JohnMnemonic

I don't know - I've learned about his theory 5 minutes ago. But from the Wikipedia site, I can see, that indeed - I was using his theory correctly, because I came to the same conclusions, as he did, only by myself. I've figured out, that Universe has a structure of a fractal, quite some time ago...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Nottale Among the theoretical predictions of scale relativity are: Derivation of postulates of quantum mechanics.[7] Among the applied predictions of scale relativity to date: Prediction of the location of exoplanets Explanation of observed large-scale structures,[8] such as the Titius Bode observation.[9] Relation between mass and charge of the electron A letter to the New Scientist has suggested that the theory needs closer critical attention, coverage and discussion from the scientific community: Well, if his theory, deserves Nobel Prize, then maybe I also deserve somekind of prize I made an extension to his theory, without even knowing about it...

I would say, that phys.org is a quite reliable source... And yet, you treated it from the beginning, as a total pseudo-scientific heresy... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_relativity "Fractal space-time[edit] If Einstein showed that space-time was curved, Nottale shows that it is not only curved, but also fractal. Nottale has proven a key theorem which shows that a space which is continuous and non-differentiable is necessarily fractal.[17] It means that such a space depends on scale. Importantly, the theory does not merely describe fractal objects in a given space. Instead, it is space itself which is fractal. To understand what a fractal space means requires to study not just fractal curves, but also fractal surfaces, fractal volumes, etc. Mathematically, a fractal space-time is defined as a nondifferentiable generalization of Riemannian geometry.[18][19] Such a fractal space-time geometry is the natural choice to develop this new principle of relativity, in the same way that curved geometries were needed to develop Einstein's theory of general relativity.[20] In the same way that general relativistic effects are not felt in a typical human life, the most radical effects of the fractality of spacetime appear only at the extreme limits of scales: micro scales or at cosmological scales. This approach therefore proposes to bridge not only the quantum and the classical, but also the classical and the cosmological, with fractal to non-fractal transitions (see Fig. 1). More plots of this transition can be seen in the literature.[21][22]" "DISCRETE SCALE RELATIVITY" https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701132.pdf Maybe my idea is not that original, but I'm just an amateur and this paper was published in 2007, so I'm not too far behind the modern science. It's funny however, that no one here, besides me, didn't even consider such idea, as science. All, what you can do now, my dear scientists, is to pretend, that you knew about it all along and that I was talking here about obvious things... Well, I said in the beginning, that my concept is something absolutely obvious...

It turns out, that my concept isn't that radical, as you might think. First of all, there are some professional scientists, who were smart enough to notice, that time as a physical dimension doesn't make too much sense: https://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html "Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension" "(PhysOrg.com) -- The concept of time as a way to measure the duration of events is not only deeply intuitive, it also plays an important role in our mathematical descriptions of physical systems. For instance, we define an object’s speed as its displacement per a given time. But some researchers theorize that this Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change." "They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence." "Finally, the researchers explain that this view of time does not look encouraging for time travelers." Exactly as I see it - I would simply add the fact, that flow of time is determined by the rate at which all processes take place within a given frame. But that's not all. It seems also, that I'm not the first one, who got the idea of scale being the actual 4'th dimension in physical and measurable space. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Scale_dimension And that frames are relative to eachother in dimensional scale: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Scale_dimension#Scale_relativity "Latter can be understood as a slowing of speed of time of similar processes. For example, the larger-sized objects, the longer it takes them one revolution around its axis of rotation, longer lasting other typical processes." So in the end, it turns out, that the only innovation, which I make, is to describe the time as frequency of events - what allows me to smoothly connect the flow time with the scale dimension. It looks, like a small detail, but such improvement makes it possible to visualise the flow of time and to operate on it in dimensional (physical) space. For example, we can use this model, to see, how the lenght contraction corresponds with time dilation, when frame is being accelerated to c - "compression" of lenght, affects the frequency rate, thus changes the flow of time. I can make a 3D presentation, if you want...

True - but for a macro-scale observer it won't make no difference, until he won't zoom in into it. Just as for us, it doesn't matter, that solid matter is made of subatomic particles and a lot of empty space, as long as it appears solid... Anyway, we all know, that solid bodies are made of non-solid waves. I can use a 3D graphics software, which is completely based on math, to prove it (and so I did in the movie).

We're not discussing gravity - but simple circular motion of accelerated body Jeez, scaling down the wave form will reduce the wavelenght and amplitude into infinite small values - so it will appear to a non-scaled observer, as stright line. Do you really need math, to understand something such trivial and obvious? You can also scale a circle and at some point, it will become flat for a non-scaled observer I see no point of proving something such obvious

I think, that object moving in a circle can have any possible velocity - it's a value, which can be changed, by acceleration... One year on Mars is longer, than one year on Earth - due to longer orbital cycle Of course, it won't affect your lenght of life, as your size won't change a bit - so your perception of time will remain the same, as on Earth... But things, would be different, if we would change our size - then it would be possible to perceive 1 year on Mars, as 1 year on Earth, but then from your perspective, orbital cycle of Earth would get shorter...

Just take a sinusoid wave form and scale it down - it will turn at some point into a stright line... That's just another thing, which is simple, trivial and obvious... Take solid matter and zoom in - and we will end with a wave function.... There's nothing, what would make scalling physically impossible... It's just as science fiction, as accelerating a body to 99% of c

Because it would mean changing the energy stored in a body - which would have to be accelerated or slowed down I'm not talking about changing the unit, but about changing the actual distance in physical space. If we make a 1m 10 times bigger, we will get 10m

only SR is not GR. My model can for exaple predict, that at some point of scale, each cycle will become a constant and linear process - thus a wave form will turn into a stright line. It can be used to describe, how subatomic particles appear to us, as solid matter... For example, if we would scale down the Solar System to the size of an atom, orbital motion of planets will become so fast, that we would have to use wave function, to describe it... They should, if we keep the proportions of all their properties (including for example mass, velocity or energy). But before I will get to that point, I want to describe the most basic and primitive scenarios. I agree in 100% And it's trivially true - that's what I said in the beginning... It's meaningless for scaled observer. It has a significant meaning for a non-scaled observer It can't be explained by any other model, than the one, which I'm presenting here. And physics should be able to explain every possible scenario - doesn't it?

And so doesn't GR... For this purpose, we use QM... What other things? Yes, It is - and still you keep telling, that it's incorrect. Make up your mind... Then try to explain my scenario using GR... Whoops - it won't work...

It can be used for planetary cycles, or macro-scale observers. If it would be possible, to change the size of an atom, it would work as well... Simple laws of macro-scale mechanics prove it... Here's a practical example: Consider a planetary body with an orbital cycle (1 orbital cycle = 1 year) and an observer, who looks, at the planet "from above", using an analog clock, to measure the time. Let's make the body, together with it's orbit 2 times smaller. Because the lenght of orbit is now 2x shorter, while the velocity of body didn't change, observer will see, that now orbital cycle of the planet is 2x faster. And now let's make the observer 2 times smaller. Because his perception of time is now different and time seems to flow slower from his perspective, orbital cycle of the planet is still the same (1 year) - and his percpeption is fully consistent with the time, measured by the clock, which was scaled together with him. And now try to explain this scenario, using our current models... Good luck...

And that's exactly what, according to my model, will happen in the scaled frame. This is why you HAVE to use a measuring device, which CAN be scalled. How can you measure time in acceleraterd frame, using a device, which can't be accelerated? It won't make no sense

No... You will die sooner, if you would shrink yourself ok, but frequencies can have completely different values - like 2 MHz or 128757 MHz. It depends ONLY on which frequency we will base the unit of time... I can for example base the measurement of time on my own pulse - it doesn't matter units of time are contractual. You were referring to that part of my response...

You're right - because then you will measure the time for a scaled frame/observer. It's like measuring time in accelerated frame, using a stationary clock. In both examples, you need to scale/accelerate the measuring device Velocity is a distance passed by a body in time. When you change the scale, you change the distance. If you change the size of an electron orbital, it will probably have an effect on the decay rate. But I need to research it further - so give me a moment or two...

You would have to scale the standard clock, to get the proper measurement - that's the whole idea...

And what is the time passage? I would say, that It's the number of cycles, which took place during a period of time Smaller observer lives shorter, than bigger one, while for him the lenght of his life would be the same - and he would need to compare himself to a larger observer, to see the difference You asked: "Does it change the way a child perceives time?" The only way, to get an objective value, would be to scale the clock - and it's obvious, that a scaled clock WOULD measure different time. Because the distances in an atom would get bigger, while velocities would have to remain the same

It would have an effect on the lifespan of scaled observer - that's a measurable physical effect Ok, but it's still affected by scale Well, if they measure the time, based on different frequencies, then the only way would be to equalize their frequencies somehow (through time dilation for example) But I don't see how it is related to the time as dimension VS time as frequency rate it's caused by biomechanical processes, but it is relative for scaled and non-scaled observers There is a limit of the physical scale - which is the Planck's lenght - so we can't shrink the caesium block. But thoretically, we can make it larger - and according to my model it WOULD affect the rate of decay (it would make it slower)

Scale affects the lenght of lifespan due to diffrent rate of metabolism Scale affects the measurement of time on analog clock, due to different angular velocities So, it affects the flow of time in an OBJECTIVE way If you would get smaller, you would live shorter and you will perceive the reality in slow motion - although a second would be still a second on a wristwatch, which was scaled together with you...

I have a model and I have some data. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/16/time-passes-slowly-flies-study "Like Reeves standing back and side-stepping slo-mo bullets, the fly has ample time to escape. And it is not alone in its ability to perceive time differently from us. Research suggests that across a wide range of species, time perception is directly related to size. Generally the smaller an animal is, and the faster its metabolic rate, the slower time passes." ""It's tempting to think that for children time moves more slowly than it does for grownups, and there is some evidence that it might," he said." " http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3996/20130916/animals-perceptioni-time-linked-body-size-metabolic-rate.htm "Small animals with rapidly metabolic rates, such as some birds, perceiving more information in a unit of time, hence experiencing time more slowly than larger animals with slower metabolic rates, such as turtles." And what? Am I making things up???

It is the same - only more sophisticated. Biological body is much more sophisticated mechanism, than a pendulum - that's the only difference Someone would have to measure it in a laboratory - I'm just giving you a theory. I don't own a lab, to make such measurements... Perception of time is subjective. We would have to make a clock, which would be growing together with the child, to get objective measurements... This is why, I'm using simple mechanisms, instead of human perception... I know, that it is just a stupid holywood movie, but this scene from "Ant Man" shows perfectly, how perception of time, depends on the size of an observer - and it is fully consistent with my model:

In a similar way - only in rather more sophisticated one... When I was a child, a year appeared to me, as a much longer period of time, than it is now...

Yes - but it means comparing a scaled frame to a non-scaled one. Similarry, you can compare the accelerated clock, to a non-accelerated one. It is true - you can simply compare the heart beat of a child to an adult. Heart of a child is beating faster - it's a well known fact. Scaling causes exactly the same effect as acceleration or gravity - only much stronger.

For now, I didn't include the mass in the model - as first I want to deal with the physical distances and velocities in space, being affected by the scale. Pendulum is just an example. You need to scale the entire frame, to cause the time dilation inside it. For example, if we scale the observer together with the pendulum, he won't be able to notice any difference in the rate of pendulum swings - and this would be time dilation, as a non-scaled observer would be able to see the difference...

Generally, all clocks are made, to measure correct time - no matter, if they are big or small. Their mechanisms might work at different rate, due to different sizes of internal parts, but in the end, they show the same time (more or less). In my scenario, we need to take a properly working clock and scale it's mechanism, as it is (without changing the proportions of it's parts). Using the calculations for angular velocity and rotational speed, it should be clear, that after scaling, the clock will measure different time (smaller clock would work faster, while bigger clock would work slower). No, you would have to change the size of pendulum, while keeping the weight at the same level (proportionally). For example, if you would put the weight on the top of arrow on a pendulum and make it 10 times bigger, the larger version would work 10x slower, due to larger distances... So let's say, that a rocket is launched stright up to space from Earth and enter an orbit 1000km above the surface. If that rocket would maintain the rotational speed of Earth, we would have to accelerate it, otherwise the ground below would be moving faster than the rocket. Acceleration = additional energy And what, when due to the mechanical effect, heart of an observer will beat faster, causing faster metabolism, shortening his life span and as result affecting his perception of time? If you scale the observer together with it's frame he won't be able to see any difference, although the flow of time will be different, than in non-scaled frame - and this is how time dilation works... Maybe, but this is what a dimension is. All points on an axis have to be physically real... So the time 30 years in the future or in the past, has to be as physical, as the current moment in time, which we all perceive right now... In my model, flow of time is not caused by the motion of frame along the time axis, but by the frequency of processes, which take place in that frame. Such model doesn't need to assume, that time is physically real in any other moment of time, than the present moment (real-time).