5D Space - Frequency of Cycles in Dimensional Scale

[swansont]

37 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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...

Conjecture or hypothesis is not theory. The latter includes the evidence to support the idea.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Conjecture or hypothesis is not theory. The latter includes the evidence to support the idea.

Mybe, however in this case, hypothesis was confirmed by observation of results, which were predicted - so it should be ok, to say, that scale relativity IS a theory...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_relativity

"Scale relativity is a geometrical and fractal space-time physical theory."

[studiot]

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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

 

Well I assume that twaddle is a result of improper translation to English since your original was in some other language, that I can't read.

 

To be fair it does confirm what I said that functions are differentiable, although it starts off with something that is clearly mistranslated.

 

The whole point about functions is that they are a two part mathematical object.

And that's what makes them differentiable, because differentiation is a two part process.

When I learned calculus we always had to write as justification something like ""differentiating .Y. with respect to X" as justification.
This definitely brings out that two- part nature containing both  that which is being differentiated and that with which the differentiation is being performed.

 

This is especially important for the sort of mathematics you have already invoked here using cycles and frequency ie the wave equation.
That is because you differentiate one side with respect to distance and the other with respect to time. The object being differentiated is of course the wave variable, which is a function of both space and time.

 

Thank you for the link about fractals. I am aware of the nature of fractal sets. Do you understand measure theory and Hausdorf dimension theory?
These are needed to handle fractals.

Edited April 4, 2018 by studiot

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

This is especially important for the sort of mathematics you have already invoked here using cycles and frequency ie the wave equation.
That is because you differentiate one side with respect to distance and the other with respect to time. The object being differentiated is of course the wave variable, which is a function of both space and time.

Thank you for the link about fractals. I am aware of the nature of fractal sets.

And I thank you for your imput. I'm glad to see, that someone at last add some concrete knowledge to this discussion - it's a rather rare sight, because most of people on different scientific forums keep only to criticise ideas, which go beyond generally accepted scientific models.

Quote

Do you understand measure theory and Hausdorf dimension theory?
These are needed to handle fractals.

To be honest, I never heard about it. But I'm about to check it right now... Thanks! I love to learn new things...  

Edited April 4, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

And I thank you for your imput. I'm glad to see, that someone at last add some concrete knowledge to this discussion - it's a rather rare sight, because most of people on different scientific forums keep only to criticise ideas, which go beyond generally accepted scientific models.

That's because peer review is the norm. It is not the function of your peers to support your idea; it is their function to try and break it.

[JohnMnemonic]

37 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That's because peer review is the norm. It is not the function of your peers to support your idea; it is their function to try and break it.

True - but it means as well, that after the peer review, a concept, which is presented in a publication won't fall apart, when confronted with a physically valid scenario. This is as well the reason, why people like me, want to discuss their ideas on scientific forums. Sadly, in most of the cases, those ideas are from the beginning rejected by people, who think, that they have the right, to judge, which idea is correct and which is not - and mostly they don't even bother, to get deeper into presented subject. It's hard to find someone, with the will, to consider the possibility, that some alternative concepts might be correct, or at least test, how those ideas will work in practice. Until now I met only couple such people and I've noticed, that in most of the cases those people had a big dose of actual knowledge about the discussed subject. It seems, that the more someone knows, the more open is his mind...

I'm not afraid, that my ideas can turn out, to be scientifically incorrect - but I expect to hear, WHY they are wrong, or see some practical examples, which will show, that my concept won't work in real life. But mostly, I can only hear, that someone don't believe in presented theory, or that it it sounds stupid for him. This is not a scientific opinion...

Edited April 4, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

This is as well the reason, why people like me, want to discuss their ideas on scientific forums. Sadly, in most of the cases, those ideas are from the beginning rejected by people, who think, that they have the right, to judge, which idea is correct and which is not - and mostly they don't even bother, to get deeper into presented subject.

If there are parts from the beginning that are wrong, shouldn't they be corrected before going any deeper?

Sometimes rejection lets you do better. If someone criticizes a specific part of your idea, perhaps that's what they're rejecting, but to you it seems like they're rejecting the whole thing.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

 

If there are parts from the beginning that are wrong, shouldn't they be corrected before going any deeper?

Sometimes rejection lets you do better. If someone criticizes a specific part of your idea, perhaps that's what they're rejecting, but to you it seems like they're rejecting the whole thing.

Absolutely! But if you'll look at the beginning of this thread, you will see, that the concept, which I wanted to present was rejected, without proving, that it's scientifically incorrect. "No math - it's wrong", "not your math - try better next time", "I don't believe in it - so you're most likely incorrect", "I don't know, how to use it in practice - so it's completely useless". This is why I got "slightly" irriritated and got a reminder from you

I don't know, but in my opinion, first you need to understand, what someone tries to present and then, if you think, that the presented idea is wrong, explain, why it won't work in a theoretical scenario or show, that it is contradicted by approved knowledge.

I've noticed as well, that on most of scientific forums, 90% of the "veteran" users, assume, that people, who present there some new ideas, are professional scientists, who spent decades, researching the subject and calculating sophisticated math. And when they see, that they deal with an amateur, they conclude, that he's just another flat-earther or another "heretic"...

Edited April 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[StringJunky]

9 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Absolutely! But if you'll look at the beginning of this thread, you will see, that the concept, which I wanted to present was rejected, without proving, that it's scientifically incorrect. "No math - it's wrong", "not your math - try better next time", "I don't believe in it - so you're most likely incorrect", "I don't know, how to use it in practice - so it's completely useless". This is why I got "slightly" irriritated and got a reminder from you

I don't know, but in my opinion, first you need to understand, what someone tries to present and then, if you think, that the presented idea is wrong, explain, why it won't work in a theoretical scenario or show, that it is contradicted by approved knowledge.

I've noticed as well, that on most of scientific forums, 90% of the "veteran" users, assume, that people, who present there some new ideas, are professional scientists, who spent decades, researching the subject and calculating sophisticated math. And when they see, that they deal with an amateur, they conclude, that he's just another flat-earther or another "heretic"...

....or just another clueless person. The arrogance of the ignorant can be quite tiresome when you see it nearly everyday. It's ok to have a toy model and see it stands to scrutiny but many are convinced that they are presenting a new paradigm and it gets old really quick. There is no way any unqualified person without decades of specialised experience is going to present an idea that will fundamentally change physics. The relatively easy stuff was done in the 17th - 18th century.

[swansont]

11 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Mybe, however in this case, hypothesis was confirmed by observation of results, which were predicted - so it should be ok, to say, that scale relativity IS a theory...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_relativity

"Scale relativity is a geometrical and fractal space-time physical theory."

This appears to have little to do with your OP. 

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

....or just another clueless person. The arrogance of the ignorant can be quite tiresome when you see it nearly everyday. It's ok to have a toy model and see it stands to scrutiny but many are convinced that they are presenting a new paradigm and it gets old really quick. There is no way any unqualified person without decades of specialised experience is going to present an idea that will fundamentally change physics. The relatively easy stuff was done in the 17th - 18th century.

But do you need to be a professional physicist, to guess, that time is just the order of ongoing events and not a determined linear dimension? That's rather a philosophical problem, but still it changes a lot in our understanding of existence.

Besides, there's still plenty of people, who make in their own garages, things, that science still has to explain. We still don't know about LOT of things...:)

On 4/5/2018 at 11:55 AM, swansont said:

This appears to have little to do with your OP. 

Actually it has almost everything to do with this subject, as it discusses things, like time flow, and distances, relative to scaled frames - and this is exactly, what I want to disuss here

I'm working right now on a model, which unifies scale relativity with SR. However, I have a lot of objections, when it comes to the concept of lenght contraction. Why we don't use the known and observed Doppler's effect, to explain the flow of time and and distance in space of accelerated frame? This way, lenghts and time flow will depend on the direction of accelerated frame.  Depending on the direction of motion in space, lenghts will be contracted and time flow "accelerated" in front of moving observer, while behind the time and space would be extended and slowed down... Using this explanation, it's possible to make a valid reference for a frame, which is accelerated to c.

I'm working on a 3D visualisation, using my model of frequency rate in scaled frames. I'll try to upload couple short movies soon...

It's well known, that the flow of time in space, depends on the photons and speed of light. Planck's lenght and Planck's time make the primary units of physical space. Doppler's effect describes the behavior of light, emitted by accelerated object. All we need to do, is to combine those two things together and we will get a logically correct result, using photon as a point of reference - something, what official science can't do at this moment... 

Do you really have to be a professional physicist, to figure out such obvious solution? 

Ok, I'm uploading couple short movies, which I've made recdenty right now. Here's first one:

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by JohnMnemonic