5D Space - Frequency of Cycles in Dimensional Scale

[JohnMnemonic]

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...?

 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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.

Can you show, in mathematical detail, that this model reproduces, and ideally improves on, the predictions of GR?

In other words, does the evidence support your model or not?

6 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

I doubt, that scientific elite has the guts, to announce suddenly, that Einstein's concept of time-space is in big part incorrect

You don't know how science works, do you? 

Science moves forward by scientists realising they are wrong. They had to admit they were wrong about Newtonian mechanics and accept the theory of relativity when the evidence showed that it was a more accurate theory. If your model can produce more accurate results than GR, then it may be accepted.

Discovering that their current model is wrong is the most exciting discovery a scientist can make.

6 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Maybe I should make a patent for this model...?

You can't patent an idea.

Anyway, the evidence, please ...

Edited March 31, 2018 by Strange

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Can you show, in mathematical detail, that this model reproduces, and ideally improves on, the predictions of GR?

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

Quote

In other words, does the evidence support your model or not?

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...

Quote

Anyway, the evidence, please ...

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.

Edited March 31, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Model adds a third type of time dilation, which depends on the size differential in scaled frames.

Please show the mathematics.

Quote

Of course it does. 

Please show the predictions of your model and how well they match observation. There is no "of course" when it comes to science.

7 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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.

Really? So wristwatches run faster than grandfather clocks, in your model?

This prediction appears to falsify your idea. Never mind. Better luck next time.

8 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Two simple examples are above.

No math. No evidence. So no science.

Shall I ask the mods to close this now or are you going to do some science?

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Discovering that their current model is wrong is the most exciting discovery a scientist can make.

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

Quote

Please show the mathematics.

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.

Quote

Really? So wristwatches run faster than grandfather clocks, in your model?

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... 

Quote

No math. No evidence. So no science.

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

Edited March 31, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[MaximThibodeau]

The most important, is that you believe in yourself, about your theory, i need more, do you have a website? I dont know if it is legal in this forum? maybe in the user interface?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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. 

We have analog clocks of different sizes, and do not observe this effect.

A shorter pendulum tick faster (but not with a linear effect) but you adjust accordingly, and measure the same time as a bigger clock.

6 minutes ago, MaximThibodeau said:

The most important, is that you believe in yourself, about your theory, i need more, do you have a website? I dont know if it is legal in this forum? maybe in the user interface?

!

Moderator Note

Posting to link to your website is not permitted.

 

14 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

 

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 momentum 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...

That's not how conservation of energy works.

[Strange]

11 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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

No scientific theory relies on anything that cannot be perceived. That is why it is science. It creates models (unlike you) that use mathematics (unlike you) to predict results (unlike you) that can be compared against observation (unlike you).

So, on the one hand, we have GR, a scientific theory that makes accurate predictions that have been tested. On the other hand we have some vague assertions. Forgive me if I stick with the science.

11 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Of course, you can calculate it using numbers, if you want - but what for?

Because science.

11 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

to see, how scale causes time dilation.

As swansont notes, a shorter pendulum swings faster but that is not time dilation.

11 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

It's like asking for math, which will prove, that 2+2=4

If I asked for that, it could be provided. One doesn't just assume these things.

11 hours ago, MaximThibodeau said:

The most important, is that you believe in yourself, about your theory,

That is the least important thing. The most important thing is to make quantitative predictions and test them against observation. Without that, you are just deluding yourself.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

We have analog clocks of different sizes, and do not observe this effect.

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

Quote

A shorter pendulum tick faster (but not with a linear effect) but you adjust accordingly, and measure the same time as a bigger clock.

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.

Quote

That's not how conservation of energy works.

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.

Quote

No scientific theory relies on anything that cannot be perceived

Oh yes? And what about the  dimensional time axis? Can you perceive the reality 20 years from now?

No, you can't...

Quote

It creates models (unlike you) that use mathematics (unlike you) to predict results (unlike you) that can be compared against observation (unlike you).

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

[MaximThibodeau]

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

A mentaly retarted monkey should be able to figure this out - but it seems, that it was too much for you

Your not my friend anymore.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Oh yes? And what about the  dimensional time axis? Can you perceive the reality 20 years from now?

No, you can't...

But we can measure the effects predicted by the theory. Nowhere does the theory say we should be able to see the future.

Not a very good star man argument. Must try harder.

2 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Here's math:

Not yours though.

2 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Va is not the same as Vb

That is not exactly a surprising fact. It doesn't appear to novel, interesting or relevant.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Not yours though.

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

Quote

But we can measure the effects predicted by the theory. Nowhere does the theory say we should be able to see the future.

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..

Quote

That is not exactly a surprising fact. It doesn't appear to novel, interesting or relevant.

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...

Edited April 1, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[swansont]

3 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Because they are made, to measure correct time. 

IOW, you don't blindly assume two clocks run at the same rate. You apply physics to the situation.

Quote

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.

You can trivially change the length of a pendulum, and of its gearing. It has no effect on time. 

Quote

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.

You would have to do work to make such a change.

 

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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...

It's not dilation (that word already has a meaning, and that's not it). If your watch runs fast from some mechanical effect, that's all that's happening. It's running fast. It's not time dilation.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Theory says, that each point on the time axis is equally real in physical terms

That sounds more like philosophy than physics.

[Phi for All]

On 4/1/2018 at 8:25 AM, JohnMnemonic said:

A mentaly retarted monkey should be able to figure this out - but it seems, that it was too much for you

!

Moderator Note

We attack ideas here, not people. No more of this, please.

 

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

IOW, you don't blindly assume two clocks run at the same rate. You apply physics to the situation.

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).

Quote

You can trivially change the length of a pendulum, and of its gearing. It has no effect on time. 

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...

Quote

You would have to do work to make such a change.

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

Quote

It's not dilation (that word already has a meaning, and that's not it). If your watch runs fast from some mechanical effect, that's all that's happening. It's running fast. It's not time dilation.

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...

Quote

That sounds more like philosophy than physics.

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).

Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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...

The period of a [ideal] pendulum is not affected by the mass. But if you scale the pendulum then the mass will be scaled anyway.

We know smaller pendulums swing faster. THIS IS NOT TIME DILATION.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

The period of a [ideal] pendulum is not affected by the mass. But if you scale the pendulum then the mass will be scaled anyway.

We know smaller pendulums swing faster. THIS IS NOT TIME DILATION.

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...

[Strange]

31 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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...

As he can use the same clock that we do, he would notice.

You also assume that biological processes will speed up when scaled in the same way that a pendulum does. I see no reason to think that is true.

This is not time dilation. 

You may be trying to describe some other effect (that may or may not exist) but it isn't time dilation.

 

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

As he can use the same clock that we do, he would notice.

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.

Quote

You also assume that biological processes will speed up when scaled in the same way that a pendulum does. I see no reason to think that is true.

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.

Quote

This is not time dilation. 

Scaling causes exactly the same effect as acceleration or gravity - only much stronger.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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.

Does that scale in the same way as a pendulum?

Does it change the way a child perceives time?

 

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Does that scale in the same way as a pendulum?

In a similar way - only in rather more sophisticated one...

Quote

Does it change the way a child perceives time?

When I was a child, a year appeared to me, as a much longer period of time, than it is now...

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

In a similar way - only in rather more sophisticated one...

If it isn't the same then it isn't time dilation.

5 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

When I was a child, a year appeared to me, as a much longer period of time, than it is now...

Does it scale the same way that a pendulum does?

 

In short, you are substituting some nice-sounding images for science.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

If it isn't the same then it isn't time dilation.

It is the same - only more sophisticated. Biological body is much more sophisticated mechanism, than a pendulum - that's the only difference

Quote

Does it scale the same way that a pendulum does?

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:

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[Strange]

1 minute ago, JohnMnemonic said:

It is the same - only more sophisticated. Biological body is much more sophisticated mechanism, than a pendulum - that's the only difference

Please provide some evidence that the timing of biological functions scale by the same amount that a pendulum does.

2 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Someone would have to measure it in a laboratory - I'm just giving you a theory.

Its not a theory. You have no model and no data. You are just making stuff up.