
constant I didn't understand.

I am happy, I join you in the next encounter.

dick
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-20-2006, 06:12 PM
Dick
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Origin of distance

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:23:53 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


What I have been thinking about is a minimum discrete distance. I
gather this may be what Planck's distance constant is about.

I am thinking about beginnings. If the beginning was a Singularity of
infinite energy and something started "inflation" I assume I can
consider that energy starting from rest at distance=0. I further
assume that with an infinite supply of energy, the circumference would
expand initially to some velocity short of light speed, reaching
terminal velocity after traveling to distance 1 a distance covered
while energy was accelerating to terminal velocity. However, this
first step would cover a longer distance due to the acceleration from
rest. D2 - D1 would be the shorter distance as it would be covered at
terminal velocity, thus would be a candidate for absolute cosmological
minimum distance.

If the energy's terminal velocity were limited by inertia or something
else to less than light-speed, then this would not be the Dmin.

dick
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
distance , origin


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is Gravity? sdr@sdrodrian.com Physics Forum 1 01-27-2008 02:53 PM
the absolutely final complete collection of ideas blochee Physics Forum 2 06-15-2007 06:31 AM
the absolutely final complete collection of ideas blochee Physics Forum 0 06-14-2007 10:30 PM
GNU units and units.dat; Units of Measurement and Unit Conversion James Redford Physics Forum 0 07-31-2005 12:08 PM
The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian SDR Physics Forum 5 02-16-2005 07:41 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.26209 seconds with 16 queries