Distance in an Expanding Fractal.

[AbnormallyHonest]

Distance in terms of the Universe should be in its apparent area at a fixed displacement. Every point is its own center, but distance should be calculated by how many of those singular perspectives are potentially included by our view. When we look out we are seeing one point (from a straight on view from our perspective), who's distance should be a derivative of how many points historically are contained at that time when the Universe was more compact. (If we were to travel back in time, the potential points represented by the area of the sphere at that displacement, would've been contained within the space we exist in now.) Basically, we are just seeing the potential points contained in our point of space if space were as expanded as it is now.

 

Or the area represented by a fixed displacement from us actually only represents one point in space. The distance should be derived from the area of a fixed displacement or potential of one point as seen from our current view of more expanded space. (When and where are actually just the size of spacetime, they are unified as well.)

 

The volume represents our ability view across differing points (across the rate of change... acceleration). That is a derivative of the amount of time the Universe has existed (when=where=spacetime).

 

Our spatial existence is actually just 1 dimensional but it's 1D^3 because We can view across the rate of change of the rate of change, but all views are 1 dimensional, a straight line from where we exist now.

Edited July 2, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[studiot]

Study this, it is applicable to fractals.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausdorff_measure

 

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=hausdorff+measure

[AbnormallyHonest]

Study this, it is applicable to fractals.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausdorff_measure

Thank you, I had no idea this type of theory existed. Are you familiar with this j-invariance?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-invariant

Or rather it's inverse,

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_function

Study this, it is applicable to fractals.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausdorff_measure

 

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=hausdorff+measure

In a 2 dimensional area, wouldn't it be illogical to represent the graph of the circle as (X^2)+(Y^2)= infinity then X and Y both equal infinity? In order for it to be defined, the values of both X and Y would have to be finite and the circumference would represent the potential points from that displacement if fixed from the origin? You would only require one linear measurement because we can assume that one coordinate can always be assumed as 0. So the displacement is the square root of the graph intersecting one of the axis, even if we cannot determine the linear distance from the origin (our perspective without parallax), you can alaways estimate the circumference from one perspective which would allow you to infer the displacement.

 

(The number of points could be infinite, but could be estimated by the difference in two points by a factor of their degrees of separation. Objects of known linear size, like a similar galaxy would give us an angular diameter which could be used to measure a ratio of the angular diameter represented up close, to that of far. So the graph would be that ratio^2 giving us an idea of the size of circle in terms of local space, then the circumference could be calculated and the known distances represented by angular diameter could be substituted, and the radius known.)

I would probably my use the distance represented by that angular diameter as extrapolated from the center of the earth the the linear measurement on the surface. That would give you the local space representation for the ratio since the earth is the most local spatial convergence that we are influenced by.

Edited July 2, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[AbnormallyHonest]

Question: So if we assume space is receding away from us dependent on how much space is between us, so what of the space between galaxies with respect to a lateral relationship. Does the space between them expand as well based on how far they are from us? I would think not that is why there are more of them included in the view the farther out we look.

 

Basically, from a fixed displacement from us, the space between galaxies actually represent less expanded space from the space we exist in now. So doesn't it make sense to use that area to calculate the distance since we can see linear relationships that are not distorted, and that area is finite no matter how "red shifted" the light is. The apparent distance between galaxies does not change even if the light is shifted. The area represented by by a specific amount of "red shift" should more accurately infer it's actual distance because if they actually were moving away from us, the distances between the galaxies should also increase.

Edited July 2, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[petrushka.googol]

AFAIK viewing a galaxy X from Earth that is significantly red-shifted would create the same "illusion" as the inverse observation.

There are no absolute measurements in space only relative ones. Conservation of mass / energy / momentum apply here.