JohnMnemonic Posted April 3, 2018 Author Share Posted April 3, 2018 Quote Why doesn't the velocity change? Because it would mean changing the energy stored in a body - which would have to be accelerated or slowed down Quote Scaling isn't a physical process. This is the "redefine the meter" scenario I mentioned above. Unit systems are arbitrary. Going from 1 foot to one meter would change other units as well, if the imperial system had independent values for e.g. time. Doesn't affect the physics at all. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 17 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: 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? Physics describes the behavior of nature, not some made-up scenario that does not actually exist. That's science fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted April 3, 2018 Author Share Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) Quote Go on then. Show some mathematical predictions that can be compared with experimental evidence. 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.... Quote Physics describes the behavior of nature, not some made-up scenario that does not actually exist. That's science fiction. There's nothing, what would make scalling physically impossible... It's just as science fiction, as accelerating a body to 99% of c Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: Because it would mean changing the energy stored in a body - which would have to be accelerated or slowed down Energy conservation would not apply. But the laws of physics would have to, if this were a real scenario. An object moving in a circle must have a = v^2/r 2 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: 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 So you can compare two systems of different sizes. Compare the orbit of Mars and Earth, for example. Being on Mars doesn't change the elapsed time (other than specific relativistic effects that are not being considered here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted April 3, 2018 Author Share Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) Quote An object moving in a circle must have a = v^2/r I think, that object moving in a circle can have any possible velocity - it's a value, which can be changed, by acceleration... Quote So you can compare two systems of different sizes. Compare the orbit of Mars and Earth, for example. Being on Mars doesn't change the elapsed time (other than specific relativistic effects that are not being considered here) 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... Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 17 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: Just take a sinusoid wave form and scale it down - it will turn at some point into a stright line... 1. I said "mathematical" (mention "sinusoidal" doesn't make it mathematics). 2. No, it doesn't. 8 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: I think, that object moving in a circle can have any possible velocity Not if it is in orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted April 3, 2018 Author Share Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) Quote Not if it is in orbit. We're not discussing gravity - but simple circular motion of accelerated body Quote I said "mathematical" (mention "sinusoidal" doesn't make it mathematics). 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 Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 10 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: Jeez, scaling down the wave form will reduce the wavelenght and amplitude into infinite small values But not zero. 10 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: Do you really need math, to understand something such trivial and obvious? The whole point about science is not the fooled by "the obvious". It is so often wrong. That is why we need mathematics and evidence. Not just forceful assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted April 3, 2018 Author Share Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) Quote But not zero. 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. Quote That is why we need mathematics and evidence. Not just forceful assertions I can use a 3D graphics software, which is completely based on math, to prove it (and so I did in the movie). Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted April 4, 2018 Author Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) 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... Edited April 4, 2018 by JohnMnemonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 They are not exactly high quality sources. But, you are right, it is not a very original idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted April 4, 2018 Author Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) Quote They are not exactly high quality sources. I would say, that phys.org is a quite reliable source... Quote But, you are right, it is not a very original idea. 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... Edited April 4, 2018 by JohnMnemonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 38 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: 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 Really? What does this statement mean please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted April 4, 2018 Author Share Posted April 4, 2018 Quote Really? 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: "I do not understand why Nottale's theory has not been given wider coverage or discussion. If he is wrong it needs debunking, if he is right he deserves a Nobel prize." [10] 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: 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: "I do not understand why Nottale's theory has not been given wider coverage or discussion. If he is wrong it needs debunking, if he is right he deserves a Nobel prize." [10] 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... But what I was asking was were you even stating his theory correctly, let alone understanding it? I will ask my question again. What does it mean to say a space is or is not differentiable? Edited April 4, 2018 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted April 4, 2018 Author Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) Quote But what I was asking was were you ever stating his theory correctly, let alone understanding it? 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... Edited April 4, 2018 by JohnMnemonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 Will you just answer my question since it concerned your words not any one else's? Quote What does it mean to say a space is or is not differentiable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted April 4, 2018 Author Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) Quote What does it mean to say a space is or is not differentiable? It's just my guess, but I would say, that space is non-differentiable, because, you can't scale down a distance in space to 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiable_function Edited April 4, 2018 by JohnMnemonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 Not sure where you got that graph from but do you understand what you are talking about? [math]y = \sqrt x = \sqrt 0 = 0[/math] is perfectly well defined. But so what? What does this have to do with the differentiability or otherwise of a space? [math]y = \sqrt x [/math] is a function, which is indeed not differentiable at x=0 because it is not defined for x<0 It is functions, not spaces that are differentiable or not. Stating that a space is or is not differentiable has no meaning, which is why I asked what you mean by such a statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said: I would say, that phys.org is a quite reliable source... They often have very poor journalism that grossly misrepresents the science they are reporting. The preprint for that paper was on Vixra and it was published in a very obscure journal. The others are just personal theories, of the sort that get presented on forums like this. 29 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: A letter to the New Scientist has suggested that the theory needs closer critical attention, coverage and discussion from the scientific community: I wouldn't give too much credence to the articles in New Scientist, never mind the letters page. (NS had to stop people posting comments to they online articles because it attracted so much crackpottery.) Edited April 4, 2018 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted April 4, 2018 Author Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) Quote It is functions, not spaces that are differentiable or not. Stating that a space is or is not differentiable has no meaning, which is why I asked what you mean by such a statement. https://books.google.pl/books?id=V7IR6tFfaAEC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=non-differentiable+space&source=bl&ots=sual_23EI-&sig=wNszgl3QdvymNGBICd0KNhfH9nI&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj19q2UuKHaAhUQJlAKHcdYAZ4Q6AEIiQEwCQ#v=onepage&q=non-differentiable space&f=false "The theory of scale relativity [14) is an attempt to study the Of giving up the hypothesis Of space—time differentiability. One can show [14] [15] that a continuous but nondifferentiable space-time is necessarily fractal. Here the word fractal [12] is taken in a general meaning, as defining a set, object or space that shows structures at all scales, or on a wide range of scales. More precisely, one can demonstrate [17) that a continuous but nondifferentiable function is explicitly resolution-dependent, and that its length C tends to infinity when the resolution interval tends to zero Quote The others are just personal theories, of the sort that get presented on forums like this. With the difference, that most of those people have titles and proper education. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235989058_Replacing_time_with_numerical_order_of_material_change_resolves_Zeno_problems_of_motion http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PhyEs..24...11S http://vixra.org/pdf/0708.0001v1.pdf For example those authors are scientists from Scientific Research Centre BISTRA in Slovenia - so, they know probably, what they are talking about. Edited April 4, 2018 by JohnMnemonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 13 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: With the difference, that most of those people have titles and proper education. Sadly, that doesn't necessarily confer credibility. (See also: argument from authority.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted April 4, 2018 Author Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) Quote Sadly, that doesn't necessarily confer credibility. (See also: argument from authority.) Of course. But it's for sure good to support statements with some official sources of knowledge. From what I know, each scientific publication has to be reviewed by other scientists. If this idea wouldn't be consistent with official knowledge, they wouldn't allow to publish it... I'm absolutely aware, that it's not mainstream science - but who knows, what might happen in the near future... One can't just reject an idea, only because, it's not widely approved. Edited April 4, 2018 by JohnMnemonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 33 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: Of course. But it's for sure good to support statements with some official sources of knowledge. From what I know, each scientific publication has to be reviewed by other scientists. If this idea wouldn't be consistent with official knowledge, they wouldn't allow to publish it... I'm absolutely aware, that it's not mainstream science - but who knows, what might happen in the near future... One can't just reject an idea, only because, it's not widely approved. Peer review weeds out the obviously wrong. It doesn't mean a hypothetical model is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted April 4, 2018 Author Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) Quote Peer review weeds out the obviously wrong. It doesn't mean a hypothetical model is correct. It doesn't mean also, that it is incorrect. Each concept, which became mainstream at some point, was in the beginninig just an alternative theory. If there wouldn't be no alternative science, there wouldn't be no innovation. Scientists should consider all possible explanations, as long, as they are not incorrect from scientific point of view (contradicted by observation for example). As long, as a model remains theoretical, it can be replaced with a different theory. In the end, everything what matters, is how a theory can be adapted to science which is already settled and confirmed in laboratories... Concept, which I wanted to present in this thread, defines only the dimensional space and the flow of time. To use it in practice, model would need to describe, how dimensional scale is related to energy/mass distribution in space. It is for me obvious, that in order to keep all the proportions in scaled frame, object has to maintain it's density and the level of energy, which is "stored" in matter. In theoretical empty (or non-material) space, mechanism of non-material clock has no mass or density, but those properties have to be taken into account, when we want to describe observable reality. We can't scale a human observer, without reducing his (her) mass - we can't for example fit 4 liters of blood in a smurf. Also the velocity of moving object has to remain proportional to it's size - until now, this model discussed scenarios, which didn't include the difference of energy/velocity in scale, but in real life it has to. Decrease of the object's mass, has to be proportional to the loss of kinetic energy (motion/momentum). If we scale a frame, where an object is moving through a given distance, we need to keep the proportion, between the distance and the velocity - otherwise, observer will be able to notice, that after the frame was scaled, he passes the same distance at different time (and in theory, observer shouldn't be able to notice any difference in proportionally scaled frame). But this is generally, much more complex subject and requires much more detailed explanation. For now, I just wanted to define the dimensional environment, in which we can place physical matter, with all it's properties and forces, which are connected with it... Edited April 4, 2018 by JohnMnemonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now