JohnMnemonic

So what? It doesn't have to be mine. How can you make a new formula for things, which are already well known? You can't... Make your own formula for acceleration... It's not possible, as there's only one valid formula in such case... You wanted math, I gave you math. No one said, that I have to make my own math Theory says, that each point on the time axis is equally real in physical terms - but this can't be proved in any physical ways.. It is not surprising at all - I told you, that I'm using the most basic knowledge. It is revelant, because it proves, that if (for example) we would make Earth 2 times smaller, frequency of it's rotational cycle would become 2 times higher - so every single day on 2x smaller Earth would be 2x shorter - and this IS time dilation, as an observer, which would be 2 xtimes smaller, won't be able to notice the difference of time flow...

Because they are made, to measure correct time. I'm talking about scaling a correctly working mechanism. It can be a clock, it can be an engine or it can be a beating heart of living being Pendulum is not the best example here, as you don't change it's actual size. Better is to take 2 gears - with 32 and 16 teeth for example - make a smaller copy of them (with maintaining the number of teeth and the proportion of their sizes) and measure the rotational speed for the bigger and smaller model. If we will keep the same angular velocity, then their rotational speed will be different - but if we keep the same rotational speed, then the angular velocity will differ. Well, if an object on the surface of a rotating sphere moves with a given velocity, then he can't slow down, just because the sphere became smaller - because it would have to give it's energy to environment. Oh yes? And what about the dimensional time axis? Can you perceive the reality 20 years from now? No, you can't... Here's math: Va is not the same as Vb And that's it. A mentaly retarted monkey should be able to figure this out - but it seems, that it was too much for you

Well, in the difference to concept of time from GR, my model doesn't need to assume, that some part of physical reality exists beyond our perception - just like time dimension in GR Simply, let's make a rotational cycle of a planet our unit of time. Assuming, that changing size of a body won't affect the amount energy stored in it, rotational velocity of a rotating sphere has to remainn the same for scaled and non-scaled frames. If we would decrease the size of Earth 2 times, distance, which is passed by a point on the surface, during each rotation would be twice shorter. And because velocity of it's rotation has to remain the same (due to the conservation of energy), as on the non-scaled planet, changing the size will affect it's angular velocity. Because the distance, passed by a point on the surface is 2 times smaller in scaled frame, while it's velocity didn't change, angular velocity of scaled planet will get twice so high. As a result, during each full rotation of non-scaled Earth, 2 times smaller object will make make 2 full rotational cycles - so each day on scaled planet will be 2 times shorter... Of course, you can calculate it using numbers, if you want - but what for? Even a retarded monkey should be able to predict the result. Obviously you don't get it (or maybe you don't want to get it). All clocks are designed to measure the proper time - Big Ben measures the same time, as a wristwatch, even if it's much bigger. You have to physically scale the mechanism of a properly woking clock (no matter, if it's Big Ben or a wristwatch), while maintaining all it's proportions, to see, how scale causes time dilation. It's not that hard to figure it out, how it works... You need only 2 values, to make the math, which proves how scaling affects the flow of time. : - rotational velocity of a spinning sphere - it's circumference Making the rotating sphere 5 times bigger, will increase the duration of a single rotational cycle 5 times. By making the spinning sphere 234,675 times smaller, we will make it's rotational frequency 234,675 times higher. Angular velocity can't be considered as the constant property of a spinning object, as it completely ignores distance in dimensional space and the actual velocity, measured on the surface (and velocity is energy). It's like asking for math, which will prove, that 2+2=4

Model adds a third type of time dilation, which depends on the size differential in scaled frames. It predicts for example, that if we would decrease the size of entire Solar System 4 times (together with all it's content), we would live 4 times shorter (but only a non-scaled observer will be able to observe the difference of time flow in scaled frame Of course it does. All you need to do, is to scale somekind of mechanical device, to see, how it's size affects it's properties. You can use simple math, to calculate, how scaling affects the rotational velocities of gears or distances in physical space. If you would decrease 2 times the size of an analog clock (while keeping all the proportions in it's mehanism), it will start to measure the time twice so fast. By changing the size of entire Solar System, we change as well the lenghts of planetary orbits, what will affect orbital velocities of celestial bodies - as a body would have to pass a different distance in the same period of time, to maintain the frequency of orbital cycle. However scaled observer placed on the scaled planet won't see any difference and we need a non-scaled frame of reference to see the actual effects... Two simple examples are above. Everything can be calculated using simple math - so I don't think, that I need to make a scaled model of an analog clock (or some other mechanism), to prove that I'm right.

I present my own, alternative concept of time. In my theory, time is not a linear and determined dimension (like X, Y, Z), but is defined by the frequency rate of all physical processes in the environment of an observer. I based this model on planetary cycles of celestial bodies in a common 3D space, but it can be easily applied to all possible scenarios, which include the flow of time and apparent duration (velocity) of random processes in different frames and for different observers. What differs my theory and our current concept of time, is the relativity of a perspective (as different points of view), which depends on the distance between observers (frames) and the differential of their scales (sizes). The bigger is the distance between an observer and an accelerated frame, the smaller is it's apparent velocity. The closer we get to a moving object, the faster it seems to move (although it's actual velocity doesn't change). However, what really matters, is the dimensional scale of a frame (observer). Scaling drastically changes the frequency of cycles and all distances in 3D space. Observer has to be scaled together with the frame, to maintain all previous proportions. In such case, observer won't be able to notice the change of his size, but a macro-scale observer will observe significant increase of all frequencies in the frame, which was micro-scaled. In my theory physical scale is the actual 4'th dimension of space and this is why the model can be applied to both: QM and macro-scale mechanics. Generally my model is so simple and obvious, that it probably doesn't even need any physical evidences. Of course some people can say, that it's impossible to prove, that scaling causes time dilation, because we can't change the scale of our physical bodies - but then we can simply scale an analog clock with it's entire mechanism and compare the time measured by it, to a non-scaled clock. Simple math proves it. Besides in miro-scale my heart would be beating much faster and I would drastically decrease my life span due to much faster metabolism. Smaller animals live generally shorter (with couple exceptions), than larger ones. It is a well known fact, that Insects perceive reality in slow motion - I think, that my explanation is much better, than the current one (which didn't make sense, as electric impulses of neurons move too fast, to notice the difference of couple nanometers). I can give you thousands of different examples, which will prove the absoluteky obvious correlation between scale, frequency and apparent flow of local time. I'm 100% sure, that this model will work, from Planck's lenght to the giant neural network of galaxy clusters I've made a visual representation of my model. Initially the movie was longer, but I've left ony the important part. Sorry for all those sarcastic comments, but it was just after I discovered, how simple and obvious this solution is - it's almost like stating that sky is blue and roses are red - and that at the same time it changes some 40% of the models, which are used by physicists, without contradicting any of them. The only exception is the part of theoretical physics, which tells that time is actually a determined and linear dimension and that it exists physically in all past and future "moments in time". Of course, there's absolutely no way of physically observe any other "moment of time", than the one, which we observe right now. Observer can exist physically only in a single point on the "time axis" and is unable to observe any other points of time. I exist HERE and NOW. If I exist in any other point of time, except the current moment, then it's not me. What, if the current me has a completely different opinion, than me 15 years ago? I'm extremely sorry, but the idea of dimensional axis of time is more like fiction, than science. If you spent couple years thinking about the solution for the grandfather paradox, most likely you just wasted quite a lot of precious time - and sadly, it's physically impossible, to move back in time and "undo" things, which you already did. Is there even a single scientific evidence, that would allow us to assume, that solid matter exists anywhere, beond the observable real-time? I've heard about a guy, who claimed to be from the year 2375, but I wouldn't rather call it as "scientific evidence". How can you base your models on a completely unproven guess, which additionally doesn't make too much sense. There are no errors in the code of Universe - if a theory leads to a paradox, then it's most likely incorrect... Even if it's Albert Einstein's theory... I give you the most simple and obvious solution, which doesn't need any unproven assumptions to work. I don't even know, if my concept is actually a theory at all - it's as theoretical, as classical mechanics of solid bodies (and just as simple). There's only one problem with my model - and because of it, my concept of time will be most likely rejected by 90% of professional Physicists. You need guts, to admit being wrong - and I doubt, that scientific elite has the guts, to announce suddenly, that Einstein's concept of time-space is in big part incorrect and that they need now to recalculate half of all the formulas in the standard model... And that it's all because of some completely unknown guy, who treats physics as a kind of hobby... It just can't be possible... Problem is, that there's no other way around. Sooner or later science will have to deal with this problem. Knowing my luck, when it happens I will be already dead and all the credits will go to some professional scientist with a famous name (or at least to someone, who's not a complete amateur). Maybe he will even get a Nobel Prize in physics - who knows? However I'm sure, that there's no way for physics to avoid this fate. Maybe I should make a patent for this model...?

Problem is, that you can't think about electrons as about physical objects - they exist as probability distribution and there are no mechanical forces, connected with them. Electron has no specific location, spin or momentum (until it's measured) Neutron has spin (magnetic moment), while it doesn't have charge...

Everything can be answered, if you search for the answer deep enough Generally single subatomic particles are not the source of magnetic field in macroscale. The smallest magnet was created, by combining 5 atoms That's because science seems to ignore the ALIGNMENT of magnetic polarities in the process of magnetic field creation... But angular momentum IS undetermined in the case of an electron in an electron cloud. Not to mention, that quantum spin is not an angular momentum a mechanical understanding: electron is not a tiny, spinning ball - it's a probability distribution... Lorenz Law doesn't describe the cause of EM induction - it just describe how, but no why it happens. Besides the border between EM and QM is VERY thin... Is this QM or EM: But right hand rule shows, that magnetic field IS perpendicular to electric current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_magnetic_moment https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921452697005425 "The magnetic moment of the neutron allows some control of neutrons using magnetic fields, however,[34][35] including the formation of polarized neutron beams. One technique employs the fact that cold neutrons will reflect from some magnetic materials at great efficiency when scattered at small grazing angles.[36] The reflection preferentially selects particular spin states, thus polarizing the neutrons. Neutron magnetic mirrors and guides use this total internal reflection phenomena to control beams of slow neutrons." I couldn't find the answer, if neutron beams produce magnetic fields through EM induction, just like electrons - but they seem to react to an external magnetic field, similar to electrons... Alpha particles have no magnetic moment - as the spins of neutrons and protons cancel eachother out... But without explanation, terms like: "magnetisation" or "magnetic memory" have no actual meaning...

Well, if you want to understand something - you need to understand it as deep, as you can But of course - physics is about discovering and understanding all the aspects of physical reality. But I see no reason, to assume, that something is beyond our understanding. Well, a neutron has no net electric charge and has it's own magnetic moment. Besides electron orbitals can't be considered as movement of point charges. Properties of electrons are undetermined due to the superposition Funny thing is, that there's not so many differences between both ways Compare light with sound - where is the border between QM and acoustics? Of course it's not... But wouldn't be nice to look for some possible solutions to this problem...? QM works just fine. In an electric current magnetic moment of electrons is perpendicular to the direction of current - alignment of magnetic moments creates a magnetic field And what's the memory effect? How magnetisation affects the structure of matter? What is the smallest pernament magnet, which scientists created? QM can explain it. Alignment of magnetic moments in atom creates a magnetic field, just like the alignment of magnetic moments of star systems in a galaxy, creates a galactic magnetic field. Magnetic field is the same in micro and the macroscale...

I think, that there's still no part of physics, which would explain magnetism... QM doesn't deal with mechanics of solid objects. To use QM in such case, you would have to describe the behavior of all the particles, which create a macroscale object. It might be possible - but I won't even try... Hmm, then explain me, how works a pernament magnet, without using QM. Rainbow can't be explined without QM - as you need to describe the frequencies of visible light (photons). Light/photons is an EM radiation and this is pure QM... Of course. QM is confirmed by experiments and observations. It works - although no one actually knows why and how it works...

Actually, there's no explanation, why subatomic particles have any properties at all - magnetic moment, electric charge or mass. There's nothig solid and determined in QM... Personally, I think, that everything, what matters, is the information, "written" in particles... It depends, if you speak about a stream of solid objects, or about a concentrated and polarized wave... Of course in QM, both can be actually the same... Yes... And this is the biggest problem of physics, as a whole - because ... my first answer in this comment...

Alpha particles have no magnetic moments, as the spins of protons and neutrons cancel eachother out. Funny thing is, that free neutrons have magnetic moments, despite their lack of electric charge. Magnetic field of a moving charge can be explained only with QM. In standard concept of electromagnetism, EM induction has no explanation - it just happens, but no one knows why... If you want to understand electromagnetism you HAVE to deal with QM - sorry, but there's no other way... https://www.coursera.org/learn/particle-physics/lecture/kniQc/4-3-spin-and-magnetic-moment "...There's no movement associated with any of those moments, let alone the rotation..."

Moving charges = quantum stuff. Electric current = aligned stream of electrons Domains of a pernament magnet are created when the valence electrons in ferromagnetic material are aligned by the orientation of spin. All properies of matter have their source in "quantum stuff". You can't say, that something is different in micro and macro scales - it's only smaller... Because of the quantum spin, electrons can be treated, like tiny magnets...