1. RE: limitations? 4Ur db
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998-
You wrote on 4/14/02 11:46:54 AM:
>
>hello Kat,
>
>why limit people to measuring the distance to Alpha Centauri in such a
>large measuring standard
>as an Angstrom?
>
>if you are (for the sake of discussion) 5' 2'' and you were an attometer,
>an Angstrom would be
>4 times the earth's equatorial circumference at 200km =
>above sea-level. So why not let them calculate the cubic contents of the
>known universe in
>cubic attometers? That would only require 138 decimal posit=
>ions. follow my formula: 100,000,000,000 lightyears diameter universe in
>attometers would mean
>roughly: [1aM=1*10 ^ -18 m ]
>{1 * 10 ^ 11 (universe diam) * 3*1* 10 ^ 8 (lightspeed/sec) * 3.15576
>* 10 ^ 7
>(seconds/yr) * 10 ^18 (attometer) } ^3 (cubic)/6= app 1.6 *10 ^1=
>34 aM
>
>Why go beyond that? Wouldn.t simply a limit of 10^1024 be abundant?
>
>Antoine
>
Quantum physics teaches that there is only one fundamental unit of length.
The planck length is about 1.6X10-35 meters. Attometers are HUGE!
Karl Bochert
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998---
